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

[DFT_Dave]

While I fully agree with you about Dave's lunacy (and have told him so in many posts), I'm hopeful that the continued refutation of the silly "flat earth model" might be helpful for others that will find this thread.

A presentation of both side is exactly what I intended in the first place.

People can be wrong about many things and right about many other things.

Shame on all of you who call any one presenting a counter view a lunatic. Call him wrong and destroy his arguments.

Thank you for doing your best to make your case.

--Dave

 

[DFT_Dave]

That is idiotic and once AGAIN shows your complete and utter lack of knowledge regarding physics.

The term DOWNHILL is with respect to the earth's CENTER OF GRAVITY.

I'm embarrassed for you.

More lunacy... please seek profession help immediately.

The stars rotate around the poles Dave. Get out of your basement and take a look.

And they rotate in OPPOSITE directions in the northern and southern hemispheres

ADDRESS how that can be on a flat earth (hint: it can't).

This is truth concerning the globe earth

From every point we stand on the globe the ground beneath our feet drops away and downward from us at 8 inches per mile squared in every direction as this chart shows.

View attachment 26857

From the mouth of the Amazon rive the river must travel up to it from the origin or the beginning of it 2000 miles away and a 542 mile drop.

On a flat earth the river simply travels down from a higher elevation to lower one all the way from Peru through Brazil and into the Atlantic Ocean.

Please "explain" to me how this works on a globe with out calling me names and telling me I don't understand physics.

As you said this is your opportunity to make this seemingly impossible task easy to understand.

If gravity is pulling everything to the center of the earth then what is pushing the river up to the mouth of the river?

--Dave

 

[Right Divider]

I've seen this at least twice. This video is good evidence for the spinning globe.

I have said in the past that there exists "good evidence" for both spinning globe and "flat motionless earth".

It's worse than that Dave.... that video completely obliterates the "flat motionless earth".

Please show us all how this "changing lampshade sun" is even possible on the "flat motionless earth".

I've also said that the evidence for globe comes from looking into space not looking at the earth.

Any reasonable person would want to look at ALL of the evidence. But instead you want to "stack the deck".

When I posted many videos how flat earth deals with the movement of the sun, moon, and starts you all won't even view hardly any of them then protested that this was not a video site.

Crying won't help you.

I have been viewing all the video I can from both sides of the argument. I've seen this and other videos like it.

Just as flat earth has to find an answer for this video, spinning globe must provide an answer for it's inconsistencies and contradictions.

You continue to CLAIM that there are "inconsistencies and contradictions", but you have not actually demonstrated any.

Physics, some how, and in some way, has placed it's propositions above the rules of rational thought and replaced it with relativity.

Lunacy and idiocy is your only approach..... Like Clete I'm done with your nonsense.

Sincerely Dave... seek some help. You are a sick man.

 

[DFT_Dave]

It's worse than that Dave.... that video completely obliterates the "flat motionless earth".

Please show us all how this "changing lampshade sun" is even possible on the "flat motionless earth".

Any reasonable person would want to look at ALL of the evidence. But instead you want to "stack the deck".

Crying won't help you.

You continue to CLAIM that there are "inconsistencies and contradictions", but you have not actually demonstrated any.

Lunacy and idiocy is your only approach..... Like Clete I'm done with your nonsense.

Sincerely Dave... seek some help. You are a sick man.

There are a number of videos that deal with this. I presented them and you all dismissed them with out viewing them.

Now deal with my objections about the globe and rivers if you can.

If you're done then that means you can't deal with my arguments.

And don't tell me you have because you haven't.

There are many factors involved in settling this matter and no "one single argument" will solve all the other problems with spinning globe.

I will continue to post and explain the relativity of physics that has destroyed rational thinking as I learn more about it.

--Dave

 

[Right Divider]

There are a number of videos that deal with this. I presented them and you all dismissed them with out viewing them.

Now deal with my objections about the globe and rivers if you can.

If you're done then that means you can't deal with my arguments.

And don't tell me you have because you haven't.

There are many factors involved in settling this matter and no "one single argument" will solve all the other problems with spinning globe.

