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

[Clete]

The thread is a joke, designed to suck people in. I wouldn't take it personally!

Stuart

I wish that were true. I really do. I would love nothing more than to find out that someone Dave doesn't even know has commandeered his account and has been leading us all down a primrose path.

Unfortunately, I seriously doubt that this is the case. I think Dave really has bought this nonsense and that he really has taken leave of his senses.

Clete

 

[DFT_Dave]

Kepler had that one solved for you by 1619.

Stuart

Laws of planetary motion don't prove the earth is a spinning, orbiting, sphere. These equations assume the model is true. You can't start with a model then create equations to explain it then declare you have proved it.

This is clearly classical circular reasoning. The equations are like arguments that are true only if the premise/model is true.

--Dave

 

[Stuu]

I wish that were true. I really do. I would love nothing more than to find out that someone Dave doesn't even know has commandeered his account and has been leading us all down a primrose path.

Unfortunately, I seriously doubt that this is the case. I think Dave really has bought this nonsense and that he really has taken leave of his senses.

Clete

I have to trust your judgment of his character. So the only charitable action is to treat him as a victim of a meme. The human brain is vulnerable, and memes like the flat earth fantasy are good at finding ways to exploit the vulnerabilities.

I view christians as victims of the christian meme. I can see how intoxicating it could be.

Stuart

 

[Stuu]

Laws of planetary motion don't prove the earth is a spinning, orbiting, sphere.

No, but the earth's orbit is elliptical, and Kepler's equations model that, and make predictions about other orbits that turn out to be right. A circle is just one way of orbiting elliptically.

Did you require evidence that the earth orbits in an ellipse? Try comparing the number of days between the autumnal equinox and the spring equinox with the number of days between the spring equinox and the autumnal equinox.

Stuart

 

[DFT_Dave]

Well indeed. It does help to know which Greek philosophers you are talking about. You are talking about the Greek theologians, as it turns out!

Biblical theism and the paradoxes are all nonsense, which is what unites them.

But you haven't challenged helocentrism. Where did you do that?

Stuart

This thread and flat earth is clearly a challenge to heliocentrism or why else are you here opposing flat earth? What you really mean is flat earth fails in its challenge. I think it is successful in some ways but not completely in my mind as yet.

As an atheist you will have trouble with thesis vs antithesis, which is the basis of rational thought, and debates based on that understanding. Atheists are dialectic in their thinking process which opposes the classical laws of rational thought. But I'm sure you already know this.

Plato and Aristotle are not called "theologians", theologians believe in revelation, God enters the world and reveals himself. Philosophers believe God cannot reveal himself because he is the antitheses of the world. God is the perfect changeless, immovable, and timeless cause of change, movement, and time in the imperfect world he cannot enter. The theology of Augustine actually contradicts Biblical Revelation and then proceeds to explain how those contradictions can be reconciled in a synthesis that sacrifices human rationality on the altar of the finite mind.

--Dave

 

[DFT_Dave]

No, but the earth's orbit is elliptical, and Kepler's equations model that, and make predictions about other orbits that turn out to be right. A circle is just one way of orbiting elliptically.

Did you require evidence that the earth orbits in an ellipse? Try comparing the number of days between the autumnal equinox and the spring equinox with the number of days between the spring equinox and the autumnal equinox.

Stuart

The question is not does the earth orbit in an ellipse the question is how can gravity be consistently weaker and stronger, that means consistently inconsistent, which is a contradiction of terms. Saying gravity is constant within a variable is saying its not constant, it's just absurd.

How does a spinning globe tilt on an axis and stay on a path at the wrong angle? That's just as irrational as a constant variable.

--Dave

 

[DFT_Dave]

I have to trust your judgment of his character. So the only charitable action is to treat him as a victim of a meme. The human brain is vulnerable, and memes like the flat earth fantasy are good at finding ways to exploit the vulnerabilities.

I view christians as victims of the christian meme. I can see how intoxicating it could be.

Stuart

The atheist under the illusion he is not under just another kind of meme, you've rendered a self defeating argument. Do you get it?

--Dave

 

[CabinetMaker]

So that would be a constant variance, a contradiction of terms.

Varying by a constant amount isn't a cotridiction in terms. IF you understand the terms.

And the galaxy traveling through space has no effect on gravity whatsoever?

--Dave

None. Why would it? Gravity is a function of mass, not velocity.

 

[1Mind1Spirit]

None. Why would it? Gravity is a function of mass, not velocity.

 

[CabinetMaker]

Well, since the Earth has repeatedly been shown to be a globe, your assertions about flat Earth gravity mean nothing.

 

[DFT_Dave]

Varying by a constant amount isn't a cotridiction in terms. IF you understand the terms.

None. Why would it? Gravity is a function of mass, not velocity.

Variance is the opposite of being constant. You can't have variance if you are constant, and you can't be constant if you have variance.

