The earth is flat and we never went to the moon

[DFT_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.

Thanks for looking at the whole clip.

The main point was that an attempt to use the vacuum chamber, with a man in it, the suit failed.

The space suit failed badly and as far as I can tell that experiment was never tried again in that particular type of chamber.

--Dave

 

[Truster]

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

--Dave

I must be stupid, because I can't find an answer to my question in what you have said. Am I stupid or didn't you answer?

 

[DFT_Dave]

I must be stupid, because I can't find an answer to my question in what you have said. Am I stupid or didn't you answer?

Don't be upset with yourself, you're not stupid, you just have not studied flat earth history.

The debate here focuses on heliocentrism vs flat earth. Geocentrism is noted but not the subject of debate. Both flat and earth centered models accounted for everything that sun centered cosmology does but in different ways.

This thread centers on answering the question of earth curvature and motion and doubts that we went to the moon. Do some home work and get your self familiar with the flat earth model and you will understand this debate better.

--Dave

 

[DFT_Dave]

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

A fighter jet flying at low altitude travels 500 to 600 hundred miles an hour and covers one mile in 6 to 10 seconds.

Obviously they would be making nose down corrections constantly, but they don't.

If these jets did not make any corrections they would soon find the earth dropping beneath them at an exponential rate and the curvature of the earth would never be questioned again.

--Dave

 

[Truster]

Don't be upset with yourself, you're not stupid, you just have not studied flat earth history.

The debate here focuses on heliocentrism vs flat earth. Geocentrism is noted but not the subject of debate. Both flat and earth centered models accounted for everything that sun centered cosmology does but in different ways.

This thread centers on answering the question of earth curvature and motion and doubts that we went to the moon. Do some home work and get your self familiar with the flat earth model and you will understand this debate better.

--Dave

I understand the claim and this thread.

 

[chair]

... Do some home work and get your self familiar with the flat earth model and you will understand this debate better.

--Dave

Dave, this is exactly what I have been telling you over and over. You also need to do your homework. But you refuse to.

 

[Jonahdog]

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

--Dave

But it is wrong. Yet you have managed to get posters to waste 200+ pages. Amazing.

 

[Clete]

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

Yes, it is, Dave. The oceans are no more attached to the Earth than the atmosphere is or than you are for that matter. The atmosphere sticks around for the same reason you do. You live at the bottom of an ocean of air.

The question is what keeps the water, the atmosphere and you on the Earth?

Newton asked essentially the same question when he witnessed an apple falling to the ground in his mother's garden.

Clete

P.S. Why the atmosphere moves generally around the Earth in the same direction as the Earth's rotation has to do with things like angular momentum and friction and is not directly related to the point we are currently discussing. It is relevant to whether the Earth is round because of what happens in the southern hemisphere vs the northern hemisphere but in regards to a plane being able to move around in the atmosphere while the atmosphere is moving along with the Earth in its orbit, it doesn't really apply and so, to keep things simple, I've overlooked your having brought up the Earth's spin for now.

 

[Clete]

A fighter jet flying at low altitude travels 500 to 600 hundred miles an hour and covers one mile in 6 to 10 seconds.

Obviously they would be making nose down corrections constantly, but they don't.

If these jets did not make any corrections they would soon find the earth dropping beneath them at an exponential rate and the curvature of the earth would never be questioned again.

--Dave

They absolutely do make such corrections.

In the case of fighters or other high-tech aircraft, the corrections are made by the plane itself. The altitude (in almost all cases) is controlled by the altimeter which does not measure the distance from the ground but rather, is based on atmospheric pressure or GPS. It is measuring the elevation of the aircraft above mean sea level. Depending on the plane, the pilot either has to manually dial in the elevation of ground level above sea level before he takes off or the electronics do this for him based on GPS data. After that, it's just a matter of keeping the right number showing on the altimeter. It's an adjustment that is CONSTANTLY being corrected for. Not only is the Earth curving away from you but the wind is blowing and shifting directions and intensity. It's a very dynamic thing. If you've ever flown in a plane that felt very stable, it was being flown by computer and probably at very high altitude where there's a lot less turbulence and a lot less air for that matter.

Clete

 

[Silent Hunter]

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?

Don't bother with astronomy. It makes no sense to Dave and he's not interested in learning anything about it for fear of shattering the glass sphere (irony?) he has constructed to protect his flat Earth fantasy.

 

[Clete]

Both flat and earth centered models accounted for everything that sun centered cosmology does but in different ways.

This is actually a somewhat of a critical point that should be addressed.

Your claim here isn't true. The flat Earth and Earth-centered models do not come anywhere close to accounting for everything that the Helio Centric model does. NOT EVEN REMOTELY CLOSE!


In fact, it was precisely the inconsistencies inherent in the Earth-Centered model that Kepler kept poking at until he finally cracked it and figured out the Law of Orbits. And to a large degree, it was some imperfections in Newton's ideas about gravity that lead Einstein to his theory of General Relativity, which we know is at least mostly correct because it not only explains but actually predicts such oddities as the orbit of the planet Mercury, for example.

Note the importance of that last point, Dave. If the orbit of Mercury AROUND THE SUN were different than it is, Einstein's math wouldn't work and his theory would be falsified! How much independent and even unexpected confirmation of something do you have to have before you accept it?

You would do well by simply reading a simple, straight forward (i.e. non-mathematical) history of modern science. The progression of one idea to another, from one great thinker to another (mostly all Christians - by the way), is quite logical and easy to follow.

