The earth is flat and we never went to the moon
- Thread starter DFT_Dave
- Start date
- Status
The principle problem with Dave's approach is part of the record. He's operating from a rationally indefensible position, a premise so flawed, so contrary to reason or even common sense that he will not approach it+-. In short, his arguments cannot survive without believing in a world wide and generational conspiracy to deceive the larger public.
It's an untenable position, so he's largely left it on the vine to pursue the rabbit holes he believes are defensible.
The rest is sound and fury, signifying what that tends to.
Goodbye Dave, devil's advocate or victim, it's not hard to disabuse yourself of a goofy notion when you dive to the bottom of it.
I'll leave the rest to those who find some utility in it. :cheers:
It's an untenable position, so he's largely left it on the vine to pursue the rabbit holes he believes are defensible.
The rest is sound and fury, signifying what that tends to.
Goodbye Dave, devil's advocate or victim, it's not hard to disabuse yourself of a goofy notion when you dive to the bottom of it.
I'll leave the rest to those who find some utility in it. :cheers:
My presence, clout, on TOL...
My page:
This page has had 16,496 visits
Vs.
Yours-your "page:"
This page has had 398 visits
Power....Authority....Contrasts...
Any other stumping questions?
Wow-that had never occurred to me....Such insight....Nice stock cliche, and thanks for checkin' in.
The globe-earth heliocentric model is the only model that both explains and predicts all celestial phenomena that we see--including eclipses, retrograde motion of planets, analemma, etc. With this model, astronomers can predict dates for all such events and explain the motions that cause them to happen. Therefore all reasonable people have accepted this model.
The stationary flat earth geocentric model fails to explain and predict all celestial phenomena, therefore all sensible people have rejected it.
The stationary flat earth geocentric model fails to explain and predict all celestial phenomena, therefore all sensible people have rejected it.
He's right. If you don't believe him just visit my home page.
The Berean
Well-known member
I have no interest in reading 54 pages of flat Earth/Apollo hoax nonsense. But I will add this great video to the mix.
gcthomas
New member
Dave was using the term predeterminism in the sense of fatalism. Fatalism implies a higher power, which SR doesn't imply. SR is deterministic, in the same sense that virtually all scientific theories are (quantum theories excepted), but Dave said (wrongly) that to accept SR was to accept fatalism. Even the philosophers disagree.
The link you supplied is interesting (thanks - I enjoyed reading it through) but it is not convincing. The argument seems to rest on sophistry rather than a rigorous deduction, and it seems to rest on some naïve conceptions of time and existence within the space-time diagrams. It tries to show that since an event in one observer's future may appear in another observer's past, it must therefore exist in the future of the first observer in a predetermined manner. But this neglects the issue of the second observer not being able to observe this past (for them) event until a later time due to the distance the light has to travel, such that the future has not been observed by either one in advance of the event itself. This is a problem with philosophers trying to interpret conceptually heavy physics.
Clete... I went down this same path with Dave. Here is his answer and my reply....
http://theologyonline.com/showthrea...-to-the-moon&p=4893690&viewfull=1#post4893690
Ah....The Penske file.....
Two arguments that are absolutely true have emerged;
An atmosphere that moves with the globe as it rotates would negate a coriolis effect. There is no coriolis effect "in side of" a moving car or flying plane.
Saying that being "on" a moving globe earth is like being "in side of" a moving car or flying plane is a false equivalence fallacy. The correct analogy would be; being "on" a moving globe earth is like being "on the top of" a moving car or a flying plane.
I have explain these in more detail in past posts and I will put down which number they are for you to read them or I can re-post them for you if you wish.
--Dave
Last edited:
Jose Fly
New member
I think a lot of Christians here at ToL (maybe even a majority) would agree with you on that. The main difference between them and you seems to be merely over which aspects of cosmology are part of this atheistic conspiracy.
Jose Fly
New member
The Bible may say that the earth "hangs on nothing", but it's just as clear that the earth is sitting on pillars (1 Samuel 2:8)..."for the pillars of the earth are the Lord's, and he hath set the world upon them"
Do yourself a favor and don't call an argument "absolutely true" until you've run it past me first.
