The earth is flat and we never went to the moon

[Clete]

Their are flat earth arguments that GPS is ground based or balloons are used. My problem is I don't think satellites prove any thing about the shape of the earth. Any thing can fly around in the circle of the flat earth or fly around in the circle/orbit of the globe earth. To me, at this point, the argument is non sequitur.

--Dave

Fuel.

If you're flying around in circles, you're using fuel and a lot of it. Where do these little machines store all this fuel?

The only fuel on satellites is the tiny amounts they use for maneuvering thrusters that maintain the satellite's orientation.

Also, why are geostationary satellites always 35,786 kilometers (22,236 mi) above the Earth's equator? If the Earth is flat and satellites are just flying machines, why can't they put one in geosynchronous orbit 10,500 mi above New York City?

Additionally, there are thousands of satellites in orbit and they are not all owned and operated by NASA or other government agencies. Many hundreds of satellites are privately owned by companies and other organizations spread all over the globe and are used for a very great variety of things that have nothing whatsoever to do with governmental power or control of the global society. As such the existence of these satellites creates yet another whole population of diverse people that have nothing to do with eachother except that they must all be in on the secret of the flat Earth and have somehow agreed without direct communication with eachother to maintain that deception.

The arguments here are anything but non-sequitor, what they are is devastation and destruction and mayhem to the idea that the Earth is flat.

Clete

 

[Clete]

The ancient Greeks were divided on their cosmology and there is a reason that geocentric Aristotle won out over the heliocentric Pythagorean's.

Eclipses are not so easily explained as this video assumes. The causes of all eclipses are in dispute, always has been the case. I will go into this in my next post.

The Greeks based their cosmology on thought experiment, just as Einsteins relativity is. It's a presupposition that the earth is like the sun and the moon in that they are all spheres moving through space, and the stars are the same. You can say that they imagined it correctly because today we have confirmed it.

But it can be more realistically argued that the earth is not at all like the sun, moon, and stars for three important reasons.

1. The sun, moon, and stars do not have an atmosphere that can sustain life.

2. The sun, moon, and stars do not have bodies of water/oceans.

3. The sun, moon, and stars appear as lights in the sky.

Observation confirms the Genesis account. God did not make the the sun, moon, or stars to be inhabited. They were made to light the sky and to determine seasons and a calendar to track time on earth.

The geometry of the suns rays clearly shows a very close sun compared to the parallel rays that should come from a sun that is billions of miles away. The flat and straight horizon lines we see, the lack of motion we feel, and that water always seeks it's own level confirm a flat stationary earth that is contradicted by all kind's of "science", that is based on and originated from a false comparison and presumed eclipses that can be accounted for in other ways.

--Dave

This might be the most intellectually dishonest post you've made on this whole thread.

First of all the geometry of sun rays argument has already been debunked and quite completely so.
Secondly, as dewscribed in my counter argument, what you are seeing is not "rays" from the sun, you are seeing shadows of clouds. That might sound like a meaningless distinction but it makes it much easier to understand what is happening. If the sun is to the clouds left, the shadows it casts with fall to the right and vise-versa. IT MAKES NO DIFFERENCE HOW FAR AWAY THE LIGHT SOURCE IS!!!!!

Now David, I'm frankly offended by this behavior. You COMPLETELY ignore counter arguments. There's no discussion, no response to them from you at all except to repeat your oringinal argument as though nothing has been said to refute it. You are very quickly losing my respect. If you do not end up dropping this flat earth B.S. in the end, you'll have spent every bit of intellectual capital you ever had with me. There will be simply no honest excuse whatseover.

Clete

 

[rocketman]

Their are flat earth arguments that GPS is ground based or balloons are used. My problem is I don't think satellites prove any thing about the shape of the earth. Any thing can fly around in the circle of the flat earth or fly around in the circle/orbit of the globe earth. To me, at this point, the argument is non sequitur.

--Dave

Absolute nonsense! the company I work for has launched every GPS satellite that has ever been put on orbit thus far, and I can tell you most assuredly that geosynchronous satellites that control GPS are not balloons nor could the highest towers man could build support such a system. If the devil is telling a lie you sure have bought into it....do you also believe that moon is flat as well?

 

[DFT_Dave]

Dave, quick question, do you believe in absolute truth?

