The earth is flat and we never went to the moon

[Clete]

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.

Yes, level to the pull of gravity! It's just the same as saying that it's perpendicular to both the pull of gravity and the curved surface of the Earth because it's the pull of gravity that curves the surface of the Earth in the first place. Level and flat are not synonymous. You can use them interchangeably in a practical sense because the Earth is so huge that on small scales, the curvature is negligible but that doesn't make the terms truly synonymous. The fact is, as I've already stated, that you're correct, a plane could, in fact, fly in a truly straight and flat stragectory in theory, but if a pilot were to do so, what he'd have to tell his plane to do is to climb in altitude at a rate of eight inches per mile squared. He'd eventually be flying almost directly against the pull of gravity (what we call "up") and his plane would stall and he'd likely end up crashing and dying.

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.

It isn't magic. Pilots make course corrections constantly and the curvature of the Earth is mostly, if not entirely, unoticable in comparison to even the largest of airplanes. The Earth is really, really, really big! But whether the pilot notices it or not, if he is flying at a constant ASL (Altitude above Sea Level), he is, in fact, descending at a rate of eight inches per mile squared.

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

We've had this conversation already. The atmosphere is part of the Earth, just as the ground and oceans are. Why do you have a problem with something being able to move around in the atmosphere as it moves along with the Earth but you have no problem at all with fish doing the exact same thing in the oceans or with worms moving around in the dirt?

And no, that is NOT my premise! Whether the Earth is moving and the atmosphere along with it or not, my premise is that motion is relative to other objects. My argument would hold whether the Earth was moving or not. It is your claim that there is some sort of contradiction that I am refuting. The point is that whether I am in a moving atmosphere or a stationary one, my ability to move around inside that atmosphere is entirely uneffected. To suggest that I can't possibly move around inside an atmosphere that is itself moving relative to a different frame of reference is to suggest that I can't swim around in a pool on board a ship that is moving relative to the ocean or move air in and out of my lungs inside a car that is moving that air at 50 mph relative to the street.

Clete

 

[DFT_Dave]

Dave, people are quite willing to discuss the matter with you. This is likely the longest thread there has ever been here. The problem isn't your unusual belief. It is your method of 'debate'.

I said it would not be a usual debate because the flat earth argument is made from video which is visible empirical evidence. It's not mainly theoretical.

And that makes sense because it's about what we can handle feel and see. The problem with modern physics is it's almost all theoretical.

--Dave


Sent from my iPhone using TOL

 

[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

I'm sorry I get upset. It's more frustration than it is anything else. These videos you post seem to me to be so transparently dumb that it just feels like everyone should be able to detect it. That clearly isn't the case and so I'll try to be more patient.

Clete

 

[chair]

The problem with modern physics is it's almost all theoretical.

--Dave

Dave, this isn't modern physics. Not string theory. Not multi-universes. We are talking about Newtonian mechanics here. And there are observations and experiments that show that Newtonian mechanics work. Really. Including gravity.

Why trust those videos? Because they agree with your notion? Why not just go outside and watch the sunset, or look at the planets with a telescope?

 

[Silent Hunter]

Yes, level to the pull of gravity! It's just the same as saying that it's perpendicular to both the pull of gravity and the curved surface of the Earth because it's the pull of gravity that curves the surface of the Earth in the first place. Level and flat are not synonymous. You can use them interchangeably in a practical sense because the Earth is so huge that on small scales, the curvature is negligible but that doesn't make the terms truly synonymous. The fact is, as I've already stated, that you're correct, a plane could, in fact, fly in a truly straight and flat stragectory in theory, but if a pilot were to do so, what he'd have to tell his plane to do is to climb in altitude at a rate of eight inches per mile squared. He'd eventually be flying almost directly against the pull of gravity (what we call "up") and his plane would stall and he'd likely end up crashing and dying.


It isn't magic. Pilots make course corrections constantly and the curvature of the Earth is mostly, if not entirely, unoticable in comparison to even the largest of airplanes. The Earth is really, really, really big! But whether the pilot notices it or not, if he is flying at a constant ASL (Altitude above Sea Level), he is, in fact, descending at a rate of eight inches per mile squared.


We've had this conversation already. The atmosphere is part of the Earth, just as the ground and oceans are. Why do you have a problem with something being able to move around in the atmosphere as it moves along with the Earth but you have no problem at all with fish doing the exact same thing in the oceans or with worms moving around in the dirt?

And no, that is NOT my premise! Whether the Earth is moving and the atmosphere along with it or not, my premise is that motion is relative to other objects. My argument would hold whether the Earth was moving or not. It is your claim that there is some sort of contradiction that I am refuting. The point is that whether I am in a moving atmosphere or a stationary one, my ability to move around inside that atmosphere is entirely uneffected. To suggest that I can't possibly move around inside an atmosphere that is itself moving relative to a different frame of reference is to suggest that I can't swim around in a pool on board a ship that is moving relative to the ocean or move air in and out of my lungs inside a car that is moving that air at 50 mph relative to the street.

