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

[Caino]

Sad, futile cop-out--and false.

Seriously, the claim that the earth is round is, to your mind, not relevant to the claim that the earth is flat? Who started this thread?

The earth is flat and we never went to the moon--Part II Started by DFT_Dave, March 8th, 2018 06:10 PM

And, what did [MENTION=4980]DFT_Dave[/MENTION] write, in his thread-starting post?



See that? Right there, at the beginning of this thread that DFT_Dave (and neither you, nor Clete) started, DFT_Dave challenges Clete's and your dogma that the earth is round. Right there, he claims that the earth is not round--that it is not "globed". Do you wish to pretend to think that that's not what DFT_Dave was claiming? Do you wish to pretend to think that DFT_Dave was not denying that the earth is round?

When you say "the discussion was on...", to what are you referring, if not this thread? Y'all keep imperiously demanding those who won't take Clete's word for it that the world is not flat to "read the thread"; well, that's rank hypocrisy, inasmuch as you obviously did not even read DFT_Dave's thread-starting post. DFT_Dave was not merely attacking Clete's and your dogma that the earth is, as you say, "NOT FLAT"; no, he was going all the way, and attacking your dogma that the earth is round.

So, yeah, the discussion was, among other things, on whether the earth is round. Yet, where has Professor Clete been?



Here, Clete even appears to be boasting in claiming that he has "never claimed to have proven" the very proposition which DFT_Dave, in the thread-starting post, claimed to be false, viz., Clete's very own, cherished dogma that the earth is round. It's rather funny, when you think about it: on the one hand, Clete is proud of himself for going about saying "I have proven that the earth is not flat", and, on the other hand, Clete is equally proud of himself for going about saying "I have never claimed to have proven that the Earth is round." Clete, here, is proud of himself in being able to confess that he has never once stood up to DFT_Dave's challenge to Clete's round-earth dogma, not one single time.

Ever.

So, no. The question has not gone away at all: WHY has Clete "never claimed to have proven that the Earth is round"? The question has, on the contrary, been aggravated; it is in the light of the fact that the claim that the earth is round has been (from at least the first post of this very thread) challenged that Clete says he has "never claimed to have proven that the Earth is round".

I stop by this forum periodically, I like your post, the wry humor is refreshing. What this looooong thread really reveals is how otherwise sane and relatively intelligent people, could buy into Old Testament history written by the same kind of men who tried to destroy the Son of God. And yes, its clearly a thread about weather or not the planet is flat. LOL!

 

[chair]

QUOTE=Caino;5332399]I stop by this forum periodically, I like your post, the wry humor is refreshing. What this looooong thread really reveals is how otherwise sane and relatively intelligent people, could buy into Old Testament history written by the same kind of men who tried to destroy the Son of God. And yes, its clearly a thread about weather or not the planet is flat. LOL!

No mention of how the "Son of God" happened to be one of 'those' people Himself, nor that He accepted the Old Testament himself...

 

[Caino]

Jesus quoted truths from among the scripture and left the rest to die on the vine. We were to start out new, with a new religion with Jesus. But after he left his Jewish followers put the new wine in the old wineskins in an attempt to justify their conversion and bring there fellows. It only confused subsequent generations of believers and failed to bring their brethren.

Jesus did as much as he could to work with the erroneous expectations of a Jewish Messiah. That has worked well enough and long enough to get a lot of the world looking at Jesus.

 

[chair]

Jesus quoted truths from among the scripture and left the rest to die on the vine. We were to start out new, with a new religion with Jesus. But after he left his Jewish followers put the new wine in the old wineskins in an attempt to justify their conversion and bring there fellows. It only confused subsequent generations of believers and failed to bring their brethren.

Jesus did as much as he could to work with the erroneous expectations of a Jewish Messiah. That has worked well enough and long enough to get a lot of the world looking at Jesus.

whatever.
Let's not derail this thread.

 

[DFT_Dave]

Dave,

You are simply wrong, on two points:
1. Each car is travelling at 60 mph, from the viewpoint of somebody standing on the ground. Each car is travelling at 120 mph, from the viewpoint of a driver in the other car. This really is grade school stuff.
2. The two cars are travelling 120 mph relative to each other- but this is not connected in any way to Einstein or the Theory of Relativity, despite the term "relative" I used above. This is classical mechanics.

If you love God, study the Nature He created a little more seriously.

I wasn't claiming that this equation, V=V1+V2, was originally from Einstein. I was using Sam Gralla's comments from the video I posted. If you had watched just the few minutes of the video that I suggested you would have seen how Sam linked this equation to Einstein in his lecture.

Einstein is responsible for the irrational spacetime concept, although Sam said in the video Einstein had some help with that from a friend of his.

This equation is merely one example of how "thought experiment" has created an imagined world that contradicts reality as we see and experience it.

As to your other point, the view point of the driver in each car is that they are both going 60 mph. No person driving a car, in his or her right mind thinks, or imagines, that they are going 120 mph in relationship to cars going in the opposite direction.

