Jump to content
IGNORED

Predictions


Shilohsfoal

Recommended Posts

6 hours ago, Shilohsfoal said:

No.I'm talking about the Greek word"stigma"meaning to stick into

Stigma does not mean to stick into- it can be used to mean ‘to prick with a needle’ but that is still a reference to how a tattoo is applied.  The term just means a mark in the skin... nothing more.

I won’t make this a contest to see “who is correct” (as you stated). I’m not here to be correct, I’m here to communicate with others and exchange knowledge and experience. You hang on to your beliefs and opinions. I certainly won’t argue your right to make non-Biblical predictions about Biblical events. 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites


  • Group:  Royal Member
  • Followers:  1
  • Topic Count:  150
  • Topics Per Day:  0.06
  • Content Count:  5,680
  • Content Per Day:  2.42
  • Reputation:   322
  • Days Won:  1
  • Joined:  10/22/2017
  • Status:  Offline

3 hours ago, GusWilby said:

Stigma does not mean to stick into- it can be used to mean ‘to prick with a needle’ but that is still a reference to how a tattoo is applied.  The term just means a mark in the skin... nothing more.

I won’t make this a contest to see “who is correct” (as you stated). I’m not here to be correct, I’m here to communicate with others and exchange knowledge and experience. You hang on to your beliefs and opinions. I certainly won’t argue your right to make non-Biblical predictions about Biblical events. 

 

 

We will see in,a couple of years.Israel has already been purchasing the digital angle and testing it in,his military.And Netanyahu has instructed his government to search for methods for his cashless society.

Also like I said before.When a implantable microchip ruptures,the silicant inside the capsule causes a painful sore like a boil just as described in scripture.Does The tattoo do the same?

 

 

Edited by Shilohsfoal
Link to comment
Share on other sites


  • Group:  Royal Member
  • Followers:  11
  • Topic Count:  19
  • Topics Per Day:  0.01
  • Content Count:  3,396
  • Content Per Day:  0.91
  • Reputation:   730
  • Days Won:  4
  • Joined:  12/21/2013
  • Status:  Offline
  • Birthday:  12/26/1963

13 hours ago, Retrobyter said:

First of all, there is a DIFFERENCE between "erets" and "teeVeel" in Hebrew! It's similar to the difference between the words "gee" (pronounced "gay") and "kosmos" in Greek! That's also why we have two separate words, as well: "earth" and "world." They are NOT the same thing, even if they are IGNORANTLY used as synonyms. It's BECAUSE of our simplistic, one-verse method of building theology that has led to this ignorance. You CAN'T yank a verse out of its context and expect it always to be clear in meaning! To yank one of the verses out of God's Word and attempt to use it for whatever our little pea-pickin' brains can come up with at the moment is SHEER FOLLY! God doesn't abide by our rules; we are to learn from HIM and follow HIS rules! Just because the two words, "earth" and "world," are used in the same verse does NOT mean that they mean the same thing! Strong's Dictionaries of the Hebrew and Chaldee Languages and of the Greek Language are weak on the matter, but even James A. Strong and his colleagues know that there's a difference:

OT:776 'erets (eh'-rets); from an unused root probably meaning to be firm; the earth (at large, or partitively a land):
KJV -  common, country, earth, field, ground, land,  natins, way,  wilderness, world.

OT:8398 teeVeel (tay-vale'); from OT:2986; the earth (as moist and therefore inhabited); by extension, the globe; by implication, its inhabitants; specifically, a partic. land, as Babylonia, Palestine:
KJV - habitable part, world.

OT:2986 yaaVal (yaw-val'); a primitive root; properly, to flow; causatively, to bring (especially with pomp):
KJV - bring (forth), carry, lead (forth).

NT:1093 gee (ghay); contracted from a primary word; soil; by extension a region, or the solid part or the whole of the terrene globe (including the occupants in each application):
KJV - country, earth (-ly), ground, land, world.

NT:2889 kosmos (kos'-mos); probably from the base of NT:2865; orderly arrangement, i.e. decoration; by implication, the world (in a wide or narrow sense, including its inhabitants, literally or figuratively [morally]):
KJV - adorning, world.

(Biblesoft's New Exhaustive Strong's Numbers and Concordance with Expanded Greek-Hebrew Dictionary. Copyright © 1994, 2003, 2006 Biblesoft, Inc. and International Bible Translators, Inc.)

[The italicized "V" is the "vet"; that is, it's the "bet" without the dot in the middle of the letter (the "dagesh"). While the "bet" carries a "b" sound as in "boy," the "vet" carries a "v" sound as in "voice." I represent it with a capital "V" to differentiate between the "vet" and the "vav" ("v"). Strong's doesn't know this rule in Hebrew. In both teeVeel and yaaVal above, the letter is the undotted form, "vet" ("V").]

It's just as the word "kosmos" is used in John 18:36:

John 18:33-38
33 Then Pilate entered into the judgment hall again, and called Jesus, and said unto him, Art thou the King of the Jews?
34 Jesus answered him,
Sayest thou this thing of thyself, or did others tell it thee of me?
35 Pilate answered, Am I a Jew? Thine own nation and the chief priests have delivered thee unto me: what hast thou done?
36 Jesus answered,
My kingdom is not of this world: if my kingdom were of this world, then would my servants fight, that I should not be delivered to the Jews: but now is my kingdom not from hence.
37 Pilate therefore said unto him, Art thou a king then? Jesus answered, Thou sayest that I am a king. To this end was I born, and for this cause came I into the world, that I should bear witness unto the truth. Every one that is of the truth heareth my voice.
38 Pilate saith unto him, What is truth? And when he had said this, he went out again unto the Jews, and saith unto them, I find in him no fault at all.
KJV

Yeshua` was NOT saying that His Kingdom was not of this EARTH (which would have been the Greek word "gee"); He was saying that His Kingdom is not of this WORLD-SYSTEM of government (the Greek word "kosmos")!

