Dave, as I said, you are an embarrassment.
The earth is flat and we never went to the moon--Part II
- Thread starter DFT_Dave
- Start date
- Status
Dave, as I said, you are an embarrassment.
The stars are always moving--rotating above earth. What you see from the northern half of earth is not what you see from the most southern part of earth.
The sun, moon, and stars are not the millions of miles away as per the heliocentric model. Because they are much closer, perspective and location determines how you see them. But they are always moving in a circle over a flat motionless earth.
I have seen a number of good videos that explain the northern stars over the flat earth but the rotation of stars is what in my mind is flat earths weakness. I will post the videos I have seen recently but not without preparing commentary of my own.
--Dave
PneumaPsucheSoma
TOL Subscriber
Dave, do you adhere to Ptolemaic Geocentricity?
Right Divider
Body part
Yes, that is incontrovertible evidence the earth is not flat.
Repeating falsehoods again.
How about you WATCH some videos that others post instead?
Who cares what Einstein "made it"? Time and space are what they are - ideas - period.
Everyone wants to give Einstein more credit than he deserves. He deserves a great deal of credit, he was a brilliant man but just because Einstein said it doesn't make it true and much of what people put in Einstein's mouth was never actually there in the first place.
Let Einstein be Einstein and worry about the rational truth of reality.
It's not quite ration to say that time keeps everything from happening all at once either. Time doesn't DO anything. The fact is that not everything happens at once. Nothing "causes" that, it's just the way things are.
Again, its not quite right to say that 'space keeps everything from existing all in the exact same place'. "Place" has no meaning outside of the concept of space and thus your first sentence commits a stolen concept fallacy. The fact is that things are where they are and they aren't where they aren't. This includes all real things - including God.
They exist as concepts - nothing more.
Well, it doesn't matter whether you'd call them that or not, that's what they are. If you talk about God's location, you cannot do it without referencing the location of something else. The location of anything (or anyone) is always relative to something else. Location is meaningless without a frame of reference.
Likewise, time is the same exact sort of concept except your discussing when rather than where and it is ALWAYS in terms of a frame of reference. Any discussion of duration or sequence is always and must by necessity be in reference to other events.
This is why it is irrational to speak of God existing outside of space and time. Duration-less existence is a contradiction as is existence 'outside of' location. In other words, the word "existence" has no meaning absent the concept of duration, which is time and "outside of" has no meaning absent the concept of location. Thus, to say that God exists outside of space and time is to steal the concepts of "existence" and "outside of". It is a textbook example of a stolen concept fallacy.
:up:
Because Gravity is quite weak. It takes the gravity of the Earth to generate a "downward" vector of 9.80 m/s2 toward the center of Earth's mass.
In actual fact every piece of Earth's mass is pulling on every piece of whatever mass is attracted to it. The accelerations vectors simply average out to all pull toward the center of mass. The math that shows this is easy to find on the internet and I suspect that it has been linked to on this thread already.
Now, what you are going to do is IGNORE ever single syllable of what I just said. You may or may not respond now but whether you do or not, it won't have moved you an inch, you won't do one second's worth of investigation to either confirm or refute what I've said but what you will do is repeat this IDIOTIC argument at some point in the past as though I never said any of it.
As far as I'm concerned that is just nothing at all but a form of lying.
That's a load of you know what David! I bent over backward responding to every argument you could come up with and all I got in return was silence in response until you either found a new argument or had forgotten about an old one and repeated it.
People were calling you names for a long time while I was still defending you as playing devil's advocate and simply going through the intellectual exercise of making the arguments.
You need to remember that this entire thread is still here for everyone to read!
Just think that through, Dave. Gravity isn't the only thing that pulls on things.
Do you deny the veracity of Newton's Laws of motion now?
Just because something is being pulled on by something or attracted to something doesn't mean that the forces involved cannot be overcome. All that is needed is a greater force in the opposite direction.
There is no good reason that such a childishly ignorant comment should have ever been allowed to come out of you mind!
Once again, this will NOT persuade you AT ALL! It should! Because a refusal to let it means that you are directly challenging the single most tested scientific concepts of all time. But don't let that get in the way of your woodenly literal and unreasonable interpretation of the bible or of a good conspiracy theory!
What are you going to replace it with, Dave, an accelerating Earth?
You've already brought that up over a year ago (or someone did) and it was debunk instantly, which you ignored so that you can come back now, months later, and make the same exact "argument" again as though it was never refuted or even responded to.
Or is it that you think that an object's attraction to the Earth is a constant and continuing miracle performed by God? Where's your biblical evidence for such an idea as that?
Either way you go, whether its with a constantly accelerating Earth, or your more recent predilection for a "motionless Earth", nothing anyone says will move you an inch.
AND SO I ASK YOU FOR A THIRD TIME IN A ROW....
Why will you not allow sound reason to persuade your mind?
Clete
Last edited:
I've seen this and many others like it. I understand the basic heliocentric model and never doubted it before. There are new videos that show how the flat earth model works but I want to add commentary before I post them.
And as I have said, the flat earth must pass this test of how the sun, moon, and stars work. There are books on the subject as well.
--Dave
First deal with the Flood videos and sites your were provided with.
I don't see us disagreeing on time and space accept that you call them only "concepts" but then affirm their reality. I think you're in error in your use of the word concept. But other than that we are clearly both open theists.
As far as gravity I don't think you understand my problem with it, but maybe I am wrong about this so help me understand the basics of gravity.
What do you mean when you say gravity is weak? Weak in comparison to what?
--Dave
Right Divider
Body part
It's pretty obvious that you did not actually watch the entire video. This video alone destroyed the "flat earth model".
