The earth is flat and we never went to the moon

[DFT_Dave]

All the arguments listed below are paraphrases of the arguments made in the above video.

Arguments 2: The paths that the stars make in the sky would not be circular around the Polaris if the Earth was moving 67 times faster around the Sun than it is spinning on its axis.

For one thing, this argument is question begging. It presupposes that the stars are close by. In other words, it presupposes the flat-earth model in order to make an argument in support of the flat-earth model. That's textbook question begging.

Additionally, the argument conflates the apparent change in position of objects to do parallax with the change due to looking in a different direction. As the Earth spins on its axis, the field of view changes because we are looking in a different direction, not because our position relative to the stars has changed (significantly).

An appropriate question to ask would be, if we are moving in our orbit and 67,000 mph, why can't we see that movement in the relative position of the stars?
But she (the lady in the video) didn't ask that question. You know why she didn't ask that question? Because it would have been a rational question to ask which means there's an answer to it that she wouldn't like. Here's the answer.

WE CAN! The parallax observed in many of the stars that are closest to us is sufficient for modern equipment to measure and it has in fact been measured. A feat that is fundamentally (i.e. conceptually) impossible on a stationary Earth.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stellar_parallax

Clete

One would think that the axis of a rotating planet in an elliptical orbit around the sun would be straight up and down and not be tilted in relation to the sun. Funny how this tilt just happens to keep the north star over the north pole.

The argument that the circular movement of the stars around the "fixed" north star is evidence of a flat earth is in contrast to a moving earth rotating around the sun in which such a circling of stars could not be possible.

This is a contrast of two models in which only flat earth can be possibly true. This argument assumes the stars to be where each model places it and is there fore not an argument that assumes close stars for each model.

Tilted axis :kookoo:

--Dave

 

[JudgeRightly]

One would think that the axis of a rotating planet in an elliptical orbit around the sun would be straight up and down and not be tilted in relation to the sun. Funny how this tilt just happens to keep the north star over the north pole.

that would be true if the earth somehow formed via a naturalistic process, such as the "Nebular theory." But the earth was created by God, who designed the solar system so that the earth would tilt just enough for there to be seasons. He designed Uranus so that it would be spinning perpendicular to the angle of it's orbit.

The argument that the circular movement of the stars around the "fixed" north star is evidence of a flat earth is in contrast to a moving earth rotating around the sun in which such a circling of stars could not be possible.

This is a contrast of two models in which only flat earth can be possibly true. This argument assumes the stars to be where each model places it and is there fore not an argument that assumes close stars for each model.

Tilted axis :kookoo:

--Dave

Dave, have you ever noticed that the farther away things are, the slower they appear to be moving?

If not, next time you're out on the highway, look at traffic going in the opposite direction, and compare the "speed" of cars that are far away with the "speed" of cars that are going by you.

And then compare them with cars that are moving perpendicular, say over or under a bridge that intersects your stretch of highway. Notice how the cars that are farther away don't seem to move as much as cars that are moving across your vision (perpendicular or moving past you on the opposite side of the highway)?

That same effect is what's happening from our perspective of the north star. As the earth orbits the sun over a 365 day period, the movement of the earth is so miniscule compared to the distance from the earth to the star that it appears as if it doesn't move at all.

Sent from my Pixel XL using TheologyOnline mobile app

 

[DFT_Dave]

that would be true if the earth somehow formed via a naturalistic process, such as the "Nebular theory." But the earth was created by God, who designed the solar system so that the earth would tilt just enough for there to be seasons. He designed Uranus so that it would be spinning perpendicular to the angle of it's orbit.



Dave, have you ever noticed that the farther away things are, the slower they appear to be moving?

If not, next time you're out on the highway, look at traffic going in the opposite direction, and compare the "speed" of cars that are far away with the "speed" of cars that are going by you.

And then compare them with cars that are moving perpendicular, say over or under a bridge that intersects your stretch of highway. Notice how the cars that are farther away don't seem to move as much as cars that are moving across your vision (perpendicular or moving past you on the opposite side of the highway)?

That same effect is what's happening from our perspective of the north star. As the earth orbits the sun over a 365 day period, the movement of the earth is so miniscule compared to the distance from the earth to the star that it appears as if it doesn't move at all.

