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

[CherubRam]

The moon orbits the Earth once every 27.322 days. It also takes approximately 27 days for the moon to rotate once on its axis. As a result, the moon does not seem to be spinning but appears to observers from Earth to be keeping almost perfectly still. Scientists call this synchronous rotation.

Even a person without a telescope can see the Moon rotate in 27 days.

 

[CherubRam]

Mirrors on Moon: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lunar_Laser_Ranging_experiment

 

[CabinetMaker]

God did not have to tell us the earth was flat and motionless and sun, moon, and stars move over the earth because that's obvious to all people. That it was God who created everything must be revealed to us by God because we were not there to see it, obviously. We don't need a revelation for what is obvious.

That the earth is a globe that moves around a sun would be something God could have and would have told us since it's something that's not consistent with what we see and experience.

The argument you call "from silence" is merely the fact that flat earth works with Genesis and all of scripture and spinning globe does not. You can stretch scripture to make a case for the globe but that's not good Biblical exegesis.

Ancient written history is clear, up until Plato and Aristotle, the world believed in flat earth and Genesis is consistent with it.

--Dave

Ancient history does not make it true history. Ancients clearly believed in Zeus and Apollo and Aphrodite. By your logic, those gods are real because the ancients believed in them.

 

[Right Divider]

[MENTION=4980]DFT_Dave[/MENTION]

 

[DFT_Dave]

How Does The Horizon Work?

This video was suggested by Clete, and I want to comment on it.

At about :40 into the video the person in the video says, "despite the the ocean seeming flat, they actually curve themselves".

Then he says something that is entirely false, he moves his arm from from left to right and says when we look at the horizon it kinda goes like this, as he wants us to think we see a semicircle in front of us, which we absolutely do not see. The horizon is always straight and we never see a semicircle as he demonstrates with his arm movement. But notice that in his illustration he does not draw the horizon as if it were a semicircle he draws it straight and flat exactly as we see it.

Then he proceeds to explain that at 8 inches above the water we view a horizon that's one mile away and when we are 5.5 feet above the water in the exact same location the horizon is 3 miles away. He also says we are seeing the horizon at eye level.

With this particular example of a relatively short distance and low elevation he affirms that we see the horizon at eye level from 8 inches to 5.5 feet. This is a perfect example of how we see the world in perspective. The flat water in front of us rises up to our eye level even though it's really flat. This is not an illusion because it's not a contradiction to what is really there we are not imagining the waters existence.

Next we are told that at 5.5 feet above the water the horizon has risen and stays at eye level. Again, another affirmation that we see the world in perspective which predicts that this is what happens when we look across a flat plane of water or land. The oceans "seem" flat through the naked eye because they are flat.

The video presentation does not proven the curvature of the earth, it merely declared it to be a curved earth at the beginning. The video actually demonstrates how we see the world bases on it being a flat plane viewed through the perspective of how our eye's work and how we see the world.

--Dave

 

[DFT_Dave]

Ancient history does not make it true history. Ancients clearly believed in Zeus and Apollo and Aphrodite. By your logic, those gods are real because the ancients believed in them.

The ancient world believed in supernatural beings that interacted with the world, so does Genesis.

Genesis 6:1 When men began to multiply on the face of the ground, and daughters were born to them, 2 the sons of God saw that the daughters of men were fair; and they took to wife such of them as they chose. 3 Then the Lord said, “My spirit shall not abide in man for ever, for he is flesh, but his days shall be a hundred and twenty years.” 4 The Nephilim were on the earth in those days, and also afterward, when the sons of God came in to the daughters of men, and they bore children to them. These were the mighty men that were of old, the men of renown.

The stories that differ from the Biblical account would certainly have be drawn from supernatural interaction that we believe is the accurate account of what happened before the flood.

--Dave

 

[CabinetMaker]

The ancient world believed in supernatural beings that interacted with the world, so does Genesis.

Genesis 6:1 When men began to multiply on the face of the ground, and daughters were born to them, 2 the sons of God saw that the daughters of men were fair; and they took to wife such of them as they chose. 3 Then the Lord said, “My spirit shall not abide in man for ever, for he is flesh, but his days shall be a hundred and twenty years.” 4 The Nephilim were on the earth in those days, and also afterward, when the sons of God came in to the daughters of men, and they bore children to them. These were the mighty men that were of old, the men of renown.

