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

[DFT_Dave]

:AMR: Why?

Did you do the same for Darwinism?

Luckily, you've been provided with evidence. You're supposed to focus on that and just ignore it when you're called a fruit loop.

Nope. People don't give up ideas when they are shown scientifically impossible.

We can't convince those who do not want to be convinced.

Nope.

You're utterly incorrect.

In science, ideas are discarded when they are shown impossible. However, you have shown that you are not following the scientific method. I described it in my previous post.

You think gravity is magic and appeal to God when asked about the physics of a flat Earth.

This means that what you believe is not scientific in nature: It's narrative, or religion, or indoctrination.


You're trying to speak like you appreciate the scientific method, but you've gotten it wrong again.

You should not be looking to falsify evidence; you should be looking to falsify your idea.

Evidence should be available to both sides. Ie, there is no such thing as "photographic evidence for flat Earth." There is only photographic evidence. It doesn't belong to one side or the other.

You could use the phrase to say that the evidence supports a flat Earth, but that's not what you were doing.

Sent from my SM-A520F using Tapatalk

And people will still believe in a globe even if it's shown how impossible it is.

I didn't appeal to God for a flat earth as opposed to physics. I appealed to God as the creator of the flat earth as opposed the evolution of the universe from the Big Bang--no God required for that.

Christians can't have the universe be God's creation and support a cosmology of an evolving universe started by a Big Bang without ending up with a mythologized Book of Genesis.

And yes, there is such a thing as photographic evidence for a flat earth.

--Dave

 

[DFT_Dave]

Hermann Minkowski.

Now who's an idiot?

Sent from my SM-A520F using Tapatalk

A mathematical equation based on a concept is not proof of a concept.

The concept is imagined not discovered in nature nor discovered while doing math.

Space-time is an idea, a concept, something imagined.

Ok?

--Dave

 

[DFT_Dave]

Where do you think E-mc^2 came from? Where do you think the time dilation factor came from? If you REALLY want to know about the math then you will literally go to college and take some advanced physics classes. For fun, here is an introduction to the math of general relativity.


What about this? No mountains to be seen, just the ocean and the moon is is disappearing from the bottom up. It is not shrinking to a point like your perspective sketch requires it to do.

Remember, your explanation must cover ALL observed facts.

That's clearly a digitally enhanced CGI, photograph of the moon. Sun and moon sets over the ocean will be next.

Space-time is an imagined concept. That should not even be debated. Time and space are not the same thing on planet earth where we live. Saying they are the same thing in space contradicts our experience of reality here but gives scientist the ability to say the absurd without anyone being able to refute it.

--Dave

 

[Stripe]

Space-time is an idea, a concept, something imagined.

Ok?

Yes.

That's what I said. :chuckle:

You're not very good at this, are you?

That's clearly a digitally enhanced CGI, photograph of the moon.

:darwinsm:

There's no hope for you.

Sent from my SM-A520F using Tapatalk

 

[DFT_Dave]

This is an example of you trying to "falsify evidence."

It's not a rational or scientific practice.

You think the photograph is defensible from a flat-Earth perspective and use that to justify your rejection of reality.

However, science doesn't call on you to falsify evidence, because you can do that by simply assuming the truth of your hypothesis.

Science calls on you to falsify your hypothesis. You're not allowed to assume the truth of your hypothesis.

You're a case study in how Darwinists operate.

Sent from my SM-A520F using Tapatalk

No, no. So called evidence can be shown to be false. Ask Trump.

Actually I think globe earth operates the same way evolution works.

--Dave

 

[Stripe]

So called evidence can be shown to be false.

Yes, it can. However, the scientific method doesn't work by falsifying evidence. It works by falsifying ideas.

If you're going around falsifying evidence while insulating your idea, you're not doing science. You're doing Darwinism.

There's not much hope for you if you can't understand simple English.

Actually I think globe earth operates the same way evolution works.

That's nice.

Sent from my SM-A520F using Tapatalk

 

[CabinetMaker]

That's clearly a digitally enhanced CGI, photograph of the moon. Sun and moon sets over the ocean will be next.

Prove it. You made a specific, positive claim that this picture is Computer Generator Image. Prove it. While you are at it, you might take a trip to the ocean when there is a full moon and watch it set.