Sent from my Pixel XL using TheologyOnline mobile app

Yes of course I believe in absolutes, and when you see me argue against relativism it should be obvious to you.

--Dave

 

[rocketman]

Dave you never seem to do much beyond state bare assertions. Why do you believe satellites do not prove the Earth is a globe? What is the physics of a flat Earth? The truth is that geosynchronous satellites are designed and operate on the premise that the Earth is a globe. They wouldn't work otherwise. Geosynchronous satellites have been in use for over 50 years. If you can show me how a geosynchronous satellite works with a flat Earth by all means I'm all ears. But I would like for YOU to tell me, not some video. Can you do that Dave?

Sent from my SM-G920V using TheologyOnline mobile app

Doubtful, the man has thrown basic physics, science, logic, & reason to the wayside in the attempt to support a theory that he believes outside of any scientific or empirical evidence....someone has sold poor Dave a bill of goods.

 

[DFT_Dave]

Dave you never seem to do much beyond state bare assertions. Why do you believe satellites do not prove the Earth is a globe? What is the physics of a flat Earth? The truth is that geosynchronous satellites are designed and operate on the premise that the Earth is a globe. They wouldn't work otherwise. Geosynchronous satellites have been in use for over 50 years. If you can show me how a geosynchronous satellite works with a flat Earth by all means I'm all ears. But I would like for YOU to tell me, not some video. Can you do that Dave?

Sent from my SM-G920V using TheologyOnline mobile app

You don't seem to know any thing about flat earth claims. In order to get this is a debate you have to see and understand the other side. Do a little research and check it out. I post video and information that first shows what flat earth is really about and how it is questioning cosmology today.

--Dave

 

[The Berean]

You don't seem to know any thing about flat earth claims. In order to get this is a debate you have to see and understand the other side. Do a little research and check it out. I post video and information that first shows what flat earth is really about and how it is questioning cosmology today.

--Dave

Nice dodge Dave. I asked a simple question. I am not well versed in flat Earth theory. So PLEASE educate me. I'm not asking for a 50 page treatise. I'm asking YOU to give a one or two paragraph summary, similar to what I did in describing the basics of geosynchronous satellite pointing. How do geosynchronous satellites, whose design and operation are based on a global Earth, work within the flat Earth model? Do you understand the basic physics of the flat Earth model?

Sent from my SM-G920V using TheologyOnline mobile app

 

[DFT_Dave]

Fuel.

If you're flying around in circles, you're using fuel and a lot of it. Where do these little machines store all this fuel?

The only fuel on satellites is the tiny amounts they use for maneuvering thrusters that maintain the satellite's orientation.

Also, why are geostationary satellites always 35,786 kilometers (22,236 mi) above the Earth's equator? If the Earth is flat and satellites are just flying machines, why can't they put one in geosynchronous orbit 10,500 mi above New York City?

Additionally, there are thousands of satellites in orbit and they are not all owned and operated by NASA or other government agencies. Many hundreds of satellites are privately owned by companies and other organizations spread all over the globe and are used for a very great variety of things that have nothing whatsoever to do with governmental power or control of the global society. As such the existence of these satellites creates yet another whole population of diverse people that have nothing to do with eachother except that they must all be in on the secret of the flat Earth and have somehow agreed without direct communication with eachother to maintain that deception.

The arguments here are anything but non-sequitor, what they are is devastation and destruction and mayhem to the idea that the Earth is flat.

Clete

I will post more video and "add commentary" that questions the existence of satellites, or questions the way that they work. NASA may not own them but nothing goes to space or to Antarctica that NASA does not control.

--Dave

 

[DFT_Dave]

This might be the most intellectually dishonest post you've made on this whole thread.

First of all the geometry of sun rays argument has already been debunked and quite completely so.
Secondly, as dewscribed in my counter argument, what you are seeing is not "rays" from the sun, you are seeing shadows of clouds. That might sound like a meaningless distinction but it makes it much easier to understand what is happening. If the sun is to the clouds left, the shadows it casts with fall to the right and vise-versa. IT MAKES NO DIFFERENCE HOW FAR AWAY THE LIGHT SOURCE IS!!!!!

Now David, I'm frankly offended by this behavior. You COMPLETELY ignore counter arguments. There's no discussion, no response to them from you at all except to repeat your oringinal argument as though nothing has been said to refute it. You are very quickly losing my respect. If you do not end up dropping this flat earth B.S. in the end, you'll have spent every bit of intellectual capital you ever had with me. There will be simply no honest excuse whatseover.

