TTG-Death wrote

Schwarz, you look like a complete idiot to be honest. You keep basing your facts off of the bible after saying you aren't a bible thumper lmao.

I'm an idiot? When people with Masters Degrees are studying the exact same subject. Okay..

Also I have based like not even a third of my evidence on the bible. What's funny is, you spherical earthers base your facts an a government cooperation.

Which have been proven to fake their content. Then you claim it to be just as good if not better than the bible. Even though the bible has been around longer, and has science to back up it's stories.

Contradiction much..

---

Don't call me an idiot, when the presentation I've provided is useful and has valid points. If you're going to call me an idiot, make sure you point out the flaws and prove them wrong with valid information.

Otherwise you are the idiot.

5FDP_Jekyll wrote

Click to View Content

Schwarz wrote

Cavalry wrote

Schwarz wrote

5FDP_Jekyll wrote

Schwarz wrote No offence, but every single one of your replies are based on assumptions without any true sources. For me that's not good enough, at all.

One thing I would like to point out is that, polaris is supposedly fixed because its directly above our 'axis' correct? Well if that was the case then how can it stay fixed above us if we are apparently always spinning and orbiting the sun. Unless polaris is following our every move without moving a single centimetre. Which isn't the case because its immovable like the Earth.

[ Register or Signin to view external links. ]

And if you're not educated enough for this topic, why are you here? You lack the knowledge and base you side of the debate on assumptions.

If you want to be re-educated with the truth. Watch this video and get back to me, until then. Goodbye.

[ Register or Signin to view external links. ]

If you are truly willing and wanting to learn, you would watch this video and see the perspective. I'm not saying believe it. I'm saying watch it and compare the two arguments and see what you get.

If you want to believe just one side of an argument, without considering the other. It makes you ignorant.

Although this has already been quoted by Cavalry, quite a few times you talk about a reliable source, yet you use YouTube and the Bible. Neither of those are "reliable". For all you know some crazy person could have written the Bible, there is no authorship which makes it an unreliable source. As for Polaris, the reason it doesn't move is because of its distance. However, as a matter of fact, the stars do indeed move over time. Over the next 100 thousand years and more, the stars will appear differently in our sky, the asterisms we see in the sky will no longer be recognizable. Some of the stars will also no longer be there due to them dying out. Also if you believe in Astrology, you can throw that out the window right now. As your astrological birth sign is actually today is actually the one before yours. This is due to the Sun being in a different constellation than what it was thousands of years ago. I have a few more points I can make, however, I shall wait for when I have the time to add them.

Erm. Im pretty sure the bible is more reliable than NASA, considering it is telling stories of what happened over 2000 years ago. And science can actually prove events described in the bible happened. So im pretty sure 'some crazy person' didn't write it, and is easily a reliable source.

Also if you didn't know, it wasn't written by one person, it is a series of tales comprised into one understanding.

---

Secondly, YouTube can be a reliable source. Considering the video i linked you to has SOLID facts, debunking some of the things people have claimed to be 'irrefutable evidence'.

Im guessing you didn't watch it (of course you didn't... ignorance). The video has compelling REAL LIFE FOOTAGE, SHOT BY AN ACTUAL CAMERA which can be used to prove certain aspects of the flat earth theory.

---

Lastly. Are you actually retarded? 'Because of its distance'. Mate there are stars further away than polaris and they are not stationary, so that is complete and utter bollocks. Won't lie, that one made me laugh a little. 'Because of its distance' Jheeez.

Polaris is: 433.3 light years away.

Orions belt is: 817 light years away. In fact the middle star; Alnilam, is 1340 light years away. Almost triple the distance of polaris..

Also you have no evidence that the stars will move over time, or indeed have in the past. It is yet just another astrologist purposing that 'this could happen' and 'that could happen'. No, just stop.

---

Talk about sh*tty sources and knowledge. You sir are a hypocrite.

You are also wrong. Again.................

