Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

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

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • There is a parallel between Flat Earth arguments and Young Earth Creationist arguments. Specifically, the avoidance of dealing with inconvenient facts. YEC's don't like to hear this, but there is a parallel.

    I do not intend to derail this thread. If anybody wants to start a YEC vs. FE comparison thread, be my guest. Maybe I'll join you.

    Comment


    • Originally posted by chair View Post
      There is a parallel between Flat Earth arguments and Young Earth Creationist arguments.
      Saying it doesn't make it so.

      If you think that, then why not just start a thread, instead of posting it here, because of what you said below?

      Specifically, the avoidance of dealing with inconvenient facts. YEC's don't like to hear this, but there is a parallel.
      Start a new thread.

      I do not intend to derail this thread.
      Then why bother posting this post here?

      If anybody wants to start a YEC vs. FE comparison thread, be my guest. Maybe I'll join you.
      Why not start one yourself, you seem so adamant on posting about it here...

      Comment


      • Originally posted by JudgeRightly View Post
        Saying it doesn't make it so.

        If you think that, then why not just start a thread, instead of posting it here, because of what you said below?



        Start a new thread.



        Then why bother posting this post here?



        Why not start one yourself, you seem so adamant on posting about it here...
        A similar topic came up in this thread, post 3740. I don't have a huge interest in discussing it further, unless somebody else wants to. By the way,I recall getting a warning for even mentioning this idea in the past.

        Comment


        • Originally posted by Right Divider View Post
          Hey Dave... you've not done a good job of being logical in this "debate". You've been more of a parrot; just repeating what you "heard".
          Since I did not originate "flat earth" or "We never went to the moon", arguing on behalf, e.i. repeating the arguments, of those who did was the whole point of this thread. Funny how you and so many others have missed the main point.

          --Dave
          www.dynamicfreetheism.com
          The only view of ultimate reality that provides
          rational answers to the questions of human origin, destiny, and dignity.
          The only view that proves the existence and explains
          the nature of God.

          Comment


          • Originally posted by Clete View Post
            Dave,

            The Earth CANNOT be flat. I have proven it. And I mean that explicitly. I have proven it. I've done so with the clearest and easy to understand logic that anyone could possibly desire or hope for. Indeed, my argument is far more compelling than anything that you rightly cite as 'rational thought' in the above quoted post and yet you remain unconvinced.

            Why won't you allow simple logic and junior high school level math to persuade your mind?

            Clete
            If any argument presents a clear and obvious contradiction that argument is irrational.

            In the heliocentric model the earth is spinning at the surface about 1,000 mph at the equator and about 700 mph across America. Jets move above us at about 500 to 700 mph. We move freely in any direction on earth.

            That everything on earth can cut right through the atmosphere but the spinning earth does not is a clear and obvious contradiction.

            The argument that we never sense the earth is moving because standing "on" the earth is like being "in" a car or plane, is a false analogy. The obvious analogy would be standing "on" a moving earth would be like standing on a jet moving at 600 to 700 mph.

            The ancient flat earth model and the geocentric model since Plato and Aristotle have a motionless earth. Biblical earth does not move and the sun, moon, and stars do.

            --Dave

            P.S. I put 10,000 mph by mistake. I meant 1,000
            Last edited by DFT_Dave; June 21st, 2019, 01:10 PM.
            www.dynamicfreetheism.com
            The only view of ultimate reality that provides
            rational answers to the questions of human origin, destiny, and dignity.
            The only view that proves the existence and explains
            the nature of God.

            Comment


            • Originally posted by Hedshaker View Post
              This must give you some idea of how atheists feel when dealing with depths of lunacy. How anyone can see the difference between flat Earth arguments and theistic apologetics is somewhat beyond the pale. To the rational thinker it's like saying.....: my magic is better than your magic
              Three traditional laws: identity, non-contradiction, excluded middle

              Law of identity: Atheism is naturalism.

              Atheism is irrational because particles are both mindless and mind. A thing cannot be both what it is and something else or it's antithesis.

              --Dave
              www.dynamicfreetheism.com
              The only view of ultimate reality that provides
              rational answers to the questions of human origin, destiny, and dignity.
              The only view that proves the existence and explains
              the nature of God.

              Comment


              • Originally posted by DFT_Dave View Post
                If any argument presents a clear and obvious contradiction that argument is irrational.

                In the heliocentric model the earth is spinning at the surface about 10,000 mph
                Um, no.

                It spins at around 1,000 mph. Not 10,000.

                It's no wonder you're having problems with this stuff, Dave.