Not so. The Coriolis effect is the result of the conservation of angular momentum. It cannot be "negated" except by a force acting in the opposite direction. What is it that you propose is creating this opposite force?
If you take a spinning compass and hang it horizontally from one end by a string, it will precess in the direction of its spin. You can stop that precession by grabbing the compass with your hand which is connected to the rest of your body which provides enough inertial resistance to stop the spinning. You are creating an opposing force by grasping the spinning compass and thereby stopping the precession. The Coriolis effect is the exact same force (not really a force by the way. It just seems like one because of the preservation of angular momentum - the angular momentum is the actual force involved here.) So, once again, what are you suggesting is the opposing force that would cause a spinning sphere to negate the Coriolis effect? Empty space? In actual fact, the Earth and individual air molecules and dust and the rest of the atmosphere itself do cause friction that does indeed partially counter the Coriolis effect but only paritally.
Totally wrong.
We are inside the Earth's atmosphere not on top of it
Further, being on a moving car would imply that you are having to deal with wind resistance to stay there. There is no wind resistance in space. At least not of the kind you'd be dealing with sitting on top of a car. The solar wind, however, does have a similar effect, although to a much lesser degree because even with the solar wind (most of which is deflected by the Earth's magnetic field), once you get outside the atmosphere, you're dealing with a near perfect vacuum and no such wind resistance would be felt.
In other words, the only way being on a moving car would work as an analogy is if the car was being driven through a vacuum.
I'm pretty sure that this comment proves that you do not understand what the Coriolis effect is.
In actual fact, there is. It is simply overcome by the friction of the road and/or the power of the engine(s).
I don't think that necessary. The errors aren't in the details, the errors are on a conceptual basis. Sort of like the frankly ridiculous argument made on the video that the water in any river flowing toward the equator would have to ascend in order to do so. Such arguments betray an ignorance too large to overstate. Water flows in the direction of least resistance to the gravity acting upon it. The only reason that's DOWN hill is because the Earth's center of gravity is below the hill - regardless of what latitude the water is at or in which direction it's flowing.
Resting in Him,
Clete
1Mind1Spirit
Literal lunatic
Yep, Barney was a putz, yet he did occasionally get Andy to raise his eyebrows.
1Mind1Spirit
Literal lunatic
Samson busted the pillars down.
1Mind1Spirit
Literal lunatic
Do yourself a favor and don't call an argument "absolutely true" until you've run it past me first.
Not so. The Coriolis effect is the result of the conservation of angular momentum. It cannot be "negated" except by a force acting in the opposite direction. What is it that you propose is creating this opposite force?
If you take a spinning compass and hang it horizontally from one end by a string, it will precess in the direction of its spin. You can stop that precession by grabbing the compass with your hand which is connected to the rest of your body which provides enough inertial resistance to stop the spinning. You are creating an opposing force by grasping the spinning compass and thereby stopping the precession. The Coriolis effect is the exact same force (not really a force by the way. It just seems like one because of the preservation of angular momentum - the angular momentum is the actual force involved here.) So, once again, what are you suggesting is the opposing force that would cause a spinning sphere to negate the Coriolis effect? Empty space? In actual fact, the Earth and individual air molecules and dust and the rest of the atmosphere itself do cause friction that does indeed partially counter the Coriolis effect but only paritally.
Totally wrong.
We are inside the Earth's atmosphere not on top of it
Further, being on a moving car would imply that you are having to deal with wind resistance to stay there. There is no wind resistance in space. At least not of the kind you'd be dealing with sitting on top of a car. The solar wind, however, does have a similar effect, although to a much lesser degree because even with the solar wind (most of which is deflected by the Earth's magnetic field), once you get outside the atmosphere, you're dealing with a near perfect vacuum and no such wind resistance would be felt.
In other words, the only way being on a moving car would work as an analogy is if the car was being driven through a vacuum.