Because Orions belt is not situated 'above' either of the poles.

I am flabbergasted that you haven't worked this out on your own, it's either that you don't understand the concept of the poles being fixed, or you simply can't visualize the top of a spinning globe from a top-down perspective.
Of course that star isn't going to move. Now put yourself on the side of this fixed globe, what happens? You slide off round to the other side of the planet while the star stays in relatively the same place.

Also if you didn't know, it wasn't written by one person, it is a series of tales comprised into one understanding.

The Bible had multiple authors, please go and take a class on theological history.
If it had one author then why are the synoptic gospels 4 different versions of the same story with changed details? The 4th of which is dramatically different to the other 3?

Except if its apparently orbiting the sun, while earth itself is spinning. It cannot stay directly stationary over the poles, especially when the orbit of the earth around the sun is 149 million miles. Even though that zero to none compared to 433.3 light years, polaris would still show a slight movement, which it does not.

---

And if you looked, I said WASN'T written by one person, not WAS. When i said it wasn't written by one person, i was implying it was wrote by more than one person. And anyway, i thought you said the bible wasn't a reliable source. It really is, science proves it. So...

Get some sleep buddy. That's what I'm doing.

To correct you I was the one who said it's not exactly reliable. And yes it may be old, but so is the knowledge, which means for the most part it is outdated. Also it is entirely possible for it to stay at that one spot. Not everything orbits around the Earth nor the Sun. In fact, the Sun orbits around a super-massive black hole at the center of our galaxy. As for Polaris, that is because Polaris is also orbiting around this black hole.

Relative to Earth, Polaris is directly above the Earth's northern pole in the galactic plane. But even Polaris is moving across our sky. However, the movement is barely noticeable in our lifetime. And we do have evidence, however, relative in our sky, the difference is so minute that it is not noticeable without extremely accurate calculations.

Furthermore, you said science proved that some events in the bible happened, yet you appear to neglect what science has disproven in the bible.

Well straight away thats incorrect. Because black holes are nothing but a theory, Stephen Hawking himself said that. Secondly. Some parts of science proves events in the bible. While some stories to indeed disprove things in the bible.

That being said, the bible itself it essentially a riddle, and some things written can be misinterpreted, which could then lead to misleading discoveries etc. Im aware it can be the other way round, but for the most part it isn't.

Schwarz wrote

5FDP_Jekyll wrote

Click to View Content

Schwarz wrote

Cavalry wrote

Schwarz wrote

5FDP_Jekyll wrote

Schwarz wrote No offence, but every single one of your replies are based on assumptions without any true sources. For me that's not good enough, at all.

One thing I would like to point out is that, polaris is supposedly fixed because its directly above our 'axis' correct? Well if that was the case then how can it stay fixed above us if we are apparently always spinning and orbiting the sun. Unless polaris is following our every move without moving a single centimetre. Which isn't the case because its immovable like the Earth.

[ Register or Signin to view external links. ]

And if you're not educated enough for this topic, why are you here? You lack the knowledge and base you side of the debate on assumptions.

If you want to be re-educated with the truth. Watch this video and get back to me, until then. Goodbye.

[ Register or Signin to view external links. ]

If you are truly willing and wanting to learn, you would watch this video and see the perspective. I'm not saying believe it. I'm saying watch it and compare the two arguments and see what you get.

If you want to believe just one side of an argument, without considering the other. It makes you ignorant.

Although this has already been quoted by Cavalry, quite a few times you talk about a reliable source, yet you use YouTube and the Bible. Neither of those are "reliable". For all you know some crazy person could have written the Bible, there is no authorship which makes it an unreliable source. As for Polaris, the reason it doesn't move is because of its distance. However, as a matter of fact, the stars do indeed move over time. Over the next 100 thousand years and more, the stars will appear differently in our sky, the asterisms we see in the sky will no longer be recognizable. Some of the stars will also no longer be there due to them dying out. Also if you believe in Astrology, you can throw that out the window right now. As your astrological birth sign is actually today is actually the one before yours. This is due to the Sun being in a different constellation than what it was thousands of years ago. I have a few more points I can make, however, I shall wait for when I have the time to add them.

