Why does the Bible say that the sun moves?

[Howard Is]

During winter and summer, the sun should be in completely opposite positions according to the heliocentric model.

I wasn’t going to mention this, but I am an ETA, an extraterrestrial anthropologist. I am a hybrid.

I first saw the sphere of earth when I was two years old, during my first off-world orientation session.

 

[Howard Is]

So ummm, do you also hang upside-down like a bat?

Only in yoga classes. There are ropes on the walls and occasionally we hang upside down.

I often stand on my head.

How about you ?

You are suggesting that we have up and down confused, but are you aware that there is no actual ‘inside’ and ‘outside’ ?

That’s just a perceptual illusion.

BTW, that’s not the Sun coming up, it’s the horizon moving down.

 

[Samantha Rinne]

Can you tell me how orbiting the Earth works in your model? How does a satellite orbit the Earth? Or the space stations? Or any of the space debris up there? Or the moon? How does a satellite object work?

Why are all the other planets in our solar system spheres? You can use a telescope to examine the various faces of the planets at various times, and no matter when you do the viewing, the face you see is round. As the planet spins, its shape being consistently round informs you that it is spherical (or close to it). Why would Earth break this mold? And how do those other planets "work" if they aren't flat like Earth?

Someone mentioned I was "trolling" you. This is untrue. I legit believe what I speak about. Or I at least concede it as a possibility, which is more than most people are willing to do, after having Kindergarten to college indoctrination of what is basically party-line science.

And yes, I can tell you. I can even draw a picture. But maybe I shouldn't because I suck at drawing.

Earth, in two dimensions is not completely flat. It's got peaks, like Everest, and chasms like the Grand Canyon. However, there is a distinct problem with a round orbiting Earth. Well, several problems and I could go all day, but let's focus on the meat of the thing.

Planets can work even if round and orbiting, but at certain speed, a planet will fall apart. Just as being too far away will cause a planet to freeze, and too close to the sun causes it to melt, an orbit that is so fast requires a planet made from stern stuff. There is friction enough to melt most ice planets, to disperse most gas planets, and break up most rock planets. Essentially a fast rotating planet would probably need to be made of stern stuff. Like titanium or tungsten. Stuff that can resist heat, or friction, or both, since otherwise it melts or shatters from the constant strain. In general, planets are likely alot closer to the sun, which is probably quite a bit smaller, to accomodate for significantly reduced orbit speed (assuming they even orbit, which I do not believe is a given, dense or large planets move suns, not the other way around; in fact, many of astronomer's ideas are rather fixed to orthodoxy). And all of this is assuming that we don't have a holographic universe with only Earth (it would be far easier for God to create one planet well than a whole bunch of dead planets).

Satellites can orbit a planet, no problem (well, for awhile, anyway), but this is assuming the planet itself isn't hurtling through space. To get a sense of analogy, a fast (1,037 mph rotation and 67,000 mph) orbit
How Fast Is Earth Moving?
like that proposed by Earth can be compared to bungee jumping to swing around a fixed building vs to the proposed Hyperloop trains (the ones that were supposed to go over 1000 mph) only more so. Good luck staying in orbit at that speed!

You ask me, how do satellites work? Well, we have the moon as a satellite (and I would say the sun behaves similarly), that seems to have no trouble working whether the Earth orbits or not. It not only uses its mass to generate orbit, but it has a strong magnetic core. But you tell me, how do satellites work IF Earth orbits the sun?

As for the sun's exact orbit, I believe it's circular above the Earth, shifting between the Tropic of Cancer (summer in northern hemisphere) to the Equator to Tropic of Capricorn (summer in southern hemisphere). Refer to the overhead circular map I showed y'all earlier, these tropics are so named because they represent something, which basically no schoolteacher will tell you, but is patently obvious. Because the Earth has a dome-shaped atmosphere (Earth is a sphere, but as I say, we live on the flat portion), when we look at an angle at something, it distorts like a funhouse mirror, so we see something that should look like it is rotating overhead as if it were rising and falling. As it heads onward, it gets out of synch with out horizon and appears to set in the west (but it cannot set, because it continues on to rise elsewhere). It's wonky, and I half-understand the astronomy, because it's been centuries since people actually used REAL common sense with regard to celestial navigation, but I know for a fact that heliocentrism has serious flaws, chief among them the fact that the gradual rotation would actually offset the days/nights to the point where you literally have complete dark at noon. To say nothing of modern navigation equipment as a result of faulty understanding actually literally leading people off cliffs.

