Right, but I'm hoping to have a conversation about it with a real live Flat Earth person.
I hope you are sitting down; it looks like you have a long wait.
:chuckle:
Rom. 5:6-8.
The earth is flat and we never went to the moon--Part II
- Thread starter DFT_Dave
- Start date
- Status
I hope you are sitting down; it looks like you have a long wait.
:chuckle:
Rom. 5:6-8.
Just ran across this really cool site again...
http://joshworth.com/dev/pixelspace/pixelspace_solarsystem.html
It really tries to give the viewer a sense of the size of the solar system.
http://joshworth.com/dev/pixelspace/pixelspace_solarsystem.html
It really tries to give the viewer a sense of the size of the solar system.
I don't get it; the scroll to explore does not do anything?
You have to scroll sideways
I saw it now. Is Pluto still thought to be a planet? The models back in school were way off scale. To do it right, the planets to Mars would have to nearly touch the sun and Pluto would have to be a football fields' length away.
Hi everyone, my retirement and move from Brooklyn NY to Hackensack NJ has taken me a lot longer than I had thought it would. I have been without regular internet service for almost a month.
I will take a little time to review what has been said since I have been absent before I again engage the debate
--Dave
I will take a little time to review what has been said since I have been absent before I again engage the debate
--Dave
Welcome back Dave,
The following is a repost of an argument I made while you were gone after several of us had taken near simultaneous photos of the Sun's position above the horizon from our various locations. I'd love it if you'd take a look...
The last few days I've been playing around with some math and thought I'd post some of it here to see if it might move some of the flat earthers maybe an inch or two back toward reality...
Let's put some of the sunset images we've taken to good use and see if what was observed can be made to fit with the FET (Flat Earth Theory).
FET claims the Sun is approximately 3000 miles above the Earth and they do not dispute well established distances between points on the surface of the Earth. I'm going to be using these two presuppositions in my calculations and you'll want to refer to the following diagram to keep track of the variables...
View attachment 26417
Side a is the distance from the ground to the Sun (3000 mi).
Side b is the distance from an observer to a point on the Earth where it is high noon (the point at which the Sun is at it's highest point in the sky).
Side c (a.k.a. the hypotenuse) is the distance from the observer to the Sun itself.
Angle A is the height of the Sun above the horizon in degrees as seen from the observer.
Angle C is always 90°
Angle B is not relevant to this discussion.
Note from the start that if the Earth is flat and the Sun is 3000 miles up (or any number of miles up for that matter) that angle A can never ever get to 0°. The Sun would never set because no matter how long you make side b of that triangle, angle A is always a positive number. The only way for the Sun to set on a flat Earth is if the Sun dipped below the plane of the flat Earth. If that were to happen, then it would be night everywhere on Earth at once, which we know does not happen. It's always high noon somewhere on the Earth.
That, by itself, ought to be enough to convince anyone that the Earth cannot be flat but there's more. Let's take a look at some of these photos we took last week...
So, since we're assuming a flat Earth, I'm going to focus on just a couple of photos that both show the position of the Sun in degrees above the horizon. I should point out that you don't have to trust the numbers generated by the app on the phones used to take these photos. The numbers can be confirmed by anyone by simply fashioning a simple sextant from a cheap plastic protractor.
I'll use these two photos...
View attachment 26418 View attachment 26419
On the left is the Sun's position as seen from my house on May 8th at 01:00 UCT (8:00:01pm central time)
On the right is the Sun's position as seen from Knight's house on the same day just 38 seconds later (7:00:39pm mountain time).
The position of the Sun at my house is just .1° above the horizon while at Knight's it was 10.2° (This information is displayed just to the right of the Sun position indicator. It shows the Sun's heading and then it's elevation in degrees. On Knight's photo it's sort of hidden a little by the NW direction indicator but it reads "Sun 284.0 W 10.2°" The 10.2 is the elevation above the horizon in degrees)
So, let's look at Knight's first...
How far West would you have to go from Knight's house (where sides b and c meet) to get to a place on a flat Earth where it was high noon (where sides a and b meet)?
It turns out that when dealing with right triangles if you have the length of any one side and either angle A or B, you can know everything about the whole triangle!
The math is boring and so I'm not going to show all that. Just go HERE and plug in the numbers for side b (3000) and angle A (10.2).
You get the following results...
Someone 16,700 miles (length of side b) to his west would see the Sun at it's highest point in the sky for that day.
There is no point on Earth 16,700 miles from Denver Colorado.
Still not convinced? Well just wait till you plug in the numbers from my house!
At my house the Sun was only .1 degrees above the horizon. So plugging in the numbers from my house (side b = 3000 and angle A = .1) we get the following results...
You have to go 1,720,000 miles to my West to find high noon beneath a Sun that was 3000 miles above the surface of a flat Earth.
That's One MILLION seven hundred twenty THOUSAND miles!
(That's more that 7 times the real distance to the Moon!)