I'm pretty sure that this comment proves that you do not understand what the Coriolis effect is.
In actual fact, there is. It is simply overcome by the friction of the road and/or the power of the engine(s).
I don't think that necessary. The errors aren't in the details, the errors are on a conceptual basis. Sort of like the frankly ridiculous argument made on the video that the water in any river flowing toward the equator would have to ascend in order to do so. Such arguments betray an ignorance too large to overstate. Water flows in the direction of least resistance to the gravity acting upon it. The only reason that's DOWN hill is because the Earth's center of gravity is below the hill - regardless of what latitude the water is at or in which direction it's flowing.
Resting in Him,
Clete
The only verse out of scripture you could possibly cling to is the earth reels to and fro.
But alas this only describes a staggering drunk.
Not a spinning ball.
1Mind1Spirit
Literal lunatic
18 And it shall come to pass, that he who fleeth from the noise of the fear shall fall into the pit; and he that cometh up out of the midst of the pit shall be taken in the snare: for the windows from on high are open, and the foundations of the earth do shake.
Do yourself a favor and don't call an argument "absolutely true" until you've run it past me first.
Not so. The Coriolis effect is the result of the conservation of angular momentum. It cannot be "negated" except by a force acting in the opposite direction. What is it that you propose is creating this opposite force?
If you take a spinning compass and hang it horizontally from one end by a string, it will precess in the direction of its spin. You can stop that precession by grabbing the compass with your hand which is connected to the rest of your body which provides enough inertial resistance to stop the spinning. You are creating an opposing force by grasping the spinning compass and thereby stopping the precession. The Coriolis effect is the exact same force (not really a force by the way. It just seems like one because of the preservation of angular momentum - the angular momentum is the actual force involved here.) So, once again, what are you suggesting is the opposing force that would cause a spinning sphere to negate the Coriolis effect? Empty space? In actual fact, the Earth and individual air molecules and dust and the rest of the atmosphere itself do cause friction that does indeed partially counter the Coriolis effect but only paritally.
Totally wrong.
We are inside the Earth's atmosphere not on top of it
Further, being on a moving car would imply that you are having to deal with wind resistance to stay there. There is no wind resistance in space. At least not of the kind you'd be dealing with sitting on top of a car. The solar wind, however, does have a similar effect, although to a much lesser degree because even with the solar wind (most of which is deflected by the Earth's magnetic field), once you get outside the atmosphere, you're dealing with a near perfect vacuum and no such wind resistance would be felt.
In other words, the only way being on a moving car would work as an analogy is if the car was being driven through a vacuum.
I'm pretty sure that this comment proves that you do not understand what the Coriolis effect is.
In actual fact, there is. It is simply overcome by the friction of the road and/or the power of the engine(s).
I don't think that necessary. The errors aren't in the details, the errors are on a conceptual basis. Sort of like the frankly ridiculous argument made on the video that the water in any river flowing toward the equator would have to ascend in order to do so. Such arguments betray an ignorance too large to overstate. Water flows in the direction of least resistance to the gravity acting upon it. The only reason that's DOWN hill is because the Earth's center of gravity is below the hill - regardless of what latitude the water is at or in which direction it's flowing.
Resting in Him,
Clete
I'll answer each of your points one at a time not all at once.
A marksman says that the flight of a bullet does not "rotate with the earth" so a correction must be made in order to hit a target a distance away as the earth is moving under the bullet as it moves through the atmosphere. He calls this the coriolis effect. You don't have to see the video to get this but others viewing may want to.
[video]https://video.search.yahoo.com/yhs/search?fr=yhs-omr-001&hsimp=yhs-001&hspart=omr&p=coriolis+effect+on+bullets#id=2&vid=9998a4a973ccb81482d0b902aeae9eb1&action=click[/video]
Does a pilot adjust a plane as it flies thorough the atmosphere as the earth moves under it like the bullet has too?
--Dave
See http://kgov.com/what-is-the-firmament-of-day-2
Sent from my Pixel XL using TheologyOnline mobile app
- Status