The earth is flat and we never went to the moon--Part II

[Silent Hunter]

One-dimensional thinking seems to be the only way you analyze a problem. How, exactly, does one "circle a target" without "travel(ing) around" it?

You've been a member of TOL since the year (for Knight's benefit) 2005 and have read the word "supra" and NEVER considered what the word meant in context? Ignorance is one thing, deliberate stupidity is another.

Your thought process needs work. I never thought for a minute you would MIS-understand a word used so often on TOL.

Basically, yes… very basically.

Which ones?

This is a faulty conclusion based on a faulty understanding of light AND a case of TOTALLY not addressing what I said.

One NEVER sese the actual object they are "looking" at. What we see, you included, is light reflected off of the object or light emitted from the object even if the object is inches in front of your eye(s). All we EVER see is an image of the object, NEVER the object itself.

That’s true. Along with atmospheric refraction there is gravity and water in the form of rain (the reason we see a rainbow), among other factors.

Nope. One NEVER sese the actual object they are "looking" at. What we see, you included, is light reflected off of the object or light emitted from the object even if the object is inches in front of your eye(s). All we EVER see is an image of the object, NEVER the object itself.

No, it isn

There are a number of factual errors in what you’ve quoted from New Dawn Magazine; I will only address one:

“"If we look at the structure of matter, we see that it is comprised of atoms, which is, essentially, electrons orbiting protons and neutrons. But neutrons are, by definition, protons sandwiched to electrons. So the fundamental structure of matter is just two particles, electrons and protons…”

Electrons are a fundamental particle. Protons are made up of three fundamental particles, 2 up quarks and 1 down quark, neutrons are made up of 1 up quark and 2 down quarks.

That you would believe what some fringe “science” magazine has to say about anything is insulting to your intelligence.

This is among the dumbest things I’ve ever read and clear evidence you haven’t the first clue what you’re talking about. Worse is that you say it again…

You couldn’t be more of an idiot if you tried.

Tesla's objection to Einstein's relativity is well known.

So? Your point is...?

Needlessly displaying your knowledge of atoms does not address any point I'm making.

Needlessly? When you quote a source saying, "... neutrons are, BY DEFINITION, protons sandwiched to electrons...", you are spreading something patently false. Electrons are fundamental particles. Protons are made up of three fundamental particles, 2 up quarks and 1 down quark, neutrons are made up of 1 up quark and 2 down quarks. If your source can't get something so basic correct it calls into question everything else asserted by it.

When asked to explain a flat earth vs the globe, Tesla's electromagnetism is adopted in opposition to Einstein's gravity waves. I'm not proving FE or electromagnetism but only offering an explanation of how the FE works in answer to the question.

So, when do you go to Oslo to receive your prize?

That sun rays are not parallel is simply true and why is easy to understand as I have explain.

Your assertion shows how little you know about light from a non-point source.

That we see the actual world is axiomatic.

That we see light reflected off of and/or emitted by objects is axiomatic, that we see the object as it actually is isn't.

 

[Nathon Detroit]

There are videos that show the ISS in space, or what looks like it. I cannot confirm or deny what is up there, how it stays up there, or for how long. Could data be received from a satellite hung below a balloon and we don't know it?

Here we have very interesting footage of a balloon carrying a satellite into the stratosphere. I wonder just how many balloons are keeping other types of satellites in space???

--Dave

Dave... I feel so sorry for you. I really do.

Where to begin???

First off these balloon projects are being done by NASA. Remember them?? Those are the guys you think are fooling the world with the sphere earth theory.

Second... these balloon experiments do not launch satellites into space. They are merely a high altitude platform for certain instruments that need to "see" better without having to look through all the layers of the earth's atmosphere.

Third they can only fly for a few weeks. Someday they hope to get one to fly for 100 days. (The ISS has been in space since 1997).

Finally... the can only fly these balloons from the south pole due to the special winds there that keep the balloon in near the same spot as where they launched it. Remember the south pole? That's the place you don't believe exists.

 

[Nathon Detroit]

You've been a member of TOL since the year (for Knight's benefit) 2005 and...

Buwuhahahahahaha!!! Stop picking on me just because I'm old. :rotfl:

 

[drbrumley]

This thread is nuts...

 

[Nathon Detroit]

This thread is nuts...

That's one way to describe it. :chuckle:

 

[DFT_Dave]

Dave... I feel so sorry for you. I really do.

Where to begin???

First off these balloon projects are being done by NASA. Remember them?? Those are the guys you think are fooling the world with the sphere earth theory.