Clete called them real concepts. Think of it better like this: it isn't that time exists that keeps everything from happening at once - it is that in reality not everything happens at once and we call the antithesis of everything not happening at once "time". It's just a name describing reality. That's the definition of a concept.
You described your problem with it. Perhaps you were not clear when you said, "If Gravity pulls every atom, molecule, particle "downward" then why on earth would everything not be immovably stuck to the surface of the earth?"
And Clete already answered your description of the problem. You need to take what he said, and consider it so you can explain further what your problem with gravity is.
I think electromagnetic force is one of them. There is another force that holds atoms together. Both are a great deal stronger than gravity. Even so, they are in perfect balance with gravity in such a way as to support an existing universe. That's how God designed it - so He didn't need to enact a constant miracle on the whole universe in order for it to function at least for a while.
Be specific. Where have I done such a thing?
I do not affirm their reality (ontologically). They exist as ideas, nothing more.
How am I in error? What else are they besides concepts? They do not exist outside of a thinking mind.
Gravity is weak in comparison to nearly anything you care to think of. It is by far the weekest of the natural forces. If gravity were .01% (that's 1 percent of 1 percent) of the electromagnetic force, for example, everything would indeed be smashed to the ground and quite unable to move. In fact, the Earth would be squashed down to next to nothing in terms of volume and the universe just simply wouldn't work or even exist for that matter.
To be more exact, the elctromagnetic force is 1040 times stronger than gravity. So written out long hand...
Force of Gravity = Electromagnetic Force / 10,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000
1040 is a REALLY big number! If you wanted to calculate the number of molecules of water in all the oceans on the Earth, for example, you'd come up with numbers in this neighborhood. I think the number of water molecules in the oceans is something like 1047 which is actually ten million times bigger but you get the idea. It's an enormous number which means Gravity is very nearly nothing in comparison to the electromagnetic force.
Gravity is a super duper weak force by comparison even to your own muscles. The muscles in your body are strong enough to overcome the force of all 6 × 1024 kilograms of the Earth pulling on you, which allows you to do things like stand, walk, run and jump, lift things off the ground and even scratch your nose.
Clete
I don't see any disagreement between us about the reality of time and space. They are realities for us and God.
The question I have about gravity is, what is it pulling that is weak vs what is gravity not pulling because it's not weak?
--Dave
How can gravity be weak if it's holding the moon in it's orbit around the earth and the earth's orbit around the sun and our entire atmosphere.
--Dave
PneumaPsucheSoma
TOL Subscriber
For either “side”, it’s really helpful to separate kinematics from forces. Though related, they are too easily conflated and assigned bias without separating them. (Just a quick .02)
PneumaPsucheSoma
TOL Subscriber
Dave, do you adhere to Ptolemaic Geocentrism or some form of Tychonian Geocentrism? (Or perhaps some other form.)
The word weak is a relative term.
It is just strong enough to cause what it causes, David. I mean, how am I supposed to answer that question?
The exact same force that causes apples to fall from trees is what keeps the Moon in orbit around the Earth and the Earth around the Sun. Newton proved that hundreds of years ago.
And yes, once again, I do mean that literally, he did PROVE it. It is a known fact. It is NOT a theory, it is not a suggestion, belief or conjecture. It is a well establish fact of science.
Gravity is pulling on you just as it is the Moon. The difference is that while you are very much closer to the Earth than the Moon, the Moon is very very much more massive that you are. The Moon is, in fact, in free fall but the Moon's velocity perpendicular to the pull of gravity means that the surface of the Earth curves away from the Moon at the same rate at which the Moon falls toward the Earth. This is what is known as an orbit. The orbit does not decay hardly at all because the Moon is traveling through the vacuum of space and so there is no friction to slow it's velocity (again, Newton's Laws of motion at work!).
In fact, the pull of gravity seems tailor made for life on Earth. It's as if someone designed it to be just exactly as strong as it is. If it were even slightly different then the tides wouldn't work right and the oceans would die and we'd all be sucking carbon dioxide instead of oxygen. If gravity's pull were slightly different the Earth would be either too close or too far from the Sun and again we don't survive. Now, it could be the other way around. It could be that God designed life to work in the gravitational environment that happened to exist on the Earth or perhaps it's some of both but the point is that we know quite a lot about the pull of gravity and the effects that it has on Earth and from one direction or the other, life is very much dependent on it being just exactly as strong as it is.
I've asked you repeatedly to answer my question and you've ignored me. Why do you think it's okay to do that? What motive do I have to continue this discussion one more day? Am I your personal Mr. Answer Man where I answer every question posed to me but you ignore my questions completely?
I want an answer, David. Why do you not permit clear proofs that the Earth cannot be flat to persuade your mind?
Clete
Are you suggesting that gravity isn't a force but rather some form of kinematic something or other?
If not, what was the point of making this comment?
Obviously, I see contradictions and equivocation for a spinning globe. That gravity is a weak force so we can move freely on earth yet it's powerful enough to pull the moon and keep it in orbit is nonsense.
The earth spins at almost the speed of sound and yet we never feel or see it.
It would seem that a powerful force as opposed to a weak one would be required to pull the entire atmosphere both downward and in the same direction of earths spin.
As we have already noted there were experiments that proved the earth was not moving and that the stars were moving and not the earth. But along came Einstein to save the day with "relativity" and thought experiments replaced physical experiments.
--Dave
PneumaPsucheSoma
TOL Subscriber
No. “Gravity” (whatever it “is”) would be a force. Separating forces from kinematics is necessary. One cannot merely look at movements and presume forces.
The movements don’t determine what the force is or what it is doing to effect movement.
- Status