The earth is flat and we never went to the moon
- Thread starter DFT_Dave
- Start date
- Status
If the Earth is flat, the orbits of satellites are almost NEVER circular. In fact, they are usually very far away from circular and the satellites would perform impossible feats of speed. Click on the image below...
View attachment 25362
View attachment 25362
An orbit is a circle. :beanboy:
No one has ever seen a satellite do a complete circle around the globe. We have only NASA to believe that this is happening. Just what does propel them? Once up there why don't they just come right back down and what keeps them on an exact course?
--Dave
Right Divider
Body part
Not necessarily Dave, an elliptical orbit works just fine.
Because of inertia. It's simple physics Dave. I'm really surprised that you don't know about these things, especially since you seem to want to be a teacher of just such things.
How does GPS work Dave?
I can see the earth, unlike your examples, from the ground and from an air plane I can view it over many miles of what should be obvious curvature, and "all" visual evidence is that the earth is flat and stationary.
To say we can't see the curve because the earth is too large and then say we can see ships going over the curve is a clear contradiction.
--Dave
No, it's not a contradiction. Saying something doesn't make it true, Dave.
Sent from my Pixel XL using TheologyOnline mobile app
I didn't make an argument, I asked you a question: Why do two objects with the same density have different weights? I am trying to understand how gravity works in your flat Earth model.
This is simply not true. The Dunes are about 250 ft. higher than the lake. And the bluff a little farther north along the coast is a little more than 100 ft above the lake. And, BTW, the dunes are less than 60 miles from Chicago.
This is important because swells at the lake level matter very much because they are close in. But with a little elevation, the swells become less significant. Thus, the lights from the tall buildings are regularly seen on the many clear days, but not the short buildings, and the swells do not matter at all.
We have a whole hell of a lot more than NASA. You think that every satellite in orbit is owned and operated by the United States government?
You know better. You knew better when you wrote this. Was this just you being the Devil's advocate, repeating some mindless argument you saw on a flat eath website or was this DFT Dave making statements he knew were false when he made them?
Multiple thousands of people would have to be in on the conspiracy to pull off keeping one single satellite in orbit over a flat Earth, Dave. Multiple thousands of people from scores of different organizations and entirely different walks of life. That is so far away from being possible that it is literal insanity to believe it.
And no, the would not all be circular! If the Earth is flat and laid out anything similar to the United Nations flag, which all flat earthers seem to agree on, there is no way to make a satellite go over (or near) both the north pole and what everyone has been tricked into believing is the south pole and have the orbit be anywhere near circular. It is not physically possible.
Not only that, but the satellite would have to dramatically speed up and slow down, covering 90% of the orbital distance in 10% of the orbital time and visa-versa. Utter lunatic, fantasy-land, nonsensical stupidity! That breaks every law of physics that exists. If the Earth is flat, there are no satellites in circumpolar orbits - period. The fact that there are satellites in circumpolar orbits (a whole lot of them) is proof that the Earth cannot be flat. Proof, Dave. If it isn't proof then the whole notion of a flat Earth is unfalsifible.
And the fact is that satellites do fall right back down. That's precisely what Newton figured out is happening with not just apples but the Moon and everything else that orbits anything. It's called the inverse square law and it is one of the most tested and firmly established ideas in all of science. The reason a satellite or moon doesn't crash into the ground is because it is moving vertically across the surface of the planet at a speed such that the curvature of the planet's surface moves away from the falling object at the same speed at which it is falling. That's what makes orbits happen, that's what makes them possible. No such orbit is at all possible on a flat Earth - period.
Clete
No, it isn't David.
Look, I don't tolerate this sort of thing from Calvinist and I see no reason why I should tolerate it from you either.