The stories that differ from the Biblical account would certainly have be drawn from supernatural interaction that we believe is the accurate account of what happened before the flood.

--Dave

Non responsive. Please answer the question.

 

[JudgeRightly]

A photo from NASA's "image of the day".

Soaring into Sunrise https://www.nasa.gov/multimedia/imagegallery/iotd.html

 

[Nathon Detroit]

A photo from NASA's "image of the day".

Soaring into Sunrise https://www.nasa.gov/multimedia/imagegallery/iotd.html

Notice that this is not taken with a fish-eye lens. If it were.... the solar panels would be distorted.

 

[Right Divider]

Notice that this is not taken with a fish-eye lens. If it were.... the solar panels would be distorted.

Indeed, that is immediately noticeable.

 

[Clete]

God did not have to tell us the earth was flat and motionless and sun, moon, and stars move over the earth because that's obvious to all people. That it was God who created everything must be revealed to us by God because we were not there to see it, obviously. We don't need a revelation for what is obvious.

Irrelevant. Unresponsive.

And it would be an argument from silence if it were relevant anyway.

That the earth is a globe that moves around a sun would be something God could have and would have told us since it's something that's not consistent with what we see and experience.

We know that He did not but you statement that he would have is conjecture and frankly stupid.

You are arguing that the bible is false.

THE WORLD IS NOT FLAT!

This is not a mere claim. I have proven that the Earth cannot be flat.

The argument you call "from silence" is merely the fact that flat earth works with Genesis and all of scripture and spinning globe does not.

Saying it doesn't make it so, David.

You ought to be ashamed of yourself. You know better than this. You'd never settle for such laziness in regards to your Open Theism.

You can stretch scripture to make a case for the globe but that's not good Biblical exegesis.

That's my line.

Ancient written history is clear, up until Plato and Aristotle, the world believed in flat earth and Genesis is consistent with it.

--Dave

Refuted already.

Your repeating it does not count as a rejoinder.



Okay, David that's it. This post was piss poor and bebieth me. You've now lost your privilege. I'm not wasting any more time discussing this with you.

Next topic.

Clete

 

[Yorzhik]

Even on a globe the moon and sun are closer to the viewer over head and smaller at the horizon. The only real question is by how much.

--Dave

Sure. Will you agree in the FE model, that the moon (and sun) will continually get smaller from being directly overhead, to a point where it is so small we cannot see it at or near the horizon?

 

[Right Divider]

Sure. Will you agree in the FE model, that the moon (and sun) will continually get smaller from being directly overhead, to a point where it is so small we cannot see it at or near the horizon?

:french:
Depends on the day of the week.

 

[Clete]

Proof That the Earth Cannot Be Flat


The last few days I've been playing around with some math and thought I'd post some of it here to see if it might move some of the flat earthers maybe an inch or two back toward reality...

Let's put some of the sunset images we've taken to good use and see if what was observed can be made to fit with the FET (Flat Earth Theory).

FET claims the Sun is approximately 3000 miles above the Earth and they do not dispute well established distances between points on the surface of the Earth. I'm going to be using these two presuppositions in my calculations and you'll want to refer to the following diagram to keep track of the variables...

View attachment 26417

Side a is the distance from the ground to the Sun (3000 mi).
Side b is the distance from an observer to a point on the Earth where it is high noon (the point at which the Sun is at it's highest point in the sky).
Side c (a.k.a. the hypotenuse) is the distance from the observer to the Sun itself.
Angle A is the height of the Sun above the horizon in degrees as seen from the observer.
Angle C is always 90°
Angle B is not relevant to this discussion.

Note from the start that if the Earth is flat and the Sun is 3000 miles up (or any number of miles up for that matter) that angle A can never ever get to 0°. The Sun would never set because no matter how long you make side b of that triangle, angle A is always a positive number. The only way for the Sun to set on a flat Earth is if the Sun dipped below the plane of the flat Earth. If that were to happen, then it would be night everywhere on Earth at once, which we know does not happen. It's always high noon somewhere on the Earth.

That, by itself, ought to be enough to convince anyone that the Earth cannot be flat but there more. Let's take a look at some of these photos we took last week...

