The earth is flat and we never went to the moon

Status
Not open for further replies.

DFT_Dave

LIFETIME MEMBER
LIFETIME MEMBER
I've not only watched them but I've made arguments that directly refute them with both words and videos that YOU HAVE NOT REFUTED - period. You've barely responded to them at all and when you have it has been to either restate your position or post yet another video that makes similar, if not identical claims, which I have then refuted as well, again with no substantive response from you.

The Coriolis Effect is completely real and you know it. Most of the Flat-Earth websites I've seen even acknowledge it. You can prove it yourself in about two minutes. Grab the pull chain from your ceiling fan and swing it from side to side. The fact that it swings out a parabola and not a straight line is caused by the Coriolis Effect. It happens every single time you try it and there's no wind to cause it or anything else other than the fact that the Earth is not stationary.

Now, this right here is where the rubber meets the roads, David. The Coriolis Effect is obviously real to any intellectually honest person. The fact that it exists is also proof that the Earth is spinning. The fact that the effect is in the opposite direction on the opposite side of the equator is proof that the Earth is NOT a disk that spins around the north pole because, if it were, the Coriolis Effect would not reverse at all, it would just continue to get stronger and stronger as you got further from the pole because the outer edges of a disc are spinning faster than the center. The effect would, therefore, get stronger and stronger and stronger as you got closer to the Flat-Earth's Ice Wall, which we know for certain is not the case.

One single thing - one simple idea that you can confirm with your own eyes in your own living room without spending a dime to do it proves about 90% of the Flat-Earth model to be impossible. If you deny it, it will be for reasons other than intellectual honesty.

Yes, you did, you're just proving to be more stubborn and far less intellectually honest than I had previously given you credit for.

If the Sun and Moon set beyond the horizon because of distance, they would shrink into the distance just like ships do - but they don't.
If the Moon were anywhere near as close to the Earth as the Flat-Earthers say, people in the Northern Hemisphere would not see the same face of the Moon as those in the South Hemisphere - but they do.

If the Earth was a flat disk, people looking south from Australia would be looking in the opposite direction as those looking south in South America and the two groups would see different stars directly to their south. - But they don't. They all see the same celestial pole. A pole that cannot exist on a flat Earth.

There are three things based on what we see with out own eyes that cannot be refuted and that you've made no attempt to refute (unless I missed something).

There is nothing that we see that is in contradiction to the Earth being a very large sphere. In fact, I just listed several things that we do see with our eyes that are not at all consistent with a flat Earth and so your statement here is both a non-sequitur and flatly false. Another argument I've made more than once without response except for the repetition of the position.

You're the only one here who is deceived and I doubt very much that Satan even knows who you are.

Don't talk to me about emotional outbursts, David. I've been as patient as Moses with this whole conversation which you all but begged people, including me, to participate in. I've responded to every argument, watched every video, some more than once. Nearly all of which were a waste of time and simply stupid. You, frankly, ought to be ashamed of yourself for presenting them as convincing to anyone other than children.
Not only that, but I've repeatedly asked you in more than one way to respond to my counter arguments which you have not done except to present additional videos with even more assinine arguments for me to refute with arguments that you mostly haven't responded to, all in a debate that I was basically begged to participate in! It's enough to make any rational person angry. And, in fact, if it were anyone else but you, I'd have been gone weeks ago.

I'll tell you that a great deal of my frustration has everything to do with the fact that the arguments I've presented should have convinced you. You aren't Nang or Squeaky for crying out loud! You're DFTDAVE! There's no way that these arguments you've presented in these videos should be able to move you one inch in their direction and yet, not only have they moved you, they seem to have gunked up the gears between your ears. I honestly expected that when I posted that video that dealt with issues surround the horizon, that you'd be persuaded enough to at least watch the other two videos in the series and that would have put an end to the whole debate. I seriously did expect that! I still can hardly believe it was insufficient. I can't believe it to the extent that I've openly wondered aloud whether I'm really talking to the same DFTDave that wrote most, if not all of THIS. I have a very hard time reconciling the mental acuity it took to produce that website with the childish arguments you've allowed to convince you that the Earth is flat. It doesn't seem possible.

There is nothing about the spherical nature of God's Earth that contradicts one syllable of the bible.

