The earth is flat and we never went to the moon--Part II

[DFT_Dave]

Dave, this just shows you know nothing about geosynchronous satellites. They are large structures that usually weight 5-6 tons. They stay in orbit roughly 15 years, even longer. So you want us to believe that a balloon will lift a 5-6 ton structure and keep it afloat for 15+ years? Really? Here are some of the satellite I worked on. As everyone can see they are quite large and very heavy.

View attachment 26755

View attachment 26756

By they way no balloon could ever place a satellite into orbit.

I would not argue that we have no such things as satellites, I am only arguing that they do not prove a spinning globe earth.

If the earth were a globe the satellites would be moving in a circle around the earth. If the earth were flat they would be moving in a circle above the earth.

Our experience everywhere on earth is that we see everything in the sky moving above us. The earth beneath our feet is stationary and flat.

--Dave

 

[DFT_Dave]

Once AGAIN, Dave tries to stack the deck with his opinions.

The FACT ... once AGAIN.... that the stars APPEAR to be rotating around the poles in OPPOSITE directions (at the SAME time) prove CONCLUSIVELY that the earth is not flat.

So instead of trying to play your usual game of DISTRACTION, address this ISSUE that CONCLUSIVELY proves that the earth is NOT flat.

(this is one of MANY issues that Dave cannot solve and therefore attempts to distract instead).

There are other explanations for what we see in the movement of the stars. There certainly would be differences in what we would see from directly under the north pole as compared to the southern ends of the flat earth. But that the stars are moving and the earth is flat and not moving is the same experience from everywhere on earth.

--Dave

 

[Right Divider]

There are other explanations for what we see in the movement of the stars.

Indeed there are. There are all kinds of bogus explanations for these observations from the "flat earth" perspective.

They are ALL dismal failures.

There certainly would be differences in that we would see from directly under the north pole as compared to the southern ends of the flat earth.

And yet you cannot understand the problem?

But that the stars are moving and the earth is flat and not moving is the same experience from everywhere on earth.

--Dave

Wrong.... every observer is the reference point for his/her observations. According to your childish way of thinking, the entire universe rotates around you.

 

[DFT_Dave]

Indeed there are. There are all kinds of bogus explanations for these observations from the "flat earth" perspective.

They are ALL dismal failures.


And yet you cannot understand the problem?


Wrong.... every observer is the reference point for his/her observations. According to your childish way of thinking, the entire universe rotates around you.

The problems with the heliocentric model

The heliocentric model does not work unless we imagine a contradictory tilt and elliptical orbit that defy rational explanation.

The tilt of the earth as it orbits the sun is an absolute impossibility. Physical law would demand a perpendicular axis to the sun it's orbiting. A circular orbit would also be required and not an elliptical one that places the earth farther from the sun part of the year then closer the rest of the year. If the pull of gravity is not constant then "Houston we have a problem".

View attachment 26757

--Dave

 

[JudgeRightly]

The problems with the heliocentric model

The heliocentric model does not work unless we imagine a contradictory tilt and elliptical orbit that defy rational explanation.

You have yet to show that the explanation defies rationality.

I say this because it has already been rationally explained to you, but you have rejected it out of hand.

The tilt of the earth as it orbits the sun is an absolute impossibility. Physical law would demand a perpendicular axis to the sun it's orbiting. A circular orbit would also be required and not an elliptical one that places the earth farther from the sun part of the year then closer the rest of the year. If the pull of gravity is not constant then "Houston we have a problem".

--Dave

Saying it doesn't make it so, Dave.

You've been shown how it works, logically and rationally, but you continue to assert that it is not.

We're still waiting for you to explain why it is not.

 

[Right Divider]

The problems with the heliocentric model

The heliocentric model does not work unless we imagine a contradictory tilt and elliptical orbit that defy rational explanation.

The tilt of the earth as it orbits the sun is an absolute impossibility. Physical law would demand a perpendicular axis to the sun it's orbiting. A circular orbit would also be required and not an elliptical one that places the earth farther from the sun part of the year then closer the rest of the year. If the pull of gravity is not constant then "Houston we have a problem".

View attachment 26757

--Dave

Poor Dave.... just cannot focus for one second on anything. Just constantly wants to move to another silly falsehood.

 

[DFT_Dave]

You have yet to show that the explanation defies rationality.

I say this because it has already been rationally explained to you, but you have rejected it out of hand.

Saying it doesn't make it so, Dave.

You've been shown how it works, logically and rationally, but you continue to assert that it is not.

We're still waiting for you to explain why it is not.