Erm. Im pretty sure the bible is more reliable than NASA, considering it is telling stories of what happened over 2000 years ago. And science can actually prove events described in the bible happened. So im pretty sure 'some crazy person' didn't write it, and is easily a reliable source.

Also if you didn't know, it wasn't written by one person, it is a series of tales comprised into one understanding.

---

Secondly, YouTube can be a reliable source. Considering the video i linked you to has SOLID facts, debunking some of the things people have claimed to be 'irrefutable evidence'.

Im guessing you didn't watch it (of course you didn't... ignorance). The video has compelling REAL LIFE FOOTAGE, SHOT BY AN ACTUAL CAMERA which can be used to prove certain aspects of the flat earth theory.

---

Lastly. Are you actually retarded? 'Because of its distance'. Mate there are stars further away than polaris and they are not stationary, so that is complete and utter bollocks. Won't lie, that one made me laugh a little. 'Because of its distance' Jheeez.

Polaris is: 433.3 light years away.

Orions belt is: 817 light years away. In fact the middle star; Alnilam, is 1340 light years away. Almost triple the distance of polaris..

Also you have no evidence that the stars will move over time, or indeed have in the past. It is yet just another astrologist purposing that 'this could happen' and 'that could happen'. No, just stop.

---

Talk about sh*tty sources and knowledge. You sir are a hypocrite.

You are also wrong. Again.................

Because Orions belt is not situated 'above' either of the poles.

I am flabbergasted that you haven't worked this out on your own, it's either that you don't understand the concept of the poles being fixed, or you simply can't visualize the top of a spinning globe from a top-down perspective.
Of course that star isn't going to move. Now put yourself on the side of this fixed globe, what happens? You slide off round to the other side of the planet while the star stays in relatively the same place.

Also if you didn't know, it wasn't written by one person, it is a series of tales comprised into one understanding.

The Bible had multiple authors, please go and take a class on theological history.
If it had one author then why are the synoptic gospels 4 different versions of the same story with changed details? The 4th of which is dramatically different to the other 3?

Except if its apparently orbiting the sun, while earth itself is spinning. It cannot stay directly stationary over the poles, especially when the orbit of the earth around the sun is 149 million miles. Even though that zero to none compared to 433.3 light years, polaris would still show a slight movement, which it does not.

---

And if you looked, I said WASN'T written by one person, not WAS. When i said it wasn't written by one person, i was implying it was wrote by more than one person. And anyway, i thought you said the bible wasn't a reliable source. It really is, science proves it. So...

Get some sleep buddy. That's what I'm doing.

To correct you I was the one who said it's not exactly reliable. And yes it may be old, but so is the knowledge, which means for the most part it is outdated. Also it is entirely possible for it to stay at that one spot. Not everything orbits around the Earth nor the Sun. In fact, the Sun orbits around a super-massive black hole at the center of our galaxy. As for Polaris, that is because Polaris is also orbiting around this black hole.

Relative to Earth, Polaris is directly above the Earth's northern pole in the galactic plane. But even Polaris is moving across our sky. However, the movement is barely noticeable in our lifetime. And we do have evidence, however, relative in our sky, the difference is so minute that it is not noticeable without extremely accurate calculations.

Furthermore, you said science proved that some events in the bible happened, yet you appear to neglect what science has disproven in the bible.

Well straight away thats incorrect. Because black holes are nothing but a theory, Stephen Hawking himself said that. Secondly. Some parts of science proves events in the bible. While some stories to indeed disprove things in the bible.

That being said, the bible itself it essentially a riddle, and some things written can be misinterpreted, which could then lead to misleading discoveries etc. Im aware it can be the other way round, but for the most part it isn't.

