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

[Right Divider]

But you can't leave out that the cars are both moving at 100 mph relative to a motionless road.

The road is motionless with respect to ITSELF. :duh:

When we CHOOSE the road as our FRAME OF REFERENCE.... it is BY DEFINITION motionless. It is the cars motion RELATIVE to our CHOSEN reference that are moving BY DEFINITION .... If you choose a different frame of reference.... the road is moving TOO.

So both cars are moving at 100 mph not 0 mph.

:duh:

The cars are moving relative to OUR CHOSEN reference.

You can't have a "speed/velocity" unless you have an immovable reference point.

The reference point does NOT have to be "immovable". It is simply DEFINED as not moving since it is the REFERENCE POINT.

Atheism is the absence of absolutes, nothing is constant, unchanging, or absolute in an evolving universe.

Another classic use of fallacious reasoning through EQUIVOCATION... moving the goal posts... etc. etc. etc

 

[DFT_Dave]

NEITHER OF THOSE HAVE ANYTHING TO DO WITH WHAT WE ARE TALKING ABOUT!

If you and I are standing on opposite sides of a highway, facing each other, and a car passes between us, to you, the car is moving right to left, but to me, the car is moving left to right. Both are correct, but completely opposite directions.

Why are both correct? BECAUSE TWO DIFFERENT FRAMES OF REFERENCE ARE BEING USED!

The car is not moving in opposite directions to us if we are facing each other, my left is your right.

Can you see the fallacy of your argument? I sure hope so.

But this is a good example of the irrationality of relativity.

--Dave

 

[Right Divider]

The car is not moving in opposite directions to us if we are facing each other, my left is your right.

Can you see the fallacy of your argument? I sure hope so.

But this is a good example of the irrationality of relativity.

--Dave

The only fallacious and irrational arguments are being made by DFT_Dave.

 

[DFT_Dave]

Yes, relative to the earth.

Relative to the sun, there's not much difference between our motion and the earth's motion.

USING THE EARTH AS A FRAME OF REFERENCE TO DESCRIBE THE EARTH'S MOTION WILL ALWAYS RESULT IN THE EARTH'S MOTION BEING ZERO!

By definition, you CANNOT describe motion of an object without using an EXTERNAL frame of reference.

It is motionless relative to the earth.

Relative to WHAT EXTERNAL FRAME OF REFERENCE, DAVE?

I literally just answered this, Dave.

The atmosphere is a fluid, not a solid.

The highest recorded surface wind speed was 231 mph, on the top of a mountain in 1934, and I'll bet you it wasn't in the opposite direction of the earth's spin.

Which means that the atmosphere, ignoring air currents and wind for a moment, as a whole is rotating with the earth at the same speed.

It's relative motion to the earth is zero (or very close to zero). That's using THE EARTH'S AXIS OF SPIN as a frame of reference.

Relative to what, Dave? If you say the earth, I'm going to, once again, point you to the record for the highest surface wind speed as being less than a third of the number you keep throwing into this conversation to try an throw people off.

If you say the sun, I'm going to point out that just as relative to the sun, we are moving in about the same speed and direction as the wind.

You're trying to introduce a contradiction that simply isn't there, Dave.

By using two completely arbitrary frames of reference to try to show a contradiction in our position, you completely defeat your own position, because you have, by definition, acknowledged the premise of our position.

I never said the speed of the earth's spin in relation to itself. It seems you need everything spelled out for you. The spin is obviously in reference to the sun. The sun is motionless to the earth's orbit and spin.

Wind speeds? If the atmosphere is made up of gases and water vapor the surface of the earth would cut right through it at 700 to 1000 mph and obviously we don't experience that. We could not exist if that were the cast.

The only way for there to be a spinning earth would be if there also existed a "hard cover" surrounding the earth to keep the atmosphere inside of it. This cover could be like clear plastic so we could see through it. That's what being inside a car speeding down the road implies. But then it wouldn't be possible to go to the moon.

--Dave

 

[DFT_Dave]

Come on Dave, you just being dishonest here.

GENERALLY SPEAKING we all move at the same speed as the surface of the earth on which we stand/sit. Yes, we can move RELATIVE to that.

Once AGAIN, you attempt to use the EARTH as your REFERENCE to determine the movement of the EARTH.

You are dishonest or dumb, take your pick.

