Flat Earth Theory

[talons]

Have you had WATER in your bathtub without walls to keep the WATER inside the tub? = NEVER

The walls around my Jacuzzi keep unwanted visitors from interrupting my soak .

You have no idea of the level of deception this world is under!

Probably not , but who does ?

All of us have been taught/educated in this world's/age/system by the god of this world/age/system.

Did you ever spend any time in the Alabama school systems ?

More Satellite TV education coming up .

Satellite TV reception is line of sight , in other words nothing between the receiving dish and the satellite that is in stationary geosynchronous orbit 22,300 miles above the equator of the globe .
Because of the curvature of the earth the Canadian satellites have to be in the center of the Clarke belt , if the Canadian satellites were off to the left or right too far you would not be able to have line of sight with the dish .
The area above my crudely drawn line and the X is where Canadian satellites need to be .

What Is a Geosynchronous Orbit?

Satellite TV - Scientific Analysis - 1 The Clarke Belt

Java Jive's Technical Support Pages - Audio-Visual/Television - Mounting A Satellite Dish Or Rotor - Mathematical Analysis - 1 Clarke orbit calculation

www.macfh.co.uk

 

[Adventageous]

If I may give another for instance.

Someone had brought up the 'shape of other heavenly bodies' (sun, moon, planets), and attempted to relate them to the shape of the earth. Someone rightly pointed out, that they are differing categories. The 'shape' of one is not automatically validation for the shape of another. There can be a logical appeal after a manner, but it will always break down to category difference. Even if someone were to, in that scenario, prove sphericity of the sun, or sphericity of the moon, or sphericity of other planetary bodies, would that automatically mean sphericity of the earth? No. It would be evidence that could lead to a certain conclusion (sphericity) if a certain line of logic were taken and demonstrated and being validated. However, the shape of 3 cubes in a room is not evidence that the 4th body in the room should be a cube also (unless certain other criteria were established first, such as the nature of bodies in a vacuum, electro-magentic effects, the pattern of the one who chose the objects, &c.) There are many shapes in the heavens, some more spherical than others (think asteroids, planetessimals, debris, dust rings, &c.) Therefore, to demonstrate sphericity of the world by comparison of other heavenly bodies is well meaning, and can lead to some assumptions and even conclusions, if other factors are demonstrated, but it is not the best way to appeal. I did not say a person cannot appeal in such a way, but must take these things into consideration, otherwise a person in opposition will simply appeal back to the unverified assumptions made in the other.

A person could rightly bring up the shape of the moon, and the eclipse shadowing upon its surface in the varying phases of eclipse, and this would be a good use of another heavenly body to help demonstrate the shape of the world. In that way is a good use of category and their relational aspect.

 

[David in NJ]

The walls around my Jacuzzi keep unwanted visitors from interrupting my soak .

Probably not , but who does ?

LOL = you will be red faced, ashamed and looking for me when you get to heaven, where God reveals to you water and the earth.

Since you are unable to believe God at His word concerning His Creation, there is territory in your mind which satan holds the patent to.

 

[Grailhunter]

Come on guys support me here! The earth is hot dog shaped. Nothing rotates and nothing orbits we just all travel in a straight line in the heavens.

 

[Rudometkin]

I did not say there were not relationships. I was specifically speaking of categories, not relationships. As for instance, when speaking of the category of the shape of the earth, it is unneccesary to appeal to another category, such as water physics, and vice-versa. This does not mean that there is not a relationship between them.

So, "they are unrelated categories, but this doesn't mean they don't have relationships".

So it is "unnecessary" to bring up. Thanks.

Likewise, when speaking about the 'errors of N.A.S.A.', it is unnecessary to bring in another category. For instance, I have a friend (at least I still consider him a friend), that believes because certain criteria that comes from 'N.A.S.A.' can be proven to be in error, that somehow it automatically validates 'F.E.' and other beliefs. That is category error. The error of the one, does not automatically grant the position of the second.

I would agree with you that NASA being known to deceive would not necessarily mean the earth is flat. But it is rational to establish the discredit of NASA when others are using NASA as an authority.

 

[David in NJ]

The walls around my Jacuzzi keep unwanted visitors from interrupting my soak .