I will continue to post and explain the relativity of physics that has destroyed rational thinking as I learn more about it.

--Dave

:rotfl:

 

[DFT_Dave]

What really bothers me

I have argued with many here for a number years for open theism and free will which I call Dynamic Free Theism.

I have argued with many here for creationism and against evolution.

I stared studying cosmology to push back on Einsteins spacetime block universe, multiverse theory and the implications of quantum mechanics in regard to the nature and origin of the universe. Atheists and pantheists/panentheists have taken over modern cosmology.

I'm not surprised by the relativity that has become the dominate feature in modern physics but I am surprised by the relativity that seems to be in Newton's cosmology and heliocentrism itself.

There's a history of cosmology from ancient flat earth to geocentrism then heliocentrism. I have no doubt that there will be Christians in heaven from all the cosmologies. We are not saved through cosmology and I'm not worried about which one is correct. God created the world and that's what really matters.

I am concerned with what the Bibles says about the nature of the world and how much of it we can understand to be literal and factual. I've always believed that the theory of evolution has turned many away from believing anything about the Bible to the literal and factual. But it seems to me now that cosmology has also turned many away from believing in the Bible.

When studying cosmology and it's history I decided to see why there was still people today who believed in flat earth. Much of what they said was very credible, but not everything. I've been focusing, in this thread, on those arguments and problems that a spinning globe present us with.

I felt a debate would be very popular and interesting. I have argued for flat earth and we never went to the moon hoping for a good back and forth, for and against.

But what has really bothered me is the horrible treatment and verbal abuse from even brothers in Christ who loved me for open theism and creationism but now demean me and others for questioning and having doubts about heliocentrism.

As far as I'm concerned the only one being discredited are the ones doing the demeaning. I don't believe that most of my objects have been adequately answered.

Sadly many who have agreed with me have also been badly treated and have been chased away.

I want the debate to continue without the personal attacks. I want those who want to defend the spinning globe to continue to present good arguments an make clear explanations for those things that make no sense to people like me. I have questions that have been merely answered with I don't understand physics, which is not an answer. Those who know me and have read my posts on this and other subjects know that I'm not a lunatic. And I know I'm not.

--Dave

 

[JudgeRightly]

What really bothers me

I have argued with many here for a number years for open theism and free will which I call Dynamic Free Theism.

I have argued with many here for creationism and against evolution.

I stared studying cosmology to push back on Einsteins spacetime block universe, multiverse theory and the implications of quantum mechanics in regard to the nature and origin of the universe. Atheists and pantheists/panentheists have taken over modern cosmology.

I'm not surprised by the relativity that has become the dominate feature in modern physics but I am surprised by the relativity that seems to be in Newton's cosmology and heliocentrism itself.

There's a history of cosmology from ancient flat earth to geocentrism then heliocentrism. I have no doubt that there will be Christians in heaven from all the cosmologies. We are not saved through cosmology and I'm not worried about which one is correct. God created the world and that's what really matters.

I am concerned with what the Bibles says about the nature of the world and how much of it we can understand to be literal and factual. I've always believed that the theory of evolution has turned many away from believing anything about the Bible to the literal and factual. But it seems to me now that cosmology has also turned many away from believing in the Bible.

When studying cosmology and it's history I decided to see why there was still people today who believed in flat earth. Much of what they said was very credible, but not everything. I've been focusing, in this thread, on those arguments and problems that a spinning globe present us with.

I felt a debate would be very popular and interesting. I have argued for flat earth and we never went to the moon hoping for a good back and forth, for and against.

But what has really bothered me is the horrible treatment and verbal abuse from even brothers in Christ who loved me for open theism and creationism but now demean me and others for questioning and having doubts about heliocentrism.

As far as I'm concerned the only one being discredited are the ones doing the demeaning. I don't believe that most of my objects have been adequately answered.

Sadly many who have agreed with me have also been badly treated and have been chased away.