Just because it is a theory does not make in incorrect straight away, however, through observations we are able to tell that it is very likely that black holes exist. In fact, they are mathematically probable. A large majority of physicist and astronomers believe they exists. If I remember correctly, even Einstein had a prediction that they exist. Also just because something is a theory, does not mean they are not true. Take for instance, Einstein's Theories of Relativity, although they are both only theories, they are largely correct with what they deal with. Things such as gravity affecting time as well as velocity affecting time. (Both cases relative time). As you go towards an area of higher gravity or you speed up closer to the speed of light, time slows down for you relatively compared to others perspectives. It even has its own equation for both, however, they go by the same name. Time Dilation. You also have his most famous equation E = MC². Yet these are parts of his "Theory", yet proven time and time again to be factual.

Also to add on to what I said in my reply before this one about gravity. In the scenario you gave with the plane, they are still experiencing the same amount of gravity that we do, same thing goes for astronauts on the ISS. They only appear to be weightless/floating. However, they are in fact, free falling. The difference is that the velocity of both objects are so great that they keep up with this free fall and gives it this appearance.

5FDP_Jekyll wrote

Schwarz wrote

5FDP_Jekyll wrote

Click to View Content

Schwarz wrote

Cavalry wrote

Schwarz wrote

5FDP_Jekyll wrote

Schwarz wrote No offence, but every single one of your replies are based on assumptions without any true sources. For me that's not good enough, at all.

One thing I would like to point out is that, polaris is supposedly fixed because its directly above our 'axis' correct? Well if that was the case then how can it stay fixed above us if we are apparently always spinning and orbiting the sun. Unless polaris is following our every move without moving a single centimetre. Which isn't the case because its immovable like the Earth.

[ Register or Signin to view external links. ]

And if you're not educated enough for this topic, why are you here? You lack the knowledge and base you side of the debate on assumptions.

If you want to be re-educated with the truth. Watch this video and get back to me, until then. Goodbye.

[ Register or Signin to view external links. ]

If you are truly willing and wanting to learn, you would watch this video and see the perspective. I'm not saying believe it. I'm saying watch it and compare the two arguments and see what you get.

If you want to believe just one side of an argument, without considering the other. It makes you ignorant.

Although this has already been quoted by Cavalry, quite a few times you talk about a reliable source, yet you use YouTube and the Bible. Neither of those are "reliable". For all you know some crazy person could have written the Bible, there is no authorship which makes it an unreliable source. As for Polaris, the reason it doesn't move is because of its distance. However, as a matter of fact, the stars do indeed move over time. Over the next 100 thousand years and more, the stars will appear differently in our sky, the asterisms we see in the sky will no longer be recognizable. Some of the stars will also no longer be there due to them dying out. Also if you believe in Astrology, you can throw that out the window right now. As your astrological birth sign is actually today is actually the one before yours. This is due to the Sun being in a different constellation than what it was thousands of years ago. I have a few more points I can make, however, I shall wait for when I have the time to add them.

Erm. Im pretty sure the bible is more reliable than NASA, considering it is telling stories of what happened over 2000 years ago. And science can actually prove events described in the bible happened. So im pretty sure 'some crazy person' didn't write it, and is easily a reliable source.

Also if you didn't know, it wasn't written by one person, it is a series of tales comprised into one understanding.

---

Secondly, YouTube can be a reliable source. Considering the video i linked you to has SOLID facts, debunking some of the things people have claimed to be 'irrefutable evidence'.

Im guessing you didn't watch it (of course you didn't... ignorance). The video has compelling REAL LIFE FOOTAGE, SHOT BY AN ACTUAL CAMERA which can be used to prove certain aspects of the flat earth theory.

---

Lastly. Are you actually retarded? 'Because of its distance'. Mate there are stars further away than polaris and they are not stationary, so that is complete and utter bollocks. Won't lie, that one made me laugh a little. 'Because of its distance' Jheeez.

Polaris is: 433.3 light years away.

