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

[Clete]

Dave, thought experiments helped Einstein come up with his ideas, and they help explain his ideas. But actual real-life experiments and observations proved that his ideas were right.

Dave- ignorance is a curable disease.

Actually, if by "his ideas" you mean "Relativity", no, they really didn't. Real life experiments led to the wide spread acceptance of his ideas, and for good reason, but to say that Einstein has been PROVEN right is something of an overstatement, if not an outright myth.

That, of course, is a topic for another thread, and it doesn't really mean that you're wrong because your point is that actual experimentation trumps any of our ideas, which is true.

Clete

 

[chair]

Actually, if by "his ideas" you mean "Relativity", no, they really didn't. Real life experiments led to the wide spread acceptance of his ideas, and for good reason, but to say that Einstein has been PROVEN right is something of an overstatement, if not an outright myth.

That, of course, is a topic for another thread, and it doesn't really mean that you're wrong because your point is that actual experimentation trumps any of our ideas, which is true.

Clete

I should have been more careful in my use of the term "proven". It also implies a level of certainty and absoluteness that isn't appropriate. There is a problem in popular discourse on such topics, the use of terms such as "theory" or "law" in science being not being understood correctly by many people.

 

[Clete]

These 5 mind-melting thought experiments helped Albert Einstein come up with his most revolutionary scientific ideas

Thought experiments are theoretical arguments very much like theological arguments. They are true or false based on the rules of rationality not on physical experiments.

"Einstein, in his theory of special relativity, determined that the laws of physics are the same for all non-accelerating observers, and he showed that the speed of light within a vacuum is the same no matter the speed at which an observer travels. As a result, he found that space and time were interwoven into a single continuum known as space-time. Events that occur at the same time for one observer could occur at different times for another." --Einstein's Theory of General Relativity

This quote is misleading, Einstein's thought experiment "Imagine you're standing on a train" is the basis for special relativity.

Debunking Einstein's thought experiment
Events that happen at the same time do so regardless of anything or they are not happening at the same time. Granted that light travels through space and requires time, the lightning strike is not the rays of light that travels through time. The time it takes for the light from the strike to be seen by one standing still vs one moving away from or toward the direction the light is coming from does not mean the the event of the strike happened at a different time. The light coming from a lighting strike is not the strike itself, the strike is the event, and the event does not travel through time, the light from the event travels through time.

I started studying space-time in relation to open theism. Space-time is also theological timelessness. Einstein's space-time block universe is a perfect match for a timeless deity.

Einstein is not the first to employ thought experiment into his cosmology. The question I ask myself is who else and how many of these arguments are there?

If Newton employed a Cannonball thought experiment, "to hypothesize that the force of gravity was universal, and the key force for planetary motion" then what about gravity itself? An invisible intangible force cannot be discovered, it has to be imagined. Gravity is also a thought experiment, something theorized.

A thought experiment about the universality of gravity and that it's a key force in planetary motion assumes the existence of gravity and does not prove gravity exists, it being a thought experiment that requires proof in order to be true.

The theory of gravity does not prove a spinning globe it assumes one. It would be circular reasoning to argue the one proves the other.

This applies to the ISS and satellites. A craft flying in the sky does not prove the earth is a globe any more than the existence of the sun, moon, and stars moving through the sky does. Data and images can be collected and transmitted over a flat earth as well. That the data and images exists is not proof the earth is a spinning planet.

Mocking me doesn't prove me wrong, it's your attempt to deter other people who are interested in FE to not take any arguments made for it seriously. Just as mocking Trump did not deter people from voting for him mocking flat earth will not deter people's interest in it.

I wasn't martyred for open theism. I was told that if I did not give up open theism I could not teach or preach in the church, and affiliated churches, I and my family were involved with. I was told by my wife she would leave me if I did not comply.

--Dave

Mocking you has nothing to do with proving your wrong. You have been proven wrong and yet refuse to allow the proof to persuade your mind. Therefore you are mocked and rightly so.