Sent from my Pixel XL using TheologyOnline mobile app

Compared to the stars that circle the north star it is not moving in relation to them. I think God put a fixed stationary star over the center of his fixed, flat, stationary earth.

View attachment 25403

--Dave

 

[JudgeRightly]

Compared to the stars that circle the north star it is not moving in relation to them. I think God put a fixed stationary star over the center of his fixed, flat, stationary earth.

View attachment 25403

--Dave

Dave, just out of curiousity, do you know where that image was taken?

Sent from my Pixel XL using TheologyOnline mobile app

 

[JudgeRightly]

Compared to the stars that circle the north star it is not moving in relation to them. I think God put a fixed stationary star over the center of his fixed, flat, stationary earth.

View attachment 25403

--Dave

And please address the rest of my points with an actual counterargument, not just with your opinion.

Sent from my Pixel XL using TheologyOnline mobile app

 

[Clete]

One would think that the axis of a rotating planet in an elliptical orbit around the sun would be straight up and down and not be tilted in relation to the sun.

This is only true if you accept that the universe wasn't created and even then it's only an intuition. There are all kinds of things in nature that are contrary to what we might expect. This is why a hypothesis must be tested.

Funny how this tilt just happens to keep the north star over the north pole.

Why is that funny? I mean I understand what you mean, I just don't understand the point you're making. If the Earth is spinning, the center of rotation is going to have something directly above it. The sky is pretty full of stars and so it's not very surprising that there would be a star near that location.

In actual fact, Polaris is not in the exact spot and even if it were, it wouldn't stay there because the Earth isn't just tilted on its axis of rotation, that axis is precessing as well which means that what is the North Star today, hasn't always been and won't always be.

The argument that the circular movement of the stars around the "fixed" north star is evidence of a flat earth is in contrast to a moving earth rotating around the sun in which such a circling of stars could not be possible.

There are dozens of problems with this notion some of which we discussed already.

First of all, the north star is not fixed.
Second, the motions of the objects in the sky are far more complex that simply spinning around the North Star.
Third, there's a southern celestial pole as well.
Etc,

All of which just so happens to be precisely in keeping with a heliocentric, globe earth model of the solar system and a galactic model of the rest of the universe (i.e. extreme distances between stars and galaxies). And that is actually a point that is worth saying twice. Everything we see in the sky is precisely predictable as far into the future as you care to go and the prediction work based on mathematics that are entirely based on the concepts of universal gravity and the heliocentric, globe earth model. It would seem that God Himself would have to be in on the deception since He's the One who created everything and is moving it all around in just such a manner as to look exactly the same as it would if the Earth was round and moving in orbit around the Sun! Sort of like how the Calvinists must think that God tricks everyone into thinking they have free will by making us all live our lives as though we do.

This is a contrast of two models in which only flat earth can be possibly true.

On the contrary. The fact that people looking south at in Australia see the same stars as those looking south in South America is proof by itself that the Earth cannot be a flat disk.

There are several things that flat earthers cannot get past. The existence of the south celestial pole and the existence of the Coriolis Effect are just two of many that have been presented multiple times in this thread.

This argument assumes the stars to be where each model places it and is there fore not an argument that assumes close stars for each model.

I'm not following you on this last point. The stars and planets are where they are and move the way they move. One model is either consistent with the facts of reality or it isn't.

Clete

 

[DFT_Dave]

And please address the rest of my points with an actual counterargument, not just with your opinion.

Sent from my Pixel XL using TheologyOnline mobile app

If the earth was moving around the sun in a vast elliptical orbit we would not see the almost perfect circle of stars moving around one in the middle that is not moving in relation to them. Why does the sun not move? It is said the whole galaxy moves, so it would be impossible for the stars to maintain there locations from year to year to....if everything is moving through space as the globe model says it does.

--Dave

 

[Clete]

I understand the equator is moving faster than where we are, 1000 mph at equator and between 600 to 800 mph for us if the earth is a spinning globe. I read the article.

:sherlock: I will continue to explore this but I still disagree and my client is not willing to surrender the point.

Well, okay but the conservation of momentum is only one of the most tested and thoroughly proven concepts in all of science, so no pressure trying to disprove it or anything.

Why do so many people believe there is no God?