You'd think that Satan was smart enough to have come up with something that actually contradicts God's nature then. You ascribe far too much power, intelligence and influence onto Satan. Not that he isn't powerful and smart and influential but what you are giving him credit for is more than God Himself could pull off with a population of people who have free will and mind's that can think independently.

Honest debate requires intellectual honesty.

For example, I made an argument early in this thread having to do with the curvature of the Earth and my argument including math that I failed to perform correctly. The calculation went from the curvature falling away by two inches in a quarter mile down to one half an inch in a quater mile. When I was corrected, I didn't just stubbornly stick to my claim of two inches. I not only acknowledged my error but admitted that half an inch over such a distance would probably not be sufficient to measure over that distance with my proposed experiment. That's what intellectual honesty looks like. I didn't just start denying that 8 inches per mile SQUARED means something other than it does or that math doesn't work when discussing really large spheres or some other such contrivance similar to "There is no such thing as a Corriolis effect." or citing cherry-picked visual evidence that intentionally suggests and makes arguments that presuppose that extreme atmospheric lensing is always present to the same degree in every situation or completely ignore arguments having to do with the fact that people looking south in Australia are looking in basically the opposite direction from those looking south from South America and yet they see the exact same stars spinning in a circle around the south celestial pole.

--------------

Now, I sort of allowed myself to ramble on a bit in this post and I didn't worry too much about pulling punches so I do want to state most clearly that I really am not angry with you David. I'm frustrated to be sure but I'm certainly not going to allow a discussion about the Earth being flat to turn you into an enemy. That will not happen. So you don't have to worry about continuing. I'll continue for as long as you like and, every once in a while, I'll get frustrated and then I'll get over it until I've either convinced you that the Earth cannot be flat or we both decide to just stop.

I think what I'll do next is retype that post I lost in response to one of the videos you posted.

Clete

This is a trial

On this thread I have put flat earth on trial for falsely representing the nature of the earth and the universe.

But I have taken the role of defense attorney, pro bono. :cigar:
I have let everyone else be prosecuting attorneys.
Even John Gotti had the right to an attorney.

View attachment 25382

The witnesses for the prosecution and for the defense are still being cross examined. Final summations have yet to be made and the jury obviously has not rendered a verdict.

You were not begged by me to participate, bated maybe, but not begged. But your participation is highly valued and greatly appreciated (is that bating or begging :think:) I want this to be enjoyable and educational. No one is going to jail, or hell, for any thing said here, or run out of town, I hope. :angrymob: "flatten Dave"

Remember, Einstein has taken us well past Newtonian physics and basic Copernican cosmology into a spacetime infinite multiverse, my own summary of where we are today. Flat earth is not just an off the wall totally bizarre world view, in my opinion. It has a strong case and is worthy of a hearing. I will have a final summary, I am still evaluating the evidence from both sides. No single argument or smoking gun will make my day.

Unlike other debates, theological and philosophical, this one is much more visual which is why I have posted so many videos. There is also a lot of nonsense out there on this topic so I have tried to focus on the arguments that make the most sense. I don't think we can answer all the questions from either view, globe earth has it's strengths and weaknesses, as does flat earth.

You are make a strong case. Keep presenting your arguments counselor, there is a jury out there listening even when it seems I am not.

--Dave
 

DFT_Dave

LIFETIME MEMBER
LIFETIME MEMBER
Dave, I don't think you realize just how big the earth is, and because of that, you don't realize just how far away from the earth's surface one has to be to be able to see the curvature of the earth.

Also, I'd like to point out that your last image is indeed pointing downward by about 10 or so degrees, so using it to suggest a flat Earth doesn't work.

Sent from my Pixel XL using TheologyOnline mobile app

I don't think it's as big as you think.

View attachment 25384

--Dave
 

JudgeRightly

裁判官が正しく判断する
Staff member
Administrator
Super Moderator
Gold Subscriber
This is a trial

On this thread I have put flat earth on trial for falsely representing the nature of the earth and the universe.

But I have taken the role of defense attorney, pro bono. :cigar:
I have let everyone else be prosecuting attorneys.
Even John Gotti had the right to an attorney.