Wait for it...

Wait for it...

I said it would not be a usual debate because the flat earth argument is made from video which is visible empirical evidence. It's not mainly theoretical.

And that makes sense because it's about what we can handle feel and see. The problem with modern physics is it's almost all theoretical.

Too late.

:sigh:

 

[Silent Hunter]

I said it would not be a usual debate because the flat earth argument is made from video which is visible empirical evidence. It's not mainly theoretical.

Flat Earth videos aren't poorly done or faked but NASA's are. Humm... Irony is another word Dave doesn't understand.

And that makes sense because it's about what we can handle feel and see. The problem with modern physics is it's almost all theoretical.

... what Chair said.

Why trust those videos? Because they agree with your notion? Why not just go outside and watch the sunset, or look at the planets with a telescope?

 

[patrick jane]

The moon is flat too. It's like a white pizza in the sky

 

[Silent Hunter]

The moon is flat too. It's like a white pizza in the sky

... with extra cheese.

 

[JudgeRightly]

... with extra cheese.

Wensleydale?

 

[DFT_Dave]

Dave, people are quite willing to discuss the matter with you. This is likely the longest thread there has ever been here. The problem isn't your unusual belief. It is your method of 'debate'.

Thank you.

--Dave

 

[DFT_Dave]

It the earth is flat what does it take 24 hours to do if it is not turning on its axis?

It takes 24 hours for the sun to circle a flat stationary earth.

--Dave

 

[Truster]

It takes 24 hours for the sun to circle a flat stationary earth.

--Dave

So if the sun circles the earth then where do we get the measurement for the year, that we take from the earth circumnavigating the sun? Do all the other moons and planets in our solar system circle the flat earth as well?

 

[DFT_Dave]

That most, if not all, "flat Earth" web sites are parodies designed to fool the weak minded has you confused.

Seriously? So, you opt to discard, "be thought a fool", in favor of, "continue to post nonsense and remove all doubt"? Wise choice

You want everyone to spoon-feed you physics and astronomy then dismiss the information as a "house of cards" when flat Earth can't stand the pressure? "Contradiction" isn't among the words you understand either.

I gave you the tools. you need to understand. You obviously intend to remain deliberately ignorant.

I told you that you could look at virtually any professional, club, or personal astronomy web site and see photographs as good as, and in most cases better than, any I have taken, why is that not good enough for you?

If you have the time, money, etc, you can visit my club here in Florida (meeting information is on the Everglades Astronomical Society's web site). We can go to the club's dark sky site where you can view through telescopes from 4 to 24 inches in diameter depending on who attends our twice-monthly "star parties" (weather and brush fires permitting). I'm certain there is a local astronomy club near you offering a similar invitation.

Now you have put forth a testable argument that I can prove wrong.

I am not weak minded and so I have falsified your argument that only the weak minded are fooled by flat earth videos.

The physics of it all can be very difficult to grasp, but I am very aware that classical physics has been replaced with quantum physics with the Copenhagen Interpretation.

But the common man does not look to theories and complicated equations in determining the nature of the earth he lives on.

Every day everyone sees and experiences a world that is flat and stationary. No one sees a curve and no one feels the earth move, except in California.

There is in one video some one who says he was involved with weapons in the Navy. He said they used a straight "line of sight" targeting system that shoots a beam the diameter of a pencil on a ship up to 30 miles away. That would be impossible on a curved earth.

I think amature video is very hard to fake, not impossible, but professionals can fake anything and make it seem real.

But if I ever get to Florida I'll be glad to meet you at the club and look at the stars. :cheers:

--Dave

 

[DFT_Dave]

Ah! I see what you meant now. Sorry, I didn't get it.



You bet!

You have to listen carefully because the narrator has a very thick accent but it tells the story quite well.

P.S. That video has fewer than 1000 views and only 14 likes, one of which is mine. It deserves far more in spite of his heavy accent. Most people would have let such an accent stop them from ever making a video in the first place so give the guy a break and like his video and while you're at it, watch his other ones too.

Clete

Ok, thanks. I will give this a good amount of time to study it.

--Dave

 

[DFT_Dave]

I'm sorry I get upset. It's more frustration than it is anything else. These videos you post seem to me to be so transparently dumb that it just feels like everyone should be able to detect it. That clearly isn't the case and so I'll try to be more patient.

Clete

Even the majority of students in college did not take physics, or golf.

--Dave

 

[DFT_Dave]

Dave, this isn't modern physics. Not string theory. Not multi-universes. We are talking about Newtonian mechanics here. And there are observations and experiments that show that Newtonian mechanics work. Really. Including gravity.

Why trust those videos? Because they agree with your notion? Why not just go outside and watch the sunset, or look at the planets with a telescope?

I watched the videos and they challenged my notions.

I was not flat earth and I'm still not at this point.

--Dave

 

[DFT_Dave]

So if the sun circles the earth then where do we get the measurement for the year, that we take from the earth circumnavigating the sun? Do all the other moons and planets in our solar system circle the flat earth as well?

