The earth is flat and we never went to the moon--Part II

[DFT_Dave]

Don't bother. I will just post videos showing that the sun does not change size. If you want to impress, go get a piece of welding glass and a sharpie. Mark the diameter of the sun on the glass at sunrise. Once an hour throughout the day compre the size of the sun to the marks on your glass. Take a picture of the sun through the glass with your marks and post those pictures. Dueling videos prove nothing.

Does the sun disappear from the sky everyday? Does the sun disappear from the bottom up? How does a solar disk orbiting above and parallel to a flat Earth disappear from the bottom up? Can you focus on this single issue until you have completely explained how sun set on a flat Earth exactly matches what I see when I watch the sun set?

Wikipedia is correct. Classic Newtonian physics can be thought of as a subset of simplified equations that are part of relativity. In other words, relativity is not required to solve every problem dealing with gravity. Newton and Einstien are not, as your video implies, mutually exclusive.

Airy's failure, Michelson Morley null result, and Sagnac's experiments all failed to show that the earth was moving through space. That space was a medium for the transmission of light, called ether, was not abandoned by these experiments which were supposed to show how we could measure it. Light travels but the earth does not was the result of these tests. Abandoning the term "ether" was clearly a scapegoat for the unacceptable results of the experiments.

Einstein merely pushes that light travel's and the earth does not off the table and say's it's all relative to the viewer. Everything moves around every immovable viewer. See how everyone is God in this proposition. Einstein's space-time block universe is a cosmology for pantheists.

I will show what we see and cannot see at the horizon from the flat earth perspective as we go. I have already shown that the landscape rises above the horizon line on a flat earth and will block our view of the sun before it reaches the vanishing point making the bottom disappear first.

What happens over the ocean is next.

--Dave

 

[DFT_Dave]

No, but it IS proof that the earth does rotate.. How fast is a separate matter.

The proof of a spinning globe would have been verified by Airy, Michelson and Morley, and Sagnac experiments. Their earth is not moving results were rejected only because heliocentrism would have had to be abandoned and all the credibility of the so called great minds of the day would have crumbled.

--Dave

 

[JudgeRightly]

The proof of a spinning globe would have been verified by Airy, Michelson and Morley, and Sagnac experiments. Their earth is not moving results were rejected only because heliocentrism would have had to be abandoned and all the credibility of the so called great minds of the day would have crumbled.

--Dave

Then you need to explain why the swing path of a pendulum rotates while it swings, and in opposite directions on the opposite halves of the world.

 

[Nathon Detroit]

Your Dad , like many others involved in NASA, were not the players in the deception of the moon landing, they were pawns used unwittingly.

--Dave

That would be an extremely difficult if not impossible thing to pull off. Do you have any evidence of proof to back up this wild claim?

 

[DFT_Dave]

Then you need to explain why the swing path of a pendulum rotates while it swings, and in opposite directions on the opposite halves of the world.

We don't have to explain pendulums, we have to explain why the earth is not moving from our experience on earth and from actual experiments based on the understanding that light travels.

--Dave

 

[JudgeRightly]

We don't have to explain pendulums, we have to explain why the earth is not moving from our experience on earth and from actual experiments based on the understanding that light travels.

--Dave

Dave, it is an established fact that a pendulum's swing path will rotate after the pendulum is set in motion. You reject that the earth is moving, which is the established reason that the path rotates. You assert that the earth's rotation is not the reason, therefore the onus is on you to provide an alternate explanation as to why the path rotates.

So yes, you do have to explain the movement of pendulums in a circular motion when you reject that the earth spins.

Either provide an alternate explanation, or concede the point that a foucault pendulum is strong evidence that the earth spins, and concede the secondary point that the fact that a foucault pendulum spins opposite directions in the two halves of the earth is strong evidence that the earth is a globe.

 

[DFT_Dave]

That would be an extremely difficult if not impossible thing to pull off. Do you have any evidence of proof to back up this wild claim?

View attachment 26608

This is the look of guilt not triumph. These men are displaying shame, body language does not lie.

They could not even get their story straight about seeing stars or not.

--Dave

 

[Stripe]

Michelson Morley null result.

