The earth is flat and we never went to the moon
- Thread starter DFT_Dave
- Start date
- Status
Three interesting heliocentric anomalies
The earth rotates on it's axis as it also orbits the sun.
1. One would think that the earth's axis would be perpendicular to the sun and it's orbit, but it's not. The axis of the earth is said to be tilted in order for this model to work, but one wonders how it is possible to have a tilted axis that works.
2. The One would think that the orbit would be virtually circular, but it's not. The orbital path is elliptical or this model does not work.
3. Also one would think that the sun is directly in the middle of the orbit but it's not. One would wonder why the force of gravity is not the same in all directions from the sun.
It's ironic but not an anomaly, that the orbits of all the planets around the sun are horizontal to it. In other words, the galaxy is flat and is located in a universe that is also said to be flat.
It's funny how these anomalies are needed in order for the heliocentric model to give us all the correct seasons, etc. one wonders if these anomalies were discovered or actually invented in order to keep this model from being discarded.
--Dave
The earth rotates on it's axis as it also orbits the sun.
1. One would think that the earth's axis would be perpendicular to the sun and it's orbit, but it's not. The axis of the earth is said to be tilted in order for this model to work, but one wonders how it is possible to have a tilted axis that works.
2. The One would think that the orbit would be virtually circular, but it's not. The orbital path is elliptical or this model does not work.
3. Also one would think that the sun is directly in the middle of the orbit but it's not. One would wonder why the force of gravity is not the same in all directions from the sun.
It's ironic but not an anomaly, that the orbits of all the planets around the sun are horizontal to it. In other words, the galaxy is flat and is located in a universe that is also said to be flat.
It's funny how these anomalies are needed in order for the heliocentric model to give us all the correct seasons, etc. one wonders if these anomalies were discovered or actually invented in order to keep this model from being discarded.
--Dave
My dad helped design this lunar lander.
Thank you for calling his work a fraud.
It's landing on the moon would be the fraud, not the making of the module.
This is a big difference and not an indictment of most of the people who work for NASA.
I work for the medical industry but I am not responsible for the abortions that occur within it.
--Dave
No I'm not. I am studying this from both sides. You're not doing that. I read everything you post and go to those sites and then look at what flat earth people have to say about it too.
You assume that all the heliocentric cosmology and physics that explain it are infallible, I don't.
--Dave
Dave, why are you attacking me on this? If you want to make decent arguments, you should learn something about what you are opposing.
Did you ever see people attack something, say Christianity, out of ignorance? They attack all kinds of straw men and say all kinds of strange things that won't convince anybody. But when somebody knows about the subject, their arguments are much more serious, and need to be taken seriously.
Right now you are saying things that don't make sense. If you actually knew something about physics your arguments would be stronger.
For the record- I have watched some flat earth videos. Out of curiosity and a need to be intellectually honest. I have not watched all of the ones you posted- there must be 100 hours of those, and I don't have the time to watch so many, especially when the ones I did watch didn't convince me in the least.
The videos you've posted about supposed "real" images of Venus aren't worth anyone's time, including yours. THEY ARE STUPIDITY!!!!
That isn't a mere insult, its the truth!
The videos you've posted on this thread shouldn't convince a twelve-year-old, David. That first one you posted was a parade of 200 examples of flat out stupidity. That once video alone would have convinced anyone with an ounce of discernment that this whole flat earth movement is nothing but a hobby that young nascent con-artists use to hone their lying skills.
Then why oh why wouldn't (won't) you respond to the arguments I made that directly refuted the nonsense you seem to have bought into?
That's not cheap and if you don't have the passion for doing astronomy, you're going to use it for a week or two and then it will collect dust. Just sayin'
The key difference being that one distorts the image while the other does not. It isn't difficult to tell when an image has been refracted vs when it's just far away.
There are some (many in this case) that don't deserve serious consideration, David. The arguments are insulting to everyone who hears them. They deserve ridicule and I'm no longer interested in sparing your feelings. The arguments you've presented are almost universally idiotic, puerile and just simply stupid. They belong in the minds of children, con artists and the mentally retarded, not serious-minded men and women who want to explore the nature of God's creation and the meaning of His written word.
NO! Definitely not! The camera/telescope is OUT OF FOCUS!!! It's also on a flimsy tripod that he is having to track by hand. The scope he's using, likely has a tiny aperture, if he's using a telescope at all, and its zoomed in way way way past what it's light collecting capabilities would rightly support, which not only makes for a fuzzy images but magnifies every tiny movement the camera makes, including the vibrations made when he touches the tripod. Notice that all the waves happen as he's adjusting the image. The Earth is spinning and he has to manually move his camera to keep the image centered and when he stops touching it, the waves go away! Imagine that! But the real proof that this guy is a lying ***hole is the fact the image is left intentionally out of focus. Anyone who has used a telescope for more than five minutes knows what an out of focus star or planet looks like.