The Hebrew word "teeVeel" is similar to the Greek word "kosmos!"

Thus,...
"erets" = "gee" = "earth" = soil/dirt/land/earth, and
"teeVeel" = "kosmos" = "world" = inhabitants and their systems of government.

This has nothing Whatsoever to do with My Argument, it's Irrelevant IN TOTO. Ergo...

Red Herring Fallacy:  is a fallacy in which an irrelevant topic is presented in order to divert attention from the original issue.
http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/red-herring.html

Leading to a Straw Man (Fallacy): when a person simply ignores a person's actual position and substitutes a distorted, exaggerated or misrepresented version of that position.
http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/straw-man.html

 

Quote

So, look at the first three verses you quoted, put them back in their contexts, and interpret them correctly as the words imply!

They "Stay" as they "Lay".  The Earth is Stationary.

 

Quote

Second, I've already addressed this

You didn't have a "First".  

 

Quote

, but it was the sun (shemesh) and the moon (yareeach) that appeared to the Israelites as though they were moving; therefore, Mosheh (Moses) addressed them in his command, adding the words "l`eeyneey Yisraa'eel," meaning "to-the-eyes of-Israel." Don't beat a dead horse.

Are you reading a different thread and responding here?   

btw: It was Joshua not Moses in the passage I referenced.

Ergo, yet another -- Red Herring Fallacy leading to a Straw Man Fallacy (SEE Above).

 

Quote

Fill a sink with water and, without adding any outside force to the water, pull out the plug. You will SEE the "Coriolis Effect" as the water spins down the drain. 

No that's called "Water Draining". ;)

 

Quote

Wikipedia gives us this at Coriolis_force:

So a 'wiki/google' Scientist, eh?

 

Quote

So, it is a "force" that is bent by the spinning motion of the earth.

No it's a "Pseudo" or "Fictitious" force.   Keeping with your 'wiki/google" acumen...

"Motion relative to a rotating frame results in another fictitious force: the Coriolis force."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Centrifugal_force

It's actually not a Force at all but rather an "EFFECT".  And then it's only an "APPARENT"; "Apparent" meaning "NOT REAL".

"Within its rotating coordinate system, the object acted on by the CORIOLIS EFFECT APPEARS to deflect off of its path of motion. THIS DEFLECTION IS NOT REAL. It only APPEARS TO HAPPEN because the coordinate system that establishes a frame of reference for the observer is also rotating."
http://www.encyclopedia.com/earth-and-environment/atmosphere-and-weather/weather-and-climate-terms-and-concepts/coriolis-effect

You can't "bend" something that's NOT REAL;)

 

Quote

"Cyclones" are the cyclic motion of Lows and Highs in our atmosphere; when they dominate the weather patterns, we call the storms formed "tropical storms" or "hurricanes" in the Atlantic or "typhoons" in the Pacific. Living in Florida, we deal with the threat of these every year!

Profound.

 

Quote

They ALWAYS spin in a counterclockwise motion (in the Northern Hemisphere) because they are always formed by Lows (low-pressure systems)!

So Hurricanes always spin counterclockwise (Northern Hemisphere) because they are formed by low pressure systems? :huh:

Define Non-Sequitur Fallacy...?

So Cyclones always spin clockwise (Southern Hemisphere) because they are formed by HIGH pressure systems ??  lol

 

Quote

1.) Thus, the Coriolis Effect is a reality for the clouds and the oceans upon the earth as the earth, 2.) being its reference frame AS THOUGH IT WAS STANDING STILL, 3.) since we, too, are seeing the earth AS THOUGH it was standing still, 4.) being stationary upon the turning earth and turning with it at the same rate!

1.) "Thus" is quite Inane; PLUS... you have no coherent Premises even to reach "Thus".

2.)  Being "its", What's "its"??  As Though "IT" was standing still?  What's "IT"??

3.) How can we be seeing the Earth "AS THOUGH" it was standing still if it wasn't...Standing Still?

4.) How can you be "Stationary" and turning at the same RATE (which ='s "MOVING":rolleyes:  and not PUMMEL the Law of Non-Contradiction into the Incoherent Oblivion?

 

Quote

Job 26:7
7 He stretcheth out the north over the empty place, and hangeth the earth upon nothing.
KJV

Another Red Herring Fallacy (Irrelevant).

However...the Earth hangs upon nothing in much the same way my chair "hangeth upon nothing" because it's Supported by Legs (Pillars).  Something Job Referenced in a few chapters prior...

(Job 9:6) "Which shaketh the earth out of her place, and the pillars thereof tremble."

 

Quote

Job 38:12-14
12 Hast thou commanded the morning since thy days; and caused the dayspring to know his place;
13 That it might take hold of the ends of the earth, that the wicked might be shaken out of it [the earth]?

And yet another Red Herring Fallacy (Irrelevant). However, show the Ends of a Sphere...? :cool:


 

Quote

 

You said, ...

"So, if the Coriolis Effect Exists (with Respect to the Earth), then a Flight from Charlotte North Carolina to LA (Non-Stop) traveling @ 500 mph (Air Speed) --- with both locations roughly 35th degree N Latitude, (i.e., both 'allegedly' spinning @ 860 mph ) should be ~ *1.5 hours!!* (But it's ~ *4.5 hrs!!*)

Charlotte to LA Flight: Air Speed 500 mph. Ground Speed: 500 mph + 860 mph "Alleged" rotation speed = 1360 mph."