M&M measured an orbital velocity of about 8 kilometers per second.

Sent from my SM-A520F using Tapatalk

 

[JudgeRightly]

View attachment 26608

This is the look of guilt not triumph. These men are displaying shame, body language does not lie.

They could not even get their story straight about seeing stars or not.

--Dave

They look bored, not ashamed.

 

[Stripe]

View attachment 26608

This is the look of guilt not triumph. These men are displaying shame, body language does not lie.

They could not even get their story straight about seeing stars or not.

--Dave

:darwinsm:

Clete is right. You're stupid beyond belief. :chuckle:

Sent from my SM-A520F using Tapatalk

 

[DFT_Dave]

Dave, it is an established fact that a pendulum's swing path will rotate after the pendulum is set in motion. You reject that the earth is moving, which is the established reason that the path rotates. You assert that the earth's rotation is not the reason, therefore the onus is on you to provide an alternate explanation as to why the path rotates.

So yes, you do have to explain the movement of pendulums in a circular motion when you reject that the earth spins.

Either provide an alternate explanation, or concede the point that a foucault pendulum is strong evidence that the earth spins, and concede the secondary point that the fact that a foucault pendulum spins opposite directions in the two halves of the earth is strong evidence that the earth is a globe.

No, I don't have to explain what pendulums do and why. Your argument that the circular motion of a pendulum means the earth is moving is a circular argument that assumes what it is said to prove. A belief that the circular motion of a pendulum is because the earth is moving cannot become proof that the earth is moving because of how the pendulum moves.

--Dave

 

[DFT_Dave]

M&M measured an orbital velocity of about 8 kilometers per second.

Sent from my SM-A520F using Tapatalk

It's called a null result because it failed to prove the motion of the earth.

Airy's experiment proved the stars were moving not the earth.

--Dave

 

[Stripe]

No, I don't have to explain what pendulums do and why. Your argument that the circular motion of a pendulum means the earth is moving is a circular argument that assumes what it is said to prove. A belief that the circular motion of a pendulum is because the earth is moving cannot become proof that the earth is moving because of how the pendulum moves.

--Dave

This is not the scientific method. We have theories (round Earth, conservation of angular momentum) and evidence to support it (pendulums, M&M). You have your rejection of our ideas.

To be part of a sensible conversation, you need to provide the same things. You could start by explaining why the Earth is flat. We can explain why the Earth is round. You know, the fundamentals. :up:

Sent from my SM-A520F using Tapatalk

 

[Stripe]

It's called a null result because it failed to prove the motion of the earth.

Is reading your second language?

M&M's work showed an orbital velocity of 8kms.

Sent from my SM-A520F using Tapatalk

 

[DFT_Dave]

They look bored, not ashamed.

Why are they bored??? They just accomplished one of the greatest feats in the history of the world. They should be excited and happy. But they are not.

Body language says they are showing guilt.

--Dave

 

[DFT_Dave]

This is not the scientific method. We have theories (round Earth, conservation of angular momentum) and evidence to support it (pendulums, M&M). You have your rejection of our ideas.

To be part of a sensible conversation, you need to provide the same things. You could start by explaining why the Earth is flat. We can explain why the Earth is round. You know, the fundamentals. :up:

Sent from my SM-A520F using Tapatalk

I've said many times the reasons for believing the earth is flat. All we get back from globe earth is that we can't trust our senses from our perspective so we must submit and obey or be called insane.

--Dave

 

[JudgeRightly]

No, I don't have to explain what pendulums do and why.

NO ONE SAID YOU HAD TO EXPLAIN WHAT THEY DO. We KNOW what pendulums do, Daft Dave. Take a pendulum of any kind and observe what happens when you yourself pull it to one side and let go.

But you DO have to explain the "WHY," if you reject the established "why."

That's how science works, Dave. If there is an established theory of how something works, and you challenge that theory, then it stands to reason that you have an alternate explanation, an alternate, and perhaps better, theory to explain the circumstances.

Present your theory, your explanation as to why a foucault pendulum swings in a circular motion, or concede the point Dave.

Your argument that the circular motion of a pendulum means the earth is moving is a circular argument that assumes what it is said to prove.

NO, Dave, IT ISN'T.