Clete

Every thing on my post is absolutely true.

The "science" that you think is absolute truth is questionable to me and a lot of other people and if your response is we are all nuts then that means you are not willing to question that so called "science". And remember we are nuts in the opinion of all who believe in evolution for the same reason, so don't be so quick to dismiss "science" as a place of absolute truth in biology or cosmology.

--Dave

 

[DFT_Dave]

Absolute nonsense! the company I work for has launched every GPS satellite that has ever been put on orbit thus far, and I can tell you most assuredly that geosynchronous satellites that control GPS are not balloons nor could the highest towers man could build support such a system. If the devil is telling a lie you sure have bought into it....do you also believe that moon is flat as well?

Satellites, like the shuttle, could circle in high attitude above the flat earth as well as orbit in high altitude around the globe.

--Dave

 

[DFT_Dave]

Doubtful, the man has thrown basic physics, science, logic, & reason to the wayside in the attempt to support a theory that he believes outside of any scientific or empirical evidence....someone has sold poor Dave a bill of goods.

Or the opposite could be true. This is a debate, if you think modern cosmology is absolutely true then make your arguments and compare with the other view. Arguments face counter arguments in a debate, arguments are all that matter, I'll use logic and reason with any theory of science any where any time. You seem to be confused between what is and is not "empirical" vs "thought experiment" evidence. I'll help you with that.

--Dave

 

[JudgeRightly]

Yes of course I believe in absolutes, and when you see me argue against relativism it should be obvious to you.

--Dave

So then you agree that we can know if something is absolutely true or not, right?

Sent from my Pixel XL using TheologyOnline mobile app

 

[rocketman]

Satellites, like the shuttle, could circle in high attitude above the flat earth as well as orbit in high altitude around the globe.

--Dave

So your claim is that every astronaut is a liar, every bit of pictorial & empirical evidence that has been presented is also a lie? One big conspiracy that literally millions of people that work in aerospace have not only promoted but, have actually took an active part in? I guess that I am liar as well, and part of the conspiracy? Wow! if you are this deeply invested into this lie who am I to dissuade you...you never did answer whether the moon was flat?

 

[rocketman]

Or the opposite could be true. This is a debate, if you think modern cosmology is absolutely true then make your arguments and compare with the other view.

There is no "modern" cosmology Dave it is just cosmology which is actually based upon known facts which are proven, or do you have scientific or physical evidence to present to prove the facts of cosmology wrong. It really is no debate at all unless you can present physical or scientific evidence, what you have is notion based upon supposition absent of facts which means you have no argument to debate but, opinion.

Arguments face counter arguments in a debate, arguments are all that matter

Not true, an argument is empty rhetoric absent of facts and if all you have is rhetoric to defend your supposed argument you have already lost the debate i.e.. you have to not only prove your argument is correct using facts but, you also have to prove the opposing argument is wrong based upon facts. Making a statement alone is just opinion or a personal belief set without proof.

I'll use logic and reason with any theory of science any where any time. You seem to be confused between what is and is not "empirical" vs "thought experiment" evidence. I'll help you with that.

--Dave

You do that, I want to see both the empirical & the scientific/experimental data that you present and I do not need any help sifting the two, it is doubtful logic or reason will be employed throwing out science, all I have read so far is that you have a grand conspiracy theory that is supported from opinion absent of science.

 

[DFT_Dave]

Nice dodge Dave. I asked a simple question. I am not well versed in flat Earth theory. So PLEASE educate me. I'm not asking for a 50 page treatise. I'm asking YOU to give a one or two paragraph summary, similar to what I did in describing the basics of geosynchronous satellite pointing. How do geosynchronous satellites, whose design and operation are based on a global Earth, work within the flat Earth model? Do you understand the basic physics of the flat Earth model?

Sent from my SM-G920V using TheologyOnline mobile app

Do a little home work and look through this thread, I'm not going to begin all over again. This debate covers a number of different aspects and I would never decide this issue, or any other for that matter based on one aspect. I'm not proposing that all arguments favor flat earth, as far as I am concerned there are flaws in both flat and globe model's and simple answers that do not satisfy some problems for either.