Orions belt is: 817 light years away. In fact the middle star; Alnilam, is 1340 light years away. Almost triple the distance of polaris..

Also you have no evidence that the stars will move over time, or indeed have in the past. It is yet just another astrologist purposing that 'this could happen' and 'that could happen'. No, just stop.

---

Talk about sh*tty sources and knowledge. You sir are a hypocrite.

You are also wrong. Again.................

Because Orions belt is not situated 'above' either of the poles.

I am flabbergasted that you haven't worked this out on your own, it's either that you don't understand the concept of the poles being fixed, or you simply can't visualize the top of a spinning globe from a top-down perspective.
Of course that star isn't going to move. Now put yourself on the side of this fixed globe, what happens? You slide off round to the other side of the planet while the star stays in relatively the same place.

Also if you didn't know, it wasn't written by one person, it is a series of tales comprised into one understanding.

The Bible had multiple authors, please go and take a class on theological history.
If it had one author then why are the synoptic gospels 4 different versions of the same story with changed details? The 4th of which is dramatically different to the other 3?

Except if its apparently orbiting the sun, while earth itself is spinning. It cannot stay directly stationary over the poles, especially when the orbit of the earth around the sun is 149 million miles. Even though that zero to none compared to 433.3 light years, polaris would still show a slight movement, which it does not.

---

And if you looked, I said WASN'T written by one person, not WAS. When i said it wasn't written by one person, i was implying it was wrote by more than one person. And anyway, i thought you said the bible wasn't a reliable source. It really is, science proves it. So...

Get some sleep buddy. That's what I'm doing.

To correct you I was the one who said it's not exactly reliable. And yes it may be old, but so is the knowledge, which means for the most part it is outdated. Also it is entirely possible for it to stay at that one spot. Not everything orbits around the Earth nor the Sun. In fact, the Sun orbits around a super-massive black hole at the center of our galaxy. As for Polaris, that is because Polaris is also orbiting around this black hole.

Relative to Earth, Polaris is directly above the Earth's northern pole in the galactic plane. But even Polaris is moving across our sky. However, the movement is barely noticeable in our lifetime. And we do have evidence, however, relative in our sky, the difference is so minute that it is not noticeable without extremely accurate calculations.

Furthermore, you said science proved that some events in the bible happened, yet you appear to neglect what science has disproven in the bible.

Well straight away thats incorrect. Because black holes are nothing but a theory, Stephen Hawking himself said that. Secondly. Some parts of science proves events in the bible. While some stories to indeed disprove things in the bible.

That being said, the bible itself it essentially a riddle, and some things written can be misinterpreted, which could then lead to misleading discoveries etc. Im aware it can be the other way round, but for the most part it isn't.

Just because it is a theory does not make in incorrect straight away, however, through observations we are able to tell that it is very likely that black holes exist. In fact, they are mathematically probable. A large majority of physicist and astronomers believe they exists. If I remember correctly, even Einstein had a prediction that they exist. Also just because something is a theory, does not mean they are not true. Take for instance, Einstein's Theories of Relativity, although they are both only theories, they are largely correct with what they deal with. Things such as gravity affecting time as well as velocity affecting time. (Both cases relative time). As you go towards an area of higher gravity or you speed up closer to the speed of light, time slows down for you relatively compared to others perspectives. It even has its own equation for both, however, they go by the same name. Time Dilation. You also have his most famous equation E = MC². Yet these are parts of his "Theory", yet proven time and time again to be factual.

Also to add on to what I said in my reply before this one about gravity. In the scenario you gave with the plane, they are still experiencing the same amount of gravity that we do, same thing goes for astronauts on the ISS. They only appear to be weightless/floating. However, they are in fact, free falling. The difference is that the velocity of both objects are so great that they keep up with this free fall and gives it this appearance.

No, I meant your comment was incorrect, you can hardly say that I'm wrong using black holes when there is actually no evidence to back the theory up. Because I'm sure that they cannot be observed. Hence why they've never seen one or been able to prove their existence.

