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

Status
Not open for further replies.

Stripe

Teenage Adaptive Ninja Turtle
LIFETIME MEMBER
Hall of Fame
Actual experiments have been ignored that proved the earth does not move in favor of Einstein's "thought experiments", that are called relativism, and you think I've lost my mind.
Are you just going to say stuff? :idunno:

Flat earth is based on observations that we are seeing things we should not be seeing if the earth is a globe.

No. Try again. The question is: Why is the Earth flat?

Physics.

If I ask you why an automobile can move, you won't answer: "Because I can see it moving." You'll talk about engineering and chemistry.

Why is the Earth flat?

I can tell you why the Earth is round.

If you want to engage rationally, lay out your case. Start with the fundamentals.

Why is the Earth flat?

Sent from my SM-A520F using Tapatalk
 

DFT_Dave

LIFETIME MEMBER
LIFETIME MEMBER
Are you just going to say stuff? :idunno:



No. Try again. The question is: Why is the Earth flat?

Physics.

If I ask you why an automobile can move, you won't answer: "Because I can see it moving." You'll talk about engineering and chemistry.

Why is the Earth flat?

I can tell you why the Earth is round.

If you want to engage rationally, lay out your case. Start with the fundamentals.

Why is the Earth flat?

Sent from my SM-A520F using Tapatalk

Why is a flat earth flat?

why is a globe earth a globe?

The former is created by God the latter evolved by chance.

--Dave
 

Stripe

Teenage Adaptive Ninja Turtle
LIFETIME MEMBER
Hall of Fame
Why is a flat earth flat?

why is a globe earth a globe?

The former is created by God the latter evolved by chance.

--Dave

I see. So you don't have any understanding of physics.

Your answers:

Why is the Earth flat? God did it. Something you just made up.

Why is the Earth round? Evolution. :chuckle: Nope. Physics. You know? Real science. :thumb:

This isn't a science discussion, it's just you trolling people.

Sent from my SM-A520F using Tapatalk
 

Ask Mr. Religion

☞☞☞☞Presbyterian (PCA) &#9
Gold Subscriber
LIFETIME MEMBER
Hall of Fame
Why is a flat earth flat?

why is a globe earth a globe?

The former is created by God the latter evolved by chance.

--Dave
I thought I had read wherein you were just seeking to test out the two views. It appears now you are dogmatic that anyone who disagrees with the FE view is out of accord with Scripture. Have I misread you?

AMR
 

Stripe

Teenage Adaptive Ninja Turtle
LIFETIME MEMBER
Hall of Fame
I thought I had read wherein you were just seeking to test out the two views. It appears now you are dogmatic that anyone who disagrees with the FE view is out of accord with Scripture. Have I misread you?

AMR
If this was a discussion of a scientific nature, he would give us the physics behind a flat Earth. If it is a theological debate, he is making things up.

Either way, it's like debating a Darwinist.

Sent from my SM-A520F using Tapatalk
 

DFT_Dave

LIFETIME MEMBER
LIFETIME MEMBER
I see. So you don't have any understanding of physics.

Your answers:

Why is the Earth flat? God did it. Something you just made up.

Why is the Earth round? Evolution. :chuckle: Nope. Physics. You know? Real science. :thumb:

This isn't a science discussion, it's just you trolling people.

Sent from my SM-A520F using Tapatalk

Water is level.

Things fly of a spinning ball.

We see things that we're not supposed to see at a distance because of the curvature of the earth.

Sun, moon, and stars move over the sky just as the clouds, birds, and planes do.

Gravity is not a physical thing and therefore not an aspect of physics. Gravity is an invisible force, the god of science that gives the universe order and keeps it from chaos and negates that water is level/oceans included, and that everything would fly off a spinning globe.

Globe earth creates a physics of contradiction.

--Dave
 

DFT_Dave

LIFETIME MEMBER
LIFETIME MEMBER
I thought I had read wherein you were just seeking to test out the two views. It appears now you are dogmatic that anyone who disagrees with the FE view is out of accord with Scripture. Have I misread you?

AMR

I said that FE has good arguments as does GE. The scriptures favor FE but that does not mean GE cannot be interpreted from it.

I fight the FE is insanity more than I want to, but it's become for some the main point for them.

Flat earth is possible for me or I would not argue on it's behalf. That FE is a reality needs to be proven, but so does every other cosmology.

I'm still not fully persuaded by either view at this time.

But thanks for asking without calling me a nut, even though you may think I am.

--Dave
 

Clete

Truth Smacker
Silver Subscriber
A pendulum is not proof the earth spins at the speed of 1,000 miles per hour while at the same time is orbiting the sun at 67,000 miles per hour.

--Dave

Actually, it is precisely that!

That is, it is proof that the Earth is spinning on it's axis. It's called the preservation of angular momentum.

LOOK IT UP, DAVID!!!!