Dishonest Dave, hard at work.

The atmosphere is GENERALLY moving along with the surface of the earth.

What we call WIND is the DIFFERENCE between the motion of the rotating surface of the earth and the atmosphere.

Because we are ALSO moving at "such a high speed".

Dave, are you just dumb or are you dishonest?

I said "Just how do we move freely about in any direction in an atmosphere that is moving at such a high speed?"

And you answer,"Because we are ALSO moving at "such a high speed"

I hope everyone who reads these posts begins to see how utterly irrational relativity is.

We move on earth freely in any direction at different speeds but we also are moving at the same speed and in the same direction of the earths spin?

How can that be true?

1. It's true only if the earth is covered by a "hard clear cover", the globe inside a snow globe. This is what "being moving in a car or on a plane" implies.

2. The glass or hard shell would have to be moving while the atmosphere inside was not effected.

3. It would not be possible to go through the shell so we could not go to the moon.

--Dave

 

[Right Divider]

I never said the speed of the earth's spin in relation to itself. It seems you need everything spelled out for you. The spin is obviously in reference to the sun. The sun is motionless to the earth's orbit and spin.

There are MANY other frames of reference to which the earth is moving. Besides the sun, there are the stars and the other planets.

Wind speeds? If the atmosphere is made up of gases and water vapor the surface of the earth would cut right through it at 700 to 1000 mph and obviously we don't experience that. We could not exist if that were the cast.

Why are you so dense Dave? The atmosphere is moving WITH THE EARTH (generally speaking). You keep making out like it was all sitting still and the earth suddenly started spinning at 1 RPD APART from the atmosphere.

The only way for there to be a spinning earth would be if there also existed a "hard cover" surrounding the earth to keep the atmosphere inside of it. This cover could be like clear plastic so we could see through it. That's what being inside a car speeding down the road implies. But then it wouldn't be possible to go to the moon.

Fake idea based on fake "facts".

 

[Right Divider]

I said "Just how do we move freely about in any direction in an atmosphere that is moving at such a high speed?"

And you answer,"Because we are ALSO moving at "such a high speed"

I hope everyone who reads these posts begins to see how utterly irrational relativity is.

Dave, everyone sees your stupidity on the subject.

We move on earth freely in any direction at different speeds but we also are moving at the same speed and in the same direction of the earths spin?

How can that be true?

1. It's true only if the earth is covered by a "hard clear cover", the globe inside a snow globe. This is what "being moving in a car or on a plane" implies.

You're just wrong, stupid and stubborn.

There is NOTHING outside of the atmosphere to create the problem that you seem to suggest. There is no friction outside of the earth's atmosphere to keep it from freely following the rotation of the earth. On the OTHER hand, there is friction against the surface of the earth. Along with gravity and momentum... there is no problem with the global model.

2. The glass or hard shell would have to be moving while the atmosphere inside was not effected.

More baloney based on your false model of "reality".

3. It would not be possible to go through the shell so we could not go to the moon.

Yep... there is no shell.

 

[DFT_Dave]

The primary point is that Dave continually tries to use the earth as a reference point to prove that the earth is not moving. Illogical and invalid, that claim is.

The claim that the earth is not moving is called "empirical evidence".

empirical based on, concerned with, or verifiable by observation or experience rather than theory or pure logic.

Relativity is a denial of our senses and experience.

--Dave

 

[Right Divider]

The claim that the earth is not moving is called "empirical evidence".

Nope... it's called fallacious logic.

Choosing the EARTH as your FRAME OF REFERENCE and then claiming that, based on that, the EARTH is not moving is FALLACIOUS.

empirical based on, concerned with, or verifiable by observation or experience rather than theory or pure logic.

And yet you FAIL to account for ALL of the empirical evidence that the earth is in motion through the universe.

Relativity is a denial of our senses and experience.

--Dave

More equivocation... it's getting very old Dave.

How about some honesty from you for a change?

P.S. Please explain the opposite star field rotation in the northern and southern hemispheres. That is EMPIRICAL evidence that the earth is NOT flat.

 

[DFT_Dave]

The road is motionless with respect to ITSELF. :duh:

When we CHOOSE the road as our FRAME OF REFERENCE.... it is BY DEFINITION motionless. It is the cars motion RELATIVE to our CHOSEN reference that are moving BY DEFINITION .... If you choose a different frame of reference.... the road is moving TOO.