Second... these balloon experiments do not launch satellites into space. They are merely a high altitude platform for certain instruments that need to "see" better without having to look through all the layers of the earth's atmosphere.

Third they can only fly for a few weeks. Someday they hope to get one to fly for 100 days. (The ISS has been in space since 1997).

Finally... the can only fly these balloons from the south pole due to the special winds there that keep the balloon in near the same spot as where they launched it. Remember the south pole? That's the place you don't believe exists.

I know what they are.

In answer to the question: How do satellites work over a flat earth, the answer is balloons.

The ISS is not a satellite.

We can bounce radio signals of the Ionosphere, we can sent up satellites on balloons, we have electromagnetic and microwave technologies that are already being experimented with.

My guess is NASA, and other military agencies are much further along than we think.

Can NASA do more with balloons than they are telling us?

You just seem to swallow whatever you're told. I'm not so inclined. We never would have had open theism if we just went along with the status quo.

--Dave

P.S. No comment on the ISS docking video?

 

[Clete]

It seemed to me that was what you were saying. If I was wrong than I apologise. There are many who do say the suns rays that hit the earth are parallel.

But rather than say I was mistaken about what you were saying and giving me a chance to consider your comments again, you just call me more derogatory names.

I will miss your participation and good arguments that challenge flat earth, you've made me have to dig deep and do better at understanding and explaining FE, but I will not miss your continual shameful ad hom bullying. You think you have won every argument, I don't think that you have, but you have certainly lost all decorum in this debate.

You're not only waving goodbye to me but to everyone else who you disagree with on every other subject. Morons all who disagree with you on any matter I would guess. That Christians can't be flat earth without being apostates is ludicrous. I have simply found myself in the middle and you have had the nerve to denigrate my character as if having doubts about the cosmology of the earth is not possible or even a sin.

--Dave

David, I am beyond frustrated with this entire discussion. To think that what you've done in this thread qualifies as "digging deep" absolutely boggles my mind. You can't even read my posts and detect the difference between "almost perfectly parallel" and simply "parallel" and want to call me an idiot for having made a claim that I never made. That level of hypocrisy is more than I can even comprehend, especially coming from someone capable of writing a single sentence found anywhere on your website! If I didn't know better, I'd honestly have a hard time believing that what you've presented on this thread and what is on that website could possibly have come from the same person. The thinking you've displayed is simply beneath you. In fact, it is only because I still have some nagging doubt that you're even really buying into this abject stupidity that I've been willing to participate this long.

Since you apparently misunderstood me and have apologized, I suppose I'll keep going but I can't really see any reason to do so aside from just shear lack of any desire to discuss much of anything with the other morons on TOL whom I disagree with. At least with you, there's no danger of you saying something blasphemous.

So, do you want to address the fact that the FET's use of crepuscular rays implies that it is high noon above the clouds that are casting the shadows?

View attachment 26522

Clete

 

[Clete]

I know what they are.

In answer to the question: How do satellites work over a flat earth, the answer is balloons.

The ISS is not a satellite.

We can bounce radio signals of the Ionosphere, we can sent up satellites on balloons, we have electromagnetic and microwave technologies that are already being experimented with.

My guess is NASA, and other military agencies are much further along than we think.

Can NASA do more with balloons than they are telling us?

You just seem to swallow whatever you're told. I'm not so inclined. We never would have had open theism if we just went along with the status quo.

--Dave

P.S. No comment on the ISS docking video?

David, I personally know people who have captured photos of the ISS with their own cameras. There are websites dedicated to teaching people how to do it. There are no balloons!

The above image is from http://soggyastronomer.com/how-to-photograph-the-international-space-station/

 

[Silent Hunter]

In answer to the question: How do satellites work over a flat earth, the answer is balloons.

Were they all blown up by Mr. Fredricksen? (Who gets the joke?)

The ISS is not a satellite.

What is it then? A space station?

You just seem to swallow whatever you're told. I'm not so inclined.

You sure seem eager to embrace and defend nonsense.

P.S. No comment on the ISS docking video?

What is it we're supposed to see?

 

[Nathon Detroit]

In answer to the question: How do satellites work over a flat earth, the answer is balloons.

:think: Yep.... that must be the answer.

View attachment 26523

The ISS is not a satellite.

Okay then, what is the ISS? And how does that distinction have any impact on what's keeping it hovering for 20 years above the flat earth?

We can bounce radio signals of the Ionosphere, we can sent up satellites on balloons, we have electromagnetic and microwave technologies that are already being experimented with.

Dave... we can't send satellites into space with balloons. The best we can do is lift small-scale machines above some of the layers of the atmosphere to get cleaner readings. No satellites have ever been sent into orbit via a balloon.