And neither Newton nor Einstein based their theories on thought experiments! Sure, they used thought experiments in the development of their theories but so does everyone else. Newton was the most disciplined empirically based scientist this world has ever seen. To dismiss his work on such a basis is the most ignorant thing anyone could do. What we call gravity DOES work the way Newton's science describes. He had no idea (and neither do we) why it works the way it does or what causes it but he absolutely did figure out with precision how much force one body of mass exerts on every other and not one syllable of it his law of gravity is based on a thought experiment. It is based on hundreds of hours of experimentation, observation and the most brilliant logic that you'd ever have the privilege of comprehending if you every took the time to read it through.

As for Einstein, there is no question that he was a famously prolific thought experimenter but those thought experiments were NOT the FOUNDATION of his theories. They simply served as a means of figuring out which direction to go in. Einstein was primarily a mathematician and is theories are based primarily on mathematics. They are clearly far less empirical than Newton's work but that doesn't necessarily make them invalid. His theories do make very specific predictions, a great many of which have been confirmed to be the case through observation (although not as many as mainstream science would have you believe) and his theory of gravity does do an excellent job of describing the anomalous nature of the orbit of Mercury, which Newton's laws could not explain.

And so, in either case, dismissing these theories on the basis that they are based on thought experiments is only an exercise is displaying your own ignorance and will accomplish nothing other than making yourself look foolish.

Clete

 

[DFT_Dave]

I disagree.

The flat earth theory has no mechanism to keep a giant space station floating/hovering above us for over 20 years. This presents a major flaw in your theory which is why I'm sure many FE proponents reject the idea that the ISS is real (obviously that presents it's own set of problems for them).

The globe earth has a perfect mechanism to keep the ISS flying above us for over 20 years. Gravity.

This of course is just one of literally dozens of other rock-solid proofs that have been presented in these threads.

Your theory falls flat (pun intended).

Neither you nor I, or anyone else, accept for a very small group of people who are part of NASA, know anything about the ISS, with absolute verifiable certainty. We only know what we are told and shown from NASA.

These are examples of flaws from ISS video.

1. A moth in the ISS.
2. Unprotected hand with bare thumb during space walk.
3. A slight fall downward while faking weightlessness with wires.
4. Another obvious wire act gone wrong.
5. Space station model filmed by mistake.
6. Blue screen seen in video of ISS that proves CGI being used.
7. More evidence of blue screen effects.
8. Time lapse and real time mistake during interview on ISS.
9. Face of man seen behind model of ISS in fake deployment of satellite.
10. Heads tilted upward while being held up by wires in staged ISS.

--Dave

 

[Clete]

Neither you nor I, or anyone else, accept for a very small group of people who are part of NASA, know anything about the ISS, with absolute verifiable certainty. We only know what we are told and shown from NASA.

These are examples of flaws from ISS video.

1. A moth in the ISS.
2. Unprotected hand with bare thumb during space walk.
3. A slight fall downward while faking weightlessness with wires.
4. Another obvious wire act gone wrong.
5. Space station model filmed by mistake.
6. Blue screen seen in video of ISS that proves CGI being used.
7. More evidence of blue screen effects.
8. Time lapse and real time mistake during interview on ISS.
9. Face of man seen behind model of ISS in fake deployment of satellite.
10. Heads tilted upward while being held up by wires in staged ISS.

--Dave

Oh here we go again with more fake YouTube lie videos. :bang:

David, I think the real core of the problem here is that you have no discernment. You're the most naive person I've ever interacted with.

 

[DFT_Dave]

Dave, thought experiments helped Einstein come up with his ideas, and they help explain his ideas. But actual real-life experiments and observations proved that his ideas were right.

Dave- ignorance is a curable disease.

That a tiny white dot of a star, supposedly light years away from us, said to have moved slightly during the 1919 eclipse is not verifiable and certainly not repeatable evidence proving the existence a space-time block universe filled with gravity waves.