You're willing to spend dozens of hours wasting your time on mindless YouTube videos about a flat Earth, why not spend some time reading (or watching videos) about something real?
 

Clete

Truth Smacker
Silver Subscriber
I pointed out on the video where he showed his equipment that he used to take his pictures. My summary is not the point nor is my post that the type of equipment he used is real.

The person making the video not only explains his equipment he also clearly points out his location and elevation above sea level. He points out LA city scape and the mountains 120 miles from his location that should not be visible.

If I misidentified in some way the exact name of the equipment so what. I was close enough. He certainly was not using a conventional camera in order to cut through the haze of the low atmosphere in order to capture the mountains in the distance.

The point of the post is to see what's out there as proof of flat earth presented by others, not presented by me. Do I believe the video is accurate and that the one who made it is telling the truth is some thing that I want debated, not just believed. But for you any photo or video made in defense of flat earth is made by lunatics. That does not make for a good argument against FE. If you think his video is a lie, then prove it.

"I have over $2000 dollars worth of telescopes and astrophotography equipment." Just saying your equipment is bigger than his equipment does not mean his pictures are not legitimate.

--Dave

The point isn't the misidentification, per se. The misidentification is the evidence that YOU don't know enough to even express an opinion about whether that video is real.

And, my equipment being "bigger" than his is also not at all the point! The point is that I have spent my own money on the same sort of equipment that this dingbat claims to be using to see mountains across a flat Earth and so I know for a fact that HE IS LYING and that you do not know up from down about this stuff.

It's such an obvious fake it is literally laughable! FLIR (Forward Looking InfraRed) cameras are very common. I'm a home inspector and so I use one every single day of my life. They used to be really expensive but now you can pick one up for only a couple hundred bucks. You can rent one for something like twenty dollars a day. They are cheap and easy to obtain for anyone who wants one. So, what does that tell you about this YouTube dork who's acting as if he's the first one in the whole state of California to ever take an infrared camera outside?

Further, the liar making the video claims to have used the building in the foreground for scale. You have no excuse for having missed that glaring piece of obvious deception because we've been discussing angular size for MONTHS! You should have detected immediately that there was no need for the use of any buildings to scale the image with. The only reason such a building would have been useful is if there was something near the building and even then it wouldn't have had much, if anything, to do with angular size. To get the altitude of that supposed mountain, all you need to know is the distance to the peak and the angle above the horizon, which the liar making the video does not tell us (surprise, surprise)!

HOWEVER!!! As you so astutely pointed out, the idiot videographer does tell us where he supposedly is and which mountains he's supposedly seeing in his supposed IR camera set up and so we can do some math ourselves, which, if you were being even 1% as intellectually honest as you claim, you'd have done before even bothering to waste all of our time with this stupidity.

Distance from camera to Mt. San Jacinto: 117.25 miles
Elevation above sea level of Mt. San Jacinto's peak: 2.05189394 miles
The camera would have been approximately 140 ft above sea level (close enough to zero).

That means that ON A FLAT EARTH, using this moron's own data, Mt. San Jacinto, assuming you could see the entire mountain from base to peak, would have an angular size of....



wait for it....






1° of angular size is about the width of your index finger at arm's length. Obviously far less than the looming size of that mountain in this video for idiots. The 14,000 foot mountains in Colorado aren't that high into the sky from as near by as Denver, for crying out loud!




Where's that drop the mic smilie when you need it?!

Clete
 
Last edited:

Clete

Truth Smacker
Silver Subscriber
New photos of mountains from over 100 miles away that should not be visible.

Images were shot with a celestron spotting scope and micron astronomy camera using a infrared filter.

If you go to to 10:00 mark on this video you can see the result without having to see the whole video.


Refute this if you can.

--Dave

Here's a real view of Mt. San Jacinto from only about 30 or so miles away, which is much much much closer than the videographer/liar/conman claims to be...

View attachment 26610
 

CabinetMaker

Member of the 10 year club on TOL!!
Hall of Fame
Airy's failure, Michelson Morley null result, and Sagnac's experiments all failed to show that the earth was moving through space. That space was a medium for the transmission of light, called ether, was not abandoned by these experiments which were supposed to show how we could measure it. Light travels but the earth does not was the result of these tests. Abandoning the term "ether" was clearly a scapegoat for the unacceptable results of the experiments.
Do you have any idea how many unsupported assumptions are in this paragraph. Light can travel through a vacuum. The speed of light is actually defined for a vacuum. When light travels through other media, like air or water or glass, its velocity changes. The experiment was done in air, not in a vacuum. The Earth travels and a very small experiment was done on a VERY large ball. It seems to me that the sensitivity of the experiment was insufficient to detect the movement.