My guess is NASA, and other military agencies are much further along than we think.

Further along at what? I thought you thought NASA's main job is maintaining the lie that the earth is flat (for some unknown reason).

Can NASA do more with balloons than they are telling us?

NASA says they have put rovers on mars and sent spacecraft to the end of the universe. Why would they hide what they can do with a balloon??

P.S. No comment on the ISS docking video?

What type of comment where you looking for?? :idunno:

 

[Nathon Detroit]

David, I am beyond frustrated with this entire discussion. To think that what you've done in this thread qualifies as "digging deep" absolutely boggles my mind.

Clete don't let it bother you. We are dealing with a guy who thinks balloons hold up the International Space Station. :rotfl: You can't expect to have a serious conversation with a lunatic. I suspect Dave is smoking a lot of pot. Every stoner I know thinks wacky crap like this. Well... not exactly this bad, but close.

 

[Silent Hunter]

View attachment 26523

Look!
Up in the sky!!
It's a bird!!!
It's a plane!!!!
It's a satellite!!!!!?
It's Mr. Fredricksen's house!!!!!!

 

[DFT_Dave]

Clete don't let it bother you. We are dealing with a guy who thinks balloons hold up the International Space Station. :rotfl: You can't expect to have a serious conversation with a lunatic. I suspect Dave is smoking a lot of pot. Every stoner I know thinks wacky crap like this. Well... not exactly this bad, but close.

Mockery will get you nowhere.

I never said balloons hold up th ISS.

--Dave

 

[JudgeRightly]

Mockery will get you nowhere.

I never said balloons hold up th ISS.

--Dave

Dave, quick question:

Does the Hubble Space Telescope exist?

 

[DFT_Dave]

David, I am beyond frustrated with this entire discussion. To think that what you've done in this thread qualifies as "digging deep" absolutely boggles my mind. You can't even read my posts and detect the difference between "almost perfectly parallel" and simply "parallel" and want to call me an idiot for having made a claim that I never made. That level of hypocrisy is more than I can even comprehend, especially coming from someone capable of writing a single sentence found anywhere on your website! If I didn't know better, I'd honestly have a hard time believing that what you've presented on this thread and what is on that website could possibly have come from the same person. The thinking you've displayed is simply beneath you. In fact, it is only because I still have some nagging doubt that you're even really buying into this abject stupidity that I've been willing to participate this long.

Since you apparently misunderstood me and have apologized, I suppose I'll keep going but I can't really see any reason to do so aside from just shear lack of any desire to discuss much of anything with the other morons on TOL whom I disagree with. At least with you, there's no danger of you saying something blasphemous.

So, do you want to address the fact that the FET's use of crepuscular rays implies that it is high noon above the clouds that are casting the shadows?

View attachment 26522

Clete

Thanks Clete,

I know I put everything about myself at risk.

Trust me, I put my whole carrier at risk with open theism and lost almost everything.

I had no doubts about openness, and still don't, but this sincerely has me baffled.

And I'm studying this as we go, I had already studied theology for years before I came to theology online, and my website was a result of all that study.

I will be gone all day, catch you later. Thanks for your help.

--Dave

 

[Nathon Detroit]

Thanks Clete,

I know I put everything about myself at risk.

Trust me, I put my whole carrier at risk with open theism and lost almost everything.

I had no doubts about openness, and still don't, but this sincerely has me baffled.

And I'm studying this as we go, I had already studied theology for years before I came to theology online, and my website was a result of all that study.

I will be gone all day, catch you later. Thanks for your help.

--Dave

Dave... Open Theism is a theological concept. It cannot be proven nor disproven with math or science. It can only be argued via God's word in the Bible and with other philosophical arguments.

The shape of the earth is entirely different.

We can determine the shape of the earth with math, science, imagery, and about a million other rock solid proofs.

No one (other than maybe a hard core Calvinist) is going to think any less of you when they find out you are an Open Theist. Heck 99% of the world wont even know what that is. But believing the earth is flat in 2018 is rightfully going to make most people think your credibility is lacking.

So please.... don't compare your open theism martyredom to you being mocked for believing the earth is flat, and that we have never been to the moon, and satellites are carried around by balloons.

 

[Clete]

Dave... Open Theism is a theological concept. It cannot be proven nor disproven with math or science. It can only be argued via God's word in the Bible and with other philosophical arguments.

The shape of the earth is entirely different.

We can determine the shape of the earth with math, science, imagery, and about a million other rock solid proofs.

