Wow, 2400 posts in this thread already. How many did the first have?
The earth is flat and we never went to the moon--Part II
- Thread starter DFT_Dave
- Start date
- Status
Silent Hunter
Well-known member
Fixed it... thanks, :e4e:.
Because if VERY specific predictions that the Law of Gravity implies that all have been proven true. Predictions not just about how things happen here on the surface of the Earth but also the Moon, the Plants and their moons, asteroids, comets, you name it, they all follow Newton's Law of Gravity and every astronomy program you ever seen (dozens of which you can download at will for free) ALL use Newton's Law of Gravity to calculate the position of any celestial object you can name.
It's called multiple independent verification. A principle that I have pointed out to you forty million times already.
Because gravity works as if the force was emminating from the center of mass. The shape of an object has a profound effect on how things would work.
This also has already been address multiple times. Going over it again would prove to be as big a waste of time now as it was then.
That's because it was very new and proper verification had not been done nor was it hardly possible at the time. That is no longer the case.
You're an ignorant idiot, David.
Three dimensional analogies that are used to communicate the idea of curved space all come AFTER Einstein's mathematics, not before. HIS THEORIES ARE NOT BASED ON THOUGHT EXPERIMENTS!!!
You have been lied to David or you are, yourself, lying.
See what I mean?!
This is stupidity more reminiscent of a child's mind. You ought to be both ashamed and embarrased. I never suggested that Einstein was right about curved spacetime. In fact I happen to think he wasn't right but that isn't the point. The point is that it was never ever based on any sort of thought experiment and rejecting on that basis displays your ignorance.
Through thousands of hours of careful observation and experimentation, all of which Newton recorded in exacting detail and all of which can and has been reproduced thousands of times through history and that you could reproduce yourself if you decided you wanted too. There is literally nothing that you could cite that could possibly be more empirical than Newton's science and his Laws (all of them).
Clete
Dave, Go read a basic physics text. Seriously. You are basing your world view on total ignorance.
I'll buy you the dern book.
Silent Hunter
Well-known member
:liberals: We KNOW "perspective" exists, belief isn't necessary except for a blind man.
We can't "see" what lies beyond the horizon because the Earth is curved, round, an oblate spheroid. Atmospheric refraction can, on occasion, allow light from objects beyond the horizon to be visible. That this is beyond your comprehension is clear and incomprehensible to everyone else why you don't "get it".
Why stop at 30 miles? What would the Earth look like from 50,000, 100,000, 150,000, 200,000, or 250,000 miles away?
Last edited:
Dave I pray you come back.... back to reality. Nothing wrong with investigating a theory but when it turns out to be as bankrupt as the flat earth theory it's time to abandon it and save credibility. Come back soon and tell us you thought it over and realized it was insane.
We will of course welcome you back with open arms and all have a good laugh.
Right Divider
Body part
You are truly a lunatic Dave.
Oooh, interesting. I just came across this page that goes through the math (formulas and all) of raising the altitude of the ISS every so often due to orbital decay.
https://physicsfromplanetearth.wordpress.com/2017/02/
https://physicsfromplanetearth.wordpress.com/2017/02/
Hi everyone. I'm preparing a response to this video. I need anyone who wants to continue this debate with me to view it. It's not a flat earth video, it's a globe earth video that shows why flat earth is wrong. I like this one because it's well done, to the point, and without derogatory remarks. Flat earth is wrong and here's why not flat earth is wrong you stupid morons.
This video is from someone who understands what flat earth is saying and then tries to correct that misunderstanding. He's even sympathetic because he acknowledges there are "some" legitimate reasons for believing in flat earth.
From this point on I will not respond to anyone, in anyway, who calls me a lunatic. If you can't make arguments or counter arguments in a respectful manner then don't bother making any argument at all. I came here to this site to have this debate because I had always enjoyed the respect many here have for each other regardless of the issue. You can call any argument insane or whatever, but if I'm personally attacked by anyone from here on I will simply ignore you and whatever you have to say. As to many who seem to feel personally offended by this topic, and for good reason, remember that anyone we oppose on any subject can have good reason to feel personally offended.