                Where in the world did you get 10,000 mph for how fast the earth spins?

                at the equator and about 700 mph across America.
                Florida (north end is around 30 degrees North) is spinning around 900 mph (give or take 5).

                St. Louis (around 40 degrees North) is spinning at around 795.

                So no, your numbers are wrong yet again.

                Points on a spinning object will ALWAYS be moving faster than points that are closer to the axis of spin.

                What's funny is that you fail to consider that it's about the same speed in Uruguay as it is in Florida.

                Jets move above us at about 500 to 700 mph.
                Relative to the ground, yes.

                We move freely in any direction on earth.
                Relative to the ground, yes.

                That everything on earth can cut right through the atmosphere but the spinning earth does not is a clear and obvious contradiction.
                I'm not even sure how to answer this stupidity...

                The argument that we never sense the earth is moving because standing "on" the earth is like being "in" a car or plane, is a false analogy.
                Saying it doesn't make it so.

                The obvious analogy would be standing "on" a moving earth would be like standing on a jet moving at 600 to 700 mph.
                Why do you assume that the atmosphere is traveling as such high speeds relative to the earth's surface?

                The ancient flat earth model
                Which one?

                and the geocentric model since Plato and Aristotle have a motionless earth.
                So?

                Biblical earth does not move and the sun, moon, and stars do.
                Saying it doesn't make it so.

                Comment


                • Originally posted by JudgeRightly View Post
                  Um, no.

                  It spins at around 1,000 mph. Not 10,000.

                  It's no wonder you're having problems with this stuff, Dave.

                  Where in the world did you get 10,000 mph for how fast the earth spins?

                  Florida (north end is around 30 degrees North) is spinning around 900 mph (give or take 5).

                  St. Louis (around 40 degrees North) is spinning at around 795.

                  So no, your numbers are wrong yet again.

                  Points on a spinning object will ALWAYS be moving faster than points that are closer to the axis of spin.

                  What's funny is that you fail to consider that it's about the same speed in Uruguay as it is in Florida.

                  Relative to the ground, yes.

                  Relative to the ground, yes.

                  I'm not even sure how to answer this stupidity...

                  Saying it doesn't make it so.

                  Why do you assume that the atmosphere is traveling as such high speeds relative to the earth's surface?

                  Which one?

                  So?

                  Saying it doesn't make it so.
                  I meant 1,000 mph not 10,000, my mistake. I just typed in one too many zeros.

                  That everything on earth can cut right through the atmosphere but the spinning earth does not is a clear and obvious contradiction.

                  "I'm not even sure how to answer this stupidity..."

                  You can't answer this because it's absolutely true.

                  "Why do you assume that the atmosphere is traveling as such high speeds relative to the earth's surface?"

                  The atmosphere is not traveling / moving at 1,000 to 700 mph, the earth is according to the heliocentric model.

                  The obvious analogy would be standing "on" an earth moving at 600 to 700 mph would be like standing on a jet moving at 600 to 700 mph.

                  All views on earth, from jets, and high altitude balloons shows an earth that is absolutely not moving.

                  --Dave
                  www.dynamicfreetheism.com
                  The only view of ultimate reality that provides
                  rational answers to the questions of human origin, destiny, and dignity.
                  The only view that proves the existence and explains
                  the nature of God.

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by DFT_Dave View Post
                    Originally posted by JudgeRightly View Post
                    Um, no.

                    It spins at around 1,000 mph. Not 10,000.

                    It's no wonder you're having problems with this stuff, Dave.

                    Where in the world did you get 10,000 mph for how fast the earth spins?

                    Florida (north end is around 30 degrees North) is spinning around 900 mph (give or take 5).

                    St. Louis (around 40 degrees North) is spinning at around 795.

                    So no, your numbers are wrong yet again.

                    Points on a spinning object will ALWAYS be moving faster than points that are closer to the axis of spin.

                    What's funny is that you fail to consider that it's about the same speed in Uruguay as it is in Florida.

                    Relative to the ground, yes.

                    Relative to the ground, yes.

                    I'm not even sure how to answer this stupidity...

                    Saying it doesn't make it so.

                    Why do you assume that the atmosphere is traveling as such high speeds relative to the earth's surface?

                    Which one?

                    So?

                    Saying it doesn't make it so.
                    First of all, I've pointed you to this page a number of times for a reason, Dave, learn how to use the [ QUOTE ] tags.

                    That everything on earth can cut right through the atmosphere but the spinning earth does not is a clear and obvious contradiction.