Gullibility is curable as well I hope for your sake.

--Dave

 

[chair]

That a tiny white dot of a star, supposedly light years away from us, said to have moved slightly during the 1919 eclipse is not verifiable and certainly not repeatable evidence proving the existence a space-time block universe filled with gravity waves.

Gullibility is curable as well I hope for your sake.

--Dave

It sure as heck was verifiable when it happened. And the observation has been repeated. As I said, ignorance is a curable disease.

Dave- is there anything at all in Science that you accept? Or is everything fake, and only you and a small (but growing) group of insiders know that the rest of us have been fooled.

 

[chair]

Speaking of verifiable and repeatable: When the sun sets, we can see half of it for a while. Everyday, weather permitting. It does not get smaller as it sets. Verifiable. Repeatable. Every day, weather permitting. This does not work on a flat earth. And using words like "looming" and "perspective" will not fix that.

 

[chair]

Oh no! I hope Dave accepts that Quantum Mechanics works. I am thinking of all the devices that I'll have to throw away if it doesn't. Fluorescent lamps...maybe incandescent lamps as well- you know, Planck and all that. I am not even sure that vision or photosynthesis will work anymore. Let's just hope he's never heard of it.

 

[DFT_Dave]

Oh here we go again with more fake YouTube lie videos. :bang:

David, I think the real core of the problem here is that you have no discernment. You're the most naive person I've ever interested with.

Attacking me personally does not address the videos. They are commentary made of actual NASA video. See for yourself. Evidence of fake NASA video is abundant, explained, and demonstrated. If you think these are faked then explain why. Just saying they are does not prove it.

A complete model of the ISS is in an underwater pool for practicing spacewalks and can easily become the foreground for CGI faked spacewalks. A stage could be easily be built of the ISS interior with wires and blue screens etc. to fake being in space.

If you think amatures can fake video image how much easier it would be for NASA to do so.

--Dave

 

[DFT_Dave]

Mocking you has nothing to do with proving your wrong. You have been proven wrong and yet refuse to allow the proof to persuade your mind. Therefore you are mocked and rightly so.

And neither Newton nor Einstein based their theories on thought experiments! Sure, they used thought experiments in the development of their theories but so does everyone else. Newton was the most disciplined empirically based scientist this world has ever seen. To dismiss his work on such a basis is the most ignorant thing anyone could do. What we call gravity DOES work the way Newton's science describes. He had no idea (and neither do we) why it works the way it does or what causes it but he absolutely did figure out with precision how much force one body of mass exerts on every other and not one syllable of it his law of gravity is based on a thought experiment. It is based on hundreds of hours of experimentation, observation and the most brilliant logic that you'd ever have the privilege of comprehending if you every took the time to read it through.

As for Einstein, there is no question that he was a famously prolific thought experimenter but those thought experiments were NOT the FOUNDATION of his theories. They simply served as a means of figuring out which direction to go in. Einstein was primarily a mathematician and is theories are based primarily on mathematics. They are clearly far less empirical than Newton's work but that doesn't necessarily make them invalid. His theories do make very specific predictions, a great many of which have been confirmed to be the case through observation (although not as many as mainstream science would have you believe) and his theory of gravity does do an excellent job of describing the anomalous nature of the orbit of Mercury, which Newton's laws could not explain.

And so, in either case, dismissing these theories on the basis that they are based on thought experiments is only an exercise is displaying your own ignorance and will accomplish nothing other than making yourself look foolish.

Clete

I'm not dismissing all of Newton's work.

But how does Newton's law of how objects fall on earth prove gravity is the cause, or that we live on a spinning planet?

How do Newton's laws of motion prove gravity exists, or that we live on a spinning globe?

Why can't these laws work on a flat earth and simply explain how the mass plus density of objects fall and move?

Newton himself had grave reservations about his laws of gravity applied to planets. See Newton's reservations. Einstein's curved space-time solution to Newton's delema is based on his thought experiments. I have never seen a so called proof of curved space-time that wasn't built on imagination as is the theory itself.