:duh:

The cars are moving relative to OUR CHOSEN reference.


The reference point does NOT have to be "immovable". It is simply DEFINED as not moving since it is the REFERENCE POINT.


Another classic use of fallacious reasoning through EQUIVOCATION... moving the goal posts... etc. etc. etc

So we can define things as immovable even when they are not???

Another example of the irrationality of relativity.

Relativity is a never ending irrational infinite regress theory.

--Dave

 

[DFT_Dave]

The only fallacious and irrational arguments are being made by DFT_Dave.

I think you need to admit the error of your argument. My right is your left when facing each other means your example is clearing wrong.

--Dave

 

[JudgeRightly]

So we can define things as immovable even when they are not???

Unless you can show an absolute frame of reference, motion is by definition measured against an arbitrary external frame of reference, which is assumed to be motionless for the purpose of describing the motion of the object.

Motion is, by definition, arbitrarily defined.

 

[Right Divider]

So we can define things as immovable even when they are not???

Another example of the irrationality of relativity.

Relativity is a never ending irrational infinite regress theory.

--Dave

You're just being stupid Dave... stop!!

 

[Right Divider]

Unless you can show an absolute frame of reference, motion is by definition measured against an arbitrary external frame of reference, which is assumed to be motionless for the purpose of describing the motion of the object.

Motion is, by definition, arbitrarily defined.

Sure is... but fallacious Dave disagrees with basic facts.

Dave's idea of empirical evidence is anything BUT empirical.

 

[DFT_Dave]

Evidence of a flat earth from the flow of rivers

I have been arguing that we do not experience a spinning earth and that relativity is irrational.

Now I want to argue we do not have a globe earth using the geography of rivers.

All rivers flow from a higher elevation downward to a lower elevation which is impossible on a globe earth.

Amazon River
View attachment 26847

The Amazon River covers an area about 2000 miles long from origin to mouth. The origin, in Peru is said to be about 2 to 3 miles in elevation. It starts as a glacial stream on the Nevado Mismi Mountains that becomes the Apurimac River and out of Lake Junin into the Manturo River. These rivers meet to become the Ucayali River which becomes the Amazon as it crosses from Peru into Brazil.

If we are are standing at the mouth of the Amazon we have to imagine the river running "up" to us since the origin of the river is below us over the curved earth 2000 miles away and 540 miles below us.

If the earth is curved and we are standing about half way between the mouth of the river and it's origin we have to imagine that the origin and mouth are 1000 miles and 128 miles "down" from us, which is absurd.

The only conclusion for the reality we see is that the earth is flat with land masses that have higher to lower elevations.

--Dave

 

[Right Divider]

Evidence of a flat earth from the flow of rivers

I have been arguing that we do not experience a spinning earth and that relativity is irrational.

Now I want to argue we do not have a globe earth using the geography of rivers.

All rivers flow from a higher elevation downward to a lower elevation which is impossible on a globe earth.

Amazon River
View attachment 26847

The Amazon River covers an area about 2000 miles long from origin to mouth. The origin, in Peru is said to be about 2 to 3 miles in elevation. It starts as a glacial stream on the Nevado Mismi Mountains that becomes the Apurimac River and out of Lake Junin into the Manturo River. These rivers meet to become the Ucayali River which becomes the Amazon as it crosses from Peru into Brazil.

If we are are standing at the mouth of the Amazon we have to imagine the river running "up" to us since the origin of the river is below us over the curved earth 2000 miles away and 540 miles below us.

If the earth is curved and we are standing about half way between the mouth of the river and it's origin we have to imagine that the origin and mouth are 1000 miles and 128 miles "down" from us, which is absurd.

The only conclusion for the reality we see is that the earth is flat with land masses that have higher to lower elevations.

--Dave

Another idiot FE "argument".

Sorry Dave.... there higher and lower elevations on a globe too.

Are you still confused about how gravity works?

Instead of fluttering from one topic to another, how about you address some of the issues that the "globers" have given you?

Please explain the FE "explanation" for the empirical fact that the stars rotate in opposite directions in the northern and southern hemispheres.

 

[JudgeRightly]

Evidence of a flat earth from the flow of rivers

I have been arguing that we do not experience a spinning earth and that relativity is irrational.