There are lots of reasons, not the least of which is that God hides Himself. (Isiah 45:15)

Not only that but because people are evil. They don't believe because they don't want to believe. There are actual consequences to believing in a just Creator. People understand intuitively that if they accept that such a God exists that they're in trouble and would have to change the way they live their lives, which they don't want to do.

There is no such consequence in regards to flat or round earth. No one lives their lives any differently because they think the flat earth is round or vise versa. Well, except for pilots, boat captains, astronaut, and anyone else who's life centers around the Earth as a whole. Funny how they all universally believe in a round Earth or else lie about it.

Why do so many people believe in evolution?

This is easy. Most people believe what they are taught.

Why...can we suspend the ad populum argument? The court has already heard this many times.

No, we can't suspend it.

Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence of which you have none whatsoever for the idea that millions of people, over more than a thousand years, have been able to successfully maintain a conspiracy the magnitude of which cannot even be comprehended never mind orchestrated and controlled.

Clete

 

[DFT_Dave]

Well, okay but the conservation of momentum is only one of the most tested and thoroughly proven concepts in all of science, so no pressure trying to disprove it or anything.

There are lots of reasons, not the least of which is that God hides Himself. (Isiah 45:15)

Not only that but because people are evil. They don't believe because they don't want to believe. There are actual consequences to believing in a just Creator. People understand intuitively that if they accept that such a God exists that they're in trouble and would have to change the way they live their lives, which they don't want to do.

There is no such consequence in regards to flat or round earth. No one lives their lives any differently because they think the flat earth is round or vise versa. Well, except for pilots, boat captains, astronaut, and anyone else who's life centers around the Earth as a whole. Funny how they all universally believe in a round Earth or else lie about it.

This is easy. Most people believe what they are taught.

No, we can't suspend it.

Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence of which you have none whatsoever for the idea that millions of people, over more than a thousand years, have been able to successfully maintain a conspiracy the magnitude of which cannot even be comprehended never mind orchestrated and controlled.

Clete

I would like some examples of "the conservation of momentum is only one of the most tested and thoroughly proven concepts in all of science" and how each example proves the earth is spinning.

The "popular opinion" argument is absolutely meaningless. Save it for those who want government to do all their thinking for them.

--Dave

 

[JudgeRightly]

I would like some examples of "the conservation of momentum is only one of the most tested and thoroughly proven concepts in all of science" and how each example proves the earth is spinning.

From a secular point of view, but the math is the same.

https://youtu.be/hgcudPr73LU

A demonstration of such.

https://youtu.be/_XgYTP0kB7A

Sent from my Pixel XL using TheologyOnline mobile app

 

[Clete]

I would like some examples of "the conservation of momentum is only one of the most tested and thoroughly proven concepts in all of science" and how each example proves the earth is spinning.

No.

I will not get dragged into a debate about whether the conservation of momentum is a proven fact of science. If you don't believe that then you're hopeless and you're basing your worldview on blind beleifism. You might as well go join the Branch Davidians.

The "popular opinion" argument is absolutely meaningless. Save it for those who want government to do all their thinking for them.

--Dave

It has nothing whatseover to do with anyone's opinion and I've made no such argument.

Give me a break, David. I'm not stupid.

 

[JudgeRightly]

Oh, and one more from the "evil" NASA.

https://youtu.be/2Oc-Ucx_4Ug

Sent from my Pixel XL using TheologyOnline mobile app

 

[DFT_Dave]

"The North Star or Pole Star is simply a star named Polaris that happens to live directly above the north pole of the Earth...the South Pole has no such counterpart."--Link

"There is no South Star as useful as Polaris...The Southern Cross constellation functions as an approximate southern pole constellation, by pointing to where a southern pole star would be."--Wiki

Anti Crepuscular Sun Rays are KEY to Southern Star Rotation FLAT EARTH

--Dave

 

[JudgeRightly]

"The North Star or Pole Star is simply a star named Polaris that happens to live directly above the north pole of the Earth...the South Pole has no such counterpart."--Link

"There is no South Star as useful as Polaris...The Southern Cross constellation functions as an approximate southern pole constellation, by pointing to where a southern pole star would be."--Wiki

Anti Crepuscular Sun Rays are KEY to Southern Star Rotation FLAT EARTH

--Dave

And yet the Southern Cross can be seen from Australia, Southern Africa, and Southern South America, which on a flat earth is NOT POSSIBLE, as all three of those locations are in different parts of the earth.