That video and pictorial presentations are an important part of this topic should be obvious. When it comes to video no one has to see the entire presentation. I will always refer to a short segment to make my point and anyone can go to just that time segment and not have to spend time looking for it.
--Dave
Dave, These arguments have been presented to you many many times here on this thread- with no reasonable response from you. It seems like only videos mean anything to you. I do not have high expectations for your responses to the video, but I will read them.
To be fair to those who have called you names: many have tried patiently to convince you, but your attitude towards a serious discussion is completely unreasonable. Eventually people get exasperated with this behavior. Covering it with a patina of 'reasonableness' and 'well I am so polite' doesn't change the fact that you are being intellectually dishonest. So don't be surprised when people lose patience with you.
My offer to buy you a physics text still stands, though maybe a video course would be better.
Right Divider
Body part
Well said.
Being called dishonest is as bad as being called a lunatic and I will not respond.
The person in the video simply states where he thinks flat earth arguments lack information or where flat earth folk misunderstand globe earth arguments. I use this video as an example of how one addresses an issue without ad hominem distractions. He addresses the flat earth argument not the motive or the character of a person making it.
Patience is a virtue and there are arguments about the horizon made in favor of globe earth in this video that I will argue are incorrect. After I have made my arguments I certainly want them, not my character or my motives, to be criticized and attacked so I can see if they are correct or not.
This is not a debate about physics per sa, it involves physics no doubt, but the dispute is more about observation. Laws of physics can be used for both flat and globe earth arguments but of course one side could argue that the physics employed were misapplied by the other side.
--Dave
Dave I hope all is well!
I have a question for you. Do you think the flat earth maps that all the flat earth people use and accept can possibly be accurate?
After all....
If the earth is a globe and looks like this...
View attachment 26526
You can drive from Brisbane Australia to Perth Australia in about 46 hours or fly on a commercial jetliner in about five and half hours. This can be verified by the literally millions of people whom have made this trip.
View attachment 26527
But if the earth looks like this....
View attachment 26528
Australia would then be about 2 times the width of the United States as we can see here...
View attachment 26529
And therefore it would take you 92 hours to drive from Brisbane Australia to Perth Australia and over 11 hours to fly from city to city.
On a flat earth here is the trip from Brisbane to Perth Australia...
View attachment 26530
Dave can you admit the the flat earth map that is used on a consistent basis by flat earth proponents cannot possibly accurate based on these facts?
Thanks in advance for your time.
I have a question for you. Do you think the flat earth maps that all the flat earth people use and accept can possibly be accurate?
After all....
If the earth is a globe and looks like this...
View attachment 26526
You can drive from Brisbane Australia to Perth Australia in about 46 hours or fly on a commercial jetliner in about five and half hours. This can be verified by the literally millions of people whom have made this trip.
View attachment 26527
But if the earth looks like this....
View attachment 26528
Australia would then be about 2 times the width of the United States as we can see here...
View attachment 26529
And therefore it would take you 92 hours to drive from Brisbane Australia to Perth Australia and over 11 hours to fly from city to city.
On a flat earth here is the trip from Brisbane to Perth Australia...
View attachment 26530
Dave can you admit the the flat earth map that is used on a consistent basis by flat earth proponents cannot possibly accurate based on these facts?
Thanks in advance for your time.
Last edited:
What speaks to one's character isn't argumentation, it's the intentional, systematic and consistent act of ignoring arguments, refusing to respond to them and, most importantly, refusing to allow very simple and clearly sound reasoning to persuade one's mind. Such a person is, by definition, either stupid (i.e. an idiot) or dishonest or both.
If you're offended by it, you ought to be. The offense you feel means there's hope for your repentance. Just remember that you've brought in on yourself and needlessly so. Any honest investigation into this issue by any half way intelligent person would have been finished months ago.
This entire statement presumes that any argument made by anyone ought to be taken just as seriously as any other argument but stupidity ought not be brought to the level of intelligent rational discourse. Stupidity ought to be treated as stupidity and those who consistently allow stupidity to escape their lips ought to be subjected to ridicule, not treated with kit gloves and given the respect that they have not earned and do not deserve.
You want to be given respect for free! You want the respect that you chose to squander returned to you at no cost. What you're fixing to learn is that it's a whole lot easier to spend something than it is to earn it.