So, since we're assuming a flat Earth, I'm going to focus on just a couple of photos that both show the position of the Sun in degrees above the horizon. I should point out that you don't have to trust the numbers generated by the app on the phones used to take these photos. The numbers can be confirmed by anyone by simply fashioning a simple sextant from a cheap plastic protractor.

I'll use these two photos...

View attachment 26418 View attachment 26419

On the left is the Sun's position as seen from my house on May 8th, 2018 at 01:00 UCT (8:00:01pm central time)
On the right is the Sun's position as seen from Knight's house on the same day just 38 seconds later (7:00:39pm mountain time).

The position of the Sun at my house is just .1° above the horizon while at Knight's it was 10.2° (This information is displayed just to the right of the Sun position indicator. It shows the Sun's heading and then it's elevation in degrees. On Knight's photo it's sort of hidden a little by the NW direction indicator but it reads "Sun 284.0 W 10.2°" The 10.2 is the elevation above the horizon in degrees)

So, let's look at Knight's first...

How far West would you have to go from Knight's house (where sides b and c meet) to get to a place on a flat Earth where it was high noon (where sides a and b meet)?

It turns out that when dealing with right triangles if you have the length of any one side and either angle A or B, you can know everything about the whole triangle!
The math is boring and so I'm not going to show all that. Just go HERE and plug in the numbers for side b (3000) and angle A (10.2).
You get the following results...

Someone 16,700 miles (length of side b) to his west would see the Sun at it's highest point in the sky for that day.

There is no point on Earth 16,700 miles from Denver Colorado.


Still not convinced? Well just wait till you plug in the numbers from my house!


At my house the Sun was only .1 degrees above the horizon. So plugging in the numbers from my house (side b = 3000 and angle A = .1) we get the following results...

You have to go 1,720,000 miles to my West to find high noon beneath a Sun that was 3000 miles above the surface of a flat Earth.

That's One MILLION seven hundred twenty THOUSAND miles!
(That's more that 7 times the real distance to the Moon!)

Now seriously folks! What more proof could you possibly need? How are you going to possibly refute this?

Are you going to deny that the Sun is about 10° further above the horizon in Denver than it is in Houston? Even if you did that, the distance to noon calculations aren't dependent on that!

Are you going to challenge the validity of the Pythagorean Theorem?

It seems that's your only option! It's either refute the Pythagorean Theorem or you must reject the notion that the Earth is flat based on the mere fact that the Sun gets to within .1° of the horizon at one point on the Earth while at the same time being directly over head at another.

-----------------------------------------------------------------

So let's do some more math!

This time let's assume that the distances on Earth as reported by Google Earth are accurate but that the Earth is flat.

To make the numbers easy, lets assume a location on the equator on an equinox.

And we'll use the same diagram as before...

View attachment 26421

When it is Noon (90° over head (angle C) in one place it is Sunset or Sunrise 6225.25 miles away (side b).
For our Sunset angle (angle A) we'll stick with .1° because any angle below that produces numbers that are even more embarrassing for the FET.

So, plugging in the numbers HERE, we get the following results....

The Sun would have to be a mere 10.865122 miles above the surface of a flat Earth.

If you use a smaller number for angle a, then the Sun has to be closer and closer to the surface. An angle of .01 would require the Sun to be just over one mile above the surface of the Earth.


Clete :Clete:

 

[Yorzhik]

Dude... you 'da man!

Proof That the Earth Cannot Be Flat


The last few days I've been playing around with some math and thought I'd post some of it here to see if it might move some of the flat earthers maybe an inch or two back toward reality...

Let's put some of the sunset images we've taken to good use and see if what was observed can be made to fit with the FET (Flat Earth Theory).

FET claims the Sun is approximately 3000 miles above the Earth and they do not dispute well established distances between points on the surface of the Earth. I'm going to be using these two presuppositions in my calculations and you'll want to refer to the following diagram to keep track of the variables...

View attachment 26417

Side a is the distance from the ground to the Sun (3000 mi).
Side b is the distance from an observer to a point on the Earth where it is high noon (the point at which the Sun is at it's highest point in the sky).
Side c (a.k.a. the hypotenuse) is the distance from the observer to the Sun itself.
Angle A is the height of the Sun above the horizon in degrees as seen from the observer.
Angle C is always 90°
Angle B is not relevant to this discussion.