Sent from my Pixel XL using TheologyOnline mobile app

 

[DFT_Dave]

No.

I will not get dragged into a debate about whether the conservation of momentum is a proven fact of science. If you don't believe that then you're hopeless and you're basing your worldview on blind beleifism. You might as well go join the Branch Davidians.


It has nothing whatseover to do with anyone's opinion and I've made no such argument.

Give me a break, David. I'm not stupid.

I'm not asking "whether the conservation of momentum is a proven fact of science", I'm asking for more examples of how it proves a spinning globe.

But if you don't want to, that's fine. I don't want you to "feel" dragged.

We are trying to distinguish fact from opinion aren't we? You are always assuming all globe earth arguments are facts of science, that would be a logical fallacy as well.

--Dave

 

[Clete]

I'm not asking "whether the conservation of momentum is a proven fact of science", I'm asking for more examples of how it proves a spinning globe.

Oh. Well, that's different.

I don't know of any off the top of my head aside from the Coriolis Effect and all the related phenomena. That doesn't mean there aren't any but only that I'm still new to the defense of the globe earth model so I've never needed to collect the arguments before.

But if you don't want to, that's fine. I don't want you to "feel" dragged.

We are trying to distinguish fact from opinion aren't we? You are always assuming all globe earth arguments are facts of science, that would be a logical fallacy as well.

--Dave

I thought you were asking me for examples of proof that momentum is conserved, which I found a little crazy. I'm glad to know that I misunderstood what you were asking for.

 

[Clete]

"The North Star or Pole Star is simply a star named Polaris that happens to live directly above the north pole of the Earth...the South Pole has no such counterpart."--Link

"There is no South Star as useful as Polaris...The Southern Cross constellation functions as an approximate southern pole constellation, by pointing to where a southern pole star would be."--Wiki

Anti Crepuscular Sun Rays are KEY to Southern Star Rotation FLAT EARTH

--Dave

There actually is a star at the south celestial pole, it's just not a bright star like Polaris. But whether there is a star in that particular location is irrelevant.
The fact that there is a south celestial pole at all is what destroys the flat Earth model. If the Earth is a flat disk, people is Austalia looking "south" (i.e. with the North Pole at their backs) would be looking in the opposite direction as those looking south from South America. There's no way they could be looking at the same stars if the Earth is a flat disc. The fact that they do see the same stars spinning around the south celestial pole is PROOF that the Earth is a sphere. There is no other rational explanation for what regular people (i.e. not just government employees or scientists or any other special class of people) see with their own unaided eyes.

Clete

 

[Clete]

One point I want to make about "ad populum" arguments.

I've made no such arguments.

And Ad Populum argument is one where one attempts to establish a truth claim by appealing to its popularity.
"Millions of people can't all be wrong." is the shorthand version of the argument.

That is not at all what I am arguing when I point out the enormous conspiracy theory that YOUR position presupposes must exist.

It's not that nearly everyone believes that the Earth is round, therefore is must be true, it's that your position presupposes that there must be millions of people who know that the Earth is not round and are actively engaged in a conspiracy to keep that fact a secret. My argument is that such a claim is wildly extraordinary and in need of extraordinary evidence and that you have no evidence aside from the fact that most everyone believes in a round Earth. That's not even close to being an ad populum argument. It's just a refutation of your special pleading fallacy.

Clete

 

[DFT_Dave]

There actually is a star at the south celestial pole, it's just not a bright star like Polaris. But whether there is a star in that particular location is irrelevant.
The fact that there is a south celestial pole at all is what destroys the flat Earth model. If the Earth is a flat disk, people is Austalia looking "south" (i.e. with the North Pole at their backs) would be looking in the opposite direction as those looking south from South America. There's no way they could be looking at the same stars if the Earth is a flat disc. The fact that they do see the same stars spinning around the south celestial pole is PROOF that the Earth is a sphere. There is no other rational explanation for what regular people (i.e. not just government employees or scientists or any other special class of people) see with their own unaided eyes.

Clete

Stars are not my fortay so I have been going over more videos on how the stars are explained for flat earth.

Flat Earth: Southern Stars

--Dave

 

[DFT_Dave]

What Are Stars? You will be AMAZED at the Truth!

This one is interesting because it has a number of scriptures with it.

--Dave