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

  • #16
    The GREAT FLOOD on the FLAT EARTH


    Does the Biblical Flood even make any sense in the globe model? How much water would it even take to cover the tops of the mountains anyway? What about the old "water vapor canopy model?What does the Bible actually say.......


    11 minutes -

    Comment


    • #17
      Originally posted by patrick jane View Post
      Nope, you're simply completely misjudging the operation of the sun and moon above flat earth put of your minf. Try to get that model with the beginner's map of flat earth. Unless you do that, you'll keep getting sidetracked like this.
      Originally posted by patrick jane View Post
      The GREAT FLOOD on the FLAT EARTH


      Does the Biblical Flood even make any sense in the globe model? How much water would it even take to cover the tops of the mountains anyway? What about the old "water vapor canopy model?What does the Bible actually say.......


      11 minutes -
      You still don't get it, Patrick, just like you didn't get it in the other thread: your flat-earth goose is cooked, your flat-earth theory is dead in the water, and no matter how much you hem and haw, and argue and ignore factual observations while trying to get others to compromise those factual observations, those factual observations are not going to go away. You can continue on with all of your supposed proofs without me, for as for me: end of thread.

      Comment


      • #18
        [MENTION=4980]DFT_Dave[/MENTION]

        You never answered why everything is pulled in a downward direction rather than in any direction.

        If you don't know the FE answer to this I can tell you.

        Comment


        • #19
          Originally posted by 1Mind1Spirit View Post
          He can't afford to.

          He'd have to rip up part of his exegesis on Golgotha.
          On the other hand, the calendar portrayed in the Book of the Luminaries is currently not possible anywhere on earth except around sixty degrees latitude south or possibly above sixty degrees latitude north, (and maybe not even anywhere in the northern latitudes). Sixty degrees south is below Australia, New Zealand, and the southern tip of Argentina: it is near the antarctic circle in the middle of nowhere, (nothing but ocean and perhaps a few islands). So if indeed there was any conspiracy, and NASA wanted to hide anything about God, it would more likely be something like a pole-shift at Golgotha, which may have changed the calendar and lengthened the year by a day and a quarter, (throwing off the Sabbath in what would have been a perfect 364-day year with fifty-two Sabbaths), and would thus prove to the world that the Prophets of old foretold the Messiah and the events surrounding his crucifixion, (Isaiah 24:19-20, Amos 8:9-10 etc., etc.).

          Comment


          • #20
            Originally posted by daqq View Post
            Try to ignore what may be taken as inflammatory statements toward flat-earthers at the beginning of this video and concentrate primarily on what is said commencing from around the 14:30 minute mark onward:



            I just went and made this image file from the video:




            It is very simple: these are physical observations taken from these three different locations on the earth, all on the same day, (I cannot tell by the sound quality but I believe he means an equinox, (but may be speaking later of a solstice because he mentions December)), and the path of the sun moves in three different directions, that is, a straight line across the equator and opposing curvatures on the the two tropics. This is actually the curvature of the earth which is being revealed in the three different paths of the sun which all occur on the same day: not the sun itself moving in three different directions at the same time, (which is impossible). This is not possible on a flat earth model and the various types of sundials work for the very same reasons and in much the same way because the earth is spherical and spinning. You can theoretically place sundials at three locations on the same day, (I believe the equinoxes), on the two tropics and the equator, and they will all work properly so long as they are positioned correctly. Again these are physical observations: there is no question about these things, and they cannot work if the earth is flat and the sun is moving in a circle above a flat earth model. They only work in the heliocentric model with a spinning globe. It is all in the observations and observable realities we see from the earth even though things may not appear to be what they are.
            I've watched the video and I want you to give me time to analyze it since I have not heard an argument from the three paths of the sun before. I want to understand this argument well enough to give an appropriate response.

            The video starts out with what I believe is the heart of the problem of globe earth, which is it begins with the sun/the heavens and not the earth itself. On a globe I have to believe that water/oceans are not level and that distant ships and landscapes are not parallel to where the viewer is standing, even though they appear that way.

            --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


            • #21
              Originally posted by WatchmanOnTheWall View Post
              [MENTION=4980]DFT_Dave[/MENTION]

              You never answered why everything is pulled in a downward direction rather than in any direction.

              If you don't know the FE answer to this I can tell you.
              I said on flat earth nothing needs to be "pulled" down or "pulled" in any other direction. On a spinning orbiting globe there has to be a reason that things not immovably attached to the earth don't fly off it. Gravity is not a discovery, it's a thought experiment used to explain the impossible.

              But I want you to go ahead and make your argument.

              --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


              • #22
                Originally posted by DFT_Dave View Post
                I've watched the video and I want you to give me time to analyze it since I have not heard an argument from the three paths of the sun before. I want to understand this argument well enough to give an appropriate response.

                The video starts out with what I believe is the heart of the problem of globe earth, which is it begins with the sun/the heavens and not the earth itself. On a globe I have to believe that water/oceans are not level and that distant ships and landscapes are not parallel to where the viewer is standing, even though they appear that way.

                --Dave
                Fair enough.

                Comment


                • #23
                  Originally posted by daqq View Post
                  Fair enough.
                  The videos you show for this I think are well done and easy to understand and not too offensive.

                  --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


                  • #24
                    Originally posted by DFT_Dave View Post
                    The videos you show for this I think are well done and easy to understand and not too offensive.