View attachment 25382

The witnesses for the prosecution and for the defense are still being cross examined. Final summations have yet to be made and the jury obviously has not rendered a verdict.

You were not begged by me to participate, bated maybe, but not begged. But your participation is highly valued and greatly appreciated (is that bating or begging :think:) I want this to be enjoyable and educational. No one is going to jail, or hell, for any thing said here, or run out of town, I hope. :angrymob: "flatten Dave"

Remember, Einstein has taken us well past Newtonian physics and basic Copernican cosmology into a spacetime infinite multiverse, my own summary of where we are today. Flat earth is not just an off the wall totally bizarre world view, in my opinion. It has a strong case and is worthy of a hearing. I will have a final summary, I am still evaluating the evidence from both sides. No single argument or smoking gun will make my day.

Unlike other debates, theological and philosophical, this one is much more visual which is why I have posted so many videos. There is also a lot of nonsense out there on this topic so I have tried to focus on the arguments that make the most sense. I don't think we can answer all the questions from either view, globe earth has it's strengths and weaknesses, as does flat earth.

You are make a strong case. Keep presenting your arguments counselor, there is a jury out there listening even when it seems I am not.

--Dave
In God's criminal justice system, lawyers are not needed.

Sent from my Pixel XL using TheologyOnline mobile app
 

JudgeRightly

裁判官が正しく判断する
Staff member
Administrator
Super Moderator
Gold Subscriber
I don't think it's as big as you think.

View attachment 25384

--Dave
I'm not talking numbers, Dave.

I'm talking about the sheer size of the earth compared to one tiny human. Sure, one can say the earth is yea big and has such and such mass, but actually comprehending the size is something else entirely.

Let's see if perhaps you can understand what I'm talking about.

Dave, have you ever been to the Grand Canyon?

Sent from my Pixel XL using TheologyOnline mobile app
 

WatchmanOnTheWall

New member
Distance to the Horizon Calculator
This webpage shows how far we can see the higher in elevation we go.

At 1 foot we can see 1.2 miles
6' = 3m
10' = 3.9m
15' = 4.7m
20' = 5.5m
50' = 8.7m
100' = 12.3m
200' = 17.3m

All these calculations are based on a flat plain. If we were looking at a curved earth the higher we go the more down ward we would have to look to see the horizon. In reality, the higher we go the further we see across the plain of the flat earth as the horizon line continues to extent out ward and upward, not down ward.

View attachment 25378

View attachment 25379

--Dave

' In reality, the higher we go the further we see across the plain of the flat earth as the horizon line continues to extent out ward and upward, not down ward.'

That makes no sense, if the Earth was flat then we would be able to see objects no matter how far away they are. Especially on a clear night when ships for example have lights, in fact we would be able to see say America from Britain if a powerful enough light was shone, such as a lazer. Even in the day with binoculars you can see the ships coming and going over the curve of the Earth. As their hulls get obscured by the curvature while their masts are left showing above the horizon.
 

DFT_Dave

LIFETIME MEMBER
LIFETIME MEMBER
In God's criminal justice system, lawyers are not needed.

Sent from my Pixel XL using TheologyOnline mobile app

Definition of advocate 1: one who pleads the cause of another; specifically : one who pleads the cause of another before a tribunal or judicial court

Jesus is our lawyer

1 John 2:1 My little children, I am writing these things to you so that you may not sin And if anyone sins, we have an Advocate with the Father, Jesus Christ the righteous;

Proverbs 31:8-9 Open your mouth for the mute, For the rights of all the unfortunate. Open your mouth, judge righteously, And defend the rights of the afflicted and needy.

Hebrews 9:15 For this reason He is the mediator of a new covenant, so that, since a death has taken place for the redemption of the transgressions that were committed under the first covenant, those who have been called may receive the promise of the eternal inheritance.

--Dave
 

DFT_Dave

LIFETIME MEMBER
LIFETIME MEMBER
' In reality, the higher we go the further we see across the plain of the flat earth as the horizon line continues to extent out ward and upward, not down ward.'

That makes no sense, if the Earth was flat then we would be able to see objects no matter how far away they are. Especially on a clear night when ships for example have lights, in fact we would be able to see say America from Britain if a powerful enough light was shone, such as a lazer. Even in the day with binoculars you can see the ships coming and going over the curve of the Earth. As their hulls get obscured by the curvature while their masts are left showing above the horizon.