Link me to sights that you think demonstrate proofs of curved space-time.

"Newton's law of universal gravitation states that a particle attracts every other particle in the universe with a force which is directly proportional to the product of their masses and inversely proportional to the square of the distance between their centers." Just how is this confirmed?

--Dave

 

[DFT_Dave]

It sure as heck was verifiable when it happened. And the observation has been repeated. As I said, ignorance is a curable disease.

Dave- is there anything at all in Science that you accept? Or is everything fake, and only you and a small (but growing) group of insiders know that the rest of us have been fooled.

Provide me with more links of proofs of curved space-time. I want to see more of this.

--Dave

 

[DFT_Dave]

Speaking of verifiable and repeatable: When the sun sets, we can see half of it for a while. Everyday, weather permitting. It does not get smaller as it sets. Verifiable. Repeatable. Every day, weather permitting. This does not work on a flat earth. And using words like "looming" and "perspective" will not fix that.

Perspective doesn't work for you because you don't believe it exists.

You think it can be proven that curved space-time exists by claiming a tiny spec of a star, light years away from us, was supposedly observed to have moved a tiny fraction of inch, yet, you can't observe that the ground beneath us rises to eye level to form a horizon that keeps things beyond it from our view.

That the horizon continues to stay straight/flat and at eye level over a stationary landscape from at least 30 miles up should be proof enough that the earth is a stationary plane and not a curved spinning globe.

--Dave

 

[chair]

Perspective doesn't work for you because you don't believe it exists.

You think it can be proven that curved space-time exists by claiming a tiny spec of a star, light years away from us, was supposedly observed to have moved a tiny fraction of inch, yet, you can't observe that the ground beneath us rises to eye level to form a horizon that keeps things beyond it from our view.

That the horizon continues to stay straight/flat and at eye level over a stationary landscape from at least 30 miles up should be proof enough that the earth is a stationary plane and not a curved spinning globe.

--Dave

You win. I give up. You can't be convinced. You aren't stupid. This is far worse. You are intelligent, and insist on behaving in a stupid, ignorant fashion.

 

[DFT_Dave]

Oh no! I hope Dave accepts that Quantum Mechanics works. I am thinking of all the devices that I'll have to throw away if it doesn't. Fluorescent lamps...maybe incandescent lamps as well- you know, Planck and all that. I am not even sure that vision or photosynthesis will work anymore. Let's just hope he's never heard of it.

That quantum mechanics works in some respects does not mean it works to explain the existence of a mega universe of infinite universes.

--Dave

 

[DFT_Dave]

You win. I give up. You can't be convinced. You aren't stupid. This is far worse. You are intelligent, and insist on behaving in a stupid, ignorant fashion.

Thanks for the "I'm not actually stupid" endorsement.

Gravity waves that exist throughout the universe should be evidenced everywhere all the time.

--Dave

 

[Silent Hunter]

These 5 mind-melting thought experiments helped Albert Einstein come up with his most revolutionary scientific ideas

Thought experiments are theoretical arguments very much like theological arguments. They are true or false based on the rules of rationality not on physical experiments.

"Einstein, in his theory of special relativity, determined that the laws of physics are the same for all non-accelerating observers, and he showed that the speed of light within a vacuum is the same no matter the speed at which an observer travels. As a result, he found that space and time were interwoven into a single continuum known as space-time. Events that occur at the same time for one observer could occur at different times for another." --Einstein's Theory of General Relativity

This quote is misleading, Einstein's thought experiment "Imagine you're standing on a train" is the basis for special relativity.

Debunking Einstein's thought experiment
Events that happen at the same time do so regardless of anything or they are not happening at the same time. Granted that light travels through space and requires time, the lightning strike is not the rays of light that travels through time. The time it takes for the light from the strike to be seen by one standing still vs one moving away from or toward the direction the light is coming from does not mean the the event of the strike happened at a different time. The light coming from a lighting strike is not the strike itself, the strike is the event, and the event does not travel through time, the light from the event travels through time.