                    --Dave
                    The first one does make a couple of off-the-cuff remarks and I did not want you or anyone to think that was any part of why I chose it. I think it was Patrick who mentioned that in his own thread; so I was just trying to be as polite about it as I could, while trying to make the points within that video, (I would not want anyone to discount everything said just because of a few comments at the start of the video which might be construed as rude, but I also know you have likely already heard much worse, especially around here, lol).

                    Comment


                    • #25
                      Originally posted by DFT_Dave View Post
                      On a globe I have to believe that water/oceans are not level and that distant ships and landscapes are not parallel to where the viewer is standing, even though they appear that way.

                      --Dave
                      Sorry I've not read the original thread, but did you deal with the question of why you can't see distant ships, even using a telescope?

                      Is that a shipping company conspiracy?

                      Stuart

                      Comment


                      • #26
                        Originally posted by DFT_Dave View Post
                        I said on flat earth nothing needs to be "pulled" down or "pulled" in any other direction. On a spinning orbiting globe there has to be a reason that things not immovably attached to the earth don't fly off it. Gravity is not a discovery, it's a thought experiment used to explain the impossible.

                        But I want you to go ahead and make your argument.

                        --Dave
                        No, I want you to tell us why things move in a downward direction. Either you know the answer to this from a Flat Earth POV or you don't. Obviously you don't. If you would like me to give you the correct FE answer to this please just admit you don't know the answer to why everything moves towards the Earth rather than in any other direction or just tell us the answer.

                        Comment


                        • #27
                          Originally posted by Stuu View Post
                          Sorry I've not read the original thread, but did you deal with the question of why you can't see distant ships, even using a telescope?

                          Is that a shipping company conspiracy?

                          Stuart
                          We can see ships in the distance. The Nikon P900 is 83x--magnification. And we are seeing ships, landscapes, and cityscapes at distances that we are not supposed to see if the earth were a globe.

                          I honestly never realized that the curvature of the earth, if it's a globe, is 8 inch per mile squared. At three miles that's a 6 foot drop. I grew up in Wisconsin, next to Lake Superior, and Minnesota, land of lakes and rivers. I know rivers that flow out of lakes and those lakes are level, not curved. There are rivers that flow into Lake Superior and rivers that flow out of Lake Superior. That, and a few other reasons, is why I decided to both investigate and have a debate on flat earth.

                          The air as it meets the water will create atmospheric conditions that become a barrier we cannot see past at great distances, even with a telescope. A telescope will also not be able to see beyond the horizon line at some point in the distance.

                          Some have argued that we should always be able to see the sun, moon, and land across the ocean if the earth were flat. But that would not be the correct model of flat earth. But if you think otherwise make your case.

                          --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


                          • #28
                            Originally posted by WatchmanOnTheWall View Post
                            No, I want you to tell us why things move in a downward direction. Either you know the answer to this from a Flat Earth POV or you don't. Obviously you don't. If you would like me to give you the correct FE answer to this please just admit you don't know the answer to why everything moves towards the Earth rather than in any other direction or just tell us the answer.
                            We "move" on earth in many directions. Just "move" your hands and fingers over your keyboard and make your point. Don't let gravity stop you.

                            --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


                            • #29
                              Originally posted by WatchmanOnTheWall View Post
                              No, I want you to tell us why things move in a downward direction.
                              Bogus precept.

                              Romans X

                              6
                              But the righteousness which is of faith speaketh on this wise, Say not in thine heart, Who shall ascend into heaven? (that is, to bring Christ down from above
                              7
                              Or, Who shall descend into the deep? (that is, to bring up Christ again from the dead.)
                              8
                              But what saith it? The word is nigh thee, even in thy mouth, and in thy heart: that is, the word of faith, which we preach;

                              Comment


                              • #30
                                Originally posted by DFT_Dave View Post

                                The air as it meets the water will create atmospheric conditions that become a barrier we cannot see past at great distances, even with a telescope. A telescope will also not be able to see beyond the horizon line at some point in the distance.

                                --Dave
                                Some folks just can't get past thinkin' their eyes are ray guns.

                                https://www.cloudynights.com/topic/5...you-see/page-2

                                Excerpt:

                                How far can I see?

                                I've always found that question interesting. After a lifetime of using optical instruments and being an amateur astronomer, I know it's a fundamentally misguided question, but it can be hard to explain why.

                                There's a conception of "vision" as something that *comes from our eyes* - to put it a little crudely, that "rays" come out of our eyes and whatever they touch, we can see. Now, no one would explicitly say that's how vision works, but it can be pretty clear that, perhaps unconsciously, that's the model that some people are working from. (Well, hardly anyone would describe it that way...In fact it pretty much *is* the model explicitly described by a number of pre-scientific sources).

                                But quite a few people very much believe that vision has a hard limit we can't see past, no matter what, and that optical instruments extend that range of distance (rather than changing the apparent size/brightness of things in the visual field).

                                The fact of the matter is we don't "see" at a distance *at all*. We only see what's on our retinas, in our eye (and telescopes with cameras only "see" what hits their detectors, etc.). Distance isn't really a direct factor in what we see, because the light travels *to us*, our vision doesn't travel to the object.

                                I haven't really tried that explanation on an unsuspecting member of the public yet. I don't think it would go well, to be honest.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X