 

Retrobyter: Using molecular theory... 

 

:groan:  Calling this a Red Herring Fallacy leading to a Straw Man Fallacy is a Colossal Understatement!!!  

 

Quote

1.) Using molecular theory there are approximately 1.09 * 1044 molecules in the earth's atmosphere, 2.) and each one of those molecules have independent movement based upon the forces of the other molecules around it.

As Mentioned, yet another Inane Red Herring Fallacy leading to a Straw Man Fallacy.  However...

State "Molecular Theory"...?  Then Scientifically Validate it as an 'actual' Scientific Theory...?  THEN...

1.)  Confirm the number using "Molecular Theory"...?

2.) Confirm using "Molecular Theory"...?

 

Quote

As they collide and bump into each other, their forces are shared and exchanged and added together or subtracted from each other in all sorts of angles.

Profound.  What does this have to do with the Price of Tea in China??

 

Quote

There IS a general course of flow from west to east that is shared among the molecules of atmosphere, produced by the "Coriolis Effect,"

Non-Sequitur Fallacy.  How can an "EFFECT" -- Produce ("CAUSE") something...?

And smh... How can an "APPARENT DEFLECTION("The Coriolis Effect") CAUSE a Flow of Molecules from West to East...?

 

Quote

that produces a high speed area that shifts with the various eddies and whirls that is known as the "jet stream."

And another, in a LONG list of Red Herring Fallacies (Irrelevant/Diversions).

And... are you a Meteorologist??

 

Quote

So, the prevailing winds travel from west to east!

So how do you explain EAST, NORTH, and SOUTH winds at many levels of the Atmosphere...?

 

 

Quote

 

You said, ...

"So, if the Coriolis Effect Exists (with Respect to the Earth), then a Flight from Charlotte North Carolina to LA (Non-Stop) traveling @ 500 mph (Air Speed) --- with both locations roughly 35th degree N Latitude, (i.e., both 'allegedly' spinning @ 860 mph ) should be ~ *1.5 hours!!* (But it's ~ *4.5 hrs!!*)

Charlotte to LA Flight: Air Speed 500 mph. Ground Speed: 500 mph + 860 mph "Alleged" rotation speed = 1360 mph."

 

Retrobyter: Thus, you are wrong about adding their speeds. You should SUBTRACT their speeds!

 

1.  Non-Sequitur Fallacy. You have no "THUS" because you have no coherent "Premises".

2.  Subtract "WHAT" Speeds...from "WHAT"? smh

3.  Wind Speed has about as much to do with My Argument as the color of the In-Fight Meal Cart Wheels; Ergo...Painfully Incoherent Red Herring Fallacy leading to an Inane Straw Man Fallacy (AGAIN).

 

Quote

The plane's velocity doesn't have a tail wind but a HEAD WIND! Furthermore, you must consider that the jet will be crossing into other time zones, and despite the speed of the jet, the speed of the earth's rotation is faster.

1.  Another Red Herring Fallacy leading to a Straw Man Fallacy: Time Zones/Wind Speeds have about as much to do with my argument as the type of Sugar Substitute the Air Traffic Controllers are using at their respective airports.  For goodness sakes !!! smh

2.  Begging The Question Fallacy: "Earth's Rotation".  You're assuming the very thing you're attempting to prove.

 

Quote

Therefore, you do not see the sun go across the sky backward, but the sun still travels in the same direction, only slower.

I have No Words.

 

Quote

You've got this backward. First of all, it is the EARTH that is assumed to be the static frame from the observer's point of reference.

LOL  How can the Earth be assumed to be the "Static (NOT MOVING) Frame" when your religion states that it's MOVING??

 

Quote

It's the ATMOSPHERE and all the various molecules that make up the atmosphere that are moving in reference to that static frame - that "frame of reference."

Yes FINALLY...that's My Argument!!

Static Frame = The Earth.

 

Quote

Experiments such as this occur in a subject called "fluid dynamics."

1.  Cite the Experiments...?

2.  Even though Gases are arbitrarily classified as "Fluids", Liquids and Gasses are NOT the same.

 

Quote

I studied such motion in my Engineering core classes.

Engineering is NOT "Science"

 

Quote

Put a ball on the end of a drill. Then, fill a tub with water and wait until the water is still. Start up the drill slowly, and submerge the ball halfway into the surface of that water. You will find that the water begins to circulate with the spinning ball as the inertia of the ball is passed to the molecules of the fluid water. You can measure out five centimeters from the surface of the ball, and find when the water begins to circulate with the ball at that point.

Clumsy False Equivalence Fallacy:  SEE Above... Liquids are NOT Gases.

 

Quote

It's one molecule at a time in a fluid, but eventually the entire tub of water will be affected by the spinning ball.

1.  Clumsy False Equivalence Fallacy:  SEE Above... Liquids are NOT Gases.

2.  Put that ball on the end of your drill and place it in an Olympic Size Swimming Pool and let us know how long it takes for the ENTIRE POOL to be affected. 

 

Quote

East, north, and south winds occur because of the SPINNING of air in the atmosphere!

I suppose we can eliminate the previous question "Are you a Meteorologist", eh?

Factually Incorrect: Winds are CAUSED by Pressure and Temperature Gradients.

 

Quote

There are an infinite number of eddies and whirls in the atmosphere and at all levels of the atmosphere, which is a three-dimensional fluid!