                    "I'm not even sure how to answer this stupidity..."

                    You can't answer this because it's absolutely true.
                    No, Dave, I can't answer it because it's sheer stupidity.

                    The atmosphere is part of the earth, and spins along with it.

                    Relative to a point on the earth, the shell of the atmosphere (I'm using the term shell lightly here) isn't moving at all (ignoring air-currents for the moment, as they're moving relative to the atmosphere itself, but you're not ready for that discussion yet...).

                    Relative to the Sun, it's rotating the same speed as the earth.

                    "Why do you assume that the atmosphere is traveling as such high speeds relative to the earth's surface?"

                    The atmosphere is not traveling / moving at 1,000 to 700 mph, the earth is according to the heliocentric model.
                    The atmosphere is PART OF THE EARTH, Dave, and spins along with the rest of it.

                    The obvious analogy would be standing "on" an earth moving at 600 to 700 mph would be like standing on a jet moving at 600 to 700 mph.
                    If the atmosphere were not spinning at all, your analogy would be correct.

                    But the car analogy isn't talking about the atmosphere's movement relative to the earth, it's the entire EARTH'S movement relative to the rest of the universe.

                    You're trying to compare apples to cardboard boxes.

                    All views on earth, from jets, and high altitude balloons shows an earth that is absolutely not moving.


                    Argumentum ad nauseum.

                    Clete has proven that the earth CANNOT be flat, and you continue to ignore his post.

                    I have given you something to research on the topic of the Flood of Noah that proves that the earth is round, and as far as I can tell, you have done no research at all on the subject, as you have yet to respond to my challenges to you regarding it.

                    That's two witnesses, not to mention the countless other people on these two threads (and others) who have PERSONALLY worked on things that go into space which rely on the earth to be round to be able to stay above the earth.

                    Your position has been falsified, it's time to admit defeat.
                    Last edited by JudgeRightly; June 22nd, 2019, 09:12 AM.

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by DFT_Dave View Post
                      If any argument presents a clear and obvious contradiction that argument is irrational.

                      In the heliocentric model the earth is spinning at the surface about 1,000 mph at the equator and about 700 mph across America. Jets move above us at about 500 to 700 mph. We move freely in any direction on earth.

                      That everything on earth can cut right through the atmosphere but the spinning earth does not is a clear and obvious contradiction.
                      It's clear and obvious stupidity is what it is.

                      When you go to the equator, there isn't a 1000 mph wind in your face. That's because the atmosphere is generally moving along with the surface of the Earth. In other words, the Earth is not moving at 1000 mph relative to the atmosphere but relative to a fixed point. Usually this fixed point is determined by a position on the Earth directly under the Sun. So let's say you are on the equator on an equinox and you look straight up and see Sun directly overhead. If you want to keep the Sun directly overhead you'll have to move west at about 1000mph. Put another way, the subsolar point on the Earth's surface moves at about 1000mph. It's actually a bit faster than that because the Earth is about 24900 miles in circumference and so 24900/24 is 1037.5 mph but there's no need to be more precise than the nice round number of 1000 mph.

                      The argument that we never sense the earth is moving because standing "on" the earth is like being "in" a car or plane, is a false analogy. The obvious analogy would be standing "on" a moving earth would be like standing on a jet moving at 600 to 700 mph.
                      No David no!

                      The atmosphere is moving WITH THE EARTH!!!!!!!!

                      You just cannot possibly be this stupid!

                      And I'm sorry but 'stupid' is the right word to be using here. There is just simply no way I can accept that you cannot use your imagination sufficiently well to be able to see how there'd be no way to detect the motion of the Earth if you and everything around you, including the air you breath and everything else is all moving right along with you.

                      And more than that, things do not just "cut right through the atmosphere" as though there were no resistance. There is resistance and quite a lot of it actually.

                      Here's an experiment you can perform yourself in your own kitchen. Take out a large bowl and fill it with water or fill your sink full of water, any large container will do. Then take your hand and start stirring the water in one direction or the other, clockwise or counter clockwise it doesn't matter. At first you will encounter a lot of resistance and feel a "wind" of water passing by your hand but before long most of the water will be moving right along with your hand and you won't feel any resistance and no "wind". If not for the friction that the water is experiencing against the walls of the container, this would be a nearly perfect analogy of what is happening with the Earth and the atmosphere. The atmosphere is spinning right along with the earth and, in fact, is part of the Earth and so it isn't cutting through itself.

                      The ancient flat earth model and the geocentric model since Plato and Aristotle have a motionless earth. Biblical earth does not move and the sun, moon, and stars do.