Clete

 

[JudgeRightly]

You would do well by simply reading a simple, straight forward (i.e. non-mathematical) history of modern science. The progression of one idea to another, from one great thinker to another (mostly all Christians - by the way), is quite logical and easy to follow.

Clete

Most of the Fathers of the Physical Sciences were Christians.

See http://kgov.com/fathers-of-the-physical-sciences

 

[Silent Hunter]

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.

Then you should have thought longer before posting:

I watched the videos and they challenged my notions.

It's always nice to see a working example of The Dunning-Kruger Effect.

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.

Perhaps you know this one... Once upon a time, there lived six blind men in a village...

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.

Confirmation bias? Also see The Dunning-Kruger Effect.

http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/badastronomy/2009/01/15/how-far-away-is-the-horizon/#.WQIQLnMpDqA

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

I've seen some very good amateur videos so, no, "hard to fake" is a bald assertion on your part. Besides, anyone can do "out of focus" and call it a picture/video of Venus, Betelgeuse, Arcturus, Capella, etc.

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

We will be glad to have you!

 

[Silent Hunter]

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

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.

Then you should have thought longer before posting:

I watched the videos and they challenged my notions.

It's always nice to see a working example of The Dunning-Kruger Effect.

On further reflection, since you claim to not be "weak minded", you must consider yourself to be "intelligent".

This got me to thinking. If Dave is as intelligent as he claims/thinks himself to be, how could he be swayed by "flat Earth" videos?

I watched the videos and they challenged my notions.

Intelligent people shouldn't fall for such sophomoric hogwash.

Enter The Dunning-Kruger Effect.

The*Dunning–Kruger effect*is a*cognitive bias*in which low-ability individuals suffer from*illusory superiority, mistakenly assessing their ability as much higher than it really is. Psychologists*David Dunning*and*Justin Kruger*attributed this bias to a*metacognitive*incapacity, on the part of those with low ability, to recognize their ineptitude and evaluate their competence accurately (wiki).

 

[DFT_Dave]

I understand the claim and this thread.

I thought so.

--Dave

 

[DFT_Dave]

Dave, this is exactly what I have been telling you over and over. You also need to do your homework. But you refuse to.

I am doing home work, almost every night.

--Dave

 

[DFT_Dave]

But it is wrong. Yet you have managed to get posters to waste 200+ pages. Amazing.

And just why, in your opinion, have so many posted here on this subject?

--Dave

 

[Truster]

I thought so.

--Dave

I also understand the underlying reason for the doctrine it puts forward and the reason for the proposition it presents. It becomes inevitable and runs parallel with many other theories on numerous proposals I've read or heard. They all have one thing in common.

 

[DFT_Dave]

Yes, it is, Dave. The oceans are no more attached to the Earth than the atmosphere is or than you are for that matter. The atmosphere sticks around for the same reason you do. You live at the bottom of an ocean of air.

The question is what keeps the water, the atmosphere and you on the Earth?

Newton asked essentially the same question when he witnessed an apple falling to the ground in his mother's garden.

Clete

P.S. Why the atmosphere moves generally around the Earth in the same direction as the Earth's rotation has to do with things like angular momentum and friction and is not directly related to the point we are currently discussing. It is relevant to whether the Earth is round because of what happens in the southern hemisphere vs the northern hemisphere but in regards to a plane being able to move around in the atmosphere while the atmosphere is moving along with the Earth in its orbit, it doesn't really apply and so, to keep things simple, I've overlooked your having brought up the Earth's spin for now.

Gravity

The idea that there is a force that keeps everything, not literally attached to the earth, from flying off a spinning globe, is inherent (part of) it's own cosmology.

That there is a force that keeps things on a flat stationary earth from floating in space is also inherent (part of) it's own cosmology.

That things have mass, density, and buoyancy, is enough of an explanation for flat stationary earth, but not enough for a spinning globe.

I still contend, although I am reading up on Newton's laws and how he discovered and confirmed them, that his theories are based on "thought experiment"--imagination, just as Einstein's relativity is.

Gravity is an invisible, unverifiable, concept. By that I mean we cannot handle, feel, or see it. We believe in it because science demands a cause for an effect. Gravity is the cause and a seemingly stationary earth in which things don't fly off into space is the effect, which is a contradiction in empirical terms. Gravity is a non physical part of physics, which is also a contradiction.

Not that contradictions can't be resolved, as you know the theorists of evolution of the universe and life are constantly resolving contradictions they themselves create. An irrational dialectic thought process has prevailed over science just as is has theology.

--Dave

 

[Silent Hunter]

Gravity

The idea that there is a force that keeps everything, not literally attached to the earth, from flying off a spinning globe, is inherent (part of) it's own cosmology.

That there is a force that keeps things on a flat stationary earth from floating in space is also inherent (part of) it's own cosmology.

That things have mass, density, and buoyancy, is enough of an explanation for flat stationary earth, but not enough for a spinning globe.

I still contend, although I am reading up on Newton's laws and how he discovered and confirmed them, that his theories are based on "thought experiment"--imagination, just as Einstein's relativity is.

Gravity is an invisible, unverifiable, concept. By that I mean we cannot handle, feel, or see it. We believe in it because science demands a cause for an effect. Gravity is the cause and a seemingly stationary earth in which things don't fly off into space is the effect, which is a contradiction in empirical terms. Gravity is a non physical part of physics, which is also a contradiction.

Not that contradictions can't be resolved, as you know the theorists of evolution of the universe and life are constantly resolving contradictions they themselves create. An irrational dialectic thought process has prevailed over science just as is has theology.

Removing all doubt again, Dave?