Regarding that manor in which you have debated this topic it seems more accurate to say... you might not be fully persuaded by the Flat Earth theory yet but you are dogmatically positive that the earth is not a globe.
The earth is flat and we never went to the moon--Part II
- Thread starter DFT_Dave
- Start date
- Status
https://v.redd.it/45nl59oyg3d1
Sorry for the vreddit link for those of you on mobile, but that's straight from the post on reddit.
Sorry for the vreddit link for those of you on mobile, but that's straight from the post on reddit.
I already emailed Bob and Doug, nominating Dave for it! Haha
:darwinsm:
"Flat-Earthism isn't a hypothesis, it's a symptom."
Sent from my SM-A520F using Tapatalk
I've read and know those arguments.
Swinging pendulums are not that persuasive, but for the sake of argument it would favor the globe. But that is not an absolute proof.
--Dave
Do you have any idea how many unsupported assumptions are in this paragraph. Light can travel through a vacuum. The speed of light is actually defined for a vacuum. When light travels through other media, like air or water or glass, its velocity changes. The experiment was done in air, not in a vacuum. The Earth travels and a very small experiment was done on a VERY large ball. It seems to me that the sensitivity of the experiment was insufficient to detect the movement.
The problem for you is that Einstein's theories have been proven to be correct. Much science has been done regarding his theories and they are right. Here are some articles for you to review at your leisure.
This should be interesting.
Lets use these dimensions for the flat Earth and we'll use a 3,000 mile elevation for the sun above the Earth and we'll use Mt Everest peak elevation of 29,029 feet or 5.5 miles above sea level. Making some assumptions base on the Earth map above, it appears that the furthest an observer can be from Mt Everest is 12,500 miles (it's a guess but it will work for now.) The sun, following the equatorial path, is maybe another 3,500 miles past Mt. Everest. So, if we do a little sketch, that is not to scale at all, we get the following:
View attachment 26609
The observer looking at the peak of Mt. Everest, which is visible on a flat earth, can still see the sun! The sun would still be high in the sky and no where near setting when it is exactly opposite the observer. The next question then becomes, how far away would the sun have to be for it to be obscured by Mt. Everest. Since we are working with a flat Earth, good all Pythagoras is all we need to figure this out. Using the Pythagorean theorem, we calculate that the sun would have to 6,805,682 MILES beyond Mt. Everest to hidden by the mountain. Most mountains are nowhere near the height of Everest. Our tallest peaks here in Colorado are a little less the half that height so the sun would have to be even farther away to be hidden by our mountains.
Lets see you drawings and calculations to see if I'm wrong. I freely admit that I made many assumptions in distances in these calculations because I do not have a scaled flat Earth map to work from. If the observer is much closer to the mountain then things change quite a bit. Here is a little table and the equations I used based on the sketch above.
View attachment 26611
Okay, your turn to show us how the mountains hide the sun. You might also want to show us how the mountains hiding the sun explains why the sun sets into the ocean from the bottom up. You must be able to explain both observations.
Einstein's theories have been proven???
How do you prove space and time are the same thing???
Einstein's greatest theory is space is time. Anything assumed or imagined in this? What happens to everything else he said if his fundamental theory is wrong? And just how do we know this theory is true?
I never said the sun was 3,000 miles up. Obviously the sun would have to be low enough on a flat earth model to be able to move past the horizon and disappear leaving half the word in darkness while giving light to the other half. Your calculations though correct leave out perspective.
--Dave
Reality isn't "decided on", Dave. Reality is part of God's nature. If you can't adhere to it, then what good are you?
The point was without gravity nothing is held to earth and the whole universe would be in total chaos. You always do seem to miss the point.
--Dave
Jesus said, if He was His only witness, then His testimony would not be true. We need other witnesses to verify the veracity of our claims.
Did you get a chance to read my two responses to you? Could you respond to my non-derogatory and to-the-point replies? Or are you going to only respond to people that call you names?
As I said these men should be excited and happy for their incredible accomplishment.
Their body language is the proof they did not go to the moon. Body language is a science and does not lie.
--Dave
Right Divider
Body part
Your rejection of the scientific fact of gravity is just another example of your lunacy.
Note that gravity is NOT just about holding things down to the globe. ALL objects in the universe exhibit this behavior.
I'm still curious why you cannot understand even the simplest of things.
P.S. Your "pancake earth" needs a force to keep things from floating away too.
I said the Bible favors flat earth but a case for the globe could be argued from it as some have shown. But flat immovable earth is more clearly/literally portrayed.
--Dave
Right Divider
Body part
Only to those highly biased to that interpretation.
I believe that the flat earth movement today is making a good case for itself. I have not yet seen a good rebuttal to flat earth evidence of photos, videos, and time lapse videos. Perspective is completely ignored alone with most of the videos.
You can't just assume everything we were ever taught about a heliocentric universe to be true and dismiss flat earth entirely because of that. Nor can you laugh off flat earth as a mindless joke or mental disorder and think you are persuading anyone not to believe in it.
Flat earth will not go away because of a science based on a globe. That science is being rejected as assumptions based on thought experiments and calculations based on an assumption cannot prove what it assumes.
You have to prove that the evidence for flat earth is wrong, not with jokes or name calling. Clete has made a good rebuttal of the last pic I posted and in the morning I will see if I can defend the photos or not.
--Dave
You didn't check any of the articles, did you. This is why people call you so many names, because yo don't look into anything that people present to you that does not agree with your flat Earth claims. It is the highest form of intellectual dishonesty and it is both frustrating and irritating to people who are trying to give you good information for you to look into. If you are not going to do some actual work, why should we keep attempting to have a discussion with you?
I have done that with the discussion about sunsets and sunrises. You have been completely unable to explain how a flat Earth cosmology explains what we see every single day. A globe perfectly explains what we see, flat Earth does not. That one single topic completely disproves a flat Earth. For the last several pages you have been claiming that you will prove that a flat Earth cosmology does account for what we see. Time to put up. Time for you to provide your definitive proof. If you cannot do that then, if you have any integrity, you will have to question your whole hypotheses.
- Status