Einstein merely pushes that light travel's and the earth does not off the table and say's it's all relative to the viewer. Everything moves around every immovable viewer. See how everyone is God in this proposition. Einstein's space-time block universe is a cosmology for pantheists.
The problem for you is that Einstein's theories have been proven to be correct. Much science has been done regarding his theories and they are right. Here are some articles for you to review at your leisure.

I will show what we see and cannot see at the horizon from the flat earth perspective as we go. I have already shown that the landscape rises above the horizon line on a flat earth and will block our view of the sun before it reaches the vanishing point making the bottom disappear first.
This should be interesting.

1_1_1_10.jpg

Lets use these dimensions for the flat Earth and we'll use a 3,000 mile elevation for the sun above the Earth and we'll use Mt Everest peak elevation of 29,029 feet or 5.5 miles above sea level. Making some assumptions base on the Earth map above, it appears that the furthest an observer can be from Mt Everest is 12,500 miles (it's a guess but it will work for now.) The sun, following the equatorial path, is maybe another 3,500 miles past Mt. Everest. So, if we do a little sketch, that is not to scale at all, we get the following:

View attachment 26609

The observer looking at the peak of Mt. Everest, which is visible on a flat earth, can still see the sun! The sun would still be high in the sky and no where near setting when it is exactly opposite the observer. The next question then becomes, how far away would the sun have to be for it to be obscured by Mt. Everest. Since we are working with a flat Earth, good all Pythagoras is all we need to figure this out. Using the Pythagorean theorem, we calculate that the sun would have to 6,805,682 MILES beyond Mt. Everest to hidden by the mountain. Most mountains are nowhere near the height of Everest. Our tallest peaks here in Colorado are a little less the half that height so the sun would have to be even farther away to be hidden by our mountains.

Lets see you drawings and calculations to see if I'm wrong. I freely admit that I made many assumptions in distances in these calculations because I do not have a scaled flat Earth map to work from. If the observer is much closer to the mountain then things change quite a bit. Here is a little table and the equations I used based on the sketch above.

View attachment 26611

Okay, your turn to show us how the mountains hide the sun. You might also want to show us how the mountains hiding the sun explains why the sun sets into the ocean from the bottom up. You must be able to explain both observations.
 

Clete

Truth Smacker
Silver Subscriber
Why is a flat earth flat?

why is a globe earth a globe?

The former is created by God the latter evolved by chance.

--Dave

The knowledge of a round Earth is far older than any form of evolution you care to discuss. In other words, the idea that the Earth is round did not come from an evolutionary presupposition or mindset. It came from the fact that every person who ever saw a ship go to sea, saw it leave the view from the bottom up as it went over the horizon. As well as other, more educated individuals observed various shadow lengths at noon on the same day from different locations and had an understanding of triangles sufficient to allow them to not only know that the Earth was round but to calculate the Earth's circumference. Eratosthenes lived something like 2200 years ago and the Greeks had figured out that the Earth wasn't flat long before that. Evolutionary Cosmology isn't even 200 years old yet.

And don't bother looking to find some obscure reference to some Greek philosopher who said this or that which can be construed as a rudimentary form of evolutionary theory. I've seem them, I've heard it all. It amounts to nothing. Eratosthenes certainly didn't believe it, if he had even heard of it. We know this because we have his books where he describes in detail how he calculated the circumference of the Earth and there is no mention of nor even the most obscure reference to any sort of cosmological evolutionary thinking. It's basically just a bunch of math and some careful observations.

Clete
 

Stripe

Teenage Adaptive Ninja Turtle
LIFETIME MEMBER
Hall of Fame
Water is level.

Things fly of a spinning ball.

We see things that we're not supposed to see at a distance because of the curvature of the earth.

Sun, moon, and stars move over the sky just as the clouds, birds, and planes do.

Gravity is not a physical thing and therefore not an aspect of physics. Gravity is an invisible force, the god of science that gives the universe order and keeps it from chaos and negates that water is level/oceans included, and that everything would fly off a spinning globe.

Globe earth creates a physics of contradiction.

--Dave

:kook:

If you're not prepared to stick to reality, there's no point engaging.

Sent from my SM-A520F using Tapatalk
 

Stripe

Teenage Adaptive Ninja Turtle
LIFETIME MEMBER
Hall of Fame
The scriptures favor FE.
Nope.

I'm still not fully persuaded by either view at this time.
That's because you reject physics, thinking it is magic, and make up scripture.

But thanks for asking without calling me a nut, even though you may think I am.

You're not a nut.













You're a fruit loop.

Sent from my SM-A520F using Tapatalk
 

Nathon Detroit

LIFETIME MEMBER
LIFETIME MEMBER
View attachment 26608

This is the look of guilt not triumph. These men are displaying shame, body language does not lie.

They could not even get their story straight about seeing stars or not.

--Dave
That's your proof?

Dave... I get that you are having fun looking into this theory but honestly.... this is just plain sad. You would have been much better off just saying... "I have no proof but that's what I believe".
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top