Probably not , but who does ?

Did you ever spend any time in the Alabama school systems ?

More Satellite TV education coming up .

Satellite TV reception is line of sight , in other words nothing between the receiving dish and the satellite that is in stationary geosynchronous orbit 22,300 miles above the equator of the globe .
Because of the curvature of the earth the Canadian satellites have to be in the center of the Clarke belt , if the Canadian satellites were off to the left or right too far you would not be able to have line of sight with the dish .
The area above my crudely drawn line and the X is where Canadian satellites need to be .

View attachment 77395 What Is a Geosynchronous Orbit?

Satellite TV - Scientific Analysis - 1 The Clarke Belt

Java Jive's Technical Support Pages - Audio-Visual/Television - Mounting A Satellite Dish Or Rotor - Mathematical Analysis - 1 Clarke orbit calculation

www.macfh.co.uk

Educate yourself = properly in relation to God's Word

 

[talons]

Educate yourself = properly in relation to God's Word

Surely .

 

[Adventageous]

As GOD has previously Stated: WATER is the KEY to knowing where and how you stand = Genesis

Then God said, “Let there be a firmament in the midst of the waters, and let it divide the waters from the waters.” Thus God made the firmament, and divided the waters which were under the firmament from the waters which were above the firmament; and it was so.
And God called the firmament Heaven. So the evening and the morning were the second day.

Then God said, “Let the waters under the heavens be gathered together into one place, and let the dry land appear”; and it was so.
And God called the dry land Earth, and the gathering together of the waters He called Seas. And God saw that it was good.

Dwell on your Heavenly FATHER's words and pray.

I already believe what is written in Gen. 1-2. Simply appealing to the text is not evidence of your position. I already acknowledge what the text says. Simply appealing to "water" is not evidence of your position, since I already believe in "water" and the physics involved with it.

It is like one person saying, the moon is "alive", and they appeal to a passage in scripture which states that the moon is able to praise God. While I agree that the moon does praise God, and would agree with what the texts already say, the difference between my position, and the position of the person that believes the physical moon is "alive", is due to the contextual understanding in several ways.

Thus simply appealing to a text, or passage, which reads what it / they read/s, is not automatically evidence for your position, since I already agree with what the text says, and utilize the exact same texts in my position. That is unhelpful as an argumentative, evidential, response. One must demonstrate from the context how such text is evidence for their position.

I have continually asked you for your definition of "level", and have yet to receive a response to that simple question.

 

[ScottA]

According to @Adventageous this is a category error, as you are appealing to the location of the sun (where it disappears), which is an unrelated category to the shape of the earth category.

No...the green flash has to do with an effect caused by the curvature of the earth.

 

[Rudometkin]

...you seem to be confusing several unrelated categories...

...shape of the earth...
...location of the 'stars'...
...movement of 'stars'...
...shape of the 'stars'...

...These things are differing categories.

...'Stars' do have a relational aspect to the shape of the world... ...They are two categories, distinct from one another, but are relational in a way.

unrelated categories...
but are relational in a way...

unrelated categories...
but are relational in a way...

unrelated categories...
but are relational in a way...

 

[Adventageous]

unrelated categories...
but are relational in a way...

unrelated categories...
but are relational in a way...

unrelated categories...
but are relational in a way...

"Only in a way. As categories, it is unnecessary to appeal to another category outside of a category. It doesn't mean that one cannot appeal to, but must recognize the shift in category, which then only acts in a secondary manner." - Flat Earth Theory

See also - Flat Earth Theory

You seem to only focus on a part of what I have said, in its proper context. Why? Is it easier to do this, than to address what I have said in evidence?

 

[Adventageous]

But it is rational to establish the discredit of NASA when others are using NASA as an authority.

Incorrect. Discrediting one error of N.A.S.A. does not discredit anything but the one error, and not the whole. Even discrediting hundreds, does not negate the whole. It only discredits those hundreds. Every single claim must stand or fall on its own merits.

Does discrediting a printing error in a math book which says, "2+2=5" discredit the whole mathbook?

Does discrediting the 'lunar landings', demonstrate the shape of the world, its movement or non-movenent, etc? No.

