The earth is flat and we never went to the moon

[CabinetMaker]

I'm kind of looking forward to the "counselor's" final "summation" of his "trial." Should be very "interesting" reading.

 

[Nathon Detroit]

The illustration is not to scale, it gives us the concept, that's all. It's a fallacy argument to make your case based on a illustration and not the actual way we see this, which is what the time laps videos do.

You have to judge the time laps video to make your argument. Your point may still be correct but the evidence from an illustration, not to scale, does not help your case.

--Dave

Dave the animation I posted is taken from Flat Earth proponents. It's based on the time lapse video you provided.

 

[Nathon Detroit]

Dave do you honestly believe that we wouldn't be able to see the sun's light in the middle of the night even though according to you it's only slightly farther away than it is at sunset?

Note the pink line in the attachment. It is the exact same length in both figures.

 

[Nathon Detroit]

The government won't let any one go there.

--Dave

Really?

 

[The Berean]

2001 Space Odyssey 1968

When you see the film 2001 Space Odyssey made in 1968 it's very clear that the technology in film making was more than adequate to fake the moon landing.

--Dave

Ummm...no. Real outer space doesn't look anything like what we see in sci-fi films. 2001: A Space Odyssey looks really fake, an obvious film. What we saw in 1969 with Apollo 11 was VIDEO, not film. As the video I posted previously shows high speed video did not yet exist in 1969. To replicate video quality scenes onto film was not possible in 1969.

Sent from my SM-G920V using TheologyOnline mobile app

 

[chair]

Really?

This goes along with other obvious true facts, like "the sun gets smaller when it "sets" "

 

[Nathon Detroit]

....like "the sun gets smaller when it "sets" "

I'm not sure I understand your point there.

One of the biggest problems with the Flat Earth theory is that in reality the sun DOESN'T get smaller when it sets. According to the flat earth theory the sun never "sets". Instead it gets too far away and therefore we can't see it. However in reality the sun appears the same size at sunset and slowly drops down behind the horizon.

 

[chair]

I'm not sure I understand your point there.

One of the biggest problems with the Flat Earth theory is that in reality the sun DOESN'T get smaller when it sets. According to the flat earth theory the sun never "sets". Instead it gets too far away and therefore we can't see it. However in reality the sun appears the same size at sunset and slowly drops down behind the horizon.

I was commenting on Dave's claims. He says that the government prevents people from visiting the South Pole. But it is not true. Claims that the sun gets smaller when it sets- but it doesn't. And so on.

He manages to do this while maintaining a veneer of being even handed, and he will judge (for us) what is true, after considering all the facts- except ones that clearly and obviously show that the Earth is a globe.

 

[DFT_Dave]

TIME LAPSE OF THE SUN PROVES FLAT EARTH

The actual time laps video is what is the evidence for flat earth, not the illustration that is also there just to get the idea of how it work over the whole earth.

--Dave

 

[Nathon Detroit]

TIME LAPSE OF THE SUN PROVES FLAT EARTH

The actual time laps video is what is the evidence for flat earth, not the illustration that is also there just to get the idea of how it work over the whole earth.

--Dave

Dave you are kidding right??

The time lapse videos show the opposite of what these morons are saying. The sun is going behind the horizon! It's not fading so far away that we can't see it. If it were, we wouldn't be able to see half of the sun as it sets behind the horizon.

What?? Is only half of the sun so far away we can't see it but the other half of it is close enough that we can see it???

Dave, these videos are terrible for you cause. The people that make these videos are either so incredibly stupid or they are laughing their butts off that people like you actually believe the garbage they are claiming.

 

[DFT_Dave]

THE SUN SET'S JUST FINE ON A FLAT EARTH

This evidence provide by flat earth may not be acceptable and please continue to critique it. I am in no position to say who is right and who is wrong. Remember you are not arguing with me personally, you are arguing with a flat earth view. Argue to the point not the man.

--Dave

 

[JudgeRightly]

https://www.reddit.com/r/space/comments/5zkdxa/highspeed_closeup_of_the_shuttle_engines/

Sent from my Pixel XL using TheologyOnline mobile app

 

[DFT_Dave]

Dave you are kidding right??

The time lapse videos show the opposite of what these morons are saying. The sun is going behind the horizon! It's not fading so far away that we can't see it. If it were, we wouldn't be able to see half of the sun as it sets behind the horizon.

What?? Is only half of the sun so far away we can't see it but the other half of it is close enough that we can see it???

Dave, these videos are terrible for you cause. The people that make these videos are either so incredibly stupid or they are laughing their butts off that people like you actually believe the garbage they are claiming.

If that's your argument against this video then fine. I think continuing calling those who don't agree with you "incredibly stupid" or "incredibly gullible", is evidence of biased anger. Remember the other side can say the same thing about you, in the end all arguments to the man are pointless and prove nothing.

--Dave

 

[DFT_Dave]

I was commenting on Dave's claims. He says that the government prevents people from visiting the South Pole. But it is not true. Claims that the sun gets smaller when it sets- but it doesn't. And so on.

He manages to do this while maintaining a veneer of being even handed, and he will judge (for us) what is true, after considering all the facts- except ones that clearly and obviously show that the Earth is a globe.

I will judge for "you"??? That's about as obvious a projection as it gets.

--Dave

 

[Nathon Detroit]

If that's your argument against this video then fine. I think continuing calling those who don't agree with you "incredibly stupid" or "incredibly gullible", is evidence of biased anger. Remember the other side can say the same thing about you, in the end all arguments to the man are pointless and prove nothing.