I want the debate to continue without the personal attacks. I want those who want to defend the spinning globe to continue to present good arguments an make clear explanations for those things that make no sense to people like me. I have questions that have been merely answered with I don't understand physics, which is not an answer. Those who know me and have read my posts on this and other subjects know that I'm not a lunatic. And I know I'm not.

--Dave

Belief in a flat earth is a symptom of mental illness.

You need to get your head checked out, because no rational person would even consider that the earth is flat.

In my opinion, we should have shut down the original thread when you started it, because allowing someone to spread such idiocy inherently lends credence to the idea that such idiocy might be true.

Dave, the earth is not flat. You have been shown multiple witnesses that attest to this fact. Yet here you are, still saying that your arguments have not been sufficiently addressed.

God said "two or three witnesses shall establish a matter."

We have given you far more than two, and shown your arguments to be invalid more times than we can count.

If none of the above convinces you that the earth is not flat, but spherical, then there's not much else anyone can do, but simply ignore you, because you are so dead-set in your belief that the earth is flat that you won't allow ANYTHING to convince you.

Dave, you have destroyed your reputation simply by arguing in favor of such nonsense.

There is nothing more that can be said.

 

[Clete]

While I fully agree with you about Dave's lunacy (and have told him so in many posts), I'm hopeful that the continued refutation of the silly "flat earth model" might be helpful for others that will find this thread.

I don't disagree with that but how many times do we intend to refute the exact same arguments? This utter stupidity about water flowing up hill on the southern hemisphere was refuted before the thread was a month old. Now, here was are years later refuting the exact same stupidity all over again.

 

[Clete]

What really bothers me

I have argued with many here for a number years for open theism and free will which I call Dynamic Free Theism.

I have argued with many here for creationism and against evolution.

I stared studying cosmology to push back on Einsteins spacetime block universe, multiverse theory and the implications of quantum mechanics in regard to the nature and origin of the universe. Atheists and pantheists/panentheists have taken over modern cosmology.

I'm not surprised by the relativity that has become the dominate feature in modern physics but I am surprised by the relativity that seems to be in Newton's cosmology and heliocentrism itself.

There's a history of cosmology from ancient flat earth to geocentrism then heliocentrism. I have no doubt that there will be Christians in heaven from all the cosmologies. We are not saved through cosmology and I'm not worried about which one is correct. God created the world and that's what really matters.

I am concerned with what the Bibles says about the nature of the world and how much of it we can understand to be literal and factual. I've always believed that the theory of evolution has turned many away from believing anything about the Bible to the literal and factual. But it seems to me now that cosmology has also turned many away from believing in the Bible.

When studying cosmology and it's history I decided to see why there was still people today who believed in flat earth. Much of what they said was very credible, but not everything. I've been focusing, in this thread, on those arguments and problems that a spinning globe present us with.

I felt a debate would be very popular and interesting. I have argued for flat earth and we never went to the moon hoping for a good back and forth, for and against.

But what has really bothered me is the horrible treatment and verbal abuse from even brothers in Christ who loved me for open theism and creationism but now demean me and others for questioning and having doubts about heliocentrism.

As far as I'm concerned the only one being discredited are the ones doing the demeaning. I don't believe that most of my objects have been adequately answered.

Sadly many who have agreed with me have also been badly treated and have been chased away.

I want the debate to continue without the personal attacks. I want those who want to defend the spinning globe to continue to present good arguments an make clear explanations for those things that make no sense to people like me. I have questions that have been merely answered with I don't understand physics, which is not an answer. Those who know me and have read my posts on this and other subjects know that I'm not a lunatic. And I know I'm not.

--Dave

This entire post is one gigantic lie.

It's a lie and Dave knew it was a lie when he wrote it.

I, and several other have spent countless hours not only refuting the UTTER stupidity that most flat earth arguments represent but also proving that the Earth cannot be flat because of simple observations that anyone who honestly has a question about it can do for themselves in about 16 minutes.

All of this time spent precisely and ONLY because of the reputation of intelligence and intellectual honesty that had been previously earned by you, David! If you hadn't displayed an ability to think clearly and a willingness to accept the verdict of sound reason, I'd have never spent the amount of time that I've spent on this thread. Flat Earth theory is genuinely ludicrous and I'm not kidding. It is the lowest form of abject stupidity that has cropped up in the last 200 years. Nazi Fascism has a firmer philosophical and rational base than does the idea that the Earth is flat.