Now I want to argue we do not have a globe earth using the geography of rivers.

All rivers flow from a higher elevation downward to a lower elevation which is impossible on a globe earth.

Amazon River
View attachment 26847

The Amazon River covers an area about 2000 miles long from origin to mouth. The origin, in Peru is said to be about 2 to 3 miles in elevation. It starts as a glacial stream on the Nevado Mismi Mountains that becomes the Apurimac River and out of Lake Junin into the Manturo River. These rivers meet to become the Ucayali River which becomes the Amazon as it crosses from Peru into Brazil.

If we are are standing at the mouth of the Amazon we have to imagine the river running "up" to us since the origin of the river is below us over the curved earth 2000 miles away and 540 miles below us.

If the earth is curved and we are standing about half way between the mouth of the river and it's origin we have to imagine that the origin and mouth are 1000 miles and 128 miles "down" from us, which is absurd.

The only conclusion for the reality we see is that the earth is flat with land masses that have higher to lower elevations.

--Dave

As RD said:

Instead of fluttering from one topic to another, how about you address some of the issues that the "globers" have given you?

I'm still waiting on a response to my challenge to you about the flood model you use to describe Noah's Flood. Could you please present a response?

Here are just a few things that need to be addressed:

1. Meteorites
2. Continental plates (volcanos, earthquakes, "ring of fire")
3. Climate changes (no, not that "climate change")
4. Libration of the moon

And there are many more things that need to be addressed that are related to the flood.

What, if any, model does a flat earther use for Noah's flood?

 

[JudgeRightly]

I never said the speed of the earth's spin in relation to itself.

That's exactly what you've been saying, Dave.

The spin is obviously in reference to the sun.

Not according to you.

The sun is motionless to the earth's orbit and spin.

Using the SUN as a frame of reference, the SUN is assumed to be motionless.

The earth's orbit and spin is in relation to the (arbitrarily assumed) motionlessness of the SUN.

Wind speeds? If the atmosphere is made up of gases and water vapor the surface of the earth would cut right through it at 700 to 1000 mph

No, it wouldn't, Dave.

Why?

Because the atmosphere is, for all intents and purposes, MOTIONLESS RELATIVE TO THE EARTH.

Again, the highest recorded wind speed on land was WELL BELOW near 700 mph.

Which is contrary to your argument, not mine.

and obviously we don't experience that. We could not exist if that were the cast.

:blabla:

The only way for there to be a spinning earth would be if there also existed a "hard cover" surrounding the earth to keep the atmosphere inside of it.

Wrong, Dave.

The other way, which is reality, is that gravity keeps the atmosphere close to the earth, no "hard cover" required.

This cover could be like clear plastic so we could see through it. That's what being inside a car speeding down the road implies. But then it wouldn't be possible to go to the moon.

--Dave

:blabla:

You're thinking that the earth must be inside a balloon, when no such thing is needed to keep the atmosphere close to the earth.

In other words, you're question begging. You're using fallacious logic to try to assert that your position is correct.

 

[DFT_Dave]

Another idiot FE "argument".

Sorry Dave.... there higher and lower elevations on a globe too.

Are you still confused about how gravity works?

Instead of fluttering from one topic to another, how about you address some of the issues that the "globers" have given you?

Please explain the FE "explanation" for the empirical fact that the stars rotate in opposite directions in the northern and southern hemispheres.

A flat motionless earth is clear from earth through experience and the flow of rivers.

On any point on a globe earth the earth drops away in all directions. This means that the longest rivers in the world, Amazon, Nile, and Mississippi flow both up and down depending on where you are, more insane relativity.

Rivers flow one way only and this is impossible on a globe. They cannot flow upward, only downward.

Gravity is a magic wand used to answer all the contradictions the globe model presents us with.

--Dave

 

[JudgeRightly]

A flat motionless earth is clear from earth through experience and the flow of rivers.

On any point on a globe earth the earth drops away in all directions. This means that the longest rivers in the world, Amazon, Nile, and Mississippi flow both up and down depending on where you are, more insane relativity.

Rivers flow one way only and this is impossible on a globe. They cannot flow upward, only downward.

Gravity is a magic wand to used answer all the contradictions the globe model presents us with.

--Dave

In other words, you're just going to ignore everything that was just said and forge ahead with your nonsense?

At what point do you become just another troll, Dave?