The flat earth was the original model of cosmology. It accounts for everything in the sky and the calendar.

--Dave

 

[DFT_Dave]

Yes, level to the pull of gravity! It's just the same as saying that it's perpendicular to both the pull of gravity and the curved surface of the Earth because it's the pull of gravity that curves the surface of the Earth in the first place. Level and flat are not synonymous. You can use them interchangeably in a practical sense because the Earth is so huge that on small scales, the curvature is negligible but that doesn't make the terms truly synonymous. The fact is, as I've already stated, that you're correct, a plane could, in fact, fly in a truly straight and flat stragectory in theory, but if a pilot were to do so, what he'd have to tell his plane to do is to climb in altitude at a rate of eight inches per mile squared. He'd eventually be flying almost directly against the pull of gravity (what we call "up") and his plane would stall and he'd likely end up crashing and dying.


It isn't magic. Pilots make course corrections constantly and the curvature of the Earth is mostly, if not entirely, unoticable in comparison to even the largest of airplanes. The Earth is really, really, really big! But whether the pilot notices it or not, if he is flying at a constant ASL (Altitude above Sea Level), he is, in fact, descending at a rate of eight inches per mile squared.


We've had this conversation already. The atmosphere is part of the Earth, just as the ground and oceans are. Why do you have a problem with something being able to move around in the atmosphere as it moves along with the Earth but you have no problem at all with fish doing the exact same thing in the oceans or with worms moving around in the dirt?

And no, that is NOT my premise! Whether the Earth is moving and the atmosphere along with it or not, my premise is that motion is relative to other objects. My argument would hold whether the Earth was moving or not. It is your claim that there is some sort of contradiction that I am refuting. The point is that whether I am in a moving atmosphere or a stationary one, my ability to move around inside that atmosphere is entirely uneffected. To suggest that I can't possibly move around inside an atmosphere that is itself moving relative to a different frame of reference is to suggest that I can't swim around in a pool on board a ship that is moving relative to the ocean or move air in and out of my lungs inside a car that is moving that air at 50 mph relative to the street.

Clete

Much to respond to here but one point at a time.

The earth is rotating/moving

The atmosphere is not "in" the earth.

So why would the atmosphere be moving with it?

The atmosphere is not "part" of the earth.

--Dave

 

[DFT_Dave]

The vacuum of space

What would the vacuum of space have on the Apollo moon landings?

NASA VACUUM CHAMBER - Why They Dont Test With Astronauts

--Dave

 

[JudgeRightly]

The vacuum of space

What would the vacuum of space have on the Apollo moon landings?

NASA VACUUM CHAMBER - Why They Dont Test With Astronauts

--Dave

Dave, I'm somewhat confused by you posting that video, mainly because you didn't explain how it supports your side... Nothing in it contradicts the idea that we've been to the moon, even showing how dangerous it was, and what kind of an obstacle NASA had to overcome with the vacuum of space. Now, the clip at the end of that video, of the man using a vacuum chamber with the water? I'd like to point out that there's absolutely no way he would have been able to get hard vacuum with his setup, as the motor he used is nowhere near powerful enough, and I'm pretty certain that the glass would have shattered and imploded long before reaching hard vacuum.

His experiment at the end also confirms (albeit indirectly) that gravity does exist.

When you go up in altitude, the barometric pressure decreases, and the air thins. It's not as dense as at sea level. If the flat earth model were true, and there was no such thing as gravity, only buoyancy (or whatever their model says is the reason things fall), then if you go up in altitude, the barometric pressure should not change at all, because air is air, whether you're at 1 foot or 10,000 feet above sea level. If flat earth were true, as the atmosphere is the same wherever, then it should all be at the same pressure.

However, thus is not the case, and to reiterate what I said above, as you go up in altitude, pressure decreases. This is caused by gravity pulling the molecules and atoms in the air as far "down" as possible, and is the reason that water (a combination of H20 molecules, and H and O atoms) will evaporate and condense at the same time, keeping the amount of water in, say, a cup, about the same.

When you raise the temperature of the water, it eventually reaches a boiling point, and the water boils. At sea level, the boiling point for water is 212 degrees F. However, at 10,000 feet ASL, the boiling point of water is only 193 degrees F.

But when you get to the vacuum of space (or, as in that video, in a vacuum chamber), water boils below 100 degrees F, and that's when the human body starts to have issues, as the average body temperature of humans is 98.6 degrees F. When your body, which is about 50-75% water (depending on age and gender), comes into contact with hard vacuum, the water will start to boil, hence why in the video you posted, the astronaut said the saliva on his tongue started to boil.

And this is all because of the amount of pressure being exerted on one's body.

I'm pretty sure that if someone were spaced (ie, kicked out an airlock with no suit), it would not be a very pleasant way to die. Having one's body freeze while the water and other fluids in his or her body begin to boil, the air in his or her lungs expanding inside the body, forcing its way through ones mouth and nose... And I think I'll stop there...

Yeah, not pleasant at all.