The earth is flat and we never went to the moon

[chair]

Hold on a minute.....

Do you think quantum physics is a scam?

When I studied quantum mechanics, the professor said "When you first study Quantum Mechanics, it won't make any sense to you. But after a while- you'll get used to it."

It is probably the best example of a scientific theory that works, yet is completely non-intuitive. Which just tells you to be careful where you use your intuition.

 

[musterion]

So Dave seems to be saying that believing the earth is round precludes being saved. If so, that automatically would mean believing the earth is flat is required for salvation.

Is that accurate, Dave? Do you believe this is a salvation issue?

 

[DFT_Dave]

So Dave seems to be saying that believing the earth is round precludes being saved. If so, that automatically would mean believing the earth is flat is required for salvation.

Is that accurate, Dave? Do you believe this is a salvation issue?

Never said that, actually I said just the opposite.

--Dave

 

[1Mind1Spirit]

When I studied quantum mechanics, the professor said "When you first study Quantum Mechanics, it won't make any sense to you. But after a while- you'll get used to it."

It is probably the best example of a scientific theory that works, yet is completely non-intuitive. Which just tells you to be careful where you use your intuition.

Replace intuition with common sense and you'll have it figgered out.

:darwinsm:

 

[1Mind1Spirit]

So Dave seems to be saying that believing the earth is round precludes being saved. If so, that automatically would mean believing the earth is flat is required for salvation.

Is that accurate, Dave? Do you believe this is a salvation issue?

I don't know.

Do you have to cut yer head in, off, both or neither for salvation?

 

[DFT_Dave]

The Michelson Morley experiments were meant to measure the relationships between the movement of the earth and the movement of light through space which was called the Aether.

The results of these tests was "failure", the answer became Einstein's theory of special Relativity and the end of Aether as the medium through which light travels.

But was an absence of aether really the problem, or was the problem that the test failed to prove that the earth was moving?

1. The Michelson Morley was one of four experiments conducted on aether.

2. The Michelson Gale experiment proved that the aether was passing over the earth every 24 hours.

3. The Airey's failure experiment proved that star light was moving over a stationary earth.

4. The Sagnac's experiment proved there was an aether.

Taken all together these tests refute the theory of relativity. This 9 min video explains these experiments far better than I can. If you don't want to view it then take my word for it.

[video]https://video.search.yahoo.com/yhs/search?fr=yhs-iba-1&hsimp=yhs-1&hspart=iba&p=michaelson+morely+and+flat+eart#id=12&vid=ca87a3cad9ce9a95fb5b9d0d001ec7ff&action=view[/video]

--Dave

 

[Samie]

Hi Dave;

If the earth is not an oblate spheroid, how could Magellan's fleet that continuously traveled west reach the port from which the fleet originally sailed from?

Thanks.

 

[DFT_Dave]

Hi Dave;

If the earth is not an oblate spheroid, how could Magellan's fleet that continuously traveled west reach the port from which the fleet originally sailed from?

Thanks.

Ships still sail in a circle on a flat earth just as they would on a globe.

--Dave


Sent from my iPhone using TOL

 

[JudgeRightly]

Ships still sail in a circle on a flat earth just as they would on a globe.

--Dave


Sent from my iPhone using TOL

Dave, I know you're busy, but this really is not a hard question to answer.

Dave, how high up off the ground are:
1. The sun?
2. The moon?
3. The North Star?
4. The Southern Cross?

Also, if the Southern Cross is only visible to those in the southern hemisphere, then how do you explain both southern South America and Southern Africa being able to see it at night? On a flat earth, this is not possible.

Sent from my Pixel XL using TheologyOnline mobile app

 

[JudgeRightly]

You're making good points in support of a globe model but I just don't believe our answer as to the nature of the earth and moon landings are going to be resolved by looking at the stars. I'm not against looking at this later, but can you accept my desire not to be involved with too much at one time.
--Dave

Also, Dave, did God create just the Earth? Or did he create the universe as well? Does the way our universe works support the description in the Bible? Because it does not support some cockamamie theory that the earth is flat.

Read and ponder this for a bit before replying to it: https://answersingenesis.org/answers/books/taking-back-astronomy/the-universe-confirms-the-bible/

Sent from my Pixel XL using TheologyOnline mobile app

 

[gcthomas]

The Michelson Morley experiments were meant to measure the relationships between the movement of the earth and the movement of light through space which was called the Aether.

The results of these tests was "failure", the answer became Einstein's theory of special Relativity and the end of Aether as the medium through which light travels.

But was an absence of aether really the problem, or was the problem that the test failed to prove that the earth was moving?

1. The Michelson Morley was one of four experiments conducted on aether.

2. The Michelson Gale experiment proved that the aether was passing over the earth every 24 hours.

3. The Airey's failure experiment proved that star light was moving over a stationary earth.

4. The Sagnac's experiment proved there was an aether.

Taken all together these tests refute the theory of relativity. This 9 min video explains these experiments far better than I can. If you don't want to view it then take my word for it.

[video]https://video.search.yahoo.com/yhs/search?fr=yhs-iba-1&hsimp=yhs-1&hspart=iba&p=michaelson+morely+and+flat+eart#id=12&vid=ca87a3cad9ce9a95fb5b9d0d001ec7ff&action=view[/video]

--Dave

Hi Dave. I watched the video, but the narrator makes claims about relativity that are not true in order to claim that Sagnac's experiment proves an aether exists. He is mistaken about relativity so his conclusions are wrong. (He said specifically that in relativity that light always moves at the same speed relative top the source, but in reality or moves at a constant speed relative to an observer - this is a critical mistake, and undermines his entire thesis)

 

[DFT_Dave]

Hi Dave. I watched the video, but the narrator makes claims about relativity that are not true in order to claim that Sagnac's experiment proves an aether exists. He is mistaken about relativity so his conclusions are wrong. (He said specifically that in relativity that light always moves at the same speed relative top the source, but in reality or moves at a constant speed relative to an observer - this is a critical mistake, and undermines his entire thesis)

"light always moves at the same speed relative top the source", but in reality or moves at a constant speed relative to an observer

It seems to me that these two statements say the same thing just in a different way in different words.

