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

Status
Not open for further replies.

Clete

Truth Smacker
Silver Subscriber
Refraction CANNOT ACCOUNT for the sun going BELOW the horizon on a flat earth, because it is NOT possible to have the sun that low on a flat earth, as [MENTION=2589]Clete[/MENTION] has shown you MULTIPLE times.
By the way...

The same effect happens even if the measurements of the sun's angle are taken when the sun is high in the sky, although to a lesser degree. The disparity between the calculated distance between two points based on the angle of the sun above the horizon gets larger and larger as the sun lowers in the sky. This happens precisely because we live on a sphere and for no other reason. It wouldn't happen at all on a flat Earth, no matter how far away the sun was from the surface. In fact, if we were on a flat Earth, we could triangulate the sun's distance from the Earth by using the same observations that I cite in my post. The fact that we cannot do so is yet further proof that the Earth cannot possibly be flat.

The fact that these easily confirmable facts don't move people an inch off the flat earth delusion, is proof that they are not the honest people they pretend to be and that they aught to be ashamed of themsleves and need to repent.

Clete
 

Yorzhik

Well-known member
LIFETIME MEMBER
Hall of Fame
Yes, I have ignored your posts. My apology. You certainly have been respectful. This thread has not flowed from a beginning point toward a goal and therefore has been all over the place and at times hard for me to keep up with. I didn't know from the outset this thread would become so popular.

You're quite correct that relativity in physics is a problem for me.

1. The absence of standards of absolute and universal application.
"moral relativity"

2. The dependence of various physical phenomena on relative motion of the observer and the observed objects, especially regarding the nature and behavior of light, space, time, and gravity. "physics"

One would think that relativity in morals is different than relativity in physics. But I would argue that physics is not grounded in rational thought, therefore relativity. Antithesis have been abandoned in favor of the dialectic. I think this needs to be explored and is an important aspect of this debate.

--Dave
Why do you even talk about relativity? You are shown to be wrong in physics and every other physical phenomena, and the moon landing has a great deal more scientific evidence for it than against it.

Ignore that all, you are making a fool of yourself. The kind of fool God spoke about in Proverbs.

Rather, if you believe the bible teaches a flat earth, your answer to any question of any nature, be it scientific, pragmatic, social, historical, theoretical, or even biblical should be met with your answer:
scripture says the earth does not move and everything else does.

Immovable Earth
1 Chronicles 16:30 ".....the world also shall be stable, that it be not moved..."
Psalm 96:10 " ...the world also shall be established that it shall not be moved..."
Psalm 93:1 " ... the world also is established, that it cannot be moved..."

Circle of the Earth
Isaiah 40:22 "It is he that sitteth upon the circle of the earth" Some people say this proves the globe but there is a difference between a circle and a sphere, Isaiah knew the difference between a circle and a sphere because he describes a ball in Isaiah 22:18 "...toss thee like a ball...
--From 75 verses prove a flat earth

Moving Sun
Psalm 19:6…. “…goes forth in a circle from one end of heaven to the other….”
Joshua 10:12 "He said in the sight of Israel, Sun, stand thou still upon Gibeon; and thou, Moon, in the valley of Ajalon. 13 And the sun stood still, and the moon stayed, until the people had avenged themselves upon their enemies. Is not this written in the book of Jasher? So the sun stood still in the midst of heaven, and hasted not to go down about a whole day."



Or, just say for short, "Not only does the Bible say the earth is flat and motionless, but nothing else, including what the ancients believed, matters."

It will make sense then when someone suggests a simple test to see if the earth is round or flat, you don't have to ignore it, just say, "it doesn't matter how the test comes out. [Repeat of the above]"

I know you are asking yourself why you should take this good advice from me. Since I already told you I'm sure you'll find it anticlimactic, but I want to see if you get where I'm coming from and tell me what I'm about to say.
 

George Affleck

TOL Subscriber
I know you are asking yourself why you should take this good advice from me. Since I already told you I'm sure you'll find it anticlimactic, but I want to see if you get where I'm coming from and tell me what I'm about to say.

I think we should have another option as well as the Thanks button called the LOL button.
 

Clete

Truth Smacker
Silver Subscriber
My answer to all the questions about sun, moon, and stars that prove we are a spinning globe is that we have not been told the truth about the universe.
My argument proves that the Earth cannot be flat without reference to anything the government has ever published, stated, claimed or spent one single dime of tax money on. It is based entirely and only on observations that you could make but refuse to do so and on 6th or 7th grade level math.