And yet you simply will not be moved. No matter what is said or how elegant the proof, you flat out will not be convinced - period. That isn't rational, that isn't honesty, that isn't anything other than ridiculous stupidity that borders on evil, frankly.

So, it isn't the flat Earth theory that has landed you in a place where ridicule and derision is all you deserve. Anyone can be taken in by a clever argument from time to time. No, it isn't that at all! It is your intentionally suborn clinging to stupidity no matter what it said by whom that has earned you the opposite reputation that you came to this discussion with.

Not only that but you started this thread trying to convince us all that you were simply playing devil's advocate, which I believed! I then went about trying to debunk every argument you'd find on the internet only to discover after months and months of this that you were lying even then! So you began this thread with a lie and now you want to lie again and act like all you've gotten here is "horrible treatment and verbal abuse". Pathetic!

So, don't sit there and blame us. You're a proven liar, David. You have made the bed that you find yourself lying in (pun intended). If you want our respect again, you'll have to earn it back. Otherwise, get used to being made fun of, and derided because that's what you deserve.

Clete

 

[Right Divider]

I, and several other have spent countless hours not only refuting the UTTER stupidity that most flat earth arguments represent but also proving that the Earth cannot be flat because of simple observations that anyone who honestly has a question about it can do for themselves in about 16 minutes.

I just want to point out the fact that Dave and many others do not seem to understand how science or "proof" works. They seem to think that you simply stack up arguments for flat earth and globe earth on opposite sides of a scale and see which way it tilts.

It does NOT work that way. There are a number of arguments that singularly disprove the flat earth, and many of them have been clearly presented here. Here are a few of those:

• Flight time from Sydney to Santiago.
• Curved shadow of earth on the moon.
• Star field rotation (opposite directions in the north and south).
• The suns apparent size is the same all day long.

Those are just a few of the many things that each, singularly, prove that the earth is NOT flat.

 

[The Berean]

Rocketman and myself have worked in the aerospace industry for decades. We have both posted about the work we do. I've have designed and built large geosynchronous telecommunications satellites. I posted pictures of such satellites and explained in great detail how these satellites work (propulsion, communications, attitude control, etc.) and how they are designed assuming a global Earth. They would not function otherwise. They would not function if the Earth was not spheroid shaped. My information was mostly ignored. That's when I realized this ongoing debate was pointless.

 

[Yorzhik]

What really bothers me

I have argued with many here for a number years for open theism and free will which I call Dynamic Free Theism.

I have argued with many here for creationism and against evolution.

I stared studying cosmology to push back on Einsteins spacetime block universe, multiverse theory and the implications of quantum mechanics in regard to the nature and origin of the universe. Atheists and pantheists/panentheists have taken over modern cosmology.

I'm not surprised by the relativity that has become the dominate feature in modern physics but I am surprised by the relativity that seems to be in Newton's cosmology and heliocentrism itself.

There's a history of cosmology from ancient flat earth to geocentrism then heliocentrism. I have no doubt that there will be Christians in heaven from all the cosmologies. We are not saved through cosmology and I'm not worried about which one is correct. God created the world and that's what really matters.

I am concerned with what the Bibles says about the nature of the world and how much of it we can understand to be literal and factual. I've always believed that the theory of evolution has turned many away from believing anything about the Bible to the literal and factual. But it seems to me now that cosmology has also turned many away from believing in the Bible.

When studying cosmology and it's history I decided to see why there was still people today who believed in flat earth. Much of what they said was very credible, but not everything. I've been focusing, in this thread, on those arguments and problems that a spinning globe present us with.

I felt a debate would be very popular and interesting. I have argued for flat earth and we never went to the moon hoping for a good back and forth, for and against.

But what has really bothered me is the horrible treatment and verbal abuse from even brothers in Christ who loved me for open theism and creationism but now demean me and others for questioning and having doubts about heliocentrism.

