The earth is flat and we never went to the moon
- Thread starter DFT_Dave
- Start date
- Status
The atmosphere is not a "container", we are not "in" the atmosphere as if "in" a physical object. The air and space are not physical objects. We and the earth are physical objects and are not equal to or the same as air or space. We and the earth, planes and trains move through the air and space
"On" as on top of a moving train plane or moving earth is not the same thing as "in" or inside of a moving train, plane or moving earth.
A plane is obviously not pulled along with the atmosphere or else it would never go anywhere. The space above us contains oxygen, etc. that we call the atmosphere of earth, but space is not a container that physical objects cannot pass through.
If the earth was spinning at 1000 mph we would certainly see it from above it just as we can see a jet fly over us at 600 mph.
Believing that we live on a spinning globe that we cannot see spinning is a theory that requires faith that contradicts the assumption that we are contained in an atmosphere that is moved by a force that contains it but cannot contain us or anything else that moves through it.
--Dave
Daniel1769
New member
If gravity is a force that pulls things towards the center of a sphere, the temperature should make no difference. I understand the reason they give. It's nonsense. They say gravity doesn't create tides in ponds because it only pulls on giant bodies of water like oceans. I understand the explanation but it makes no sense that a force can pull on a heavy object but not a light one. "I can lift 500 pounds above my head, but I can't lift 3 pounds above my head because it's too light." It doesn't make any sense.
gcthomas
New member
That's why you are not a scientist. It does make sense to the people that study it in all its finer points. It is only when you filter the science through the pre-instruction concepts that you hold that there is difficulty.
You know, I had a feeling you might have.
You actually do have reason to accept the volume of film and credible claims by eye witnesses, some of whom you've been given and one or two noted, without actually commenting on what that should tell you. Anyway, the simplest reason is that were those agencies and individuals not telling you the honest truth it would represent the most massive and impressive actual conspiracy in the history of man.
No one is that good at keeping a secret and no governmental agency has ever been that good at its job.
Me too. Especially on a slow weekend when it rains.
Not to anyone with a decent science and math background, to say nothing of commercial pilots, sailors and astronauts.
Humans, animals, birds, planes of all kinds, vehicles of all kinds, are solid physical objects that move though the atmosphere that surrounds everything on earth.
But we are told that the solid physical rotating earth does not move through the atmosphere that surrounds it. If it did we would see it from above it because it is said to rotate at 1000 mph.
This is an obvious contradiction. The earth obviously is not moving.
--Dave
But we are told that the solid physical rotating earth does not move through the atmosphere that surrounds it. If it did we would see it from above it because it is said to rotate at 1000 mph.
This is an obvious contradiction. The earth obviously is not moving.
--Dave
Last edited:
gcthomas
New member
You are wrong, because Physics. It's as simple as that.
Empirical evidence and logic trump theoretical physics.
Explain how things "visibly" move through the atmosphere except a spinning earth.
--Dave
Last edited:
gcthomas
New member
Only after you have explained how a stationary earth generates the Coriolis forces that drive stormy weather.
You leave too much on the table and ignore explanations, testimony, etc. to restate your position too often for me to credit you're interested in understanding the mistakes and assumptions you're making.
I'm going to leave a link to a site that has enough to dispel your notion. My favorite?
After returning from a trip to Egypt, Aristotle noted that “there are stars seen in Egypt and […] Cyprus which are not seen in the northerly regions.” This phenomenon can only be explained with a round surface, and Aristotle continued and claimed that the sphere of the Earth is “of no great size, for otherwise the effect of so slight a change of place would not be quickly apparent.” (De caelo, 298a2-10)
Here's the link.
But the single largest problem, the one that should have you or any rational human being walking away from flat earth theories is one I touched upon in my last. In order to believe that you have to believe in a massive, global conspiracy that has been pulled off flawlessly for generations, from our space agency to every other. Every astronaut and every person associated with space missions from every country on the planet would have to be in on it, collectively and individually.
Worse, countries that would delight in exposing a U.S. fraud of any sort and have the means to do it would have to refrain.
So instead of laboring to construct imaginative stretches of logic to assert a special system that doesn't conform to demonstrable principles of physics, instead of believing in a world wide conspiracy of an absurd consistency and efficacy, you might just want to consider that you spent too much time examining fringe conspiracy theories and that the sum effect of that time was to make the unreasonable seem possible.
Or you can keep believing nonsense that won't alter the face and fact of things. Completely up to you.
I understand and had always accepted the Copernican Model of the universe. I have not accepted the multi universe model because it is not empirically verifiable. I never gave any consideration of a flat earth model, other than that it was the accepted model of the ancient world, until about a year ago when I watched a video by Eric Dubay simply out of curiosity. I am very surprised at the "empirical evidence" for a flat stationary earth.
Did you know that the latest model of the universe is that it's flat.
I have always thought the moon landing was iffy because I simply thought the technology was not up to the task. Even thought I thought it quite possible that we never went to the moon I never imagined that the world was not a globe. That we could fake moon landings has always been technically possible. Contradictions from NASA are all to common. For example, the Van Allen Radiation Belts are serious barriers for space flight that we have not figured out how to deal with says latest NASA video.
The empirical evidence is that the earth is not moving!
All high altitude video confirms this.