We can only see so far, and atmospheric conditions hinder just how far as well. Everything gets smaller and smaller in the distance until it is to far away to see even with a telescopic lens. Bottoms of ship disappear sooner than the top because of the horizon line created by perspective. The ground/seas seem to rise up as we look out over the land and oceans, not really, but because of how the eye and telescopes works.

Many things are being viewed that should be well over the curve and not be able to be seen at all. Powerful new cameras are the main reason for the growing modern flat earth movement.

Light becomes defused over distance as well. So, just why do you think we should see Britain? No flat earth model suggests that that is possible so it looks like a straw man argument. So, can you give us reasons why we should be able to see these vast distances?

--Dave
 

WatchmanOnTheWall

New member
We can only see so far, and atmospheric conditions hinder just how far as well. Everything gets smaller and smaller in the distance until it is to far away to see even with a telescopic lens. Bottoms of ship disappear sooner than the top because of the horizon line created by perspective. The ground/seas seem to rise up as we look out over the land and oceans, not really, but because of how the eye and telescopes works.

Many things are being viewed that should be well over the curve and not be able to be seen at all. Powerful new cameras are the main reason for the growing modern flat earth movement.

Light becomes defused over distance as well. So, just why do you think we should see Britain? No flat earth model suggests that that is possible so it looks like a straw man argument. So, can you give us reasons why we should be able to see these vast distances?

--Dave
'We can only see so far, and atmospheric conditions hinder just how far as well. Everything gets smaller and smaller in the distance until it is to far away to see even with a telescopic lens.'

But you don't say how far? You think the dome is a few thousands of miles high up and we can see the stars on the dome from here but we can't see America from Britain which is also a few thousand miles. Also when I was young I didn't need binoculars to see the ships going over the curvature of the Earth as my eyes were much better then. Everything you're saying here is easily disproved by simple observations. Just watch the sunset while sitting on the floor and after the sun is no longer visible just stand up and you will see it appear again. It hasn't disappeared into a 'vanishing point' it's just over the curve of the Earth. Try it, you will see.
 

Clete

Truth Smacker
Silver Subscriber
This is a trial
I get that, which is why I still want to participate.

I admit that I sometimes let it stray from my mind but I do get it.

On this thread I have put flat earth on trial for falsely representing the nature of the earth and the universe.

But I have taken the role of defense attorney, pro bono. :cigar:
I have let everyone else be prosecuting attorneys.
Even John Gotti had the right to an attorney.

View attachment 25382

The witnesses for the prosecution and for the defense are still being cross examined. Final summations have yet to be made and the jury obviously has not rendered a verdict.

You were not begged by me to participate, bated maybe, but not begged. But your participation is highly valued and greatly appreciated (is that bating or begging :think:) I want this to be enjoyable and educational. No one is going to jail, or hell, for any thing said here, or run out of town, I hope. :angrymob: "flatten Dave"

Remember, Einstein has taken us well past Newtonian physics and basic Copernican cosmology into a spacetime infinite multiverse, my own summary of where we are today. Flat earth is not just an off the wall totally bizarre world view, in my opinion. It has a strong case and is worthy of a hearing. I will have a final summary, I am still evaluating the evidence from both sides. No single argument or smoking gun will make my day.

Unlike other debates, theological and philosophical, this one is much more visual which is why I have posted so many videos. There is also a lot of nonsense out there on this topic so I have tried to focus on the arguments that make the most sense. I don't think we can answer all the questions from either view, globe earth has it's strengths and weaknesses, as does flat earth.

You are make a strong case. Keep presenting your arguments counselor, there is a jury out there listening even when it seems I am not.

--Dave
Okay, fine but in a real trial, I'd at least be able to look over at the jury box to get a feel for how they're reacting to the case being presented. Can you just try to throw me a bone every once in a while in the form of actual rejoinders in response to the arguments I make - please?! Make it at least feel like an actual debate part of the time. It keeps me interested.
 

Clete

Truth Smacker
Silver Subscriber
5 CRUSHING ARGUMENTS AGAINST GLOBE EARTH THEORY


--Dave

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

Argument 1: The Earth cannot be spinning on its axis or orbiting the Sun because we don't feel any movement and because the atmosphere doesn't come flying off the planet.

