The earth is flat and we never went to the moon
- Thread starter DFT_Dave
- Start date
- Status
There are no differences of opinion on Newton's laws of motion among valid scientists. Nor are there differences of opinion about the existence of gravity. These things have been experimentally proven. Yet you, in your ignorance, pretend to know better.
Dave, I watched this one as well. It is just ridiculous. for some reason, believing something so ignorant makes you feel smart.
Here is a good example of total fraud.
NASA VACUUM CHAMBER
There are two men in the chamber without space suits.
Go to you tube site and read the commentary.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uSHPxIem-14&spfreload=1
--Dave
NASA VACUUM CHAMBER
There are two men in the chamber without space suits.
Go to you tube site and read the commentary.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uSHPxIem-14&spfreload=1
--Dave
That is correct.
The clip pretends that water has to "rise" in the Nile and flow uphill in the spherical earth model. The spherical earth model claims no such thing. Up and down on earth are relative to its center of mass. It is a straw man argument.
Dave, is there any demonstration or experiment or anything at all that would convince you that the Earth is spherical? Or- no matter what the evidence, you will claim it is wrong, faked, taken with a fish-eye lens, part of a conspiracy or whatever?
Anything at all that at least in principle would convince you to abandon your flat earth idea?
Anything at all that at least in principle would convince you to abandon your flat earth idea?
Just look at the last video I posted and see NASA test of space suit with two men in so called "vacuum chamber" without space suits. If this is not fraud and conspiracy I don''t know what is.
--Dave
Dave, I looked at it. I will not even comment on it unless you answer my previous post with a real answer.
Yes NASA is clearly using a fish eye lens. You can tell that as the horizon curves one way, goes straight, and then curves the other way.
I'm arguing on behalf of flat earth which is not the same thing as believing in it, that is the role of the devils advocate. Just what is it about debate you don't understand.!!! Two sides argue one against the other. There is no debate if there is only one side!!!
How do I feel personally, we will see in time. As I have said there are good arguments for both sides and bad ones for both sides. Debate is an exercise in proper structure of an argument as well as a learning experience as information and evidence is presented.
Enjoy the experience and learn about the other side of this argument, you may change your view, you may not. I would like every one to stop trying to save my soul and stop using pointless ridicule. I am not responding to every question for reasons already stated.
The space suit test in the vacuum chamber is really funny as well as fake. Don't you think so? This obviously faked test does not mean all of NASA is fake, but it is evidence that they are faking some things which seriously undermines their credibility.
--Dave
Good response. Visualizing the curvature in relationship to the flow of rivers is an aspect that must be considered. The curvature is much greater than most people know.
--Dave
Dave. Just answer. The question is clear. It makes no difference at all if you are playing devil's advocate or believe in a flat earth. If I may, I'd like to quietly and with due respect suggest that you actually answer a question occasionally.
The videos I have posted have already answered every question far better than I can. I would spend many needless hours trying to duplicate them.
--Dave
Dern it Dave. READ THE BLESSED QUESTION. There is no video that will answer this.
" is there any demonstration or experiment or anything at all that would convince you that the Earth is spherical? Or- no matter what the evidence, you will claim it is wrong, faked, taken with a fish-eye lens, part of a conspiracy or whatever?
Anything at all that at least in principle would convince you to abandon your flat earth idea?"
You are avoiding the question. There are many words that describe people like you.
No one has suggested that an analogy proves anything.
It doesn't change the fact that the analogy is perfect.
No, it doesn't. I've already directly addressed this.
The mechanism holding the atmosphere to the Earth is the exact same mechanism that is holding you to the Earth. GRAVITY
The fact that the mechanism holding the air inside your car is different is not relevant to the principles that we have been discussing.
No, it doesn't, Dave. The website you cited isn't just wrong, it's lying - intentionally.