The Top 10 List of Worst GPS Disasters and Sat Nav Mistakes

No joke, look at this crap. To say nothing of the impossible speed Earth is orbiting, it basically requires mental gymnastics to explain how the moon follows this orbit, how the atmosphere follows this orbit, how it doesn't ignite its own oxygen-rich atmosphere with friction. Seriously, all you have to do is figure out the correct orbit around the Earth (I probably don't know it exactly) and not much else needs to be explained. No "special relativity", no dark matter which we can't seem to see, no fractional degrees of rotation. All of these are lies to explain away a simple phenomenon. And looking at the way geography is basically misrepresented, I'm not sure that I want to be led somewhere like a river or cliff because the GPS calculated curves that weren't there.

BTW, that’s not the Sun coming up, it’s the horizon moving down.

Yeah, right. Unless you want to explain to me 12 pm nightfall (see the video), I'm pretty sure you don't want to touch that one. On the other hand, even a round Earth can pretty easily explain the rise and fall of the sun as simply moving around the Earth. It simply arcs when it moves out of sight. That it. No "moving horizon" (which cannot explain why the western and eastern hemisphere don't have different stars), no loads of other crap.

I can't figure out if you people are really this dense, or whether you're being intellectually dishonest. Every rationalization I've heard about this has failed Occam's razor (far too detailed to be the best explanation).

 

[Howard Is]

So, again, who is the duped one? You believe what people tell you because they have lab coats, without trying to draw it out and figure out if it matches what you've actually seen.

Well, as it happens, I went further than merely drawing it.

When I was young I used balls and torches to model the earths’ orbit and tilt and how light fell on the surface and how seasons work etc.

Obviously, you didn’t.

You are either a troll or a victim of trolls.

Here is some interesting recent history.
Until about 2016, flat earth was very much a fringe belief, taken seriously by very few.

In the second half of 2016, the number of flat earth videos on YouTube began to increase at an exponential rate.

By January 2017 some YouTubers were having a conversation about the probability that this phenomenon was coming from Psyops

To verify that would require disclosure from YouTube, which I sincerely doubt would be forthcoming.

What would motivate such an operation is a subject in itself, and I am not going down that rabbit hole here.

Suffice to say, there are so many aspects of basic physics that you seem entirely unaware of, and which refute what you say, that it would take a basic physics primer to get this conversation on firm ground.

I won’t be taking this any further with you though, because you have some irrational ‘get out of reality free’ cards like “well of course they want to believe that” or whatever, which you pull out whenever it suits you.

What you are doing amounts to gaslighting.

Psyops have metrics for gaslighting.
The Patron Saints of Psyops are Milgram and Zimbardo.
That is their job, and they need to do real world exercises to develop their trick bag.

Busted.
Simple.

 

[Howard Is]

I thought it was nonsense until I saw this, and now I’m totally confused....

 

[Subduction Zone]

Someone mentioned I was "trolling" you. This is untrue. I legit believe what I speak about. Or I at least concede it as a possibility, which is more than most people are willing to do, after having Kindergarten to college indoctrination of what is basically party-line science.

And yes, I can tell you. I can even draw a picture. But maybe I shouldn't because I suck at drawing.

Earth, in two dimensions is not completely flat. It's got peaks, like Everest, and chasms like the Grand Canyon. However, there is a distinct problem with a round orbiting Earth. Well, several problems and I could go all day, but let's focus on the meat of the thing.

Planets can work even if round and orbiting, but at certain speed, a planet will fall apart. Just as being too far away will cause a planet to freeze, and too close to the sun causes it to melt, an orbit that is so fast requires a planet made from stern stuff. There is friction enough to melt most ice planets, to disperse most gas planets, and break up most rock planets. Essentially a fast rotating planet would probably need to be made of stern stuff. Like titanium or tungsten. Stuff that can resist heat, or friction, or both, since otherwise it melts or shatters from the constant strain. In general, planets are likely alot closer to the sun, which is probably quite a bit smaller, to accomodate for significantly reduced orbit speed (assuming they even orbit, which I do not believe is a given, dense or large planets move suns, not the other way around; in fact, many of astronomer's ideas are rather fixed to orthodoxy). And all of this is assuming that we don't have a holographic universe with only Earth (it would be far easier for God to create one planet well than a whole bunch of dead planets).