There's no such thing as "Infinite", either in Mathematics or Reality.

 

Quote

When, you go for a canoe trip, you can see the eddies and whirls left by a paddle that is only moving in one direction. Any time you have a boundary between forces, you will have some sort of whirling motion.

And yet another Red Herring Fallacy leading to a Straw Man Fallacy; "Cherry-on-Topped" this time with a False Equivalence Fallacy:  SEE above Liquids are NOT Gases.

 

Quote

In the atmosphere, weathermen call these boundaries between air masses "fronts,"

Ay Carumba!!

 

Quote

And, there is a general tendancy for them all to flow, at different rates and with different speeds and in different concentrations, toward the east!

Ahh :groan:, Gases (Pressure/[] Gradients) flow from High Pressure to Low Pressure; it's called the Laws of Entropy. (SEE: The Second Law of Thermodynamics)

 

Quote

Technically and mathematically, there's no end to the thinning of the atmosphere; however, on a PRACTICAL level, there is an "end" at around an altitude of 200-250 miles.

Stone Cold 2nd Law of Thermodynamics Violation!!! 

"The Narrative" is we have a Vacuum ("Outer Space") attached to a Non-Vacuum ("Earth").
According to the Laws of Entropy: Unless "Physically" hindered, Gases will flow down a Pressure/[ ] gradient until Equilibrium is reached.

"Thus the diffusion of solute particles takes place DOWN the Concentration Gradient (A *PRESSURE GRADIENT* with respect to partial pressure of GASES ) until uniform concentration is achieved". 
[ i.e., until EQUILIBRIUM is reached ]
Chatterjea, MN., Shinde, R: Textbook of Medical Biochemistry; 8th Edition, p. 817

According to "The Narrative": Interstellar Space Pressure = 10-17 Torr.

Ergo, Equilibrium MUST = 10-17 Torr.
Ergo, Sea Level MUST BE ...10-17 Torr !!
But...The Surface Pressure on the Earth is 760 Torr.
Therefore, either 'The Narrative' is False OR The Laws of Entropy are False.

Guess where my money's going, ALL IN!!
End of Story!  
You Live in a Fairytale.

You also have another BIG Problem...

How do you have a GAS PRESSURE (Atmospheric Pressure) WITHOUT a Container...."TO BEGIN WITH" ?? When...

"The "PRESSURE OF A GAS" is the force that the gas exerts on the WALLS OF IT'S CONTAINER". 
http://chemistry.elmhurst.edu/vchembook/180pressure.html

Please, I can't wait to hear this Yarn...? ?
Basically, explain how you can have a "Tire Pressure"... 

                      WITHOUT THE TIRE !!! :rolleyes:

 

 

Quote

Eventually, they thin out until you only have a molecule or two that escapes earth's gravitational pull to exist in the vacuum of space, and even they will be pulled back into the collective mass after time passes.

1.  Which 'gravity'... Einstienian or Newtonian ??

a.  Is gravity a Force?
b.  Is 'gravity' a Scientific Law or Scientific Theory?
c.  What is the CAUSE of 'gravity'...?

2.  Oh Never Mind...

"A GAS is a sample of matter that conforms to the shape of a CONTAINER in which it is held and acquires a uniform density inside the CONTAINER, EVEN IN THE PRESENCE OF GRAVITY and regardless of the amount of substance in the CONTAINER. If not confined to a CONTAINER, gaseous matter, also known as vapor, WILL DISPERSE INTO SPACE."
http://whatis.techtarget.com/definition/gas

You can confirm this yourself.  Go out and depress the pin on your Tricycle Tire and tell us what happens...?

3.  There is no "Vacuum of Space".  (SEE Directly above: Stone Cold 2nd Law of Thermodynamics Violation!!!)

 

Quote

Sir Newton was indeed a "free Mason" but that is a FAR DIFFERENT breed of "free Masonry" than is prevalent today.

Really, How so...?

 

Quote

So he knew that mutual attraction without some forces involved was all theory without substance. That doesn't negate the fact that his laws of gravitation still WORKED!

A Scientific Theory without "Substance" is tantamount to Water without Hydrogen.

Do you even know what an "Actual" Scientific Theory is?  If so, Please...?

Then, Post these 'Laws of Gravitation' and HOW they work...?

 

Quote

That is, they FIT THE FACTS OF THE OBSERVED AND MEASURED INTERACTIONS!

Well Invisible Fire Breathing Dragons "FIT THE FACTS OF THE OBSERVED AND MEASURED INTERACTIONS!" of Large Burn/Scorch Marks on my Garage Wall.

Do you know the difference between "Science" and Fairytale "Just-So" Stories? (Obviously Rhetorical at this point):  Ya See, it's all in "The Method"...

"Science" -- The Method: The Scientific Method.

Fairytale "Just-So" Stories --  The Method: Imagination.

So please, RE-Compute.

 

Quote

And, as far as "the Scientific ('Pseudo' or otherwise) Community not following Newtonian gravity," they DO FOLLOW IT at the practical level!

Really?  Citation Please...?

And, Errr...What other "Level" is there?

 

Quote

Personally, I've never held to the General Theory of Relativity.

Me Neither because it's NOT a Scientific Theory in the First Place!!

 

Quote

I believe that the same results that are actually measurable and observable can be seen in the Four Field Vector Theory that has been promoted by scientists within the Institute for Creation Research.

Really, Do Tell...?

 

Quote

Furthermore, their Theory fits the facts BETTER than do Einstein's General Theory

Probably as good as FIT THE FACTS of Invisible Fire Breathing Dragons above, I'd bet.