We are well past the singular Copernican universe, created by God, model anyway. We are faced with relativity, space time, evolving multi universes with evolving biology through out infinite space with no God required. Not any of the modern view is based on empirical evidence, it is all imagined, from Einstein on.

So I stared my research on how we got here about three years ago, I work so of course it's a slow process, but I wanted to review cosmology from the beginning to find out where the idea of thought projection was incorporated into cosmology as apposed to real empirical evidence that it should be based on. Flat stationary earth is the beginning and is still around today.

All arguments "to the man", or "to the majority", and "to the expert" will be considered logical fallacies and dismissed by me. Good arguments in favor of globe earth that are made in regard to flat earth are what I want to see. I would like to see if flat earth can be defeated in an acceptable way with out using thought experiment and assumptions that all physics and all astronomy simply affirm the static quo. There are a number of contradictions in globe earth and we went to the moon that do not make any sense at all.

I will point out all contradictory and imagined thought projections that prove nothing. The theory of evolution is all about imagined evidence that prove nothing. I want to make sure that my cosmology is not built on the same.

--Dave

 

[DFT_Dave]

So your claim is that every astronaut is a liar, every bit of pictorial & empirical evidence that has been presented is also a lie? One big conspiracy that literally millions of people that work in aerospace have not only promoted but, have actually took an active part in? I guess that I am liar as well, and part of the conspiracy? Wow! if you are this deeply invested into this lie who am I to dissuade you...you never did answer whether the moon was flat?

If you would do a little reading of this thread you will see that is not what I have said.

--Dave

 

[DFT_Dave]

There is no "modern" cosmology Dave it is just cosmology which is actually based upon known facts which are proven, or do you have scientific or physical evidence to present to prove the facts of cosmology wrong. It really is no debate at all unless you can present physical or scientific evidence, what you have is notion based upon supposition absent of facts which means you have no argument to debate but, opinion.

Not true, an argument is empty rhetoric absent of facts and if all you have is rhetoric to defend your supposed argument you have already lost the debate i.e.. you have to not only prove your argument is correct using facts but, you also have to prove the opposing argument is wrong based upon facts. Making a statement alone is just opinion or a personal belief set without proof.

You do that, I want to see both the empirical & the scientific/experimental data that you present and I do not need any help sifting the two, it is doubtful logic or reason will be employed throwing out science, all I have read so far is that you have a grand conspiracy theory that is supported from opinion absent of science.

You have not read this thread, so any thing you are saying now is meaningless. You want me to accept your argument that has been made without knowing my arguments. You think I take you seriously?

Cosmology has a history, a past with ideas, right or wrong, that impact the present. Just because you buy hook line and sinker everything told you by NASA or modern cosmologists, such as Allen Guth or Max Tegmark, make me wonder if you have a mind of your own, or understand space time, multi universe theory and the probable out come of an expanding universe.

--Dave

 

[Nathon Detroit]

You have not read this thread, so any thing you are saying now is meaningless.

Come on Dave that is utter hogwash. You have been around TOL long enough to know that no one is EVER expected to read every post on a thread (especially a long thread) in order for them to jump in and add to the debate.

Rocketman actually works on REAL rockets. You should value him as a resource. Here you are... supposedly exploring a topic of interest to you and BOOM you have access to a guy who helps launch satellites into space! So... is he a part of the grand conspiracy? Or is he telling the truth about his daily profession.

Heck man... if I were you I would see interacting with Rocketman as a major stroke of luck. You might be able to learn from him.

 

[DFT_Dave]

Proof Satellites do not exist from the ISS.

--Dave

 

[DFT_Dave]

Come on Dave that is utter hogwash. You have been around TOL long enough to know that no one is EVER expected to read every post on a thread (especially a long thread) in order for them to jump in and add to the debate.

Rocketman actually works on REAL rockets. You should value him as a resource. Here you are... supposedly exploring a topic of interest to you and BOOM you have access to a guy who helps launch satellites into space! So... is he a part of the grand conspiracy? Or is he telling the truth about his daily profession.

Heck man... if I were you I would see interacting with Rocketman as a major stoke of luck. You might be able to learn from him.

I did not ask him to read all of it, but he seems not to have read any of it.

And there is a history of past to current cosmologies that have replaced old ones for all the so called new discoveries. Even Einstein's theory of gravity is not the same as Newton's law.

--Dave