                      --Dave

                      P.S. I put 10,000 mph by mistake. I meant 1,000
                      So, I've responded to your argument, now I insist that you respond to mine. I'll repost it here so that you won't have to go looking for it.

                      I want either a direct and rational rebuttal of the argument or if you're unable to offer one of those then I want an explanation of why you refuse to allow it to persuade your mind.

                      Proof That the Earth Cannot Be Flat


                      The last few days I've been playing around with some math and thought I'd post some of it here to see if it might move some of the flat earthers maybe an inch or two back toward reality...

                      Let's put some of the sunset images we've taken to good use and see if what was observed can be made to fit with the FET (Flat Earth Theory).

                      FET claims the Sun is approximately 3000 miles above the Earth and they do not dispute well established distances between points on the surface of the Earth. I'm going to be using these two presuppositions in my calculations and you'll want to refer to the following diagram to keep track of the variables...

                      Click image for larger version

Name:	arittri.gif
Views:	5
Size:	2.9 KB
ID:	2434627

                      Side a is the distance from the ground to the Sun (3000 mi).
                      Side b is the distance from an observer to a point on the Earth where the Sun is directly over head.
                      Side c (a.k.a. the hypotenuse) is the distance from the observer to the Sun itself.
                      Angle A is the height of the Sun above the horizon in degrees as seen from the observer.
                      Angle C is always 90°
                      Angle B is not relevant to this discussion.

                      Note from the start that if the Earth is flat and the Sun is 3000 miles up (or any number of miles up for that matter) that angle A can never ever get to 0°. The Sun would never set because no matter how long you make side b of that triangle, angle A is always a positive number. The only way for the Sun to set on a flat Earth is if the Sun dipped below the plane of the flat Earth. If that were to happen, then it would be night everywhere on Earth at once, which we know does not happen. It's always noon somewhere on the Earth and not only that but the Sun is directly over head at some point on the Earth (this is called the subsolar point - look it up).

                      That, by itself, ought to be enough to convince anyone that the Earth cannot be flat but there's more. Let's take a look at some of these photos we took last week...

                      So, since we're assuming a flat Earth, I'm going to focus on just a couple of photos that both show the position of the Sun in degrees above the horizon. I should point out that you don't have to trust the numbers generated by the app on the phones used to take these photos. The numbers can be confirmed by anyone by simply fashioning a simple sextant from a cheap plastic protractor.

                      I'll use these two photos...

                      Click image for larger version

Name:	2000180508.jpg
Views:	2
Size:	63.4 KB
ID:	2434628 Click image for larger version

Name:	Kight 2000180508.jpg
Views:	3
Size:	398.4 KB
ID:	2434629

                      On the left is the Sun's position as seen from my house on May 8th, 2018 at 01:00 UCT (8:00:01pm central time)
                      On the right is the Sun's position as seen from Knight's house on the same day just 38 seconds later (7:00:39pm mountain time).

                      The position of the Sun at my house is just .1° above the horizon while at Knight's it was 10.2° (This information is displayed just to the right of the Sun position indicator. It shows the Sun's heading and then it's elevation in degrees. On Knight's photo it's sort of hidden a little by the NW direction indicator but it reads "Sun 284.0 W 10.2°" The 10.2 is the elevation above the horizon in degrees)

                      So, let's look at Knight's first...

                      How far West (more specifically, in the direction of the Sun - in Knight's case 284° W) would you have to go from Knight's house (where sides b and c meet) to get to a place on a flat Earth where the Sun was directily over head (where sides a and b meet)?

                      It turns out that when dealing with right triangles if you have the length of any one side and either angle A or B, you can know everything about the whole triangle!
                      The math is boring and so I'm not going to show all that. Just go HERE and plug in the numbers for side b (3000) and angle A (10.2).
                      You get the following results...

                      Someone 16,700 miles (length of side b) to his west would see the Sun directly overhead.

                      There is no point on Earth 16,700 miles from Denver Colorado.


                      Still not convinced? Well just wait till you plug in the numbers from my house!


                      At my house the Sun was only .1 degrees above the horizon. So plugging in the numbers from my house (side b = 3000 and angle A = .1) we get the following results...

                      You have to go 1,720,000 miles to my West to find high noon beneath a Sun that was 3000 miles above the surface of a flat Earth.

                      That's One MILLION seven hundred twenty THOUSAND miles!
                      (That's more that 7 times the real distance to the Moon!)

                      Now seriously folks! What more proof could you possibly need? How are you going to possibly refute this?