 

Quote

even to the point of "predicting" the Special Theory of Relativity, namely, E = mc2.

Please Define:

1.  "Scientific Prediction"...?

2.  "POST"- diction...?

3.  Jeanne Dixon/Jimmy The Greek/Carnival Tent "Prediction"...?

4.  Cyclic Repeat - diction...?

Now Juxtapose the Characteristics of each and place Your "predicted SR" trainwreck in the appropriate category...?

5.  E = mc2 :rolleyes:.  Each term in Mathematics MUST BE rigidly defined.  So Please...

E ...?
m...?
c2...?

 

Quote

the phenomenon observed was the BACK-TRACKING of the planets among the backdrop of the stars. The fact that the planets would be generally moving in one direction, STOP, and REVERSE COURSE for a brief time, and then STOP AGAIN, and continue on in the ORIGINAL direction! What causes that?!

1.  Begging The Question: "Planets".

2.  That's my question to you!!  So Scientifically Validate "The Cause"...

a.  What Phenomenon was Observed...?
b.  Post the Formal Scientific Hypothesis then EXPERIMENT that validates your claim...?
c.  Highlight the "Independent Variable" that was used in the TEST...?
d.  Post the Null Hypothesis that was Rejected/Falsified...?

 

Quote

The Formal Scientific Hypothesis, the Independent Variable, and the Null Hypothesis, to my knowledge, were never formed

Ergo... FAIRYTALE.  Crocheting is more Scientific!!!

 

 

Quote

, having been discovered LONG before such procedures were adopted. However, they tried various possibilies - various scenarios - testing whether they would get the same results. What we learned through the course of time is that the planets, EARTH INCLUDED, travel on basically the SAME PLANE in their trips around the sun and that the planets all move at different speeds and generally the farther planets take much longer to complete a revolution around the sun than do the inner planets! Therefore, we are looking at "circles" (elipses) edge-on when we look at the planets in the sky! At one time, the earth will be behind the planet, "catching up" to its current position in the circle; at another time, the earth will have caught up to the planet in their respective orbits, and then at a later time the earth will be leaving the planet "in the dust," so to speak. It's hard to explain in words, but a good demonstration can be found at what-is-retrograde-motion at EarthSky.org. 

Translation:  Fairytale.

 

 

Quote

Again, NONSENSE! Nine thousand km2 is only 1,859.5 mi2,

Actually 9000 km2 is 3474.9 mi2.  So who's NONSENSE! is it again?

 

Quote

which in a square plot of ground would be 43.12 miles by 43.12 miles! The 43.12 miles in a circumference of 24,902 miles would only be 0.6234 degrees of the earth's circumference! That would be practically NEGLIGIBLE!

Your calculations are WRONG, smh.  Even with them, your Fairytale is CRUSHED...

43.12 miles would equal 1239 feet of curvature or 377 Meters.  The Salar shows less than 1 METER!!

KaBooM!!!

 

Quote

In #2 above, if 43.12 miles was negligible, 35 miles certainly would be!

It wasn't Negligible even with your corrupt calculations.

 

Quote

You really don't know what you're talking about

:huh:

 

Quote

And, just why do you think the radar tracking height would be 80 feet?

Well I gave the benefit of the doubt of 80 feet for Tracking Radar (not Radar Tracking, lol)...which includes the height of the ship from Sea LEVEL.

 

Quote

However, you don't know what you are talking about!

Really?  How so...?

 

Quote

Because they are constantly flying at the same altitude above the curvature of the earth, gravity does the "adjusting" for them!

1.  You can't fly over a CURVE without "Altitude Adjustments"; this is Prima Facie Indubitable to an Incoherent 2nd Grader.

2. Show the GRAVITY Controller, lol...?  This is tantamount to saying: the SPEEDOMETER controls how fast I'm going!!!

3.  Which 'gravity'... Einstienian or Newtonian ??

a.  Is gravity a Force?
b.  Is 'gravity' a Scientific Law or Scientific Theory?
c.  What is the CAUSE of 'gravity'...?

 

Quote

In #4, it is a COLUMN of air that is weighed against the GROUND! That's how air pressure is measured. It's reported as, for instance, 14.70 pounds per square inch!

Profound.  What does this have to do with the color of Bertlmann's Socks ?

 

Quote

You waste too much time fighting against the truth - kicking against the ox-goads, as Paul would say. It's time to give it up.

It's Patently Obvious you waste too much time PARROTING 'wiki'/google.

 

regards

Link to comment
Share on other sites


  • Group:  Royal Member
  • Followers:  11
  • Topic Count:  19
  • Topics Per Day:  0.01
  • Content Count:  3,396
  • Content Per Day:  0.91
  • Reputation:   730
  • Days Won:  4
  • Joined:  12/21/2013
  • Status:  Offline
  • Birthday:  12/26/1963

On 11/21/2017 at 10:27 PM, Daniel 11:36 said:

Flat earth theory is an absurdity and false

1.  The Flat-Earth isn't a "theory".  And it's Flat/Non-Spinning/Domed and Geocentric.

2.  It's Scriptural and True.

Why is it absurd...?

How is it false...?

 

Quote

why are you teaching this idea?

Because it's Scriptural (God taught it) and True.