We know we have not been told the truth because NASA faked the moon landings.
We KNOW this?

We do not know this! We know that you claim this but since when do your claims equal proof of anything?

We've never been back to the moon because we were never there in the first place.
What are you talking about, David? We've been back to the moon several times!

Human beings have walked on the Moon from six different missions and there are many more unmanned missions that have successfully landed crafts on the surface. I think it's 21 total moon landings over some 40 years of time, the latest being Communist China landing on the far side in the January of this year (2019).

In the mythbusters video the first footprint test failed so they put a thin layer of what they said simulated moon "dust" in a vacuum chamber then pressed a moon boot into it in order to get a foot print to match the moon print.

But this is not a true test because they did not try this test outside of the vacuum chamber to see if there was any difference between the two conditions.
The test was designed to see if a foot print on the moon, as NASA claims that foot print to be, would look like it does in the video. They, therefore, recreated the conditions that NASA claims exist on the Moon and sure enough the print they produce in the test is 100% consistent with NASA claims.

In other words, the test was performed perfectly and answered the exact question is was intended to answer.

The moon surface also would be deeper than the thin layer used in this test.
And how do you know this?

The moon surface is said to have sharp grains of particles not smooth grains that we have here on earth which are a result of wind and water which the moon does not have. The difference between sand and dust is that dust is much smaller and smoother grain because of wind. If the moon does not have wind then fine moon dust could not exist there.
This is just frankly stupidity.

Why would wind be the only two force in the entire universe that could possibly created fine dust particles?

At about 21:35 into the video they show footage of the astronauts running on the moon surface and you can clearly see their foot prints being filled in as one would expect to see here on earth on dry sand and contradicts the perfect foot prints also said to be from the moon.
More stupidity. The perfect foot print wasn't made while running. That print was made by Buzz Aldrin by simply stepping somewhere and then lifting his foot.


The perfect foot print shows moisture as it would here on earth.
No, it doesn't.

First of all, the print isn't perfect.

More importantly, the test done in the video was done in a vacuum. Any water in the material, if there was any, would have boiled off.

This was the exact claim that making a print in a vacuum was intended to test. The test unequivocally established that prints do not need moisture to be made.

Fine moon dust contradicts no wind in order to create it on the moon as it does here on earth.
No it doesn't. Wind is only one way fine dust is made.

You can made fine dust right now!

Go get some salt and put a bunch in your hand and then rub you hands together and poof! Fine dust with no wind. Amazing!

That "powdery grey dirt is formed (on the moon) by micrometeorite impacts which pulverize local rocks into fine particles" is pure conjecture without proof.
Since when does "pure conjecture without proof" bother you? You're entire worldview appears to be based on it!

Fine particles cannot both be fine and have rough edges as claimed in the video.
See what I mean? Pure conjecture without proof!


Clete


P.S. The short conversation on the video at 44:04 is the absolute best part of the entire video!

"I think they're crazy!" :chuckle:
 

CabinetMaker

Member of the 10 year club on TOL!!
Hall of Fame
I have continued to look into this topic over the years. Still no evidence to support a flat Earth. God created us in His image which means, in part, we have the God given ability to understand His creation. All the evidence that God has given us points is towards a spherical Earth orbiting a spherical Sun. I have learned many interesting things about our Earth but the most reassuring thing I have learned is that God is good and His creation is truly wondrous! May God bless and keep you all the days of your life!
 

1Mind1Spirit

Literal lunatic
I have continued to look into this topic over the years. Still no evidence to support a flat Earth.
1. Cellular Navigation requires a flat base line to get an elevation angle.
You can't get an elevation angle from a curved base line.

2. Ninety degrees from a plumb bob line is level everywhere on earth.
This cannot happen on a sphere.
Only on a flat earth.
 

JudgeRightly

裁判官が正しく判断する
Staff member
Administrator
Super Moderator
Gold Subscriber
1. Cellular Navigation requires a flat base line to get an elevation angle.
You can't get an elevation angle from a curved base line.

2. Ninety degrees from a plumb bob line is level everywhere on earth.
This cannot happen on a sphere.
Only on a flat earth.

Because you say so?

There is no evidence of a spinning water ball.
Heliocentrism is a religion.

Denying reality isn't healthy, 1M1S.
 