If the speed of a planet around the sun lessens the pull toward the sun becomes greater. If the speed of the planet becomes greater the pull of the sun becomes less effective unless the pull becomes stronger to match the increase in velocity.

So you never heard of that our moving universe is expanding.

--Dave

 

[Stuu]

The atheist under the illusion he is not under just another kind of meme, you've rendered a self defeating argument. Do you get it?

As they say, calling atheism a religion is a bit like calling 'not collecting stamps' a hobby.

Stuart

 

[CabinetMaker]

Variance is the opposite of being constant. You can't have variance if you are constant, and you can't be constant if you have variance.

It is possible for a constant in a mathematical solution to vary within a range and the solution is still valid. In this case, the gravitational attraction can vary by 3% and the system remains stable. The absolute gravity of the two bodies, the Earth and the Sun, does not change.

]If the speed of a planet around the sun lessens the pull toward the sun becomes greater. If the speed of the planet becomes greater the pull of the sun becomes less effective unless the pull becomes stronger to match the increase in velocity.

True. But you're neglecting magnitudes. In this case, a 3% variance does not effect the overall stability of the system.

So you never heard of that our moving universe is expanding.

--Dave

Yes, I have heard that. So what?

 

[Stuu]

The question is not does the earth orbit in an ellipse the question is how can gravity be consistently weaker and stronger, that means consistently inconsistent, which is a contradiction of terms. Saying gravity is constant within a variable is saying its not constant, it's just absurd.

The gravitational force between the earth and the sun is not constant. Can you explain what problem that actually presents?

How does a spinning globe tilt on an axis and stay on a path at the wrong angle? That's just as irrational as a constant variable.

Because, 4.51 billion years ago, an object about the size of Mars called Theia collided with the proto-earth, throwing up the material that would accete into the moon, and knocking the earth off its originally perpendicular axis. The angle explains the seasons on earth.

How does the flat earth fantasy explain seasons?

Stuart

 

[Stuu]

This thread and flat earth is clearly a challenge to heliocentrism or why else are you here opposing flat earth? What you really mean is flat earth fails in its challenge. I think it is successful in some ways but not completely in my mind as yet.

I don't see why you can't claim the flat earth fantasy and make it a heliocentric flat earth fantasy. There aren't that many geographical and astronomical observations made on earth that you haven't ignored or contradicted without evidence, so why not have the sun at the centre?

As an atheist you will have trouble with thesis vs antithesis, which is the basis of rational thought, and debates based on that understanding. Atheists are dialectic in their thinking process which opposes the classical laws of rational thought. But I'm sure you already know this.

I have no trouble with the idea of applying a method of argument or debate that suits the subject matter at hand. But thesis vs antithesis does not fit an argument between a pseudoscientific claim like a flat earth and real science. There is no synthesis to be had, because the former is wrong, and the latter is right, or at least you can establish overwhelming probabilities for one over the other.

Plato and Aristotle are not called "theologians", theologians believe in revelation, God enters the world and reveals himself. Philosophers believe God cannot reveal himself because he is the antitheses of the world. God is the perfect changeless, immovable, and timeless cause of change, movement, and time in the imperfect world he cannot enter. The theology of Augustine actually contradicts Biblical Revelation and then proceeds to explain how those contradictions can be reconciled in a synthesis that sacrifices human rationality on the altar of the finite mind.

Beautifully put, for subject material that is dull as ditch water.

Stuart

 

[Stuu]

Here's a nice video:

Stuart

 

[Stuu]

Here's a nice video:

Stuart

 

[Stuu]

Here's an interesting video:

Which leads me to wonder, where are the protests at all the money being wasted by the US government in its efforts to maintain the conspiracy? How is that hidden in the annual federal budgets? It must cost millions of your tax money annually, your god-given money that you, as a Republican shouldn't have spent on lies that deny the reality of Genesis. Surely.

Why aren't you marching?

Stuart

 

[Greg Jennings]

Variance is the opposite of being constant. You can't have variance if you are constant, and you can't be constant if you have variance.

If the speed of a planet around the sun lessens the pull toward the sun becomes greater. If the speed of the planet becomes greater the pull of the sun becomes less effective unless the pull becomes stronger to match the increase in velocity.

So you never heard of that our moving universe is expanding.

--Dave

I'm not sure that's totally accurate Dave. For example, there's a Chinese space station crashing to Earth tonight. It's orbiting faster than it ever has in the past, yet it's about to finally re-enter Earth's atmosphere. From that, it would appear that orbiting objects actually speed up when closer to their host

 

[patrick jane]

[h=1]Flat Earth - Unraveling the Masonic Globe Deception[/h]
Must Watch -

The Freemasons have deceived us about both the shape and size of the earth. By using nautical miles, we can begin to calculate the actual size of the earth as well as the speed of the sun.