Satellites can orbit a planet, no problem (well, for awhile, anyway), but this is assuming the planet itself isn't hurtling through space. To get a sense of analogy, a fast (1,037 mph rotation and 67,000 mph) orbit
How Fast Is Earth Moving?
like that proposed by Earth can be compared to bungee jumping to swing around a fixed building vs to the proposed Hyperloop trains (the ones that were supposed to go over 1000 mph) only more so. Good luck staying in orbit at that speed!

You ask me, how do satellites work? Well, we have the moon as a satellite (and I would say the sun behaves similarly), that seems to have no trouble working whether the Earth orbits or not. It not only uses its mass to generate orbit, but it has a strong magnetic core. But you tell me, how do satellites work IF Earth orbits the sun?

As for the sun's exact orbit, I believe it's circular above the Earth, shifting between the Tropic of Cancer (summer in northern hemisphere) to the Equator to Tropic of Capricorn (summer in southern hemisphere). Refer to the overhead circular map I showed y'all earlier, these tropics are so named because they represent something, which basically no schoolteacher will tell you, but is patently obvious. Because the Earth has a dome-shaped atmosphere (Earth is a sphere, but as I say, we live on the flat portion), when we look at an angle at something, it distorts like a funhouse mirror, so we see something that should look like it is rotating overhead as if it were rising and falling. As it heads onward, it gets out of synch with out horizon and appears to set in the west (but it cannot set, because it continues on to rise elsewhere). It's wonky, and I half-understand the astronomy, because it's been centuries since people actually used REAL common sense with regard to celestial navigation, but I know for a fact that heliocentrism has serious flaws, chief among them the fact that the gradual rotation would actually offset the days/nights to the point where you literally have complete dark at noon. To say nothing of modern navigation equipment as a result of faulty understanding actually literally leading people off cliffs.

The Top 10 List of Worst GPS Disasters and Sat Nav Mistakes

No joke, look at this crap. To say nothing of the impossible speed Earth is orbiting, it basically requires mental gymnastics to explain how the moon follows this orbit, how the atmosphere follows this orbit, how it doesn't ignite its own oxygen-rich atmosphere with friction. Seriously, all you have to do is figure out the correct orbit around the Earth (I probably don't know it exactly) and not much else needs to be explained. No "special relativity", no dark matter which we can't seem to see, no fractional degrees of rotation. All of these are lies to explain away a simple phenomenon. And looking at the way geography is basically misrepresented, I'm not sure that I want to be led somewhere like a river or cliff because the GPS calculated curves that weren't there.



Yeah, right. Unless you want to explain to me 12 pm nightfall (see the video), I'm pretty sure you don't want to touch that one. On the other hand, even a round Earth can pretty easily explain the rise and fall of the sun as simply moving around the Earth. It simply arcs when it moves out of sight. That it. No "moving horizon" (which cannot explain why the western and eastern hemisphere don't have different stars), no loads of other crap.

I can't figure out if you people are really this dense, or whether you're being intellectually dishonest. Every rationalization I've heard about this has failed Occam's razor (far too detailed to be the best explanation).

Let's go over some simple facts. You do not feel "speed". The speed of the Earth is not impossible, and its rotational speed is actually quite slow. Look at the hour hand on an analog clock. Its "speed" is twice that of the Earth.

 

[Samantha Rinne]

Well, as it happens, I went further than merely drawing it.

When I was young I used balls and torches to model the earths’ orbit and tilt and how light fell on the surface and how seasons work etc.

Obviously, you didn’t.

You are either a troll or a victim of trolls.

Here is some interesting recent history.
Until about 2016, flat earth was very much a fringe belief, taken seriously by very few.

In the second half of 2016, the number of flat earth videos on YouTube began to increase at an exponential rate.

By January 2017 some YouTubers were having a conversation about the probability that this phenomenon was coming from Psyops

To verify that would require disclosure from YouTube, which I sincerely doubt would be forthcoming.

What would motivate such an operation is a subject in itself, and I am not going down that rabbit hole here.