"At the same time" is meaningless according to Special Relativity for several reasons. Educate yourself.

Einstein is not the first to employ thought experiment into his cosmology. The question I ask myself is who else and how many of these arguments are there?

If Newton employed a Cannonball thought experiment, "to hypothesize that the force of gravity was universal, and the key force for planetary motion" then what about gravity itself? An invisible intangible force cannot be discovered, it has to be imagined. Gravity is also a thought experiment, something theorized.

Do this thought experiment, release a 16# bowling ball directly over your bare foot. How long did you think it will take for you to moved your foot out of the way after you release the ball?

If gravity doesn't exist, why did you move your foot?

A thought experiment about the universality of gravity and that it's a key force in planetary motion assumes the existence of gravity and does not prove gravity exists, it being a thought experiment that requires proof in order to be true.

See above (supra).

The theory of gravity does not prove a spinning globe it assumes one. It would be circular reasoning to argue the one proves the other.

Gravity does not assume a globe nor does it require one. The Moon's rotation on its axis and revolution around the Earth are locked, one rotation on its axis equals one revolution around the Earth. Does gravity not exist on the Moon? Educate yourself.

This applies to the ISS and satellites. A craft flying in the sky does not prove the earth is a globe any more than the existence of the sun, moon, and stars moving through the sky does. Data and images can be collected and transmitted over a flat earth as well. That the data and images exists is not proof the earth is a spinning planet.

How was it satellites are held "in orbit" above a flat Earth again? I forget.

Mocking me doesn't prove me wrong, it's your attempt to deter other people who are interested in FE to not take any arguments made for it seriously. Just as mocking Trump did not deter people from voting for him mocking flat earth will not deter people's interest in it.

You have a peculiar way with analogies. People, myself included, voted for Trump because they agreed with his vision for the country. You are being mocked because the Earth being flat is so demonstratively wrong, having been done for your benefit too many times to count, it defies comprehension that you continue to defend it.

I wasn't martyred for open theism. I was told that if I did not give up open theism I could not teach or preach in the church, and affiliated churches, I and my family were involved with. I was told by my wife she would leave me if I did not comply.

Not that I really care, but, was/is leaving the religious organization you belong(ed) to and waving goodbye to your wife not an option? Has she threatened to leave unless you give up your FE obsession or is she as nuts as you?

Neither you nor I, or anyone else, except for a very small group of people who are part of NASA, know anything about the ISS, with absolute verifiable certainty. We only know what we are told and shown from NASA.

:kookoo:

These are examples of flaws from ISS video.
1. A moth in the ISS.

… a moth?

2. Unprotected hand with bare thumb during space walk.

… his hand don’t look bare to me.

3. A slight fall downward while faking weightlessness with wires.

… I saw nothing out of sync.

4. Another obvious wire act gone wrong.

… I saw nothing wrong.

5. Space station model filmed by mistake.

… or a blooper reel segment.

6. Blue screen seen in video of ISS that proves CGI being used.

… It proves there was a blue screen in the room, nothing more.

7. More evidence of blue screen effects.

Ha, ha. Supra.

8. Time lapse and real time mistake during interview on ISS.

… I saw nothing wrong.

9. Face of man seen behind model of ISS in fake deployment of satellite.

… or a video through a window with a “ghost” reflection.

10. Heads tilted upward while being held up by wires in staged ISS.

… or an attempt to maintain orientation with the camera.

That a tiny white dot of a star, supposedly light years away from us, said to have moved slightly during the 1919 eclipse is not verifiable and certainly not repeatable evidence proving the existence a space-time block universe filled with gravity waves.

The “eclipse experiment” showing how gravity bends light is indeed repeatable at EVERY solar eclipse and has nothing to do with gravity waves.

… how does Newton's law of how objects fall on earth prove gravity is the cause, or that we live on a spinning planet?