Note from the start that if the Earth is flat and the Sun is 3000 miles up (or any number of miles up for that matter) that angle A can never ever get to 0°. The Sun would never set because no matter how long you make side b of that triangle, angle A is always a positive number. The only way for the Sun to set on a flat Earth is if the Sun dipped below the plane of the flat Earth. If that were to happen, then it would be night everywhere on Earth at once, which we know does not happen. It's always high noon somewhere on the Earth.

That, by itself, ought to be enough to convince anyone that the Earth cannot be flat but there more. Let's take a look at some of these photos we took last week...

So, since we're assuming a flat Earth, I'm going to focus on just a couple of photos that both show the position of the Sun in degrees above the horizon. I should point out that you don't have to trust the numbers generated by the app on the phones used to take these photos. The numbers can be confirmed by anyone by simply fashioning a simple sextant from a cheap plastic protractor.

I'll use these two photos...

View attachment 26418 View attachment 26419

On the left is the Sun's position as seen from my house on May 8th, 2018 at 01:00 UCT (8:00:01pm central time)
On the right is the Sun's position as seen from Knight's house on the same day just 38 seconds later (7:00:39pm mountain time).

The position of the Sun at my house is just .1° above the horizon while at Knight's it was 10.2° (This information is displayed just to the right of the Sun position indicator. It shows the Sun's heading and then it's elevation in degrees. On Knight's photo it's sort of hidden a little by the NW direction indicator but it reads "Sun 284.0 W 10.2°" The 10.2 is the elevation above the horizon in degrees)

So, let's look at Knight's first...

How far West would you have to go from Knight's house (where sides b and c meet) to get to a place on a flat Earth where it was high noon (where sides a and b meet)?

It turns out that when dealing with right triangles if you have the length of any one side and either angle A or B, you can know everything about the whole triangle!
The math is boring and so I'm not going to show all that. Just go HERE and plug in the numbers for side b (3000) and angle A (10.2).
You get the following results...

Someone 16,700 miles (length of side b) to his west would see the Sun at it's highest point in the sky for that day.

There is no point on Earth 16,700 miles from Denver Colorado.


Still not convinced? Well just wait till you plug in the numbers from my house!


At my house the Sun was only .1 degrees above the horizon. So plugging in the numbers from my house (side b = 3000 and angle A = .1) we get the following results...

You have to go 1,720,000 miles to my West to find high noon beneath a Sun that was 3000 miles above the surface of a flat Earth.

That's One MILLION seven hundred twenty THOUSAND miles!
(That's more that 7 times the real distance to the Moon!)

Now seriously folks! What more proof could you possibly need? How are you going to possibly refute this?

Are you going to deny that the Sun is about 10° further above the horizon in Denver than it is in Houston? Even if you did that, the distance to noon calculations aren't dependent on that!

Are you going to challenge the validity of the Pythagorean Theorem?

It seems that's your only option! It's either refute the Pythagorean Theorem or you must reject the notion that the Earth is flat based on the mere fact that the Sun gets to within .1° of the horizon at one point on the Earth while at the same time being directly over head at another.

-----------------------------------------------------------------

So let's do some more math!

This time let's assume that the distances on Earth as reported by Google Earth are accurate but that the Earth is flat.

To make the numbers easy, lets assume a location on the equator on an equinox.

And we'll use the same diagram as before...

View attachment 26421

When it is Noon (90° over head (angle C) in one place it is Sunset or Sunrise 6225.25 miles away (side b).
For our Sunset angle (angle A) we'll stick with .1° because any angle below that produces numbers that are even more embarrassing for the FET.

So, plugging in the numbers HERE, we get the following results....

The Sun would have to be a mere 10.865122 miles above the surface of a flat Earth.

If you use a smaller number for angle a, then the Sun has to be closer and closer to the surface. An angle of .01 would require the Sun to be just over one mile above the surface of the Earth.


Clete :Clete:

 

[DFT_Dave]

Irrelevant. Unresponsive.

And it would be an argument from silence if it were relevant anyway.

We know that He did not but you statement that he would have is conjecture and frankly stupid.

You are arguing that the bible is false.