Space-time is an imagined concept. That should not even be debated. Time and space are not the same thing on planet earth where we live. Saying they are the same thing in space contradicts our experience of reality here but gives scientist the ability to say the absurd without anyone being able to refute it.

--Dave

So you don't want to look into the math behind space-time. Relativity predicts it and there have been numerous experiments that confirm it. It is obvious that you, and others, have no idea what space-time is and how the theory models the universe as a whole. Before you start making statements like, "That should not even be debated." you need to take the time to actually learn what the theory says and how its applied.

 

[DFT_Dave]

Yes.

That's what I said. :chuckle:

You're not very good at this, are you?

:darwinsm:

There's no hope for you.

Sent from my SM-A520F using Tapatalk

That's what I said and I didn't say it originally to you.

You jumped into this and you're not the one my comment, space-time is a concept, was intended for.

--Dave

 

[Right Divider]

That's clearly a digitally enhanced CGI, photograph of the moon. Sun and moon sets over the ocean will be next.

--Dave

Again a claim WITHOUT any evidence to back it up.

 

[Right Divider]

No, no. So called evidence can be shown to be false. Ask Trump.

Actually I think globe earth operates the same way evolution works.

--Dave

The problem is what "you think".

 

[Stripe]

That's what I said and I didn't say it originally to you.You jumped into this and you're not the one my comment, space-time is a concept, was intended for.--Dave

I feel confident that with time and counseling, you'll get over it.

Sent from my SM-A520F using Tapatalk

 

[Stripe]

The problem is that "you think".

:darwinsm:

He can't even spot when someone is agreeing with him.

EDIT: I rewrote your quote to how I misread it. :chuckle:

Sent from my SM-A520F using Tapatalk

 

[Nathon Detroit]

I already emailed Bob and Doug, nominating Dave for it! Haha

That would be awesome.

 

[Nathon Detroit]

As I said these men should be excited and happy for their incredible accomplishment.

Their body language is the proof they did not go to the moon. Body language is a science and does not lie.

--Dave

How could you even possibly know the context of that image? Maybe it was a long press conference. Maybe they were tired. Maybe it was during the setup of the press conference. Maybe it was after the taping. Who knows, do you??? And what makes you a body language expert anyways?

Furthermore...
Believe it or not that is not the only image pf the Apollo 11 crew. I wonder what their body language tells us in all the other pictures??

View attachment 26614

View attachment 26615

 

[JudgeRightly]

And people will still believe in a globe even if it's shown how impossible it is.

I didn't appeal to God for a flat earth as opposed to physics. I appealed to God as the creator of the flat earth as opposed the evolution of the universe from the Big Bang--no God required for that.

Christians can't have the universe be God's creation and support a cosmology of an evolving universe started by a Big Bang without ending up with a mythologized Book of Genesis.

And yes, there is such a thing as photographic evidence for a flat earth.

--Dave

Is it even a possibility in your mind that God created in 6 days a globe orbiting a star in an entire universe of stars, galaxies, nebulae, etc?

Because You keep confusing the idea that the earth is a globe with "cosmological evolution."

THEY'RE NOT THE SAME THING! Please stop conflating them.

 

[Nathon Detroit]

Saw this on FB. Had to share. :rotfl:

View attachment 26616

 

[Clete]

His video is from a different direction and with different equipment. He's using a telephoto lens, the picture you're showing is not shot with a telephoto lens. The telephoto lens brings whats in the distance much closer and appear much larger than without it being used, such as moon shot below made through a telephoto lens.

View attachment 26612

No, no, no, no, NO!

David, if the mountain was the only thing in the picture, you might have a point but it isn't. That lying conman who made the video shows the skyline of a city in the foreground with the mountain looming above it from multiple times as far away. Besides, it's a spotting scope. It might have as much as 10X magnification. It's not like he's using a telescope with a 1000mm focal length.

Further, why not just do the math? There's a building in the foreground that I think he says is a six story building. Get an approximate distance from his supposed location to that building and figure out what it's angular size would be from that distance. It doesn't have to be exact. In fact, assume it's further away than it is even likely to be. Then, using the moron's own numbers that he provided with his measurements in the video to calculate the apparent angular size of that mountain that is supposedly 20 times further away and see if you can make the number work. You won't be able too.