They are not 'mathematically probable' that doesn't even make sense.

You might be right that some of Einstein's theory's have been proved, but that's totally irrelevant to the subject, it's a completely different theory. You are just misleading, and using irrelevant facts to back up your bogus refute. Also, E=mc2 was the equation for splitting the atom, just saying.

---

Also, what you said about the plane and it appears weightlessness, thats totally true. But as for the astronauts, not so much. If they really are up there in ISS (they're not), then they really are in zero-g.

---

Whatever you think, black holes and gravity are both just theory's, there is no way to prove them. Gravity's theory, is the force of pulling down, when the same outcome happens when something is moving upwards.

Ultimately what im saying is, just because things naturally go downwards, does not mean something is pulling it. For all you know, we could just be going upwards, which probably isn't the case but you get the point.

---

Do you know what's really funny though? You yourself know black holes and gravity are only theory's, and there is very limited evidence, if not none to prove them. But yet YOU believe in them and YOU are using them as an example to refute my side of the debate. Literally only because of who is saying it.

---

What's hypocritical is, the flat earth is a theory, exactly like black holes, in fact there is more evidence to back up the flat earth theory. The only reason you believe in black holes is because of all the well known experts, and companies putting their faith in them. If you dont get what im saying, its this.

The flat earth, and black holes. Are both theory's. Yet you're telling me the flat earth is wrong, when it has evidence, but you are saying black holes exist, with no evidence.. That makes NO sense. Like at all!

But to you the flat earth sounds absurd, because the same people you trust, are denying the flat earth. One big game of cat and mouse.

The same as the big bang theory. It's just a theory, your side would claim that's how the universe began. Its a direct contradiction.

Seriously though, you believe NOTHING EXPLODED, AND EVERYTHING JUST APPEARED. FROM NOWHERE. LOL.

---

Back on topic.

There are experts, just as smart as NASA and other astrologers. Saying the same about the flat earth.

But here you are, refuting my claims. Telling me I'm wrong, what a joke.

Once again, educated ignorance.

Schwarz wrote

5FDP_Jekyll wrote

Schwarz wrote

5FDP_Jekyll wrote

Click to View Content

Schwarz wrote

Cavalry wrote

Schwarz wrote

5FDP_Jekyll wrote

Schwarz wrote No offence, but every single one of your replies are based on assumptions without any true sources. For me that's not good enough, at all.

One thing I would like to point out is that, polaris is supposedly fixed because its directly above our 'axis' correct? Well if that was the case then how can it stay fixed above us if we are apparently always spinning and orbiting the sun. Unless polaris is following our every move without moving a single centimetre. Which isn't the case because its immovable like the Earth.

[ Register or Signin to view external links. ]

And if you're not educated enough for this topic, why are you here? You lack the knowledge and base you side of the debate on assumptions.

If you want to be re-educated with the truth. Watch this video and get back to me, until then. Goodbye.

[ Register or Signin to view external links. ]

If you are truly willing and wanting to learn, you would watch this video and see the perspective. I'm not saying believe it. I'm saying watch it and compare the two arguments and see what you get.

If you want to believe just one side of an argument, without considering the other. It makes you ignorant.

Although this has already been quoted by Cavalry, quite a few times you talk about a reliable source, yet you use YouTube and the Bible. Neither of those are "reliable". For all you know some crazy person could have written the Bible, there is no authorship which makes it an unreliable source. As for Polaris, the reason it doesn't move is because of its distance. However, as a matter of fact, the stars do indeed move over time. Over the next 100 thousand years and more, the stars will appear differently in our sky, the asterisms we see in the sky will no longer be recognizable. Some of the stars will also no longer be there due to them dying out. Also if you believe in Astrology, you can throw that out the window right now. As your astrological birth sign is actually today is actually the one before yours. This is due to the Sun being in a different constellation than what it was thousands of years ago. I have a few more points I can make, however, I shall wait for when I have the time to add them.