 

regards

Link to comment
Share on other sites


  • Group:  Diamond Member
  • Followers:  2
  • Topic Count:  10
  • Topics Per Day:  0.00
  • Content Count:  1,957
  • Content Per Day:  0.57
  • Reputation:   295
  • Days Won:  0
  • Joined:  10/17/2014
  • Status:  Offline

Your flat earth idea is a sham

Link to comment
Share on other sites


  • Group:  Royal Member
  • Followers:  11
  • Topic Count:  19
  • Topics Per Day:  0.01
  • Content Count:  3,396
  • Content Per Day:  0.91
  • Reputation:   730
  • Days Won:  4
  • Joined:  12/21/2013
  • Status:  Offline
  • Birthday:  12/26/1963

3 minutes ago, Daniel 11:36 said:

Your flat earth idea is a sham

1.  Generalized Sweeping Ipse Dixit Baseless 'bare' Assertion Fallacy.

2.  It's not an "Idea".

3.  How/Why is the: Flat/Non-Spinning/Domed Geocentric Earth a sham...?

 

regards

Link to comment
Share on other sites


  • Group:  Diamond Member
  • Followers:  2
  • Topic Count:  10
  • Topics Per Day:  0.00
  • Content Count:  1,957
  • Content Per Day:  0.57
  • Reputation:   295
  • Days Won:  0
  • Joined:  10/17/2014
  • Status:  Offline

The earth is a sphere

Link to comment
Share on other sites


  • Group:  Advanced Member
  • Followers:  2
  • Topic Count:  19
  • Topics Per Day:  0.01
  • Content Count:  391
  • Content Per Day:  0.16
  • Reputation:   158
  • Days Won:  0
  • Joined:  09/14/2017
  • Status:  Offline

On 11/19/2017 at 9:17 PM, Retrobyter said:

Shalom, Jude1:3.

You're right. You probably SHOULD have started a new thread on this one!

 

I made another thread in the theology section if you want to check out :

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites


  • Group:  Worthy Ministers
  • Followers:  9
  • Topic Count:  40
  • Topics Per Day:  0.01
  • Content Count:  6,542
  • Content Per Day:  1.07
  • Reputation:   2,427
  • Days Won:  1
  • Joined:  06/28/2007
  • Status:  Offline
  • Birthday:  10/28/1957

5 hours ago, Enoch2021 said:

This has nothing Whatsoever to do with My Argument, it's Irrelevant IN TOTO. Ergo...

Red Herring Fallacy:  is a fallacy in which an irrelevant topic is presented in order to divert attention from the original issue.
http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/red-herring.html

Leading to a Straw Man (Fallacy): when a person simply ignores a person's actual position and substitutes a distorted, exaggerated or misrepresented version of that position.
http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/straw-man.html

Shalom, Enoch2021.

<Sigh.> Well, let's start over. You see, what I said had EVERYTHING to do with "your argument," and it's not "irrelevant" at all. You had mentioned three verses of Scripture that talked about the "world" when you were trying to make an argument for the "EARTH" being "stable." Observe:

(1 Chronicles 16:30) "Fear before him, all the earth: the world also shall be stable, that it be NOT-MOVED."

(Psalms 93:1) "The LORD reigneth, he is clothed with majesty; the LORD is clothed with strength, wherewith he hath girded himself: the world also is stablished, that it CANNOT BE MOVED."

(Psalms 96:10) "Say among the heathen that the LORD reigneth: the world also shall be established that it shall NOT BE MOVED: he shall judge the people righteously."

In all three cases, it is the WORLD that is stable or stablished or established, not the EARTH! Understand? Therefore, those three Scriptures are IRRELEVANT to your argument that "The Earth doesn't Orbit the Sun. It's Stationary... Non-Spinning 'Immovable'."

So, when you said,

5 hours ago, Enoch2021 said:

They "Stay" as they "Lay".  The Earth is Stationary.

This is a FALSE conclusion!

5 hours ago, Enoch2021 said:

You didn't have a "First".  

Sure I did. In my very first paragraph, I began with "First of all,...."

5 hours ago, Enoch2021 said:

Are you reading a different thread and responding here?   

btw: It was Joshua not Moses in the passage I referenced.

Ergo, yet another -- Red Herring Fallacy leading to a Straw Man Fallacy (SEE Above).

You're right; it was Joshua not Moses, but this is no "red herring"; your fourth verse quoted was Joshua 10:12 in which were the words "l`eeyneey Yisraa'eel," meaning "to-the-eyes of-Israel." Thus, his command to the sun and the moon to stand still was from the perspective of Israel!

Let's establish an understanding of a "frame of reference":

Let's say we have two trains traveling on parallel tracks, one going 60 mph (train A) and the other going 55 mph (train B). The trains ride very smoothly, and neither has any acceleration. An observer is on train A. The train A and the observer are BOTH traveling at 60 mph, but on the train (without looking out the window), if the observer was to drop a rock to the floor, it would fall straight down to his feet. That is his "frame of reference." Within the train car, he believes he is "stationary" with what happens within the train. When he looks out the window and looks inside the window of train B, he would see train B going backward from his perspective by 5 mph. If another person on train B were to drop a rock "straight down," the observer in train A would see the rock take a trajectory path backward, starting initially with a backward velocity of 5 mph and gradually adding vertical velocity downward as it accelerates in earth's pull of gravity. The path the rock would take would look like half a parabola. If the observer on train A were to draw the curtains closed, he would notice no change at all to the movements people and objects would make within the train as if he was standing still back on the platform.

Now, we look at train B traveling at 55 mph. Another observer, the one who dropped a rock straight down, has his OWN "frame of reference." With a smooth ride and no acceleration or deceleration and with the curtains closed, he, too, would experience events on his train as though he was standing still back on the platform. However, when he opens his curtains, he sees train A traveling at 5 mph forward, and if he saw a person on train A drop a rock, the path of the rock would look like a half parabola moving forward.