 

[Rudometkin]

Incorrect. Discrediting one error of N.A.S.A. does not discredit anything but the one error, and not the whole. Even discrediting hundreds, does not negate the whole. It only discredits those hundreds. Every single claim must stand or fall on its own merits.

Does discrediting a printing error in a math book which says, "2+2=5" discredit the whole mathbook?

Does discrediting the 'lunar landings', demonstrate the shape of the world, its movement or non-movenent, etc? No.

Of course it is rational to establish the discredit of an entity when others are relying on the honesty of it. Do not be silly.

A discredit of NASA is a discredit of NASA.

 

[Adventageous]

Come on guys support me here! The earth is hot dog shaped. Nothing rotates and nothing orbits we just all travel in a straight line in the heavens.

Well some hotdogs do indeed rotate. Just go to a ballgame or gas station and see the rotiserrie 'dogs' a spinnin' & rotatin' ... :)

 

[Adventageous]

Of course it is rational to establish the discredit of an entity when others are relying on the honesty of it. Do not be silly.

You missed (I think purposefully) my response.

I did not say any given point could not be, or has not been discredited. I simply stated that showing such is not discrediting the whole. For instance, showing 1/1000 error does not discredit the 999. Discrediting 999/1000, does not discredit the 1. Simply stated, (again), every claim stands or falls on its own merits.

People may indeed 'appeal to N.A.S.A.' as a whole when discussing the shape of the earth, but that is a category error in the first place, and secondly, simply appealing to an 'entire entity' is not doing any justice to their argumentation, since at any point, any specific thing may be discredited among the whole, and then those standing on the other side then make another fallacious mistake in return, by 'throwing out the baby with the bathwater'. In other words they discard the whole, even though only a portion is revealed to be incorrect. Both sides are arguing incorrectly, and appealing incorrectly.

 

[Rudometkin]

Does discrediting a printing error in a math book which says, "2+2=5" discredit the whole mathbook?

The error discredits the math book, yes.

The mathematical error damages the reputation of the math book. This is precisely why printing errors are discouraged.

Does discrediting the 'lunar landings', demonstrate the shape of the world, its movement or non-movenent, etc? No.

The discredit of lunar landings demonstrates the unreliability of those who advocated for the legitimacy of the lunar landing.

It's simple. I'm using dictionary definitions of discredit here.

 

[Adventageous]

The discredit of lunar landings demonstrates the unreliability of those who advocated for the legitimacy of the lunar landing.

No, it discredits the lunar landing. You also need to differentiate between an original deception (lie) and those that continue to believe that deception and promulgate it simply due to ignorance (no knowledge of the facts). The second group is deceived, the first group deceiving. They are differing, and how one aproaches them must also be differing. Not everyone at N.A.S.A. is deceptive, and some are deceived, and some are simply ignorant of any of it, and go about their daily functionary jobs, mathematicians, analyists (which can only analyze what is given to them), phone receptionist, accountant, &c.

In discrediting the lunar landing, does not negate all of NASA's claims, nor does it validate or invalidate the other categories (shape of the earth, motion or non-motion, location, &c.). Those are, again, differing categories. Disproving one, does not disprove or prove the other.

 

[amigo de christo]

Love God, Love reality, love the Truth

none of which does the ecumenical harlot as she has spouted the love of a harlot
and of a god who has come in its own name to preach a lie cloaked as love .
But she knows not , nor do the daughters who do her bidding
that on the DAY of the LORD her dream of peace n sa fety , the reality will be her own sudden destruction
BY the GOD whose SON she and her beloved interfaith of anti christ trod under foot .
Just a friendly reminder to us all to get anyone out of anything ecumenical , as in TODAY
before that house cometh down on HIS DAY .

 

[amigo de christo]

 

[Adventageous]

The error discredits the math book, yes.

No, it does not. It discredits that single instance, not the whole.

A series of equations in a mathbook:

1+1=2​

2+2=5​

3+3=6​

4+4=8​

5+5=10​

The one error, does not discredit the whole book. Demonstrating the error of the one, does not show that the remaining 4 equations to be in error, or discredit. You are committing the fallacy of throwing out the baby with the bathwater, and demonstrate the psychology of 'denial'.