                      Are you going to deny that the Sun is about 10° further above the horizon in Denver than it is in Houston? Even if you did that, the distance to noon calculations aren't dependent on that!

                      Are you going to challenge the validity of the Pythagorean Theorem?

                      It seems that's your only option! It's either refute the Pythagorean Theorem or you must reject the notion that the Earth is flat based on the mere fact that the Sun gets to within .1° of the horizon at one point on the Earth while at the same time being directly over head at another.

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

                      So let's do some more math!

                      This time let's assume that the distances on Earth as reported by Google Earth are accurate but that the Earth is flat.

                      To make the numbers easy, lets assume a location on the equator on an equinox.

                      And we'll use the same diagram as before...

                      Click image for larger version

Name:	arittri.gif
Views:	5
Size:	2.9 KB
ID:	2434631

                      When it is Noon (90° over head (angle C) in one place it is Sunset or Sunrise 6225.25 miles away (side b).
                      For our Sunset angle (angle A) we'll stick with .1° because any angle below that produces numbers that are even more embarrassing for the FET.

                      So, plugging in the numbers HERE, we get the following results....

                      The Sun would have to be a mere 10.865122 miles above the surface of a flat Earth (side a).

                      If you use a smaller number for angle a, then the Sun has to be closer and closer to the surface. An angle of .01 would require the Sun to be just over one mile above the surface of the Earth at point C. That would make for one heck of a hot afternoon!


                      Clete
                      Last edited by Clete; June 21st, 2019, 09:25 PM.
                      sigpic
                      "The [open view] is an attempt to provide a more Biblically faithful, rationally coherent, and practically satisfying account of God and the divine-human relationship..." - Dr. John Sanders

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by Clete View Post

                        The atmosphere is spinning right along with the earth and, in fact, is part of the Earth and so it isn't cutting through itself.

                        Clete
                        The earth is not the atmosphere. Solids things move through gases and liquids.

                        --Dave
                        www.dynamicfreetheism.com
                        The only view of ultimate reality that provides
                        rational answers to the questions of human origin, destiny, and dignity.
                        The only view that proves the existence and explains
                        the nature of God.

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by DFT_Dave View Post
                          Since I did not originate "flat earth" or "We never went to the moon", arguing on behalf, e.i. repeating the arguments, of those who did was the whole point of this thread. Funny how you and so many others have missed the main point.

                          --Dave
                          We have not said that this idea was original with you. We are saying that you repeat things that have been proven FALSE... and you repeat them repeatedly.

                          What "point" have we missed?
                          All of my ancestors are human.
                          Originally posted by Squeaky
                          That explains why your an idiot.
                          Originally posted by God's Truth
                          Father figure, Son figure, and Holy Spirit figure.
                          Col 2:9 (AKJV/PCE)
                          (2:9) For in him dwelleth all the fulness of the Godhead bodily.

                          1Tim 4:10 (AKJV/PCE)
                          (4:10) For therefore we both labour and suffer reproach, because we trust in the living God, who is the Saviour of all men, specially of those that believe.

                          Something that was SPOKEN OF since the world began CANNOT be the SAME thing as something KEPT SECRET since the world began.

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by DFT_Dave View Post
                            The earth is not the atmosphere. Solids things move through gases and liquids.

                            --Dave
                            The atmosphere is part of the earth, Dave. It turns with the earth due to friction

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by JudgeRightly View Post
                              The atmosphere is part of the earth, Dave. It turns with the earth due to friction
                              And momentum.
                              All of my ancestors are human.
                              Originally posted by Squeaky
                              That explains why your an idiot.
                              Originally posted by God's Truth
                              Father figure, Son figure, and Holy Spirit figure.
                              Col 2:9 (AKJV/PCE)
                              (2:9) For in him dwelleth all the fulness of the Godhead bodily.

                              1Tim 4:10 (AKJV/PCE)
                              (4:10) For therefore we both labour and suffer reproach, because we trust in the living God, who is the Saviour of all men, specially of those that believe.

                              Something that was SPOKEN OF since the world began CANNOT be the SAME thing as something KEPT SECRET since the world began.

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by Right Divider View Post
                                We have not said that this idea was original with you. We are saying that you repeat things that have been proven FALSE... and you repeat them repeatedly.

                                What "point" have we missed?
                                The earth does not move.

                                --Dave
                                www.dynamicfreetheism.com
                                The only view of ultimate reality that provides
                                rational answers to the questions of human origin, destiny, and dignity.
                                The only view that proves the existence and explains
                                the nature of God.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X