No one (other than maybe a hard core Calvinist) is going to think any less of you when they find out you are an Open Theist. Heck 99% of the world wont even know what that is. But believing the earth is flat in 2018 is rightfully going to make most people think your credibility is lacking.

So please.... don't compare your open theism martyredom to you being mocked for believing the earth is flat, and that we have never been to the moon, and satellites are carried around by balloons.

So totally right and well said!

 

[DFT_Dave]

Dave... Open Theism is a theological concept. It cannot be proven nor disproven with math or science. It can only be argued via God's word in the Bible and with other philosophical arguments.

The shape of the earth is entirely different.

We can determine the shape of the earth with math, science, imagery, and about a million other rock solid proofs.

No one (other than maybe a hard core Calvinist) is going to think any less of you when they find out you are an Open Theist. Heck 99% of the world wont even know what that is. But believing the earth is flat in 2018 is rightfully going to make most people think your credibility is lacking.

So please.... don't compare your open theism martyredom to you being mocked for believing the earth is flat, and that we have never been to the moon, and satellites are carried around by balloons.

These 5 mind-melting thought experiments helped Albert Einstein come up with his most revolutionary scientific ideas

Thought experiments are theoretical arguments very much like theological arguments. They are true or false based on the rules of rationality not on physical experiments.

"Einstein, in his theory of special relativity, determined that the laws of physics are the same for all non-accelerating observers, and he showed that the speed of light within a vacuum is the same no matter the speed at which an observer travels. As a result, he found that space and time were interwoven into a single continuum known as space-time. Events that occur at the same time for one observer could occur at different times for another." --Einstein's Theory of General Relativity

This quote is misleading, Einstein's thought experiment "Imagine you're standing on a train" is the basis for special relativity.

Debunking Einstein's thought experiment
Events that happen at the same time do so regardless of anything or they are not happening at the same time. Granted that light travels through space and requires time, the lightning strike is not the rays of light that travels through time. The time it takes for the light from the strike to be seen by one standing still vs one moving away from or toward the direction the light is coming from does not mean the the event of the strike happened at a different time. The light coming from a lighting strike is not the strike itself, the strike is the event, and the event does not travel through time, the light from the event travels through time.

I started studying space-time in relation to open theism. Space-time is also theological timelessness. Einstein's space-time block universe is a perfect match for a timeless deity.

Einstein is not the first to employ thought experiment into his cosmology. The question I ask myself is who else and how many of these arguments are there?

If Newton employed a Cannonball thought experiment, "to hypothesize that the force of gravity was universal, and the key force for planetary motion" then what about gravity itself? An invisible intangible force cannot be discovered, it has to be imagined. Gravity is also a thought experiment, something theorized.

A thought experiment about the universality of gravity and that it's a key force in planetary motion assumes the existence of gravity and does not prove gravity exists, it being a thought experiment that requires proof in order to be true.

The theory of gravity does not prove a spinning globe it assumes one. It would be circular reasoning to argue the one proves the other.

This applies to the ISS and satellites. A craft flying in the sky does not prove the earth is a globe any more than the existence of the sun, moon, and stars moving through the sky does. Data and images can be collected and transmitted over a flat earth as well. That the data and images exists is not proof the earth is a spinning planet.

Mocking me doesn't prove me wrong, it's your attempt to deter other people who are interested in FE to not take any arguments made for it seriously. Just as mocking Trump did not deter people from voting for him mocking flat earth will not deter people's interest in it.

I wasn't martyred for open theism. I was told that if I did not give up open theism I could not teach or preach in the church, and affiliated churches, I and my family were involved with. I was told by my wife she would leave me if I did not comply.

--Dave

 

[Nathon Detroit]

This applies to the ISS and satellites. A craft flying in the sky does not prove the earth is a globe any more than the existence of the sun, moon, and stars moving through the sky does. Data and images can be collected and transmitted over a flat earth as well. That the data and images exists is not proof the earth is a spinning planet.

I disagree.

The flat earth theory has no mechanism to keep a giant space station floating/hovering above us for over 20 years. This presents a major flaw in your theory which is why I'm sure many FE proponents reject the idea that the ISS is real (obviously that presents it's own set of problems for them).

The globe earth has a perfect mechanism to keep the ISS flying above us for over 20 years. Gravity.

This of course is just one of literally dozens of other rock-solid proofs that have been presented in these threads.

Your theory falls flat (pun intended).

 

[chair]

These 5 mind-melting thought experiments helped Albert Einstein come up with his most revolutionary scientific ideas
...
--Dave

Dave, thought experiments helped Einstein come up with his ideas, and they help explain his ideas. But actual real-life experiments and observations proved that his ideas were right.

Dave- ignorance is a curable disease.