And what explanation makes this model rational?

That it's winter when we are closest and summer when farther away makes this model absurd.

View attachment 26758

--Dave

 

[Bright Raven]

Thank you for the Good Laugh Dave. This has been a funny OP. I'm still waiting for the first ship to fall off the edge of the earth.

 

[JudgeRightly]

And what explanation makes this model rational?

That it's winter when we are closest and summer when farther away makes this model absurd.

View attachment 26758

--Dave

Uh-uh, Dave.

The onus is on YOU to show that it is irrational.

You're asserting something contrary to what has been established, therefore the burden of proof is on YOU to show your work.

 

[Right Divider]

And what explanation makes this model rational?

That it's winter when we are closest and summer when farther away makes this model absurd.

View attachment 26758

--Dave

Is it really possible that you're this stupid Dave? And you want to have a debate about scientific facts?

The "picture" that you're showing is FAKE Dave... It's completely EXAGGERATED with regards to SCALE (something that you've consistently proven that you do NOT understand).

The MINIMUM distance from the earth to the sun is ~91 million miles.
The MAXIMUM distance from the earth to the sun is ~94.5 million miles.
That is an AVERAGE distance of ~92.75 miles.

That is a variation of the distance between MIN and MAX of ~3.5 million miles around the average of ~92.75
In other words, the distance varies by less than 4%

It's NOT the DISTANCE that creates the seasons. It is the DIRECTNESS of the suns rays Dave.

You continue to prove your total incompetence to discuss anything as an intelligent human being.

 

[DFT_Dave]

Is it really possible that you're this stupid Dave? And you want to have a debate about scientific facts?

The "picture" that you're showing is FAKE Dave... It's completely EXAGGERATED with regards to SCALE (something that you've consistently proven that you do NOT understand).

The MINIMUM distance from the earth to the sun is ~91 million miles.
The MAXIMUM distance from the earth to the sun is ~94.5 million miles.
That is an AVERAGE distance of ~92.75 miles.

That is a variation of the distance between MIN and MAX of ~3.5 million miles around the average of ~92.75
In other words, the distance varies by less than 4%

It's NOT the DISTANCE that creates the seasons. It is the DIRECTNESS of the suns rays Dave.

You continue to prove your total incompetence to discuss anything as an intelligent human being.

"Earth is about 3 million miles (5 million km) closer to the sun in early January than it is in early July. That's always the case. Earth is closest to the sun every year in early January, when it's winter for the Northern Hemisphere."

The "South Pole" would be where it should be the warmest, when it's the closest. I would think a sun 3 million miles closer would make a major difference in temperature there but we don't see it.

But the main problem is that gravity is not constant if this is the case. How can gravity become stronger then weaker???

--Dave

 

[Right Divider]

"Earth is about 3 million miles (5 million km) closer to the sun in early January than it is in early July. That's always the case. Earth is closest to the sun every year in early January, when it's winter for the Northern Hemisphere."

Which is completely irrelevant to the reason for seasons.

The "South Pole" would be where it should be the warmest, when it's the closest. I would think a sun 3 million miles closer would make a major difference in temperature there but we don't see it.

:dizzy:
So it turns out that you really are that dumb.

No Dave, the LESS THAN 4 PERCENT difference is NOT enough to account for the DRAMATIC difference between summer and winter.

But the main problem is that gravity is not constant if this is the case. How can gravity become stronger then weaker???

--Dave

Another message from Diversionary Dave.

Go study some actual science.... or continue to make a fool out of yourself... it's your choice.

 

[DFT_Dave]

Which is completely irrelevant to the reason for seasons.


:dizzy:
So it turns out that you really are that dumb.

No Dave, the LESS THAN 4 PERCENT difference is NOT enough to account for the DRAMATIC difference between summer and winter.


Another message from Diversionary Dave.

Go study some actual science.... or continue to make a fool out of yourself... it's your choice.

Saying 4% may not seem significant but saying it's 3 million miles is. How many degrees in the rise of the temperature could significantly alter the world's climate? Only a few.

The flat earth movement is here to question and challenge the heliocentric model. If we just accept what ever explanations we're given from the heliocentric perspective then we would all be atheists by now.

That the axis of a spinning earth tilts away from it's flat orbit instead of perpendicular and moves in an elliptical orbit instead a of circular one defies reason. The globe earth has been tilted in order to keep the north star over the north pole with the other stars circling it as we have always observe it all year long.

Why is the orbit of the earth elliptical?
"The Earth does not travel around the Sun in a circle, but in an ellipse. If the Earth were to orbit the Sun in a circle, with the Sun as its center, the Earth's speed around the Sun would be constant."