Clete
The amount of view time for this video dealing with the horizon begins at 2:05 and ends at 6:13 which is only 4:08 minutes. I will address more of his video in another post.
For the sake of my argument I will agree with the argument made in this video that the scale of how far we can see compared to the size of the earth means the earth is "virtually flat" regardless of the model we use. But, in the flat earth model the ground beneath our feet to as far as we can see, even with a telephoto lens, is "actually flat". In the globe model the ground beneath our feet is gradually dropping away from us and is not actually flat.
If the earth is virtually flat then it would follow that we see the horizon at virtual eye level. This would mean that the horizon is seen for both flat earth and globe earth at about the same place in our eye. But in FE it's said we see the horizon actually at eye level. In GE the horizon is not actually at eye level even though it seems to be but we are actually looking slightly down at the horizon of a curved earth.
Earth's Curve Horizon, Bulge, and Drop
On the Metabunk website is a drawing that illustrates the location of the horizon "bulge" in relation to eye level, and surface level. Eye level is looking straight forward parallel to the ground as if the surface level is flat and not curved. The bulge of the earth is below the surface level of the curved earth. For a viewer with his eye at 6 feet above the ground the horizon is 3 miles away. At the three mile distance to the horizon, eye level remains 6 feet above the flat surface level. The flat surface level is 6 feet above the horizon bulge level of the curved earth. So, the horizon from eye level to the actual curved level, the horizon bulge, is a 12 foot drop.
1. Eye level-----------------6 foot above surface level
2. Surface level-----------0
3. Horizon bulge---------6 foot below surface level
So, though it may seem that we are looking straight ahead at the horizon we are actually looking down on a curved earth with a 6 foot drop from surface level and a 12 foot drop from eye level. But ironically the change in "vertical height" from where we stand at 6 feet on a beach looking three miles to the horizon bulge is only 1.5 feet.
How can there be a vertical rise of 1.5 feet when there is an actual drop of 6 feet from surface level and a 12 foot drop from eye level? The bulge is a rise from a line drawn under the earth from where we stand equal to the distance from the opposite direction it's not a bulge that rises above the actual surface. A three mile distance to the bulge at 6 feet up is equal to a three mile distance at a 6 foot view from the opposite direction. A straight line connecting the two points would be a little less than six miles long and the bulge would be in the middle. Again, looking down from 6 feet up at a horizon bulge three miles away is not a 1.5 foot rise in the actual surface--ground or water, it's a bulge from a point at the surface drawn under the surface of a curved earth 6 miles away to another point on the surface of a curved earth.
A bulge that's 1.5 feet in height above the ground we are standing on is much lower than a horizon that "virtually" appears at eye level--6 feet, above the ground we are standing on. This distance discrepancy is not "too slight" to be noticed or imagined. This is where I see the failure of the globe model in respect to the horizon.
Don't call me names, just show me the money / errors you think you see in my argument. I have used the Metabunk website as the basis for it. The author of the video made his case against FE and I have made my case against his. Both of us were respectful of each other and not a single ad hominem was used.
--Dave
Respect is shown and comes from one who chooses not to demean others.
Trust is earned and comes when someone is found worthy of getting it.
Respect is not trust, I'm not asking you to trust me I'm asking you to respect me.
One can show respect to someone even when that person is not trusted.
That I, along with many others, have "honest" doubts about globe earth should not be cause for contemptuous ridicule.
I see flaws in the globe earth model and no one in my opinion has dealt with them or answered them. The person in the video I posted is dealing with the arguments made by FL and he shows that he understands them and even agrees in part about the horizon before he explains where and why he thinks they are wrong, respectfully.
I just posted a rebuttal to his horizon argument. If you can without attacking me, refute my rebuttal.
--Dave
Can somebody translate this into an understandable form for me? A drawing would help.
Can somebody translate this into an understandable form for me? A drawing would help.
I'm still pressed for time and I want to address the video I posted before I deal with anything else. The author of it hits the nail on the head about how important his arguments are to FE and he shows he understands their position very well. I will rebutte his arguments and see if you all can refute my rebuttal.
--Dave
- Status