The "same speed" is a "constant speed"

A constant is not relative. You have constructed a contradictory statement.

In relativity the speed is not relative, the perceived motion is relative. In other words from the earth everything on it seems stationary and everything above it is moving, but the same could be said from every other star or planet.

But what is theory must be supported by experiment. And these experiments which were supposed to validate how the earth moves through space/aether failed to do this and instead did the opposite and proved a stationary earth and moving stars/light instead. This dilemma was solved by founding modern cosmology on a theory instead of experiments and empirical visual evidence.

In other words, in relativity one has to imagine a universe by a model that assumes movement it cannot prove. The proof is against it, which is why these tests are not well known and disputed by globalist, of course.

--Dave

 

[DFT_Dave]

Flat earth pilot says he wants to test it.

--Dave

 

[DFT_Dave]

Dave, I know you're busy, but this really is not a hard question to answer.



Also, if the Southern Cross is only visible to those in the southern hemisphere, then how do you explain both southern South America and Southern Africa being able to see it at night? On a flat earth, this is not possible.

Sent from my Pixel XL using TheologyOnline mobile app

This is the best presentation on you tube that I can find that answers your question.

--Dave

 

[gcthomas]

"light always moves at the same speed relative top the source", but in reality or moves at a constant speed relative to an observer

It seems to me that these two statements say the same thing just in a different way in different words.

The "same speed" is a "constant speed"

A constant is not relative. You have constructed a contradictory statement.

In relativity the speed is not relative, the perceived motion is relative. In other words from the earth everything on it seems stationary and everything above it is moving, but the same could be said from every other star or planet.

But what is theory must be supported by experiment. And these experiments which were supposed to validate how the earth moves through space/aether failed to do this and instead did the opposite and proved a stationary earth and moving stars/light instead. This dilemma was solved by founding modern cosmology on a theory instead of experiments and empirical visual evidence.

In other words, in relativity one has to imagine a universe by a model that assumes movement it cannot prove. The proof is against it, which is why these tests are not well known and disputed by globalist, of course.

--Dave

Pretty much everything you have said is untrue. You have absolutely no understanding of relativity and do nor even see the distinction between source and observer.
And how can you not understand the key feature of relativity, that all measurements of the speed of light are the same for each observer? Light does NOT move faster of if is emitted from a moving object.

You should also know that Relativity is just about the most experimentally verified theory ever constructed. And no experiment has ever shown the theory's predictions wrong. Ever.

 

[JudgeRightly]

This is the best presentation on you tube that I can find that answers your question.

--Dave

So then it should be that much easier for you to watch it and pull out the information that I requested.

Dave, Have a look at this screenshot of your post I just took.

Look especially close at the thumbnail.

If the earth is flat, then the stars rotating should be all in concentric rings around the point at the top right of the image.

However, it's not. In fact, we can see that instead of the "rings" of stars being focused on the right side, there's a second "focus" towards the south. The ONLY way that that's possible is with a round Earth. The second focus has "rings" that arc down away from the northern point, they don't arc around it.

Sent from my Pixel XL using TheologyOnline mobile app

 

[DFT_Dave]

So then it should be that much easier for you to watch it and pull out the information that I requested.

Dave, Have a look at this screenshot of your post I just took.

Look especially close at the thumbnail.

If the earth is flat, then the stars rotating should be all in concentric rings around the point at the top right of the image.

However, it's not. In fact, we can see that instead of the "rings" of stars being focused on the right side, there's a second "focus" towards the south. The ONLY way that that's possible is with a round Earth. The second focus has "rings" that arc down away from the northern point, they don't arc around it.

Sent from my Pixel XL using TheologyOnline mobile app

The explanation for this effect on flat earth is in the video. Watch and enjoy.

--Dave

 

[DFT_Dave]

Pretty much everything you have said is untrue. You have absolutely no understanding of relativity and do nor even see the distinction between source and observer.
And how can you not understand the key feature of relativity, that all measurements of the speed of light are the same for each observer? Light doors NOT move faster of it is emitted from a moving object.

You should also know that Relativity is just about the most experimentally verified theory ever constructed. And no experiment has ever shown the theory's predictions wrong. Ever.

These experiments say other wise. Relativity is theory "gone wild".

My example of "observer" from one planet vs from another is absolutely correct. The observer is not the light source in my example either.

If you can't interpret accurately what I am saying then how do you expect me to believe any thing you have to say about relativity or any thing else???

--Dave

 

[gcthomas]

These experiments say other wise. Relativity is theory "gone wild".

My example of "observer" from one planet vs from another is absolutely correct. The observer is not the light source in my example either.

If you can't interpret accurately what I am saying then how do you expect me to believe any thing you have to say about relativity or any thing else???

--Dave

Can you find a single experiment that gives results other that those predicted precisely by Einstein's Relativity theories? Just one to sorry your argument that the theory is false? One actual experiment will be sufficient, since you brought up experimental support.

 

[DFT_Dave]

Can you find a single experiment that gives results other that those predicted precisely by Einstein's Relativity theories? Just one to sorry your argument that the theory is false? One actual experiment will be sufficient, since you brought up experimental support.

These tests do exactly that. But there are other oddities about relativity. Space and time are no more the same thing than light source and observer.

--Dave