But Dave these flat earth arguments really are dumb! They are ridiculous and are obviously wrong and can be proven wrong by anyone just looking out the window. In fact... they are proven wrong based on the video itself!!

Dave none of this makes me mad in the slightest. Heck I have better things to worry about with my life. Yet it does make me sad. Sad for you. Sad because I have always pointed folks to your website and championed you as a guy with a great handle on open theism. I'm trying to hang on to all of that. Im hoping to see you come back to reality. I'm hoping to still be able to use you as a resource.

Obviously that's all in jeopardy now. I can't recommend a guy as a resource or subject matter expert for open theism when that same guy refuses to accept that the sun sets in the west.

And that is the ONLY reason I am continue to debate this with you. If it were anyone else I would have laughed it off and gone about my day.

 

[DFT_Dave]

But Dave these flat earth arguments really are dumb! They are ridiculous and are obviously wrong and can be proven wrong by anyone just looking out the window. In fact... they are proven wrong based on the video itself!!

Dave none of this makes me mad in the slightest. Heck I have better things to worry about with my life. Yet it does make me sad. Sad for you. Sad because I have always pointed folks to your website and championed you as a guy with a great handle on open theism. I'm trying to hang on to all of that. Im hoping to see you come back to reality. I'm hoping to still be able to use you as a resource.

Obviously that's all in jeopardy now. I can't recommend a guy as a resource or subject matter expert for open theism when that same guy refuses to accept that the sun sets in the west.

And that is the ONLY reason I am continue to debate this with you. If it were anyone else I would have laughed it off and gone about my day.

My main concern is the current state of cosmology any way. Trust me, I have suffered in real life far more for open theism than I ever will for giving flat earth consideration. I don't blame you at all for being especially annoyed because of your father's work and your personal knowledge of this subject, which I obviously do not have.

"How" we got to special relativity and a spacetime evolving universe is of great concern to me. As I will elaborate on in my summary. Cosmology has evolved (in the proper sense) into something far beyond a Copernican single universe, with only one earth, finely tuned for life, that proves the existence of God.

And proving the existence of God is always my goal and proving the Bible to be "literally" true, a passion I'm sure you and others on this thread share with me.

--Dave

 

[JudgeRightly]

If that's your argument against this video then fine. I think continuing calling those who don't agree with you "incredibly stupid" or "incredibly gullible", is evidence of biased anger. Remember the other side can say the same thing about you, in the end all arguments to the man are pointless and prove nothing.

--Dave

I will judge for "you"??? That's about as obvious a projection as it gets.

--Dave

Dave, there's a difference between calling an argument or evidence stupid because it's one's opinion, and calling it stupid because it is logically and scientifically, absurd. Perhaps you could discern which kind of statement our good Sir Knight is making.

Sent from my Pixel XL using TheologyOnline mobile app

 

[The Berean]

In addition to the argument that Knight is making, I also need to point out another discrepancy between reality and the flat earth model. At any given time during the day, about half of the earth has sun visible, and the other half cannot see the sun. This can be explained perfectly by a globe earth model, where half the sphere is facing the sun, and the other half facing away (to verify this, point a flashlight at a billiard ball or baseball, you'll notice a "terminator line" going around the edge of where the light hits it). This is what we see in reality.

However, the flat earth model's "spotlight" sun CANNOT cover half of the earth with it's light, because in order to cover half of the earth with it's light, the "spotlight" would have to put out light over half of the circle of the earth. This is NOT what we see in reality.

The spotlight sun, as shown in Knight's post above, which I have quoted below, only covers about 1/4 of the surface of the earth with it's light. Again, not what we see in reality.





Sent from my Pixel XL using TheologyOnline mobile app

Speaking of the Earth, modern geosynchronous telecommunications satellites work on the basis of the Earth being a spheroid mass. Arthur C. Clark invented the concept of the geosynchronous satellite uses as communications relay stations in 1945.

https://www.wired.com/2011/05/0525arthur-c-clarke-proposes-geostationary-satellites/

As a mechanical engineer I have 15 years of experience designing, building, and launching geosynchronous telecommunications satellites like this one.

View attachment 25467


One of the important environmental tests performed on each satellite is a thermal vacuum test. The satellited is placed inside a large vacuum chamber. This is the chamber we use.


View attachment 25469

The chamber environment is set up to mimic the environment the satellite will exposed to in space. The satellite receives different amounts of solar energy and radiation depending whether the satellite is directly exposed to the sun or if the satellite is behind the Earth (in a shadow) and not directly exposed to the sun. This is important for several reasons.

Firstly, the interior of the satellite has to be kept within a narrow temperature range even though the exterior of the satellite will be exposed to a large temperature range (very hot to very very cold). The small temperature range is required because all the electo-mechanical and electronics equipment inside have very narrow operating temperature ranges.

Secondly, satellite power generation is important. When the satellite is directly exposed to the sun the satellite can draw power from the rather large solar array panels. Some of the power is stored in lithium-ion batteries for later use when the satellite is in the Earth's shadow and the solar array panels are useless.

The thermal vacuum chamber mimics the temperate ranges that the satellite sees throughout its orbit, an orbit based on a spheroid shaped Earth. We know exactly what the temperature the satellite is exposed at every point in the orbit. And guess what? When the satellite is in its actual orbit we measure the same temperatures as the predicted model. How do we know this? The satellite has various sensors that measure the temperature and we receive telemetry from the satellite 24/7 with this temperature data.

 

[DFT_Dave]

THE most undeniable proof of the Flat Earth SUN!

--Dave

 

[DFT_Dave]

Nikon P900 Footage Proves The Sun Is Within The Flat Earth "Sky Dome" - Venus Is Not A "Planet"

--Dave