Which one of these people is "stationary?" NEITHER ONE in reality; however, each has his own "frame of reference," and each one from his  perspective is "stationary." If they didn't have another train or scenery to compare against, they would both suspect that they were not moving. If the trains were traveling through a blizzard with the whole scenery washed in a "white out," they would never know that they were moving at all; however, each would think that the OTHER train was moving at 5 mph, forward or backward.

5 hours ago, Enoch2021 said:

No that's called "Water Draining". ;)

Water draining down a drain doesn't go straight down. It SPINS counterclockwise down the drain. That SPIN is called the "Coriolis Effect."

5 hours ago, Enoch2021 said:

So a 'wiki/google' Scientist, eh?

No, brother, not anymore than you are a nizkor logician! (http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/red-herring.html).

5 hours ago, Enoch2021 said:

No it's a "Pseudo" or "Fictitious" force.   Keeping with your 'wiki/google" acumen...

"Motion relative to a rotating frame results in another fictitious force: the Coriolis force."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Centrifugal_force

It's actually not a Force at all but rather an "EFFECT".  And then it's only an "APPARENT"; "Apparent" meaning "NOT REAL".

I KNOW that! That's why I put the word "force" in quotation marks! "Apparent," though, doesn't mean it's "not real"; it means from a person's point of view, it "LOOKS LIKE" a force!

5 hours ago, Enoch2021 said:

"Within its rotating coordinate system, the object acted on by the CORIOLIS EFFECT APPEARS to deflect off of its path of motion. THIS DEFLECTION IS NOT REAL. It only APPEARS TO HAPPEN because the coordinate system that establishes a frame of reference for the observer is also rotating."
http://www.encyclopedia.com/earth-and-environment/atmosphere-and-weather/weather-and-climate-terms-and-concepts/coriolis-effect

You can't "bend" something that's NOT REAL;)

No, that's not true. It IS a very real deflection, but it's not a single force called "the Coriolis FORCE" that deflects it! It is a SYSTEM of forces that, acting together, give the appearance of a single force acting upon the deflection when it is really just inertia!

5 hours ago, Enoch2021 said:

Profound.

 

So Hurricanes always spin counterclockwise (Northern Hemisphere) because they are formed by low pressure systems? :huh:

Define Non-Sequitur Fallacy...?

So Cyclones always spin clockwise (Southern Hemisphere) because they are formed by HIGH pressure systems ??  lol

No, silly. Hurricanes always SPIN (the Coriolis Effect) in a counterclockwise direction in the Northern Hemisphere because they are formed by low pressure systems.

In the Southern Hemisphere, the low pressure systems SPIN (the Coriolis Effect) in a clockwise direction, and therefore, the hurricanes that form there are likewise SPINNING in a clockwise direction!

(More later.)

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites


  • Group:  Royal Member
  • Followers:  11
  • Topic Count:  19
  • Topics Per Day:  0.01
  • Content Count:  3,396
  • Content Per Day:  0.91
  • Reputation:   730
  • Days Won:  4
  • Joined:  12/21/2013
  • Status:  Offline
  • Birthday:  12/26/1963

1 hour ago, Retrobyter said:

Well, let's start over. You see, what I said had EVERYTHING to do with "your argument," and it's not "irrelevant" at all. You had mentioned three verses of Scripture that talked about the "world" when you were trying to make an argument for the "EARTH" being "stable." Observe:

(1 Chronicles 16:30) "Fear before him, all the earth: the world also shall be stable, that it be NOT-MOVED."

(Psalms 93:1) "The LORD reigneth, he is clothed with majesty; the LORD is clothed with strength, wherewith he hath girded himself: the world also is stablished, that it CANNOT BE MOVED."

(Psalms 96:10) "Say among the heathen that the LORD reigneth: the world also shall be established that it shall NOT BE MOVED: he shall judge the people righteously."

In all three cases, it is the WORLD that is stable or stablished or established, not the EARTH! Understand? Therefore, those three Scriptures are IRRELEVANT to your argument that "The Earth doesn't Orbit the Sun. It's Stationary... Non-Spinning 'Immovable'."

Not the Earth, eh? 

"World" in all three passages: 

Strongs Hebrew: H8398
תֵּבֵל
têbêl
tay-bale'
From H2986; THE EARTH (as moist and therefore inhabited); by extension the globe; by implication its inhabitants; specifically a particular land, as Babylonia or Palestine: - habitable part, world.

 

Quote

Sure I did. In my very first paragraph, I began with "First of all,...."

Yes, but you had no point.

 

Quote

You're right; it was Joshua not Moses, but this is no "red herring"; your fourth verse quoted was Joshua 10:12 in which were the words "l`eeyneey Yisraa'eel," meaning "to-the-eyes of-Israel."

I don't care if it said "to the Eyes of Ground Squirrels".

 

Quote

 Thus, his command to the sun and the moon to stand still was from the perspective of Israel!

:huh: Are you saying that, to the Amorites... it was the Earth standing still? :rolleyes:

 

Oh Brother...

Quote

 

Let's establish an understanding of a "frame of reference":

Let's say we have two trains traveling on parallel tracks, one going 60 mph (train A) and the other going 55 mph (train B). The trains ride very smoothly, and neither has any acceleration. An observer is on train A. The train A and the observer are BOTH traveling at 60 mph, but on the train (without looking out the window), if the observer was to drop a rock to the floor, it would fall straight down to his feet.

 

Another Red Herring Fallacy and a False Equivalence Fallacy.