We don't "feel" the movement because we are participating in it.
The atmosphere doesn't come flying off the planet for several reasons.
1. Gravity is holding the atmosphere to the Earth the same way it is holding us to it.
2. The atmosphere is moving along with Earth just as we are.
3. There is nothing outside the atmosphere to create the friction needed to strip the planet of its atmosphere. Newton's laws in action. An object in motion remains in motion unless acted upon by another force. There is nothing to act on the atmosphere to prevent it from continuing on its course along with the planet.

(In actual fact, the solar wind is indeed very slowly removing Earth's atmosphere and would have completed the job a long time ago if not for the Earth's magnetic field, which, by the way, could not exist in its current form on a flat earth, with magnetic poles in both the North and South, creating both aurora borealis and aurora australis.)


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

Argument 3: "Falling stars" always fall from top to bottom. If the globe-Earth model is correct, they should go in all directions.

"Falling Stars", hereafter called by their real name, "meteors", DO NOT always fall from the top down. They radiate from a single point in the sky. The Perseids Meteor shower, for example, radiates from a point in the constellation Perseus.

View attachment 25388

This is a well-known fact. It isn't even a theory. Anyone anywhere who has studied astronomy for any length of time at all will tell you the very same thing and I have taken photos similar to the one posted above with my own camera.

Argument 4: The hot equatorial region and the equator itself would be in a totally different place if the Earth was a globe tilted on its axis by 23.5° "TOWARDS THE SUN".

I bolded the "towards the sun" portion because I THINK that is the real premise here. Otherwise, this "argument" is just a bald claim with nothing to support it. She seems to think that the tilt of the Earth is always toward the Sun and never away from it. If this were the case then she'd be right, it would be perpetual summer in whichever hemisphere was pointed more directly toward the Sun and perpetual winter in the other hemisphere, effectively moving the warmer region toward the direction of the tilt.

The problem for the argument is, of course, that the Earth's tilt (presupposing the north is "on top") isn't always pointed toward the Sun. The spinning Earth is one gigantic gyroscope. The axis of spin stays pointing in one direction (neglecting precession for the purposes of this discussion) and so at one point in the Earth's orbit, the north pole is tilted toward the Sun and six months later it's tilted away. This is what it responsible for summer time migrating from north to south and back again once a year.

In short, this "argument" simply displays a complete ignorance of what she's talking about.

Argument 5: The solar analemma would not look the way it does if the Earth were a globe.

This, again, is just a claim with no evidence to turn it into an actual argument.

The fact is that the apparent position of the Sun at noon each day migrates in the sky PRECISELY as one would expect if the Earth was a spinning globe orbiting the Sun. It's just math.

From Wikipedia ...
"On Earth, the analemma appears as a figure-eight, but on other solar system bodies it may be very different because of the interplay between the tilt of each body's axis and the elliptical shape of its orbit. So, if one of these (like eccentricity) always dominates the other (as is the case on Mars), the curve will be a teardrop. If one of them (like eccentricity) is significant and the other is practically zero (as is the case on Jupiter, with a 3 degree tilt only), it will be something much closer to an ellipse. If both are important enough, that sometimes eccentricity dominates and sometimes axial tilt dominates, a figure-eight results."​

Additionally, the smaller loop is on top (as she says in the video) ONLY IN THE NORTHERN HEMISPHERE! In the south, it's "upside down".

Again from the same Wikipedia article...

The analemma is oriented with the smaller loop appearing north of the larger loop. At the North Pole, the analemma would be completely upright (an 8 with the small loop at the top), and only the top half of it would be visible. Heading south, once below the Arctic Circle, the entire analemma would become visible. If you see it at noon, it continues to be upright, and rises higher from the horizon as you move south. When you get to the equator, it is directly overhead. As you go further south, it moves toward the northern horizon, and is then seen with the larger loop at the top. If, on the other hand, you looked at the analemma in the early morning or evening, it would start to tilt to one side as you moved southward from the North Pole. By time you got down to the equator, the analemma would be completely horizontal. Then, as you continued to go south, it would continue rotating so that the small loop was beneath the large loop in the sky. Once you crossed the Antarctic Circle, the analemma, now nearly completely inverted, would start to disappear, until only 50%, part of the larger loop, was visible from the South Pole.​

This can only be explained by the fact that the Earth is a really big sphere. It would NOT be the case on a flat Earth - period.