The argument that we are contained in a atmosphere contradicts the nature of that atmosphere and the analogy that we are in this atmosphere is like being in a plane or a train is a "false equivalence" fallacy, as I have already pointed out.
--Dave
Actually:
When cosmologists say that the universe is flat they are referring to space—the nowverse and its parallel siblings of time past. Spacetime is not flat. It can’t be: Einstein’s general theory of relativity says that matter and energy curve spacetime, and there are enough matter and energy lying around to provide for curvature. Besides, if spacetime were flat I wouldn’t be sitting here because there would be no gravity to keep me on the chair. To put it succintly: space can be flat even if spacetime isn't.
Moreover, when they talk about the flatness of space cosmologists are referring to the large-scale appearance of the universe. When you “zoom in” and look at something of less-than-cosmic scale, such as the solar system, space—not just spacetime—is definitely not flat. Remarkable fresh evidence for this fact was obtained recently by the longest-running experiment in NASA history, Gravity Probe B, which took a direct measurement of the curvature of space around Earth. (And the most extreme case of non-flatness of space is thought to occur inside the event horizon of a black hole, but that’s another story.) - Scientific American, July 25, 2011 (link)
Moreover, when they talk about the flatness of space cosmologists are referring to the large-scale appearance of the universe. When you “zoom in” and look at something of less-than-cosmic scale, such as the solar system, space—not just spacetime—is definitely not flat. Remarkable fresh evidence for this fact was obtained recently by the longest-running experiment in NASA history, Gravity Probe B, which took a direct measurement of the curvature of space around Earth. (And the most extreme case of non-flatness of space is thought to occur inside the event horizon of a black hole, but that’s another story.) - Scientific American, July 25, 2011 (link)
It really was, as it turns out, though it took a lot of effort and some of the finest minds we had trained on the problem. See: Apollo's Rocket Scientists: Forty years ago, NASA put a man on the moon. But MIT did the steering. MIT Technology Review, Oct. 20, 2009. (link)
It doesn't take imagination to believe the world is flat, only a tendency to confuse the information of immediate senses with the larger truth they obscure.
But pointless.
Well, no. The radiation problem garnered a lot of attention. Ultimately it was decided that some shielding could deal with the low levels, but there wasn't much they could do about the stronger regions except for what they did, which was pass through it quickly and take measurements to assure themselves that they weren't condemning men to radiation related illness and death.
To monitor radiation exposure during the flights, Apollo crews carried dosimeters on board their spacecraft and on their persons. And these readings confirmed NASA had made a good choice. At the end of the program, the agency determined that its astronauts had avoided the large radiation doses many feared would ground flights to the Moon. Over the course of the lunar missions, astronauts were exposed to doses lower than the yearly 5 rem average experienced by workers with the Atomic Energy Commission who regularly deal with radioactive materials. And in no case did any astronaut experience any debilitating medical or biological effects. And beside, the Apollo astronauts were former test pilots. Flying to the Moon, radiation exposure included, was still a safer day at the office than putting an experimental aircraft through its paces in the skies above Edwards Air Force Base. - Apollo Rocketed Trough the Van Allen Belts, Popular Science, Sept. 19, 2014 (link)
No, the sensory impression is that it isn't. The data tells us otherwise, from space flight to satellites. Eratosthenes demonstrated the truth a very long time ago mathematically. He didn't rely on the senses that often fool us in their limitations.
Or, as Carl Sagan put it:
Supra. But save yourself the headache, buy a good boat and a compass and do what all sorts of people have managed. Circle the earth.
You've asserted it, but you haven't actually met the easy illustration.
And again, flat earth proponents don't work off or tested and authoritative scientific theory and model. Instead, they rewrite the language and root the entire mess in a logically improbable, world wide conspiracy that is the most certain circle they've generated.
NASA engineer, "Orion will pass through the Van Allen Belts. An area of dangerous radiation. Shielding will be put to the test as the vehicle cuts through the waves of radiation. Sensors aboard will record radiation levels for scientists to study. We must solve these challenges 'before' we send people through this region of space."
Funny thing. It looks like this NASA guy never heard of the Apollo missions that had no problem passing through the Van Allen Radiation Belts.
Yes, you seem to follow those who say, "ignore your senses and logic and believe what we tell you", despite the many contradictions they present us with.
--Dave
gcthomas
New member
Apollo passed through the belts very quickly, while Orion was spending three weeks there, and the manned missions could be long duration missions of many months. Doesn't that sort of exposure deserve testing?
I don't think you even watched the engineer's video, as then or would have been clear to got that you have the wrong end of the stick here.
The lunar module pic from NASA is lacking two things that should be clearly visible that prove we never went to the moon.
1. The rocket blast that slows the module as it lands would have left a small crater under the module.
2. The dust created by the rocket blast would have left dirt on the landing pads.
--Dave
1. The rocket blast that slows the module as it lands would have left a small crater under the module.
2. The dust created by the rocket blast would have left dirt on the landing pads.
--Dave
You're the one who didn't watch the video. Orion passes though the belts into outer space and then must pass through them on the way back to earth, nothing there about three weeks in the radiation belt.
--Dave
gcthomas
New member
But or is designed for extended missions, and in any case the engineer says precisely nothing about falling the moon landings. Your are reading in what you want- you have spent too long watching those mind rotting conspiracy nutjob videos.
You didn't answer the question: how does the coriolis force occur without a rotating spherical earth?
- Status