When cars moving a 60 mph are, for a brief moment, directly across from each other they are both at point A moving toward their own point B--one hour away. Point A to point B for each car is 60 miles. That these cars are 120 mile apart does not mean they were moving at 120 mph.

Can you imagine a police car, going in the opposite direction of you, turning around, chasing you down, and the officer coming up to your window and telling you that from his perspective, according to physics, you're going to get a ticket for going 120 mph.

--Dave

 

[chair]

I wasn't claiming that this equation, V=V1+V2, was originally from Einstein. I was using Sam Gralla's comments from the video I posted. If you had watched just the few minutes of the video that I suggested you would have seen how Sam linked this equation to Einstein in his lecture.

Einstein is responsible for the irrational spacetime concept, although Sam said in the video Einstein had some help with that from a friend of his.

This equation is merely one example of how "thought experiment" has created an imagined world that contradicts reality as we see and experience it.

As to your other point, the view point of the driver in each car is that they are both going 60 mph. No person driving a car, in his or her right mind thinks, or imagines, that they are going 120 mph in relationship to cars going in the opposite direction.

When cars moving a 60 mph are, for a brief moment, directly across from each other they are both at point A moving toward their own point B--one hour away. Point A to point B for each car is 60 miles. That these cars are 120 mile apart does not mean they were moving at 120 mph.

Can you imagine a police car, going in the opposite direction of you, turning around, chasing you down, and the officer coming up to your window and telling you that from his perspective, according to physics, you're going to get a ticket for going 120 mph.

--Dave

When people speak of the velocity of cars on earth, they are usually speaking from the viewpoint of someone who is stationary to the earth, unless otherwise specified.

Dave, I am not going to waste even another minute on your endless videos.

You do not understand the simplest things in physics, yet think you are smarter than all the physicists in the world. There is no convincing someone like you, because you are not open to logical discussion.

 

[DFT_Dave]

When people speak of the velocity of cars on earth, they are usually speaking from the viewpoint of someone who is stationary to the earth, unless otherwise specified.

Dave, I am not going to waste even another minute on your endless videos.

You do not understand the simplest things in physics, yet think you are smarter than all the physicists in the world. There is no convincing someone like you, because you are not open to logical discussion.

I have simply argued that the 120 mph speed is an imaged speed and not the actual speed of cards moving at 60 mph in opposite directions. Imagined things work well in art not so much in physics in my humble opinion.

--Dave

 

[Right Divider]

There's only one velocity for each car and only one way to determine it. Even in grade school you know that much.

Have you really lost your mind Dave?

Velocity is determined between TWO POINTS. Those TWO POINTS do not have to be the POINTS that Dave chooses.

Which ever car your in, it's going 60 mph, not 120 mph. The car your're not in is not going 120 mph in the opposite direction.

Dave, poor Dave.... the cars are going 60 MPH RELATIVE to SOMETHING. The 60 MPH in THIS example is with REFERENCE to the EARTH. From the POINT OF VIEW of EITHER CAR.... the OTHER car is moving away at 120 MPH FROM EACH OTHER.

This 120 mph breaks the first logical rule of identity, a thing is what it is and not something else. In physics the equation V=V1+V2 is not logical/rational.

You really are insane or at least completely stupid with regards to physics.

The speed/velocity of a car "is" distance traveled over time, not distance over time plus distance over time of another car going in the opposite direction.

It depends on the POINT OF REFERENCE!!! Distance between WHAT TWO POINTS?

Physicists abandoned logic with Einstein in order to preserve the heliocentric model.

--Dave

Fallacious use of a non-sequitur.

 

[Right Divider]

Can you imagine a police car, going in the opposite direction of you, turning around, chasing you down, and the officer coming up to your window and telling you that from his perspective, according to physics, you're going to get a ticket for going 120 mph.

--Dave

Perhaps you're not bright enough to know this, but police radar units actually subtract the speed of the police vehicle from the relative speed between the police vehicle the oncoming vehicle to determine the oncoming vehicle's speed relative to the EARTH.

Speed is based on distance and time with distance being determined between ANY TWO CHOSEN POINTS.

 

[DFT_Dave]

Perhaps you're not bright enough to know this, but police radar units actually subtract the speed of the police vehicle from the relative speed between the police vehicle the oncoming vehicle to determine the oncoming vehicle's speed relative to the EARTH.

Speed is based on distance and time with distance being determined between ANY TWO CHOSEN POINTS.

Points A and B example

When cars moving a 60 mph are, for a brief moment, directly across from each other they are both at point A moving toward their own point B--one hour away. Point A to point B for each car is 60 miles. That these cars are 120 mile apart when they each reach their own point B does not mean they were moving at 120 mph.

Did you miss this? Are you going to say I'm wrong?

--Dave

 

[chair]

Points A and B example

When cars moving a 60 mph are, for a brief moment, directly across from each other they are both at point A moving toward their own point B--one hour away. Point A to point B for each car is 60 miles. That these cars are 120 mile apart when they each reach their own point B does not mean they were moving at 120 mph.