But if the speed of the earth slows down what speeds it back up so that it does not get pulled closer and closer to the sun by gravity until we're all dead?

--Dave

 

[Right Divider]

Saying 4% may not seem significant but saying it's 3 million miles is. How many degrees in the rise of the temperature could significantly alter the world's climate? Only a few.

Dave, your fallacious logic is old and worn out. 4% is VERY small. It is NOT the reason that seasons exist and the global model does not suggest that it does. You are beating another of your MANY straw-men.

The flat earth movement is here to question and challenge the heliocentric model. If we just accept what ever explanations we're given from the heliocentric perspective then we would all be atheists by now.

More false accusations. old and worn out.

That the axis of a spinning earth tilts away from it's flat orbit instead of perpendicular and moves in an elliptical orbit instead a of circular one defies reason. The globe earth has been tilted in order to keep the north star over the north pole with the other stars circling it as we have always observe it all year long.

Dave, that is just more NONSENSE that you've apparently swallowed hook, line and sinker.

There is nothing the slightest bit unreasonable about an elliptical orbit nor a tilted axis. You just say that AS IF your have some special knowledge.... You don't.

Are you ONCE AGAIN trying to force the global model to be a evolutionary idea? Probably. It's not. It's simply based on repeatable and independently verifiable observations, quite unlike your "flat earth" model which makes SO MANY claims that cannot be verified (the "sun lens" that "invalidates" stick and shadow calculation of the diameter of the earth).

Why is the orbit of the earth elliptical?
"The Earth does not travel around the Sun in a circle, but in an ellipse. If the Earth were to orbit the Sun in a circle, with the Sun as its center, the Earth's speed around the Sun would be constant."

But if the speed of the earth slows down what speeds it back up so that it does not get pulled closer and closer to the sun by gravity until we're all dead?

--Dave

More completely insanity on your part Dave. You do not even understand the simplest science, like the conservation of energy. Nor do you understand gravity.

Once again, how can you who knows practically nothing, "debate" these models? You can't. You are so completely dumb on these subjects that it makes it impossible for you to actually participate.

You have no shame, so I'll be ashamed of you for you.

 

[DFT_Dave]

Flat earth answer to star rotation

--Dave

 

[JudgeRightly]

Flat earth answer to star rotation

--Dave

You've been told before, Dave, post a summary of the video in your own words, or don't share the link to the video.

 

[DFT_Dave]

Dave, your fallacious logic is old and worn out. 4% is VERY small. It is NOT the reason that seasons exist and the global model does not suggest that it does. You are beating another of your MANY straw-men.

More false accusations. old and worn out.

Dave, that is just more NONSENSE that you've apparently swallowed hook, line and sinker.

There is nothing the slightest bit unreasonable about an elliptical orbit nor a tilted axis. You just say that AS IF your have some special knowledge.... You don't.

Are you ONCE AGAIN trying to force the global model to be a evolutionary idea? Probably. It's not. It's simply based on repeatable and independently verifiable observations, quite unlike your "flat earth" model which makes SO MANY claims that cannot be verified (the "sun lens" that "invalidates" stick and shadow calculation of the diameter of the earth).

More completely insanity on your part Dave. You do not even understand the simplest science, like the conservation of energy. Nor do you understand gravity.

Once again, how can you who knows practically nothing, "debate" these models? You can't. You are so completely dumb on these subjects that it makes it impossible for you to actually participate.

You have no shame, so I'll be ashamed of you for you.

Since you know everything about this subject then please explain it for me.

So far you haven't explained anything.

Instead of saying how dumb I am why don't you show me how smart you are?

--Dave

 

[DFT_Dave]

You've been told before, Dave, post a summary of the video in your own words, or don't share the link to the video.

I already made a general comment for this video. Where you are and how the dome will effect what we see explains the stars rotation.

--Dave

 

[The Berean]

That any one went up in a rocket and can back to earth is one thing, that anyone circled a globed earth or went to the moon is another thing. The one does not prove the other.

--Dave

John Glenn and the other Mercury astronauts traveled around the Earth! :doh: The was the whole point of the program. Katherine Johnson helped create the orbital paths of the Mercury capsules. That was literally her job. So is Katherine Johnson lying?

 

[JudgeRightly]

I already made a general comment for this video. Where you are and how the dome will effect what we see explains the stars rotation.

--Dave

A general comment is not a summary.

Post a summary of the video, Dave, or I'm going to remove it as spam.