Or do the reverse. Assume that he's on a flat Earth and that the distance to the mountain is what he claims it to be. That would mean an angular size of the mountain of approximately 1°. Calculate from that, what the angular size of that building would have to be based on a 1° size of the mountain (again using the video's own graphs and numbers) and then calculate how many times closer to the camera that an object of that size would have to be.



As for the picture of the Moon, it's a composite photo. The shot of the Moon was taken separate from the shot of the mountain range and then the two were added together in Photoshop or some other post processing software. There's no way to get that shot with one click of the shutter because the nearly full Moon is much much brighter than the foreground. If it was taken with one shot, either the Moon would be way over exposed or the mountains would be just a black mass as the base of the photo. The point being that you don't know anything about photography.

That these mountains are enlarged by the telephoto lens is why they seem larger than they should is very likely why they appear the way they do in his video.

You are stupid if you really think that. I wish I could believe that you're just making some sort of an argument but I know better.

That these mountain would appear at all would not be possible according to the Metabunk calculator if the earth were a globe.

--Dave

And they aren't visible at all. The video is a hoax, David. I've 100% proven it. If you deny it, it's because you're stupid or a liar yourself.

Clete

 

[DFT_Dave]

How could you even possibly know the context of that image? Maybe it was a long press conference. Maybe they were tired. Maybe it was during the setup of the press conference. Maybe it was after the taping. Who knows, do you??? And what makes you a body language expert anyways?

Furthermore...
Believe it or not that is not the only image pf the Apollo 11 crew. I wonder what their body language tells us in all the other pictures??

View attachment 26614

View attachment 26615

Here is an expert analysis of a Neil Armstrong interview.

View attachment 26617

Peter Hyatt offers his analysis of Armstrong's interview. Hyatt offers Deception Detection Training for the FBI.

The important part of the video starts at the 4:00 mark and ends on the 29:00 mark. The 25 minutes will change what you think of this astronaut as it did for Mr. Hyatt.

--Dave

 

[chair]

Dave,
You have repeatedly lumped together the shape of the earth with all sorts of irrelevant philosophies, religions and branches of science. This in intellectuallt dishonest.

The shape of the earth has nothing at all to with:

1. 
   Atheism
   Evolution
   Einstein and his theory of relativity
   The moon landing

These are all irrelevant distractions.

The Global Earth is simply the shape of the earth.

You keep evading the simple everyday evidence of a global earth. Like sunsets, or how you can see further from a tall place than a low one (or see a tall mountain from a distance). Or the motion of the sun and stars.

And no- those videos aren't evidence. They are lies. Just go look at a sunset!

You are lying both to your self and others.

 

[DFT_Dave]

No, no, no, no, NO!

David, if the mountain was the only thing in the picture, you might have a point but it isn't. That lying conman who made the video shows the skyline of a city in the foreground with the mountain looming above it from multiple times as far away. Besides, it's a spotting scope. It might have as much as 10X magnification. It's not like he's using a telescope with a 1000mm focal length.

Further, why not just do the math? There's a building in the foreground that I think he says is a six story building. Get an approximate distance from his supposed location to that building and figure out what it's angular size would be from that distance. It doesn't have to be exact. In fact, assume it's further away than it is even likely to be. Then, using the moron's own numbers that he provided with his measurements in the video to calculate the apparent angular size of that mountain that is supposedly 20 times further away and see if you can make the number work. You won't be able too.

Or do the reverse. Assume that he's on a flat Earth and that the distance to the mountain is what he claims it to be. That would mean an angular size of the mountain of approximately 1°. Calculate from that, what the angular size of that building would have to be based on a 1° size of the mountain (again using the video's own graphs and numbers) and then calculate how many times closer to the camera that an object of that size would have to be.



As for the picture of the Moon, it's a composite photo. The shot of the Moon was taken separate from the shot of the mountain range and then the two were added together in Photoshop or some other post processing software. There's no way to get that shot with one click of the shutter because the nearly full Moon is much much brighter than the foreground. If it was taken with one shot, either the Moon would be way over exposed or the mountains would be just a black mass as the base of the photo. The point being that you don't know anything about photography.


You are stupid if you really think that. I wish I could believe that you're just making some sort of an argument but I know better.


And they aren't visible at all. The video is a hoax, David. I've 100% proven it. If you deny it, it's because you're stupid or a liar yourself.

Clete

The effect of using a telephoto lens.

--Dave