I have made actual arguments, Dave. You have made claims. One claim after another, after another. What few actual arguments exist are almost entirely on those videos, which I have watched and paid close attention too. The arguments made in regards to the way ships (or other things) disappear on the horizon are all PREDICATED on the premise that the atmospheric lensing shown in those videos happens EVERY SINGLE TIME something disappears on the horizon. That means even one single counter-example DISPROVES the argument! It utterly, totally and in all possible meanings of the word, REFUTES the argument, David! That's not the same as proving that the Earth is a sphere but it most certainly is not a matter of opinion that the arguments themselves, in support of a flat earth, are fully refuted.
If you think otherwise then present a counter argument, admit that you cannot do so or keep it to yourself. This, "that's your opinion", crap is an insult to my intelligence (and to your own for that matter).
This thread is over 1700 posts long at this point. There have been mutilple examples of visual evidence of the curvature of the Earth. You're in denial and need to wake up.
This is the single stupidest thing you've said in this entire thread, David.
The ship has to be several miles away from you before it even starts to look like its going over the horizon and even then you need to augment your visual abilities in order to see it, not to mention the fact that it shouldn't disappear over the horizon in the first place if the Earth is flat!
I don't see GPS or satellites as a proof of any thing. The fact remains that you and I and 99.9% of the rest of the world don't "see" satellites circling a globed earth.
NASA controls space regardless of who owns whatever goes there.
--Dave
themuzicman
Well-known member
Why are only the tops of the tall buildings in Chicago visible from Michigan City, Indiana?
How can we fly from Chile to Australia in 14 hours, but flying from Chicago to Australia takes 18 hours? On a flat earth map, one must fly fairly close to Chicago to get to Australia.
In fact, on a flat earth map, Chile and Australia are about 16,000 miles apart. A plane would have to fly at about 1140 MPH continuously for 14 hours to achieve this. No such plane exists. Even the Concord can only fly 4500 miles before it has to stop.
In short, air travel proves that the world cannot be flat.
That isn't the point! The point is that if the Earth is flat, there are THOUSANDS of things in orbit that are not physically possible and that hundreds of thousands of people make their living in an industry that is entirely fraudulent, many tens of thousands of whom would have to be in on the deceit. It is a conspiracy that CANNOT be maintained, Dave! And to maintain that it can renders the entire position unfalsifiable because you discard the ability to use multiple, independent sources to verify truth claims that are not possible to verify through your own personal investigation. In effect, you create a catch-all category into which all counter arguments can be thrown. That's the reason the special pleading fallacy is a just that, a fallacy.
Doing this conspiracy nonsense has ramifications throughout your entire worldview. Everything you think you know about the world around you is not information that you discovered or that you have personally verified but rather is it information that you have been taught. Nearly everything that makes the modern world modern has come from science. Even the industrial revolution itself has its roots in the practice of scientific thought processes and the application of what was learned in order to make a better widget and ultimately to make a profit. Everything from the internal combustion engine to airplanes to the plastic that is used to make everything from disposable cups to surgical instruments was all made by people who knew what they knew primarily because they were taught it, not because they independently verified the veracity of every claim someone made about the way the world works.
Clete
This is a claim that has already be repeatedly refuted. Distance does not cause something to vanish from the bottom up. If it was distance, it would just keep getting smaller and smaller and smaller. If that were the case, it would simply be a matter of our eyes limited resolution that created the horizon and that telescopes would allow us to see things as far into the distance as the resolution of the telescope would permit. But that is NOT the case. No telescope, no matter how big, can see Europe from New York or even half that distance.
Your counter arguments to that all have specifically to do with atmospheric lensing, which was used to explain, in no uncertain terms, that it is THE reason why things disappear "over" the horizon. This counter argument is REFUTED by the fact that no such atmospheric lensing as described in those counter arguments, exists in every, or even most circumsctances and yet things still disapear over the horizon in spite of the fact that there is no mirroring or significant refraction effects present.
We can continue to repeat arguments that have been refuted and I can repeat the refutation if you want. But I'm going to get bored with it pretty fast.
- Status