--------------------

This video was a better source of arguments for the globe earth model than it was for the flat Earth model! It was certainly anything but "crushing" arguments in favor of a flat earth.


Clete
 

DFT_Dave

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

Argument 1: The Earth cannot be spinning on its axis or orbiting the Sun because we don't feel any movement and because the atmosphere doesn't come flying off the planet.

We don't "feel" the movement because we are participating in it.
The atmosphere doesn't come flying off the planet for several reasons.
1. Gravity is holding the atmosphere to the Earth the same way it is holding us to it.
2. The atmosphere is moving along with Earth just as we are.
3. There is nothing outside the atmosphere to create the friction needed to strip the planet of its atmosphere. Newton's laws in action. An object in motion remains in motion unless acted upon by another force. There is nothing to act on the atmosphere to prevent it from continuing on its course along with the planet.

(In actual fact, the solar wind is indeed very slowly removing Earth's atmosphere and would have completed the job a long time ago if not for the Earth's magnetic field, which, by the way, could not exist in its current form on a flat earth, with magnetic poles in both the North and South, creating both aurora borealis and aurora australis.)

Clete

Five arguments all at once is a little much so I will address them one at a time.

The coriolis effect contradicts that everything is moving with the atmosphere of earth.

--Dave
 

JudgeRightly

裁判官が正しく判断する
Staff member
Administrator
Super Moderator
Gold Subscriber
Five arguments all at once is a little much so I will address them one at a time.

The coriolis effect contradicts that everything is moving with the atmosphere of earth.

--Dave
That's barely an argument, Dave, I know you can do better than that.

Sent from my Pixel XL using TheologyOnline mobile app
 

Clete

Truth Smacker
Silver Subscriber
Five arguments all at once is a little much so I will address them one at a time.

The coriolis effect contradicts that everything is moving with the atmosphere of earth.

--Dave

This is a claim, not an argument.


In what way would the Coriolis effect, which is caused by the spinning of the Earth, contradict the idea that the atmosphere is moving with the Earth?
There would be a Coriolis Effect even if there were no atmosphere at all. It's the conservation of angular momentum that creates the Coriolis Effect, not the wind or any other atmospheric consideration. The atmosphere is subject to the Coriolis Effect, it does not cause it.
 

DFT_Dave

LIFETIME MEMBER
LIFETIME MEMBER
This is a claim, not an argument.

In what way would the Coriolis effect, which is caused by the spinning of the Earth, contradict the idea that the atmosphere is moving with the Earth?
There would be a Coriolis Effect even if there were no atmosphere at all. It's the conservation of angular momentum that creates the Coriolis Effect, not the wind or any other atmospheric consideration. The atmosphere is subject to the Coriolis Effect, it does not cause it.

The coriolis effect is that any thing in flight will have to adjust to a globe spinning beneath it. A moving atmosphere means no adjustment is required which is why we never see the earth moving beneath us when we fly. If the earth moves under a speeding bullet image how much of the earth should be moving for a much slower moving plane in flight.

View attachment 25392

--Dave
 

Clete

Truth Smacker
Silver Subscriber
The coriolis effect is that any thing in flight will have to adjust to a globe spinning beneath it. A moving atmosphere means no adjustment is required which is why we never see the earth moving beneath us when we fly. If the earth moves under a speeding bullet image how much of the earth should be moving for a much slower moving plane in flight.

View attachment 25392

--Dave

Dave, I really cannot tell whether you are just being intentionally obtuse in an attempt to convey the arguments made by mindless flat-earthers or what. Nothing you've said here has anything to do with explaining why the Coriolis Effect implies a contradiction with the notion that the atmosphere is moving along with the planet. If anything it further illustrates your lack of understanding of just what the Coriolis Effect is and what causes it.

If you leave LA at a particular time and arrive in Raleigh 5 hrs later, is Raleigh where it was when you left or has it moved the distance the Earth spins in five hours?