Erm. Im pretty sure the bible is more reliable than NASA, considering it is telling stories of what happened over 2000 years ago. And science can actually prove events described in the bible happened. So im pretty sure 'some crazy person' didn't write it, and is easily a reliable source.

Also if you didn't know, it wasn't written by one person, it is a series of tales comprised into one understanding.

---

Secondly, YouTube can be a reliable source. Considering the video i linked you to has SOLID facts, debunking some of the things people have claimed to be 'irrefutable evidence'.

Im guessing you didn't watch it (of course you didn't... ignorance). The video has compelling REAL LIFE FOOTAGE, SHOT BY AN ACTUAL CAMERA which can be used to prove certain aspects of the flat earth theory.

---

Lastly. Are you actually retarded? 'Because of its distance'. Mate there are stars further away than polaris and they are not stationary, so that is complete and utter bollocks. Won't lie, that one made me laugh a little. 'Because of its distance' Jheeez.

Polaris is: 433.3 light years away.

Orions belt is: 817 light years away. In fact the middle star; Alnilam, is 1340 light years away. Almost triple the distance of polaris..

Also you have no evidence that the stars will move over time, or indeed have in the past. It is yet just another astrologist purposing that 'this could happen' and 'that could happen'. No, just stop.

---

Talk about sh*tty sources and knowledge. You sir are a hypocrite.

You are also wrong. Again.................

Because Orions belt is not situated 'above' either of the poles.

I am flabbergasted that you haven't worked this out on your own, it's either that you don't understand the concept of the poles being fixed, or you simply can't visualize the top of a spinning globe from a top-down perspective.
Of course that star isn't going to move. Now put yourself on the side of this fixed globe, what happens? You slide off round to the other side of the planet while the star stays in relatively the same place.

Also if you didn't know, it wasn't written by one person, it is a series of tales comprised into one understanding.

The Bible had multiple authors, please go and take a class on theological history.
If it had one author then why are the synoptic gospels 4 different versions of the same story with changed details? The 4th of which is dramatically different to the other 3?

Except if its apparently orbiting the sun, while earth itself is spinning. It cannot stay directly stationary over the poles, especially when the orbit of the earth around the sun is 149 million miles. Even though that zero to none compared to 433.3 light years, polaris would still show a slight movement, which it does not.

---

And if you looked, I said WASN'T written by one person, not WAS. When i said it wasn't written by one person, i was implying it was wrote by more than one person. And anyway, i thought you said the bible wasn't a reliable source. It really is, science proves it. So...

Get some sleep buddy. That's what I'm doing.

To correct you I was the one who said it's not exactly reliable. And yes it may be old, but so is the knowledge, which means for the most part it is outdated. Also it is entirely possible for it to stay at that one spot. Not everything orbits around the Earth nor the Sun. In fact, the Sun orbits around a super-massive black hole at the center of our galaxy. As for Polaris, that is because Polaris is also orbiting around this black hole.

Relative to Earth, Polaris is directly above the Earth's northern pole in the galactic plane. But even Polaris is moving across our sky. However, the movement is barely noticeable in our lifetime. And we do have evidence, however, relative in our sky, the difference is so minute that it is not noticeable without extremely accurate calculations.

Furthermore, you said science proved that some events in the bible happened, yet you appear to neglect what science has disproven in the bible.

Well straight away thats incorrect. Because black holes are nothing but a theory, Stephen Hawking himself said that. Secondly. Some parts of science proves events in the bible. While some stories to indeed disprove things in the bible.

That being said, the bible itself it essentially a riddle, and some things written can be misinterpreted, which could then lead to misleading discoveries etc. Im aware it can be the other way round, but for the most part it isn't.