Now seriously folks! What more proof could you possibly need? How are you going to possibly refute this?
Are you going to deny that the Sun is about 10° further above the horizon in Denver than it is in Houston? Even if you did that, the distance to noon calculations aren't dependent on that!
Are you going to challenge the validity of the Pythagorean Theorem?
It seems that's your only option! It's either refute the Pythagorean Theorem or you must reject the notion that the Earth is flat based on the mere fact that the Sun gets to within .1° of the horizon at one point on the Earth while at the same time being directly over head at another.
Clete :Clete:
P.S. We need a mic drop smilie!
Earth is flat from our perspective on earth looking at earth from ground level and from high altitude, mountain tops and commercial flights.
Earth is motionless to us on earth. Sun, moon, and clouds appear to move above us just as birds and planes do.
There are men of science and a government agency that tell us this is not reality and that our perceptions are wrong. Yet, a moon landing and exploration of space from that vantage point has not been attempted since the Apollo missions ended in the 70's.
For the theists, the Biblical record favors a flat motionless earth covered by a dome with (much smaller than earth) sun, moon, and stars circling it. In a synthesis with Greek/Copernican cosmology with Biblical Revelation, Biblical texts are interpreted to be non literal in order to accomodate a heliocentric universe. But a big bang evolving universe is inconsistent with the Genesis creation account which atheists are happy to point out.
An expanding universe is one that is doomed to extinction of all life here on planet earth and anywhere else that life may exist. One wonders how life even began, bio-genesis is a mystery to atheism. Atheists, who think they are being rational, presume non intelligent matter, atom, particles, etc. produced human intelligence by chance and in contradiction to its mindless nature.
All math presumes the existence of things it cannot prove exist. "A mathematical structure is something that you can describe in a way that's completely independent of human baggage," said Max Tegmark of MIT--5 Reasons We May Live in a Multiverse. But how can math exist without a mathematician?
--Dave
I know, right? And how can 12 inches exist without a ruler to measure it? It's impossible. Scientists are sooo stupid! But you? You're much smarter than they are! If only everyone would listen to you instead of to them, we'd really get some brainiac-type things done!
--User Name
1. Agreed.
2. Agreed.
3. Agreed.
4. Considering this used to be "Global Warming", I'm not too concerned. Also, God Himself said this:
“While the earth remains, Seedtime and harvest, Cold and heat, Winter and summer, And day and night Shall not cease.” - Genesis 8:22 http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Genesis8:22&version=NKJV
5. Not anymore it's not.
6. Which is only the case in a finely tuned universe.
7. Duh.
8. Calling a theory a "fact" doesn't make it so.
9. Lawrence Krauss?
Yeah, he made a similar statement, and even blasphemed God in the process. And that's the only logical conclusion one can come to when you make the assertion that "we are stardust."
Oh, here's the video, by the way...
https://youtu.be/rVrr_BbEtJE
(He's going to regret saying that on Judgement Day...)
10. Um, no, "science" is nothing like "magic."
Science: the intellectual and practical activity encompassing the systematic study of the structure and behavior of the physical and natural world through observation and experiment.
Magic: the power of apparently influencing the course of events by using mysterious or supernatural forces.
--------
Yes, stand up for REAL science and facts, not propaganda and posturing.
Scientists aren't magicians, Engineers are! Scientists give us a theory, engineers turn those theories in to things like microchips and computers!
Hey Dave welcome back. I hope the move is going smoothly.
It seems to be taking forever to unpack everything. It's good to be back, thanks.
--Dave
To the person uniformed about the science behind how some thing seemingly amazing and or seemingly miraculous or magical was made possible, science is indeed...like magic.
Behold, a child's "magic" - a child's science...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AYVirkvNYco&app=desktop
Rom. 5:6-8.
Another great photo from the ISS, view from above turkey looking out at Greece with the sun reflecting on the water...
I wonder, can the position of the sun be determined using this image?
https://www.nasa.gov/image-feature/greece-and-the-aegean-and-ionian-seas
I wonder, can the position of the sun be determined using this image?
https://www.nasa.gov/image-feature/greece-and-the-aegean-and-ionian-seas
Very impressive!
View attachment 26461
View attachment 26460
Here are two pictures I would like us to compare. The top one is from the ISS over Greece and the Aegean and Ionian Seas the other one from a High altitude Balloon flight over Mount Olympus, Greece.
The Tale of Two Earths
What similarities do these two picture have?
What differences do they have.
I will give my answers after others have a chance to respond first.
--Dave
Right Divider
Body part
Dave, do you think that it would ever be possible for you to stick to easily provable and unequivocal information instead of the more subtle "pictures from high altitude"?
Please explain how the sun can be circling above a flat earth when the apparent SIZE of the sun is the SAME ALL DAY LONG.
Just stick to that ONE simple and easily proven FACT for a moment.
P.S. And please do not stoop to using over-saturated pictures and videos.
- Status