The flight plans you see on a map are the flight path of the plane relative to the ground, which is moving! The plane, when it lands is actually much closer to where LA was when it took off then it is to where Raleigh was at take off. That's a nearly straight West to East travel direction. Imagine the same 5 hour flight from South to North. It's just like hunting ducks. If the target is moving, you have to lead it or you're going to miss.

This, however, is NOT the Coriolis effect. The Coriolis effect has to do with two things. First of all, the conservation of angular momentum, which I've explained already. In addition to that, however, it also has to do with the fact objects at the equator are moving faster than objects further away from the equator. This is true because the equator is the widest line perpendicular to the spin of the earth and thus travels further in a given period of time than other latitudes. This momentum is conserved, as it all momentum (a.k.a. inertia) and thus has to be accounted for or, once again, you'll miss your target. The projectile is irrelevant. The same exact relative amount of adjustment must be made. It's mathematically calculable, David. It's testable, verifiable, falsifiable and proven. Not even most flat-earthers deny it.

That is, of course, unless you want to add yet another set of thousands of people who have to be in on the conspiracy and who made up the Coriolis effect just to trick us all into thinking that the Earth is moving. What possible motive would a French scientist have to embed a spherical earth lie into his scientific paper about water wheels? Why would his fellow scientists be motivated to perpetuate the lie by presumably faking the independent verification of the idea presented in his paper? By what means has the whole scientific community (including meteorologist, climatologist, oceanographers, not to mentions all the travel industries again) kept the lid on such an easily discoverable secret?

The Coriolis Effect is real and it is proof positive that the Earth is NOT stationary. Everyone who doesn't have an axe to grind knows it.

Clete

P.S. Please do not make any further arguments that mention of Coriolis Effect until you've read this...

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

DFT_Dave

LIFETIME MEMBER
LIFETIME MEMBER
Dave, I really cannot tell whether you are just being intentionally obtuse in an attempt to convey the arguments made by mindless flat-earthers or what. Nothing you've said here has anything to do with explaining why the Coriolis Effect implies a contradiction with the notion that the atmosphere is moving along with the planet. If anything it further illustrates your lack of understanding of just what the Coriolis Effect is and what causes it.

If you leave LA at a particular time and arrive in Raleigh 5 hrs later, is Raleigh where it was when you left or has it moved the distance the Earth spins in five hours?

The flight plans you see on a map are the flight path of the plane relative to the ground, which is moving! The plane, when it lands is actually much closer to where LA was when it took off then it is to where Raleigh was at take off. That's a nearly straight West to East travel direction. Imagine the same 5 hour flight from South to North. It's just like hunting ducks. If the target is moving, you have to lead it or you're going to miss.

This, however, is NOT the Coriolis effect. The Coriolis effect has to do with two things. First of all, the conservation of angular momentum, which I've explained already. In addition to that, however, it also has to do with the fact objects at the equator are moving faster than objects further away from the equator. This is true because the equator is the widest line perpendicular to the spin of the earth and thus travels further in a given period of time than other latitudes. This momentum is conserved, as it all momentum (a.k.a. inertia) and thus has to be accounted for or, once again, you'll miss your target. The projectile is irrelevant. The same exact relative amount of adjustment must be made. It's mathematically calculable, David. It's testable, verifiable, falsifiable and proven. Not even most flat-earthers deny it.

That is, of course, unless you want to add yet another set of thousands of people who have to be in on the conspiracy and who made up the Coriolis effect just to trick us all into thinking that the Earth is moving. What possible motive would a French scientist have to embed a spherical earth lie into his scientific paper about water wheels? Why would his fellow scientists be motivated to perpetuate the lie by presumably faking the independent verification of the idea presented in his paper? By what means has the whole scientific community (including meteorologist, climatologist, oceanographers, not to mentions all the travel industries again) kept the lid on such an easily discoverable secret?

The Coriolis Effect is real and it is proof positive that the Earth is NOT stationary. Everyone who doesn't have an axe to grind knows it.

Clete

P.S. Please do not make any further arguments that mention of Coriolis Effect until you've read this...

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

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.

Why do so many people believe there is no God? Why do so many people believe in evolution? Why...can we suspend the ad populum argument? The court has already heard this many times.

I'll respond to point number two next.

--Dave
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top