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

  • Clete
    replied
    Originally posted by DFT_Dave View Post
    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!"

    Leave a comment:


  • George Affleck
    replied
    Originally posted by Yorzhik View Post

    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.

    Leave a comment:


  • Yorzhik
    replied
    Originally posted by DFT_Dave View Post
    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.

    Leave a comment:


  • Right Divider
    replied
    Originally posted by Bright Raven View Post
    This thread really has nothing to do with religion. It should be moved to "and the rest".
    There is a LOT of religious baggage associated with this.

    Just look at Dave trying to force flat earth on the Bible.

    Leave a comment:


  • Bright Raven
    replied
    This thread really has nothing to do with religion. It should be moved to "and the rest".

    Leave a comment:


  • Right Divider
    replied
    Originally posted by SaulToPaul View Post
    [ATTACH=CONFIG]26894[/ATTACH]

    I'm sure Dave knows what the government indoctrination camps (high school) teach.
    The smart people are never wrong, are they?
    Would you care to join the discussion?

    We've presented some very sound information proving that the earth is NOT flat (and motionless).

    Leave a comment:


  • Clete
    replied
    Originally posted by JudgeRightly View Post
    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

    Leave a comment:


  • SaulToPaul
    replied
    Originally posted by chair View Post
    Top it off with a desire to feel that you are smarter than all those educated people (like those who paid attention in high school)- and you've got a toxic form of unshakable belief. A delusion.
    Click image for larger version

Name:	doctor-smoking.jpg
Views:	1
Size:	58.7 KB
ID:	2434991

    I'm sure Dave knows what the government indoctrination camps (high school) teach.
    The smart people are never wrong, are they?

    Leave a comment:


  • chair
    replied
    Originally posted by Right Divider View Post
    Dave has been shown many clear, unambiguous and unequivocal proofs that the flat earth model is a complete failure.

    He is oblivious to plain facts.
    Dave is convinced for religious reasons (apparently) that the Earth is stationary and flat. So he must, at any cost, reject or ignore reality. Add to that his idea that relative motion and relativity (which he confuses) are evil because they use the same term "relative" as is used in "relative morality". Top it off with a desire to feel that you are smarter than all those educated people (like those who paid attention in high school)- and you've got a toxic form of unshakable belief. A delusion.

    not much can be done about it, as the wasted efforts of so many have shown.

    Leave a comment:


  • George Affleck
    replied
    Originally posted by Right Divider View Post
    Dave has been shown many clear, unambiguous and unequivocal proofs that the flat earth model is a complete failure.

    He is oblivious to plain facts.
    I have asked him to explain this fact according to the flat earth model and he continues to avoid answering. I will continue to put it in his face until he does. This time he tried to answer it with the 'refraction' answer which is not applicable and he knows it.

    Leave a comment:


  • Right Divider
    replied
    Originally posted by George Affleck View Post
    The sun moves below the horizon in exactly the same time as it takes for it to move it's own arc diameter anywhere else in the sky.
    Dave has been shown many clear, unambiguous and unequivocal proofs that the flat earth model is a complete failure.

    He is oblivious to plain facts.

    Leave a comment:


  • George Affleck
    replied
    Originally posted by DFT_Dave View Post
    The claim of flat earth is that we see everything over head in perspective just as we see everything in perspective on earth. But then it's argued that the sun should get much smaller the farther away it is from us.

    It has been argued that the sun maintains it's size from sun rise to sun set from where ever we are on earth. But I argued back that this is wrong because even if the earth is a globe the sun is still farther away from us at sun set and sun rise than it is when it's directly above us.

    Seeing the sun even from a globe is tricky business. At sun rise and sun set I'm not really seeing the sun anyway.

    [ATTACH=CONFIG]26891[/ATTACH]

    The most popular refraction example is the pencil in the glass of water.

    [ATTACH=CONFIG]26892[/ATTACH]

    Refraction not only bends light it also magnifies, or enlarges the pencil in the glass making it look bigger than it is. So if we can say at sun set and sun rise the sum is not where it actually is, we should also say it also looks larger than it actually is.

    --Dave
    The sun moves below the horizon in exactly the same time as it takes for it to move it's own arc diameter anywhere else in the sky.

    Leave a comment:


  • DFT_Dave
    replied
    Originally posted by JudgeRightly View Post
    Hardly any of that made any sense at all.

    Please correct your grammar.

    Loaded question.

    Reality is reality. It doesn't belong to anyone.

    If a man jumps off a train, his perception will change, but not reality. Reality is that he was on a train, then he jumped off of it, and then landed on the ground. The only things that changed were his perspective and his position relative to the earth and train.

    Once he stops moving relative to the earth, yes.

    Depends if his head is spinning from hitting the ground.

    Yes. It might sound weird, but it is logical.
    Do you still drive truck?

    --Dave

    Leave a comment:


  • JudgeRightly
    replied
    Originally posted by DFT_Dave View Post
    The model is not the perception of reality we get from earth on earth.

    I don't actually see the universe when see model, I see a model.

    On earth my perception (what I see and experience) is a flat motionless earth.

    By seeing this model I'm asked to imagine the universe in not what I see and experience.

    --Dave
    Hardly any of that made any sense at all.

    Please correct your grammar.

    Originally posted by DFT_Dave View Post
    And if someone jumps off that train (not so as to badly injure himself) onto what he perceives is a moving earth will his reality change?
    Loaded question.

    Reality is reality. It doesn't belong to anyone.

    If a man jumps off a train, his perception will change, but not reality. Reality is that he was on a train, then he jumped off of it, and then landed on the ground. The only things that changed were his perspective and his position relative to the earth and train.

    Will his perception now be that the train is moving and not the earth?
    Once he stops moving relative to the earth, yes.

    Or, will he continue to think the earth is still moving and the train is not?
    Depends if his head is spinning from hitting the ground.

    P.S. If the injured man went to the doctor would he say I jumped off the train and got hit by the moving earth?
    Yes. It might sound weird, but it is logical.

    Leave a comment:


  • DFT_Dave
    replied
    Originally posted by JudgeRightly View Post
    There is nothing irrational at all about it, AND it perfectly fits reality.

    Relative to what?

    Dave, when you have to concede the entire point to make the argument against your opponent's position, your argument has failed.

    Yup, the train is stationary relative to the person on the train, yet the earth is moving relative to both the train and the person.

    There you go again, ARBITRARILY defining the earth as an absolute reference point.

    When in reality, relative to the train, the earth IS, in fact, moving.
    And if someone jumps off that train (not so as to badly injure himself) onto what he perceives is a moving earth will his reality change?

    Will his perception now be that the train is moving and not the earth?

    Or, will he continue to think the earth is still moving and the train is not?

    --Dave

    P.S. If the injured man went to the doctor would he say I jumped off the train and got hit by the moving earth?

    Leave a comment:

Working...
X