Just because it is a theory does not make in incorrect straight away, however, through observations we are able to tell that it is very likely that black holes exist. In fact, they are mathematically probable. A large majority of physicist and astronomers believe they exists. If I remember correctly, even Einstein had a prediction that they exist. Also just because something is a theory, does not mean they are not true. Take for instance, Einstein's Theories of Relativity, although they are both only theories, they are largely correct with what they deal with. Things such as gravity affecting time as well as velocity affecting time. (Both cases relative time). As you go towards an area of higher gravity or you speed up closer to the speed of light, time slows down for you relatively compared to others perspectives. It even has its own equation for both, however, they go by the same name. Time Dilation. You also have his most famous equation E = MC². Yet these are parts of his "Theory", yet proven time and time again to be factual.

Also to add on to what I said in my reply before this one about gravity. In the scenario you gave with the plane, they are still experiencing the same amount of gravity that we do, same thing goes for astronauts on the ISS. They only appear to be weightless/floating. However, they are in fact, free falling. The difference is that the velocity of both objects are so great that they keep up with this free fall and gives it this appearance.

No, I meant your comment was incorrect, you can hardly say that I'm wrong using black holes when there is actually no evidence to back the theory up. Because I'm sure that they cannot be observed. Hence why they've never seen one or been able to prove their existence.

They are not 'mathematically probable' that doesn't even make sense.

You might be right that some of Einstein's theory's have been proved, but that's totally irrelevant to the subject, it's a completely different theory. You are just misleading, and using irrelevant facts to back up your bogus refute. Also, E=mc2 was the equation for splitting the atom, just saying.

---

Also, what you said about the plane and it appears weightlessness, thats totally true. But as for the astronauts, not so much. If they really are up there in ISS (they're not), then they really are in zero-g.

---

Whatever you think, black holes and gravity are both just theory's, there is no way to prove them. Gravity's theory, is the force of pulling down, when the same outcome happens when something is moving upwards.

Ultimately what im saying is, just because things naturally go downwards, does not mean something is pulling it. For all you know, we could just be going upwards, which probably isn't the case but you get the point.

---

Do you know what's really funny though? You yourself know black holes and gravity are only theory's, and there is very limited evidence, if not none to prove them. But yet YOU believe in them and YOU are using them as an example to refute my side of the debate. Literally only because of who is saying it.

---

What's hypocritical is, the flat earth is a theory, exactly like black holes, in fact there is more evidence to back up the flat earth theory. The only reason you believe in black holes is because of all the well known experts, and companies putting their faith in them. If you dont get what im saying, its this.

The flat earth, and black holes. Are both theory's. Yet you're telling me the flat earth is wrong, when it has evidence, but you are saying black holes exist, with no evidence.. That makes NO sense. Like at all!

But to you the flat earth sounds absurd, because the same people you trust, are denying the flat earth. One big game of cat and mouse.

The same as the big bang theory. It's just a theory, your side would claim that's how the universe began. Its a direct contradiction.

Seriously though, you believe NOTHING EXPLODED, AND EVERYTHING JUST APPEARED. FROM NOWHERE. LOL.

---

Back on topic.

There are experts, just as smart as NASA and other astrologers. Saying the same about the flat earth.

But here you are, refuting my claims. Telling me I'm wrong, what a joke.

Once again, educated ignorance.

Yes I may have mistaken one thing for another with black holes, as they are mathematically predicted in Einstein's Theory of Gravity, not mathematically probable like I said originally. However, astronauts in space do experience the same amount of gravity that we do. The only thing is, is that they are in a constant state of free fall. Thus giving the illusion of zero-gravity. The only reason why they do not fall back to the Earth is due to their horizontal velocity. Their horizontal velocity is at such a high speed, that they are orbiting the planet. Given the right amount of time and no course corrections for altitude they would eventually fall closer and closer back to Earth and eventually hit the atmosphere and burn up. One more thing I would like to correct you on, is that you keep saying Astrologers, when I believe you mean to be talking about Astronomers.

Now as to E = MC², yes it was used to split the atom but it was not the equation for splitting the atom. What I mean to say about this is that it sounds like you think that is the only thing it was used to do. However, it is a general equation for finding energy.