Search results

The definition of motion, once again, is this: Motion: "the action or process of moving or being moved." How is motion defined: In physics, motion is the change in position of an object or a physical system with respect to its surroundings. Motion is mathematically described in terms of...

And? Notice how Dave completely ignored the point that was made about NASA allowing very few people (not "no one") to use their industrial grade vacuum chamber? False premise. Tell ya what, Dave. Why don't you try researching this topic for a bit before you start commenting on it and making...

As long as by "settled" you understand that there is no necessity for there to be a blast crater on the surface of the moon, because of how little thrust was needed by the main thruster on the lunar lander because it wasn't moving very quickly, then yes, this matter is settled. If by posting...

DUH, DAVE! That is, BY DEFINITION, how motion is determined! What do you think we've been SAYING for the past few months!? MOTION IS DEFINED BY ARBITRARILY DESIGNATING AN EXTERNAL FRAME OF REFERENCE! Except that, BY DEFINITION, there IS no such absolute reference point, BECAUSE OF THE FACT...

The fact that it CANNOT account for something that happens on a regular basis/exists shows it is a failure of a model, and should, at best, be discarded.

Not what I asked Dave. I asked if you were going to deny the EXISTENCE of thing that were brought back from the moon. Because they do, in fact, exist. Note how Dave will avoid discussing ANYTHING that clearly refutes or rebuts his position, such as a CLEAR explanation of where lunar regolith...

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 Clete has shown you MULTIPLE times.

:blabla: Why is that a problem? Why should they? They're trying to simulate the surface of the moon. The moon's surface (aside from what little atmosphere there is) is for all intents and purposes a vacuum. In the moon's atmosphere, there are only 100 molecules per cubic centimeter. In...

I'm going to let you watch this video. https://www.dailymotion.com/video/x2m7k1z (couldn't find it on discovery.com, sorry) And then I'm going to ask you to not try to completely change the topic from the current discussion.

Flat Earth-ism is a symptom of paranoia. Dave is paranoid that everyone is lying to him, and it's resulted in this nonsense.

DFT_Dave it's the same sort of logic that racists use. Oh, their skin color is different? They must not be humans like we are. Oh, they have a weird religion? They must be lesser beings than us. :vomit: Oh, the earth is different than the moon? The earth must be a different shape then. :dunce:

And you were soundly rebutted. Yeah, because the atmosphere that exists there is not capable of supporting life. If you build a sealed dome on the surface of the moon, and then put the same mixture of gasses in the dome that we have on the earth, and provide the right nutrients in the right...

"I'm assuming my conclusion that the earth is immobile to show that the earth is immobile." --Dave You still don't get it, do you? RELATIVE TO EVERYTHING ELSE, THE EARTH IS MOVING. Which makes your argument self-contradictory. You can't have a moving immovable object. This is why using...

Immovable, relative to what? Itself?

And we know it's not because of things like the pythagorean theorem. They're very real, and very far away. I feel like a lot of what I say in my posts is lost because you don't respond to my individual points in turn. "God being a reference point" has nothing to do with physics, because God...

That you think your arguments stand in the first place is saddening. You missed it. Try again (emphasis mine): It must first be reiterated that with extraordinary few exceptions no educated person in the history of Western Civilization from the third century B.C. onward believed that the...

Arbitrarily, yes, BY DEFINITION. Arbitrarily defined as such, yes. Why do you assume God needs a reference point for ANYTHING? Why not let God Himself be the reference point, and go from there? Sorry, Dave, but geocentrism doesn't work. If you define the earth as an absolute reference...

You just don't like it because it completely destroys your arguments. I break it up because you make so many different assumptions and claims and conclusions all in one sentence or paragraph that it is extremely difficult to address any of it. In other words, you obfuscate so that it makes it...

This is a straw man, Dave. No one has argued that the moon, sun and stars can support life. What has been argued is that each have an atmosphere. Why do you assume that we think that the Earth is the same as the moon, sun, and stars? That they do. Keyword "appear." Once again, ALL MOTION...

This is that thread. I've clipped the parts from the quotes above that are not necessary for this discussion. I'd like to request, before we begin this thread, that those who participate in this thread do their best to honor God in their posts...