CabinetMaker

Member of the 10 year club on TOL!!
Hall of Fame
1. Cellular Navigation requires a flat base line to get an elevation angle.
You can't get an elevation angle from a curved base line.

2. Ninety degrees from a plumb bob line is level everywhere on earth.
This cannot happen on a sphere.
Only on a flat earth.
Totally wrong on both counts.
1) Look up the concept of a tangent. On a sphere, there is a horizontal plane that is tangent to the sphere are the pint you are located. This established the horizontal needed for the measurement. Also, look up "dip[ angle" as it pertains to navigation with a sextant.

2)A plumb bob ALWAYS points to the center of the Earth. A horizontal line perpendicular a plumb bob is level everywhere on a sphere. Keep in mind that level is defined as perpendicular to plumb.
 

CabinetMaker

Member of the 10 year club on TOL!!
Hall of Fame
There is no evidence of a spinning water ball.
Heliocentrism is a religion.
There is nothing but evidence for a sphere. Perspective says that as things move away from us, they get smaller. How come the Sin does not follow this rule? It is the same size from sunrise to sunset. Also, how can you see a sun disappear from the bottom up at sunset? Perspective decrees that the sun should shrink to a dot at the horizon.
 

Hoping

Well-known member
Banned
1. Cellular Navigation requires a flat base line to get an elevation angle.
You can't get an elevation angle from a curved base line.
Maybe that is why they use a single dot, (tip of plumb bob), rather than something else, to base their angle from.
2. Ninety degrees from a plumb bob line is level everywhere on earth.
This cannot happen on a sphere.
Only on a flat earth
90 degrees from any spot on earth will eventually deliver you to outer space.
 

CabinetMaker

Member of the 10 year club on TOL!!
Hall of Fame
My reality doesn't consist of a place that violates the second law of thermodynamics.
It doesn't violate the second law. You do not understand the second law nor do you understand a pressure radiant and a gravity well. Once you understand those two things, then you can understand that Earth's atmosphere follows the second law.
 

Right Divider

Body part
When the earth blocks the suns rays to the moon (flat earth is already invalidated by that) the suns rays are blocked at a curve (flat earth invalidated again).

If you want to remain stupid, believe in a flat earth.
if you want to live in reality, the earth is a sphere.
 

1Mind1Spirit

Literal lunatic
1) Look up the concept of a tangent. On a sphere, there is a horizontal plane that is tangent to the sphere are the pint you are located. This established the horizontal needed for the measurement. Also, look up "dip[ angle" as it pertains to navigation with a sextant.
The dip correction is for the height above sea "level" to the horizon.
2)A plumb bob ALWAYS points to the center of the Earth. A horizontal line perpendicular a plumb bob is level everywhere on a sphere. Keep in mind that level is defined as perpendicular to plumb.
You being a cabinet maker should be able to grasp the error in your thinking.
If your earth is a sphere and the plumb bob always points to the center that will produce radials around it.
Radials are slanted not vertical.

plumb
4 of 4

adjective

1
: exactly vertical or true

ver·ti·cal
[ˈvərdək(ə)l]

ADJECTIVE
  1. at right angles to a horizontal plane; in a direction, or having an alignment, such that the top is directly above the bottom:

Definitions of horizontal


adjective
parallel to or in the plane of the horizon or a base line
“a horizontal surface”
Synonyms:crosswise
in the shape of (a horizontal piece on) a cross
flat
horizontally level
level
being on a precise horizontal plane

So, @CabinetMaker only 6 places standing on a globe with a supposed gravitational pull to the center would give you level 90 degrees off a plumb bob line. The top and bottom directly above and below the center and 4 points 90 degrees from the center out.
Every other place your line will not be plumb.
Taking 90 from a plumb bob line would give you different angles around the globe thus changing what level actually is.
That would make using a tool we call a level foolishness.

If I build a cabinet level in my basement and I ship it 1,000 miles and the level isn't the same it would hang crooked.

 

1Mind1Spirit

Literal lunatic
It doesn't violate the second law. You do not understand the second law nor do you understand a pressure radiant and a gravity well. Once you understand those two things, then you can understand that Earth's atmosphere follows the second law.
The 2nd law of thermodynamics shows that in order to have gas pressure there must be containment.
You can't have a pressure gradient without first having containment.
Since 1905 Einstein's theory of relativity did away with gravity as a force.
Since gravity isn't a force why are you talking about a gravity well?
You thinkin' a gravity well is a force?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top