THE WORLD IS NOT FLAT!

This is not a mere claim. I have proven that the Earth cannot be flat.

Saying it doesn't make it so, David.

You ought to be ashamed of yourself. You know better than this. You'd never settle for such laziness in regards to your Open Theism.

That's my line.

Refuted already.

Your repeating it does not count as a rejoinder.

Okay, David that's it. This post was piss poor and bebieth me. You've now lost your privilege. I'm not wasting any more time discussing this with you.

Next topic.

Clete

How Does The Horizon Work?

Did you see my response to the video you suggested I watch? Post #3025

You did not refute that the Ancient world, up until Plato and Aristotle, believed in flat earth and Genesis is consistent with it.

That's history and it's not debatable.

A flat motionless earth is consistent with a literal interpretation of the Bible.

That our senses tell us the earth is flat and motionless is obvious.

The question today is do we trust NASA, a secret primarily military agency, who 50 years ago supposedly sent men to the moon with obsolete technology--space craft, landing craft, and suits that likely would not protect astronauts from the intense radiation and heat in the vacuum of outer space. Apparently not even Buzz Aldrin recently could explain to a young girl why we haven't gone back to the moon. If we have not gone back it's because we never went there in the first place.

--Dave

 

[DFT_Dave]

Clete :Clete:

I never said the earth was 3,000 miles away, and I have not seen that that is the standard for flat earth.

Everything we see in the sky above us will move downward to the horizon in perspective, the way we see everything regardless of how high it is.

Perspective is based on plane/flat geometry that calculates parallel planes in perspective will meet at a distant horizon at our eye level we cannot see beyond. That's reality not just art.

The sun would have to be at a distance that complies with this reality.

--Dave

 

[JudgeRightly]

I never said the earth was 3,000 miles away, and I have not seen that that is the standard for flat earth.

Everything we see in the sky above us will move downward to the horizon in perspective, the way we see everything regardless of how high it is.

Perspective is based on plane/flat geometry that calculates parallel planes in perspective will meet at a distant horizon at our eye level we cannot see beyond. That's reality not just art.

The sun would have to be at a distance that complies with this reality.

--Dave

Then how far away is it, Dave?

That's something YOU need to provide.

How far away, how big, and many other questions which YOU REFUSE TO ANSWER!

Clete just showed you ABSOLUTE PROOF that the earth couldn't be flat, and you COMPLETELY IGNORED IT!!!

 

[JudgeRightly]

I never said the earth was 3,000 miles away, and I have not seen that that is the standard for flat earth.

Everything we see in the sky above us will move downward to the horizon in perspective, the way we see everything regardless of how high it is.

Perspective is based on plane/flat geometry that calculates parallel planes in perspective will meet at a distant horizon at our eye level we cannot see beyond. That's reality not just art.

The sun would have to be at a distance that complies with this reality.

--Dave

What irks me is that the entire time we've used 3000 miles for the flat earth model, NOT ONCE have you said that it was incorrect or unreliable.

Why now? Why all of a sudden do you imply that "3000 miles" is not the typical number used for the flat earth model?

https://theologyonline.com/showthread.php?p=5184070

PJ seemed to think it was, and that the sun was 32 miles in diameter.

Clete has now shown you that NEITHER of those numbers work for the model, and that to get the results we see in reality, the numbers would be so extreme as to be illogical at best.

So Dave, Here's your chance:

Provide us with the size and distance of the sun from the earth. Even if there isn't a standard one that your average flat earther uses. Just throw us some numbers that you think would solve the perspective issue.

 

[DFT_Dave]

A perfect example of perspective from weather balloon.

A fish eye lens is being used but despite the curvature that is not really there we see how both sun and jet come out of the horizon.

The jet rises as it gets closer and moves in a downward direction as it moves away from the viewer/camera. Notice that the trail of the jet is straight and not curves as if going over a curved earth. This indicates a jet flying parallel to a flat earth.

The jet is moving and the earth is perfectly still. The sun in all high altitude video shows the sun is moving and not the earth, but we are supposed to believe it's the earth that is moving even though we have visual evidence to the contrary.

Notice the much brighter / hot spot seen in the clouds right under the sun. This would be indicative of a close sun not one millions or thousands of miles away.

--Dave