Unless you're using a relatively large reflecting telescope with an aperture of at least 12 or more inches, with a huge focal length, Venus is going to look very small. You can use Barlow lenses to magnify the image but the more magnification you use the more every tiny movement is exaggerated. Astrophotography is not a simple undertaking. You have to pay close attention to the details. And the more you're zoomed in, the more details there are to screw up your image and create god knows what kind of mess. Not that I should suggest that what you're seeing in that video is accidental. It isn't. He's a liar who intentionally took an out of focus image of what he claims is Venus and wants you to believe that its this transparent wavey thing that this video is somehow proof of.
Think of that for a moment, David. This guy, who can't even figure out how to adjust the audio recording levels on his YouTube video has somehow managed to uncover the truth about a lie that has been told presumably for hundreds of years. And he did it with a DSLR camera that millions of people around the world own. How is it that this dork is the first one who ever thought to try and take their own picture of Venus?
More importantly, how is it that you cannot think clearly enough to have thought of that on your own? You could go and buy the lamest, piece of junk digital camera from your local pawn shop and point it at Venus of see for yourself that this guy is a lying sack of excrement! Don't even buy one, just ask a neighbor to borrow one. That's how common such camera are, and yet you think that this YouTube con man is the first guy to ever point a cheap piece of crap camera at Venus! What is the matter with you?
Clete
Which is exactly what happens when they fly in a truly straight trajectory. But typically, they flat in a level trajectory which is where gravity comes in.
No, it isn't saying that David! This is not complicated!
To fly a flat (level) course is to keep a course that is perpendicular to the pull of gravity. So if a plane is flying level then it isn't flying in a truly straight line but is actually following the curvature of the Earth and thereby maintaining his AMSL (Above Mean Sea Level) altitude.
I refuse to believe that you're this stupid.
Of course, you can move both through and with the atmosphere. Do you think that people on a cruise ship can't swim through the water in the on-board swimming pools when the ship is moving? Can you move around in your car when it's moving down the street? Can submariners move through the air in the submarine while it's submerged and traveling and 30 knots?
This comment insults the intelligence of every Christian in existence whether Calvinistic or Open Theist.
The things you're allowing to confuse you are childish nonsense. You permit arguments to persuade you that you contradict every time your take a breath or walk across a room. You see contradictions where none exist and that any sixth-grade child can easily resolve.
And I'm not saying that to insult you. I'm telling you the truth about the stupidity that you are allowing to cloud your mind! You're better that this! You frankly ought to be embarrassed and ashamed of yourself. Discernment is a key ingredient, a necessary component to wisdom. You are demonstrating a lack of discernment that would be a punishable offense if you were one of my own children. I cannot, for the life of me, figure out what the Hell is wrong with you!
Clete
By the way, I have met with utter failure on my attempt to photograph the Lyrid Meteor Shower.
Meteors are difficult to photograph under any circumstances but utterly impossible to image when it's overcast.
What's really bad is that I had perfect viewing conditions the morning before which is when the peak of the shower actually happened. I just figured that since there was a cold front coming through during the day, that the skies would clear out with the colder, dryer air that was coming in behind the front. Had I been in Oklahoma, that's just what would have happened. But I'm in Houston and the Gulf of Mexico is great about pumping warm moist air up over the top of the cold dry air and making crapy clouds that ruin my imaging time!
Fortunately, there always next time!
Meteors are difficult to photograph under any circumstances but utterly impossible to image when it's overcast.
What's really bad is that I had perfect viewing conditions the morning before which is when the peak of the shower actually happened. I just figured that since there was a cold front coming through during the day, that the skies would clear out with the colder, dryer air that was coming in behind the front. Had I been in Oklahoma, that's just what would have happened. But I'm in Houston and the Gulf of Mexico is great about pumping warm moist air up over the top of the cold dry air and making crapy clouds that ruin my imaging time!
Fortunately, there always next time!
Thanks for trying, at least!
See, [MENTION=4980]DFT_Dave[/MENTION], Science is all about predictions, and testing those predictions. If someone predicts, for instance, that around this same time next year, you will be able to view a meteor shower coming from a specific point in the sky, and then at that point in time a meteor shower occurs and it's coming from that point in the sky, then it means that the model you used is accurate, and should used again.
WonderfulLordJesus
New member
After 223 pages, I think it's time to move on to explaining how it was a Jewish Bigfoot responsible for 9/11, or at least mention how Columbus, in fact, did fall off the end of the earth. Would like to go into this now, but I need to be thinking about today's meals, get back to the cave, be rubbing some flints together and start a fire.
I think we are all reaching this point.
Silent Hunter
Well-known member
Great, now do you have an aircraft with the power to overcome gravity. You probably didn't bother to read my trampoline analogy.
Your failure to even attempt to understand basic physics is nearly overshadowed by your failure to find out how an attitude indicator works.
This is proof you don't bother to read.
Why not prove your NASA conspiracy theory instead of simply claiming there is one to avoid the inconvenience it presents a flat Earth..
