Search results

No, it effects how we imagine the cosmos to be. By perception we mean what we all see and experience from and on the earth. This would effect our perception only if we were actually out there in space and could see all the planets just as presented in the model. --Dave

I think the video speaks for itself and the conclusion that the Lunar Lander would have no dust on the landing pods and no sign of any disturbance under it from the lander's thruster is nonsense. This is especially evident when you see how easily the so call lunar surface is kicked up by the...

I agree, there's no such thing as an "ultimate reference point" in the heliocentric model. In the geocentric and flat earth model there is an "ultimate reference point". --Dave

Yes, I said this website showed both what a flat earth model can and cannot explain. I should have said what the "current" flat earth model can and cannot explain. It explains a lot more than most people think. --Dave

By definition a stationary, immovable flat earth does not move and logically is the absolute. Motion is what is moving as opposed to what is not moving. Motion is not what is moving in relation to what else is moving, that's irrational. Modern physics is relative--irrational. --Dave

Let's see what happened in the NASA vacuum chamber when it was first used. The Time a NASA Experiment Gone Wrong Almost Killed Someone Space Suit Testing Someone made this comment: "The tube pressurizing his suit had become disconnected" If that had happened, his suit would have...

Your responses take up a lot of space so let me get to the main point. As to the the claim there was very little dust kicked up by the moon lander and all the dust neatly settled leaving no visible disturbance. INSANE! SpaceX Falcon Heavy Side Boosters Landing Simultaneously at Kennedy Space...

I simply wanted to make the point it's not a proof along with my no trees no lakes etc example is not a proof either. My problem is relativity. Relativity means for me contradiction. As a most basic example, water seeks it own level but not when a body of water gets too big. Water flows down...

It seems I have to spell everything out for you guys. At least you seem to understand that saying a flat motionless earth is God's and our reference point for everything else that moves in the universe is a proposition not a proof. Saying that the earth is not a reference point for...

Here is one website I found that addresses the whole Flat Earth Dome Model by Walter Bislin. http://walter.bislins.ch/bloge/index.asp?page=flat+earth+dome+model It shows what a flat earth model can and cannot account for. --Dave

The sun on the flat earth model is close and much smaller than the earth, not millions of miles away from us and much larger than the earth. The farther away it gets from us the more atmosphere we have to look through to see it, so there is more atmosphere between us and the sun as it moves away...

Yes, if I don't believe we went to the moon I obviously don't believe we brought anything back from it. That would be logical and you should have understood that with out asking me. Two things now follow from the foot print and the astronauts kicking up moon dust. 1. Early in the mythbuster...

The claim of flat earth is that we see everything over head in perspective just as we see everything in perspective on earth. But then it's argued that the sun should get much smaller the farther away it is from us. It has been argued that the sun maintains it's size from sun rise to sun set...

My answer to all the questions about sun, moon, and stars that prove we are a spinning globe is that we have not been told the truth about the universe. We know we have not been told the truth because NASA faked the moon landings. We've never been back to the moon because we were never there in...

Fake moon footprint The first foot print from the moon should be our first evidence that we never went to the moon. Before I explain why, I would like see if anyone else can explain why this footprint is not from the moon. --Dave

We all share the same perception from earth. That won't change. Cosmologies come from expanding our imagination not our perception. --Dave

You notice that on the moon there's no trees, no ocean or lakes, no life. The earth is not like the moon because it has trees, oceans and lakes, and life. The earth must not be a sphere. Again this is not a proof. Not seeing trees, lakes etc does not prove the earth is not a sphere. And...

This is not a fallacy because it's a proposition not a proof. If the earth is flat and stationary and then it becomes that which is the reference point for everything that is moving above it. If the earth is moving with everything else in the universe then it is not a reference point for...

And seeing spheres in space does not prove the earth is a sphere either. --Dave

This is good evidence for the spinning globe. I have to keep reminding you that evidence for a spinning globe is not my problem. My problem is that there's evidence and scriptures that support a flat motionless earth. I obviously can't confirm or deny a stellar parallax. I can only accept...