It doesn’t and was never meant to.

How do Newton's laws of motion prove gravity exists, or that we live on a spinning globe?

Supra.

Why can't these laws work on a flat earth and simply explain how the mass plus density of objects fall and move?

In your world, Dave, they can… and do. Newton’s laws also work in an elevator accelerating at 32ft/s².

Newton himself had grave reservations about his laws of gravity applied to planets. See Newton's reservations. Einstein's curved space-time solution to Newton's dilemma is based on his thought experiments. I have never seen a so called proof of curved space-time that wasn't built on imagination as is the theory itself.

Newton had difficulty with “force at a distance”, that something could act on something else without touching it. Einstein explained this with General Relativity.

Link me to sights that you think demonstrate proofs of curved space-time.

Link. I can only show you the door. You're the one who has to walk through it. Oh, and I can’t understand it for you either.

"Newton's law of universal gravitation states that a particle attracts every other particle in the universe with a force which is directly proportional to the product of their masses and inversely proportional to the square of the distance between their centers." Just how is this confirmed?

Disprove it Dave. A party in your honor awaits you in Sweden.

Dave- ignorance is a curable disease.

Gullibility is curable as well…

Dave – you’re stupid. Nobody can fix stupid.

 

[Nathon Detroit]

David, I think the real core of the problem here is that you have no discernment.

Hammer hit nail on head.

 

[JudgeRightly]

"At the same time" is meaningless according to Special Relativity for several reasons. Educate yourself.

Do this thought experiment, release a 16# bowling ball directly over your bare foot. How long did you think it will take for you to moved your foot out of the way after you release the ball?

If gravity doesn't exist, why did you move your foot?

See above (supra).

Gravity does not assume a globe nor does it require one. The Moon's rotation on its axis and revolution around the Earth are locked, one rotation on its axis equals one revolution around the Earth. Does gravity not exist on the Moon? Educate yourself.

How was it satellites are held "in orbit" above a flat Earth again? I forget.

You have a peculiar way with analogies. People, myself included, voted for Trump because they agreed with his vision for the country. You are being mocked because the Earth being flat is so demonstratively wrong, having been done for your benefit too many times to count, it defies comprehension that you continue to defend it.

Not that I really care, but, was/is leaving the religious organization you belong(ed) to and waving goodbye to your wife not an option? Has she threatened to leave unless you give up your FE obsession or is she as nuts as you?

:kookoo:

… a moth?
… his hand don’t look bare to me.
… I saw nothing out of sync.
… I saw nothing wrong.
… or a blooper reel segment.
… It proves there was a blue screen in the room, nothing more.
Ha, ha. Supra.
… I saw nothing wrong.
… or a video through a window with a “ghost” reflection.
… or an attempt to maintain orientation with the camera.

The “eclipse experiment” showing how gravity bends light is indeed repeatable at EVERY solar eclipse and has nothing to do with gravity waves.

It doesn’t and was never meant to.

Supra.

In your world, Dave, they can… and do. Newton’s laws also work in an elevator accelerating at 32ft/s².
Newton had difficulty with “force at a distance”, that something could act on something else without touching it. Einstein explained this with General Relativity.

Link. I can only show you the door. You're the one who has to walk through it. Oh, and I can’t understand it for you either.

Disprove it Dave. A party in your honor awaits you in Sweden.

Dave – you’re stupid. Nobody can fix stupid.

Your link is broken, fyi.

 

[Clete]

Attacking me personally does not address the videos. They are commentary made of actual NASA video. See for yourself. Evidence of fake NASA video is abundant, explained, and demonstrated. If you think these are faked then explain why. Just saying they are does not prove it.

A complete model of the ISS is in an underwater pool for practicing spacewalks and can easily become the foreground for CGI faked spacewalks. A stage could be easily be built of the ISS interior with wires and blue screens etc. to fake being in space.

If you think amatures can fake video image how much easier it would be for NASA to do so.

--Dave

Stupidity