Suffice to say, there are so many aspects of basic physics that you seem entirely unaware of, and which refute what you say, that it would take a basic physics primer to get this conversation on firm ground.

I won’t be taking this any further with you though, because you have some irrational ‘get out of reality free’ cards like “well of course they want to believe that” or whatever, which you pull out whenever it suits you.

What you are doing amounts to gaslighting.

Psyops have metrics for gaslighting.
The Patron Saints of Psyops are Milgram and Zimbardo.
That is their job, and they need to do real world exercises to develop their trick bag.

Busted.
Simple.

Balls and torches. Really. That's all you got.

And telling me over and over again about psyops isn't some sort of psyops programming.

"You have been brainwashed. You have been brainwashed..."

You have been brainwashed.

You know how I figured out whether or not I was right? I looked at the sky. No fancy instruments, I watched the sky for hours on end. The day sky. The sunset. The night sky.

i watched it move.

Then I thought. And thought. And thought.

Yes, this sounds unscientific. There were no tools, no tests. But I started with the assumption that the Earth is round, I looked at the notion that it could be flat. And I heard how fast Earth moves from these scientists' own mouths. I honestly don't care whether or not it's or only mostly flat (though it cannot be rounded). Then I looked at how lockstep the scientific community was. Because scientific orthodoxy ALWAYS represents the truth.

So after watching the sky at length, I though about what I'd seen, and what had been told to me by both these "esteemed scientists" in lab coats and by people who scoffed at them. About how fast the Earth is supposedly going. If Earth really was going this fast, it would be completely noticeable. I read a book called The ABC's of Relativity , which basically applied everything (but the Earth's orbit of course) to various perspectives. Basically, how do you know the car isn't going backward but you actually passing them? Well, there are certain ways to tell. So yeah, we can actually believe that that helicopter picture, he is actually perfectly matching the pace of the Earth's spin (pretty fancy flying) or more likely the helicopter is not doing anything because nothing is happening. If I were standing at the equator and the Earth was constantly spinning, I think the blurry fast rotating of Earth would be noticeable. Next you're going to tell me that speed I've listed before is divided by the radius or diameter or circumference of the Earth. You know what though? All of us have seen time lapse photography and none of us have noticed trees move as things spun. I'm not talking about swaying, I mean actually slowly change position along with the camera gradually changing angle. You can leave any object outside and expect it not to be even a mm displaced. There is no noticeable constant wind, no noticeable blur which you would get from such movement. And if the Earth was constantly orbiting and rotating, there would be constant win and constant movement in the sky. On a typical day, clouds hang in the same position for hours then suddenly move at a wind picking up. There is nothing at all steady about this, and it is not consistent wirh a rotation. Nor are the planes I see outside. We live in the country so there is no billowing smoke, just blue skies until it storms. I can see planes from the city 20-50 miles away flying by. I don't see them affected by anything either. No coriolis effect, no curve at all, they just fly. We watch a rocket take off a few days ago. The thing took off at an angle, and I saw for myself that the atmosphere was domed. But domed atmosphere doesn't necessarily mean rounded Earth. In fact, the more of a dome, you have, the further (farther?) away the ozone must be if you have a rounded Earth because of the mounding up. On the other hand it is relatively easy to have a flat or concave surface and plenty of atmosphere. But while you were wasting your time looking at the ground with props instead of the sky (none of your experiments cannot be proven by a moving sun, what, you thought I didn't believe in seasons? No, the position of shadow does change but you are literally looking at everything backwards), I actually noticed the dome of the sky. The "firmament." I noticed where the arcs are at, how it moves ( or doesn't move), and how the Earth would have to have edges to accomodate such a shape. Then I did a simple test of my own, one I already knew the answer to but which dawned on me.

I flipped a wok upside down and poured water on it. Surpise surprise all water rolled off. I spun said pot around and rather than staying in the wok as it had absolutely zero reason to do since this was the bottom of the wok, it made a huge mess on the counter. The thing is, if going by averages, the Earth was round, we wouldn't see water staying put in tiny puddles. We'd see a rather swift and (again) constant flow of any water. In fact, no matter how flat the ground seemed, we'd likely see water dripping out sides. Not sure how well farming would work in our little town either. I could ask my nephew "If the Earth is a rounded shape can it hold water? " And then, ask him to show me with any rounded shape. He would very quickly believe me about the Earth being flat or concave. You would not. You have been brainwashed. And that is my proof of it, unless we want to assume the second option, that you yourself are a psyop, trying to convince me of something patently obvious that isn't so.