How is this tied to your Argument??

 

Quote

That is his "frame of reference." Within the train car, he believes he is "stationary" with what happens within the train.

If the Train is Stationary it's NOT MOVING.  If "he" thinks he's Stationary when the Train's Moving... then "he's" a Moron.

 

 

Quote

Which one of these people is "stationary?"

The One that's NOT MOVING.

 

Quote

Water draining down a drain doesn't go straight down.

Profound.

 

Quote

It SPINS counterclockwise down the drain.

That depends on the Shape of the Basin.

 

Quote

That SPIN is called the "Coriolis Effect."

:groan: What On Earth??

SPIN does not = Coriolis Effect. smh

This is the Coriolis Effect...

"CC.12 The Coriolis Effect :

When set in motion, freely moving objects, including *AIR* [Atmosphere] and *WATER* masses [Clouds/Water Vapor], move in straight paths while the Earth continues to 

                                                                      ROTATE INDEPENDENTLY.

Because freely moving objects ARE NOT carried with the Earth as it Rotates, they are subject to an APPARENT DEFLECTION called the “Coriolis Effect.” To an observer rotating with the Earth, freely moving objects that travel in a straight line appear to travel in a curved path on the Earth."
Segar, Douglas A; Introduction to Ocean Sciences, 2nd Edition: Critical Concept Reminders -- CC.12 The Coriolis Effect (pp. 313, 314, 323, 324), 
ISBN: 978-0-393-92629-3, 2007.
http://www.wwnorton.com/college/geo/oceansci/cc/cc12.html

 

Quote

I KNOW that! That's why I put the word "force" in quotation marks!

Ahhh, not a Chance.

 

Quote

"Apparent," though, doesn't mean it's "not real"; it means from a person's point of view, it "LOOKS LIKE" a force!

Right in the Face of...

"Within its rotating coordinate system, the object acted on by the CORIOLIS EFFECT APPEARS to deflect off of its path of motion. THIS DEFLECTION IS NOT REAL. It only APPEARS TO HAPPEN because the coordinate system that establishes a frame of reference for the observer is also rotating."
http://www.encyclopedia.com/earth-and-environment/atmosphere-and-weather/weather-and-climate-terms-and-concepts/coriolis-effect

Read this ^^^^^ Real Slow 5 Times.

 

Quote

No, that's not true. It IS a very real deflection

Right in the Face of...

"Within its rotating coordinate system, the object acted on by the CORIOLIS EFFECT APPEARS to deflect off of its path of motion. THIS DEFLECTION IS NOT REAL. It only APPEARS TO HAPPEN because the coordinate system that establishes a frame of reference for the observer is also rotating."
http://www.encyclopedia.com/earth-and-environment/atmosphere-and-weather/weather-and-climate-terms-and-concepts/coriolis-effect

 

Quote

but it's not a single force called "the Coriolis FORCE" that deflects it!

:huh:

 

Quote

It is a SYSTEM of forces that, acting together, give the appearance of a single force acting upon the deflection when it is really just inertia!

Factually Incorrect, AGAIN...

"CC.12 The Coriolis Effect :

When set in motion, freely moving objects, including *AIR* [Atmosphere] and *WATER* masses [Clouds/Water Vapor], move in straight paths while the Earth continues to 

                                                                      ROTATE INDEPENDENTLY.

Because freely moving objects ARE NOT carried with the Earth as it Rotates, they are subject to an APPARENT DEFLECTION called the “Coriolis Effect.” To an observer rotating with the Earth, freely moving objects that travel in a straight line appear to travel in a curved path on the Earth."
Segar, Douglas A; Introduction to Ocean Sciences, 2nd Edition: Critical Concept Reminders -- CC.12 The Coriolis Effect (pp. 313, 314, 323, 324), 
ISBN: 978-0-393-92629-3, 2007.
http://www.wwnorton.com/college/geo/oceansci/cc/cc12.html

 

Quote

No, silly. 1.) Hurricanes always SPIN (the Coriolis Effect) in a counterclockwise direction in the Northern Hemisphere 2.) because they are formed by low pressure systems.

You're calling me silly after this performance? :rolleyes: 

1.)  SPIN does not = Coriolis Effect. (SEE above)

The conditions needed are:

Two differing Frames of Reference (One Rotating Coordinate System (Non-Inertial) --- The Earth and One Non-Rotating Coordinate System (Inertial) --- The Atmosphere...and anything in it).

2.) Scientifically Validate "The Cause" of the direction (Counterclockwise or Clockwise) of the Storm...

a.  What Phenomenon was Observed...?
b.  Post the Formal Scientific Hypothesis then EXPERIMENT that validates your claim...?
c.  Highlight the "Independent Variable" that was used in the TEST...?
d.  Post the Null Hypothesis that was Rejected/Falsified...?

Storms don't SPIN in a Direction "BECAUSE" they are formed by low pressure systems; it's Non-Sequitur Fallacy.

 

Quote

1.) In the Southern Hemisphere, the low pressure systems SPIN (the Coriolis Effect) in a clockwise direction, 2.) and therefore, the hurricanes that form there are likewise SPINNING in a clockwise direction!

1.)  SPIN does not = Coriolis Effect. (SEE above) 

1.) Premise and 2.) "Therefore"... are Non-Sequitur because they're Circular...

You essentially said: In the Southern Hemisphere low pressure systems spin in a Clockwise Direction; Therefore, the low pressure systems likewise are spinning Clockwise.

Round and Round you go. :cool:

 

Quote

(More later.)

I can't wait. 

 

regards

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...