As far as I'm concerned the only one being discredited are the ones doing the demeaning. I don't believe that most of my objects have been adequately answered.

Sadly many who have agreed with me have also been badly treated and have been chased away.

I want the debate to continue without the personal attacks. I want those who want to defend the spinning globe to continue to present good arguments an make clear explanations for those things that make no sense to people like me. I have questions that have been merely answered with I don't understand physics, which is not an answer. Those who know me and have read my posts on this and other subjects know that I'm not a lunatic. And I know I'm not.

--Dave

This isn't true Dave. Not only did I begin with civil dialog and reason and no name-calling, even with name-calling the arguments we provided against FE have been logical and on topic. You have simply chosen to ignore direct responses. Just get a little thicker skin and you could be having a fruitful discussion on the internet. And, by the way, I DID watch the videos you directed me to and you proceeded to ignore my responses - do you see how that could be considered rude on your part?

I haven't seen this pointed out yet, but Dave seems to use the word "relativity" as if it comes from the devil. But that's not true. To have relative morals, or to say that truth is relative, is a bad philosophy. And if one wants to argue against the theory of relativity, there are some valid arguments for that. But Newtonian physics has not been infiltrated by "relativity"! Newtonian physics uses the word "relative" to make things clear. Just like in math we can say that on a whole-number line "10 is two steps away relative to 8 and 4 steps away relative to 6", that doesn't mean that math has been infiltrated by relative morals or that truth is relative or that the whole-number line can now be refuted by arguments against the theory of relativity.

 

[Right Divider]

This isn't true Dave. Not only did I begin with civil dialog and reason and no name-calling, even with name-calling the arguments we provided against FE have been logical and on topic. You have simply chosen to ignore direct responses. Just get a little thicker skin and you could be having a fruitful discussion on the internet. And, by the way, I DID watch the videos you directed me to and you proceeded to ignore my responses - do you see how that could be considered rude on your part?

Many of us watched some of the videos early on in the thread.... that's exactly why we ignore them now.

 

[Right Divider]

I haven't seen this pointed out yet, but Dave seems to use the word "relativity" as if it comes from the devil. But that's not true. To have relative morals, or to say that truth is relative, is a bad philosophy. And if one wants to argue against the theory of relativity, there are some valid arguments for that. But Newtonian physics has not been infiltrated by "relativity"! Newtonian physics uses the word "relative" to make things clear. Just like in math we can say that on a whole-number line "10 is two steps away relative to 8 and 4 steps away relative to 6", that doesn't mean that math has been infiltrated by relative morals or that truth is relative or that the whole-number line can now be refuted by arguments against the theory of relativity.

Dave has often used gross equivocation based on the word "relative".

He probably refuses to admit that he has ancestors. :french:

 

[chair]

Two cars 100 miles apart only have to travel 50 miles each in order to meet in the middle of the 100 mile distance.

Correct?

--Dave

Yes, 50 miles each- relative to the road, in 30 minutes. (50 miles/0.5 hours)= 100 miles per hour, relative to the road. Yet they cover the 100 miles between the two cars in 30 minutes. (100 miles/0.5 hours)= 200 miles per hour, relative to each other.

 

[Bright Raven]

Isn't this thread in the wrong forum?

 

[Tambora]

I don't understand this argument.

He made a blanket statement that science supports scripture, so i pointed out that some of scripture is not supported by science.

 

[Right Divider]

He made a blanket statement that science supports scripture, so i pointed out that some of scripture is not supported by science.

But you're not using a valid definition of science.

 

[Tambora]

But you're not using a valid definition of science.

I'm a very old lady.
The "valid" definition keeps changing.

 

[Tambora]

Real scientific observation supports a global and not a flat earth.

Wasn't it scientist that came up with the age of the earth being millions of years old?
What "scientific observation" did they use to come up with that?

I'd love to hear your explanation of how these observations can be explained on a flat earth.

I think it is futile.

In the book of Job chapter 38, GOD starts telling him (mankind) things that he (mankind) cannot possibly know.
One of those things was the breadth of the earth. verse 18