So as an experiment I tried flipping the wok right side up. It held water. I tried with eggs next, because I could try swirling (rotating) in a smaller bowl. I beat them fast with a fork as they threatened to spill out, barely hanging there at speeds much lower than the rotation of the Earth. Given thar my gravity should be the same as Earth's gravity, and the centrifugal and centripedal force the same, I decided any rotation at all couldn't be very fast. Then I made a cheese omelette. The End.

 

[Howard Is]

Balls and torches. Really. That's all you got.

That’s all you need to prove you wrong.

And telling me over and over again about psyops isn't some sort of psyops programming.

I made one off-the-cuff remark. Over and over ? Please...

If Earth really was going this fast, it would be completely noticeable.

You make outrageously silly comments.

When you are in an airliner travelling at 600 kph, do you feel anything different, apart from occasional bumps ?

If you drop your phone, does it rush to the back of the plane at 600 kilometres per hour ?

No, it doesn’t.

Why is that ?

 

[Native]

If I were standing at the equator and the Earth was constantly spinning, I think the blurry fast rotating of Earth would be noticeable.

But it IS noticeable!
If you were located at the equator, watching the day- and night time motions in the Sky, you obviously would observe stars and star constellations rise and fall and after 24 hours, you´ll observe the same stars above your head, thus confirming the rotational motion of the Earth.

 

[Howard Is]

There is friction enough to melt most ice planets, to disperse most gas planets, and break up most rock planets. Essentially a fast rotating planet would probably need to be made of stern stuff. Like titanium or tungsten. Stuff that can resist heat, or friction, or both, since otherwise it melts or shatters from the constant strain

What friction ?
What strain ?

Yo said earlier that if the earth was moving so fast, the atmosphere would ignite, or something like that.

Why ?

There is no friction in space. Well, so little it is effectively none.
You understand what a vacuum means, right ?

 

[Samantha Rinne]

Let's go over some simple facts. You do not feel "speed". The speed of the Earth is not impossible, and its rotational speed is actually quite slow. Look at the hour hand on an analog clock. Its "speed" is twice that of the Earth.

Go back into a car and drive 100 mph (1/10 of the rate the Earth supposedly turns) with the window open and tell me again while fleeing the cops that you do not feel speed. I may not have used the right word, but there is a definite sensation of a large object moving at full steam. And what round Earth proposes is that all of us are riding on top of such an object rather than inside it. So strap yourself on top of the car while someone else drives. Tell me if you still don't feel speed! Yup, heliocentrism is assuming we are on top of a rapidly spinning object rather than safely inside, so for this experiment to work, you will need to get on top of the car. Also, tell me where friction, momentum, velocity, and all those other forces went. Because on an average sunny day, we feel not one of them. If this is really happening, shouldn't we feel a bit more like someone standing on a top?

And do not compare the mechanical "tick" of a clock with an actual large object that both turns and moves. For the clock to similate both rotation and orbit, you would have to throw it at the wall!

What friction ?
What strain ?

Yo said earlier that if the earth was moving so fast, the atmosphere would ignite, or something like that.

Why ?

There is no friction in space. Well, so little it is effectively none.
You understand what a vacuum means, right ?

Omg, what is wrong with you?

The Earth has an ozone layer. Atmosphere, made up of nitrogen, oxygen, hydrogen, helium, stuff like this.The space is a vacuum, the Earth is NOT. We should all be burning inside our atmosphere at such high speeds.

I have said several times in the past few days that the Earth supposedly rotates over 1000 mph and orbits over 66000 mph. With any known object that spins even a fraction of that speed, well, things that spin around include circular saws, blenders, and food processors. Yes, there would be friction. Yes, there would be momentum.

Otherwise, we are saying something spins constantly at a high speed, yet everything is still. Explain that please. No wait, prove it. Because you're the one making the claim that it isn't flat, and all I've seen is a number of stale excuses why something rotates yet nobody can feel it.

How does an Earth rotate and yet not generate friction or momentum?