No joke, Dave. If you knew ANY physics you would have killed this thread before even starting it.
You're nothing if not entertaining.
Which ones exactly?
Well, Dave, no they can't, but let's not let your ignorance of flight dynamics and orbital mechanics keep you from not understanding why.
Keep it up, Dave. I foresee a custom fitted I love me jacket in your future.
As soon as you become "god", Dave, you can reshape the universe to conform to your personal specifications.
As an amateur astronomer, who has a 12" telescope and takes astrophotos, I can confirm Clete's observation that your videos are badly out of focus.
Now, do you want to start your nonsense over from the beginning (as you seem to have already begun) or do you want to apologize to everyone for wasting their time?
That is an excellent point! We can, for example, know that Newton got something very close to being exactly right about universal gravitation and the nature of the Moon's orbit because he predicted how long one orbit of the Moon should take based on how far something falls in one second here on Earth. If he had been wrong, there's no such prediction would have been possible.
There is a great little five-minute video of Richard Feynman discussing we can how Newton was right where he makes the exact same point. Pay close attention to his final point. It starts are 4:45 or so.
Clete
You have it backwards.
I want flat earth attacked.
I want the arguments made for it looked at and debunked.
I want to see if flat earth can stand.
I never said I had the answers on this, I said I'm going to represent, or better, present the case for flat earth, which is being made on video.
--Dave
I don't know where you're getting this stuff from but all of these points are wrong, Dave.
No one knows why the Earth is tilted. We creationist believe that it was created that way. The only paradigm from which your objection works is from an atheistic worldview where such phenomena requires a purely natural explanation. From within that paradigm, it is readily acknowledged that at some point in the distant past, the Earth did, in fact, rotate on an axis perpendicular to the plane of the solar system and that something, probably an impact of some kind, caused the tilt. I DO NOT endorse that hypothesis, I simply present it so as to demonstrate to you that the tilt of the Earth's axis is not contradictory to the modern understanding of how the universe works. In fact, if the tilt of the Earth's axis (and/or the observations we see that are explained by such a tilted axis of rotation) is contradictory to anything, its the flat earth model.
Actually, it is very nearly circular. The mean distance from the Sun is 92.96 million miles. At its furthest point, the Earth is 94.51 million miles from the Sun and at its closest, its 91.40 million miles from the Sun. That means, at its most extreme orbital points, it's less than 2% out of round.
Be that as it may, your comment is flatly false. We know, because of Newton's discoveries about how gravity works that we WOULD NOT expect a perfectly circular orbit. In fact, a perfectly circular orbit would DISPROVE Newton's Universal Gravity. There are very specific mathematical reasons why such orbit must be elliptical and cannot be otherwise.
No, one would not think that! Newton rightly said that two bodies orbit around a common center of gravity. The Sun's gravitational wobble is quite complex due to the fact that there are several things in orbit around it. This, by the way, is an observable wobble (with the right equipment) and such orbital wobbles are being used to indirectly detect planets around other stars. The point being that if Jupiter and Saturn and the other planets were not actually orbiting the Sun, as the flat-Earth model states, then no such wobble should be detectable - but it is.
The force of gravity is precisely what we expect it to be according to Newton's Laws and now, even more accurately, because of Einstein's theory of Gravity. In fact, it was Einstien's work that explained the peculiar nature of Mercury's orbit.
How is that ironic?
It's also not quite true. Pluto's orbit is tilted 17° from the ecliptic (plane of the solar system (i.e. Earth's orbit)).
There is no wondering about it. They were clearly, obviously, verifiably, demonstrably discovered! And not all that long ago. Recently enough, in fact, that all (nearly all) of the scientist's original work is documented and still available for us to read. There are translations of it available online and nearly all of the earliest experiments can be recreated and performed yourself. In fact, there are astronomical clubs and societies all over the planet that do exactly that just for the fun of it.
Clete
Now that's the kind of answer I've been looking for!!!
Why didn't you say all this earlier???
Why get upset and say all this???
I had friends in Bible school who were real jocks like me. We played baseball, football, hockey, and basketball together. But when it came to golf, well, they wondered how it was that I could play every other sport so well but play golf so poorly. My response was, golf is not my sport, I never really played it before.
Now I will take what you have said and take that to flat earth videos on stars and with your input in my head and see if they can answer your argument, thanks for the specifics.
--Dave
Level to the pull of gravity??? There is no level if you are following the curvature of the earth when you are flying. I will admit that a plane can fly perpendicular to the curvature of the earth, but I must insist that it can also fly "straight" and not perpendicular to the curvature of the earth and "prove" that this curve truly exists.
Gravity cannot magically alter a planes "elevator", the elevators keep the plane flying straight or make the plane descend, nose down, or ascend, nose up.
Given your premise about the atmosphere your argument is correct.
But if your premise is wrong then so is the argument.
What is your premise? Your premise is, the atmosphere is moving.
How do you know the atmosphere is moving?
--Dave
- Status