The Foucault pendulum (English: /fuːˈkoʊ/ foo-KOH; French pronunciation: ​[fuˈko]) or Foucault's pendulum is a simple device named after French physicist Léon Foucault and conceived as an experiment to demonstrate the Earth's rotation. The pendulum was introduced in 1851 and was the first experiment to give simple, direct evidence of the earth's rotation. Today, Foucault pendulums are popular displays in science museums and universities.

A belief that the circular motion of a pendulum is because the earth is moving cannot become proof that the earth is moving because of how the pendulum moves.

--Dave

By your logic, no theory or idea is provable because any experiment or test designed to test and even confirm the theory or idea would be considered circular reasoning by you.

Is this why you refuse to do experiments yourself, because you think that doing tests based on the theories or ideas you're trying to confirm or deny is circular reasoning? If so, you're an idiot, a dunce, and just plain stupid.

 

[Stripe]

I've said many times the reasons for believing the earth is flat. All we get back from globe earth is that we can't trust our senses from our perspective so we must submit and obey or be called insane.

--Dave

Oh dear. :sigh:

Physics. Explain why the Earth is flat from pure physics.

We can explain why the Earth is round. :up:

If you ask: Why is the Earth round, we are not going to give you "reasons to believe." We will tell you why.

It's like if we were to ask why fire is hot. We would not give you reasons to believe, we would talk about the physics and chemistry of combustion.

However, the root of your problem is that the scientific method does not advance by asserting what you believe and giving explanations. It advances by presenting a coherent idea and then examining the evidence to find reasons to reject it.

In the case of flat Earthers, the best response is mockery, but if you seriously believe your ideas have scientific merit, lay it out.

Why is the Earth flat?

Sent from my SM-A520F using Tapatalk

 

[DFT_Dave]

NO ONE SAID YOU HAD TO EXPLAIN WHAT THEY DO. We KNOW what pendulums do, Daft Dave. Take a pendulum of any kind and observe what happens when you yourself pull it to one side and let go.

But you DO have to explain the "WHY," if you reject the established "why."

That's how science works, Dave. If there is an established theory of how something works, and you challenge that theory, then it stands to reason that you have an alternate explanation, an alternate, and perhaps better, theory to explain the circumstances.

Present your theory, your explanation as to why a foucault pendulum swings in a circular motion, or concede the point Dave.



NO, Dave, IT ISN'T.

The Foucault pendulum (English: /fuːˈkoʊ/ foo-KOH; French pronunciation: ​[fuˈko]) or Foucault's pendulum is a simple device named after French physicist Léon Foucault and conceived as an experiment to demonstrate the Earth's rotation. The pendulum was introduced in 1851 and was the first experiment to give simple, direct evidence of the earth's rotation. Today, Foucault pendulums are popular displays in science museums and universities.

By your logic, no theory or idea is provable because any experiment or test designed to test and even confirm the theory or idea would be considered circular reasoning by you.

Is this why you refuse to do experiments yourself, because you think that doing tests based on the theories or ideas you're trying to confirm or deny is circular reasoning? If so, you're an idiot, a dunce, and just plain stupid.

Just simple and clear circular reasoning.

Actual experiments have already been done.

--Dave

 

[DFT_Dave]

Oh dear. :sigh:

Physics. Explain why the Earth is flat from pure physics.

We can explain why the Earth is round. :up:

If you ask: Why is the Earth round, we are not going to give you "reasons to believe." We will tell you why.

It's like if we were to ask why fire is hot. We would not give you reasons to believe, we would talk about the physics and chemistry of combustion.

However, the root of your problem is that the scientific method does not advance by asserting what you believe and giving explanations. It advances by presenting a coherent idea and then examining the evidence to find reasons to reject it.

In the case of flat Earthers, the best response is mockery, but if you seriously believe your ideas have scientific merit, lay it out.

Why is the Earth flat?

Sent from my SM-A520F using Tapatalk

Actual experiments have been ignored that proved the earth does not move in favor of Einstein's "thought experiments", that are called relativism, and you think I've lost my mind.

Flat earth is based on observations that we are seeing things we should not be seeing if the earth is a globe.

--Dave