Why is it, that on a much lower speed, I can go on an amusement part ride and get a serious pull (enough to make my arm hurt), yet most of these go well below 100 mph.
For the record, I checked the land speed of tornadoes. The most powerful have a spin of about 300 mph, and the faster the spin, the more powerful they are.
And yet, on a daily basis all of us move with the Earth 67000 mph and 1000 mph spin. And we don't feel ANYTHING.

There should be friction. And momentum. And velocity. And a host of other things that are just handwaved away.

If you can't answer this, then I'm done here. You lose.

-------------------------------------

2 Timothy 4:3-4

And cuz SunStone does it and it's cool...

 

[Subduction Zone]

Go back into a car and drive 100 mph (1/10 of the rate the Earth supposedly turns) with the window open and tell me again while fleeing the cops that you do not feel speed. I may not have used the right word, but there is a definite sensation of a large object moving at full steam. And what round Earth proposes is that all of us are riding on top of such an object rather than inside it. So strap yourself on top of the car while someone else drives. Tell me if you still don't feel speed! Yup, heliocentrism is assuming we are on top of a rapidly spinning object rather than safely inside, so for this experiment to work, you will need to get on top of the car. Also, tell me where friction, momentum, velocity, and all those other forces went. Because on an average sunny day, we feel not one of them. If this is really happening, shouldn't we feel a bit more like someone standing on a top?

And do not compare the mechanical "tick" of a clock with an actual large object that both turns and moves.

Here is why you failed. You are comparing the difference in velocities between two objects. That is not what is happening when the Earth rotates. There is no "wind" for you to feel. What you are feeling is the relative motion through the air. Have you even been on a jet plane? If there is no turbulence all one feels is the relatively minor vibrations from the engines. You would be hard pressed to know if you were moving at all. What one feels is acceleration. One does not feel velocity. In fact you can play catch with someone in a plane with no problem at all even though the plane might be moving at 600 mph.

So in response to your question there is no reason at all that we should feel that motion. But if one has a very accurate scale one can measure the different weight of an object as one changes latitude. You will be "heavier" at the North Pole than you will be at the equator. In fact there are digital scales that are affordable and If you had a weight of one kilogram you could do this yourself if you traveled a few hundred miles north or south.

 

[Howard Is]

Omg, what is wrong with you?

Not enough to keep humouring you.

You have convinced me that you are a gaslighter.

At first I considered the possibility that you are just genuinely confused and misinformed, but your comments are beyond ridiculous, to the point where you are clearly making an effort to be as nonsensical as possible.

I am not going to give you the respect of having an opinion, because I don’t believe it is your opinion, it is an aggravating mind game.

I think you’ll find that the general level of intelligence on RF will mean that you won’t get much traction with your trolling.

Ciao.

 

[Howard Is]

Here is why you failed.
.

Don’t even bother is my advice.

This person is a troll. 90% + probability that it is a male too, based on the linguistic style.

Don’t feed the troll.

If you can't answer this, then I'm done here. You lose.

@Subduction Zone
@Native
Look at that. Pure gaslighting. 100% BS.

 

[Politesse]

I thought it was nonsense until I saw this, and now I’m totally confused....

View attachment 34096

Assuming he were absolutely stationary, he would not be able to land anywhere; the earth itself would have moved about 130,000 kilometers along its orbit, and the solar system itself will have moved another 160,000 km or so around the galactic center point, leaving him either smashed into its surface or drifting in outer space by that time. Luckily, friction and conservation of momentum keep us all reasonably close to our planet's current trajectory whether we are in a helicopter or a submarine.

 

[tayla]

Why does the Bible say that the sun moves?

According to special relativity, motion is relative. You can view objects from various frames of reference such as: (1) one object moving, the other stationary, and (2) the second object moving and the first stationary. (This does not apply to objects under acceleration, and rotation and orbiting involve acceleration. But during a very short time interval, it's close enough.)

So in a sense, the sun moves around the earth.

But the real reason is -- when I look at the sun, it moves; while the earth under my feet remains stationary. Ditto for the moon and stars.

Why are you asking this question?

 

[Jesuslightoftheworld]

I thin, that the sun was created to give us light in the day and the moon for smaller light at night. If he started everything in motion, then days/nights/seasons.