I happen to have been doing some additional reading on this exact topic and it turns out that the Coriolis effect has two factors. I was under the impression that it was just the single issue of angular momentum but there is a second factor that contributes to the effect and that is the fact the since the circumference of the Earth is largest at the equator, the Earth is, therefore, moving faster at the equator than it is further North (or South) because a point at the equator has to move further to make one revolution around the Earth's axis. An object moving away from the equator through the atmosphere that doesn't compensate for this force vector will find itself moving ahead of its target in the direction of Earth's spin. Interesting stuff, if you bother to actually find out what the Coriolis effect actually is.
There is another effect that PROVES the Earth is spinning!
It's called the Eötvös effect. It is the change in perceived gravitational force caused by the change in centrifugal acceleration resulting from eastbound or westbound velocity.
There's is NO getting around either one of these effects. Not only do both of these effects behave PRECISELY as expected to presume a spinning globe, but there is no other possible explanation for them. There is no rational explanation for them whatsoever if the Earth is flat - period.
This is just flatly wrong, Dave. If the Earth was not spinning on its axis, water would not tend to spin down a drain in one direction for the northern hemisphere and in the opposite for the southern hemisphere. If the water tended to spin at all, the effect would be either random (spinning in one direction or the other 50% of the time) or it would spin in the same direction in both hemispheres. The fact that it does what it actually does do, is PROOF that we are on a spinning ball. There is no rationally possible explanation if the Earth is flat.
Unbelievable.
Think of what you are suggesting, Dave.
If the aether exists and we are perfectly stationary in it then the ENTIRE UNIVERSE revolves around the Earth once a day. And not only does it do that but it does it in just such a way that it looks exactly like it would if we were moving around the Sun in an elliptical orbit just as are all of the other non-stationary objects in the solar system. Additionally, since the Sun does not appear in the same constellation throughout the year, in addition to its once-a-day orbit around the Earth, it would have to migrate in one additional circle relative to the background stars each year, in order to explain why the visible constellations vary throughout the seasons.
Further, the Sun angle in the sky changes throughout the year so, in addition to its once-a-day journey around the Earth, it needs to change its location relative to the celestial sphere by a whopping 47 degrees every six months. Why the Sun moves in this path so slowly relative to the celestial sphere but so quickly relative to Earth cannot be explained if the world is flat and stationary.
Further still, the moon also migrates in the sky relative to the celestial sphere. If the Earth is stationary, the moon must make an extra circle relative to the celestial sphere every lunar month, and inclined at nearly the same (but not quite) the same amount relative to the celestial sphere as the Sun.
And none of that touches all the minor changes that occur over longer periods of time, like the precession of the equator which completes a cycle in a period of approximately 26,000 years, just to give one example.
Ever heard of Akham's razor?
Clete
Much of the above material was written by Ethan Siegel.
How the Earth Moves and How We Know
I despise the term 'microevolution' but otherwise, this statement is true and can be easily observed.
This statement is only true in the fact that it accurately describes the concept of macroevolution. Macroevolution not only has not been observed, it cannot be observed and is therefore not testable and therefore not scientific.
WHAT?
Because evolutionists make an unsubstantiated claim, then it alters the definition of the term such that if I use the term correctly, I am tacitly conceding their unsubstantiated claim?!
That's not only false, it's a smelly pile of cow crap.
If the weather changes then some members of a particular species within that ecosystem may be better equipped to handle the change than others and will, therefore, survive better/longer and reproduce more and eventually outnumber or completely replace the other, less well-equipped version of that species. That is what natural selection is and it is nothing else other than that, no matter what evolutionists want to turn it into.
I agree but a weather change (or other environmental factors) can cause certain genes to turn on or off. This does not present new genetic information though and so does nothing to dissent from your point here which I agree with entirely.
It can cause migration where migration is possible but it doesn't have to cause it. It could cause mass death if the characteristics are no longer suited to the environment. Say when a flood or drought occurs, for example.
But if one group of Cheetahs can run just enough faster than another group which allows them to catch more prey and therefore live longer, breed more frequently, and raise offspring more succesfully then the genes that enable the faster running are passed along more effectively and the faster version of the cheetah comes to dominate that particular ecosystem. It's just math, Dave.
All forms of evolution are false. Natural selection is not evolution of any kind, their attempt to commandeer the term notwithstanding.
Clete
- Status