Did you miss this? Are you going to say I'm wrong?

--Dave

Take two cars, 120 mile apart. they drive towards each other, each one travelling at 60 mph relative to the earth. How long will it take before the two cars meet?

 

[chair]

Points A and B example

When cars moving a 60 mph are, for a brief moment, directly across from each other they are both at point A moving toward their own point B--one hour away. Point A to point B for each car is 60 miles. That these cars are 120 mile apart when they each reach their own point B does not mean they were moving at 120 mph.

Did you miss this? Are you going to say I'm wrong?

--Dave

Relative to each other they traveled at 120 mph.

 

[Right Divider]

Points A and B example

When cars moving a 60 mph are, for a brief moment, directly across from each other they are both at point A moving toward their own point B--one hour away. Point A to point B for each car is 60 miles. That these cars are 120 mile apart when they each reach their own point B does not mean they were moving at 120 mph.

Did you miss this? Are you going to say I'm wrong?

--Dave

I've missed nothing... but you seem to understand nothing.

When we say that the cars are going 60 MPH... what is this RELATIVE TO? It's the EARTH. Got that so far?

Have you never passed a parked car vs passing car going the other way on a two lane highway?

The cars RELATIVE to EACH OTHER (when going to exactly the opposite direction) are moving TWICE as fast as they are RELATIVE to the EARTH.

If the were both moving side-by-side in the same direction at 60 MPH RELATIVE to the EARTH. The would appear TO EACH OTHER to be sitting still.

Get real Dave, you cannot possibly be this dumb.

 

[DFT_Dave]

Take two cars, 120 mile apart. they drive towards each other, each one travelling at 60 mph relative to the earth. How long will it take before the two cars meet?

Two cars 120 miles apart, traveling at 60 mph, well meet in one hour.

Just as two cars starting in the place but traveling in opposite directions will be 120 miles apart in one hour.

And you're saying this is wrong?

--Dave

 

[7djengo7]

Very true but my point wasn't that so much as to simply point out the Jengo is talking out of his...

Well, I'm not allowed to say where but you get the gist.

Of course you're allowed to say whatever you want to say on a "Christian" website:

I no longer give a damn what you think or believe or why.

I'm sure your mentor, Mark Driscoll, will approve.

 

[JudgeRightly]

Two cars 120 miles apart, traveling at 60 mph, well meet in one hour.

Just as two cars starting in the place but traveling in opposite directions will be 120 miles apart in one hour.

And you're saying this is wrong?

--Dave

Nice bait and switch attempt, Dave.

If they both travel in the opposite direction from the other, at 60 miles per hour, after one hour, they will be 120 miles away from each other, yet only 60 miles from their starting point.

You, Dave, are the one saying that that doesn't make sense, when it clearly makes perfect sense.

 

[chair]

Two cars 120 miles apart, traveling at 60 mph, well meet in one hour.

Just as two cars starting in the place but traveling in opposite directions will be 120 miles apart in one hour.

And you're saying this is wrong?

--Dave

I am saying it is correct! The two cars, in one hour, travel 120 miles relative to each other. This means that they are travelling 120 miles per hour relative to each other, though each one is only travelling at 60 mph relative to the road.

 

[PneumaPsucheSoma]

Of course you're allowed to say whatever you want to say on a "Christian" website:

I'm sure your mentor, Mark Driscoll, will approve.

Wait... Is this just a barb or is Clete a Driscollite?

 

[DFT_Dave]

I've missed nothing... but you seem to understand nothing.

When we say that the cars are going 60 MPH... what is this RELATIVE TO? It's the EARTH. Got that so far?

Have you never passed a parked car vs passing car going the other way on a two lane highway?

The cars RELATIVE to EACH OTHER (when going to exactly the opposite direction) are moving TWICE as fast as they are RELATIVE to the EARTH.

If the were both moving side-by-side in the same direction at 60 MPH RELATIVE to the EARTH. The would appear TO EACH OTHER to be sitting still.

Get real Dave, you cannot possibly be this dumb.

In theory both cars do indeed "seem" to be standing still, but in "reality" both cars are traveling at 60 miles an hour.

Try to get out of a car traveling at 60 mph just because you think you're not moving because there's a car right next to you traveling at the same speed.

We can calculate speeds on earth, and above the earth, because the earth, in reality, is not moving.

But the heliocentric model of the earth says the earth is spinning at the surface at the speed of sound in contradiction to our reality.

What do I do? Do I go with the reality I experience or the theory of relativity?

I understand both perspectives, and that they contradict each other. The earth in reality is either spinning or it's not, it can't be both spinning and not spinning.

I better go with theory because I sure don't want to be dumb.

--Dave

 

[DFT_Dave]

I am saying it is correct! The two cars, in one hour, travel 120 miles relative to each other. This means that they are travelling 120 miles per hour relative to each other, though each one is only travelling at 60 mph relative to the road.

You can't determine speed unless you have something that not moving to measure it against what is moving.

Am I wrong about this?

--Dave