Actually, they are, because (even though it's extremely thin) it really does extend that far.
https://phys.org/news/2019-02-earth-atmosphere-moon.html
Which, is just more evidence for the Hydroplate theory.
The earth is flat and we never went to the moon--Part II
- Thread starter DFT_Dave
- Start date
- Status
Actually, they are, because (even though it's extremely thin) it really does extend that far.
https://phys.org/news/2019-02-earth-atmosphere-moon.html
Which, is just more evidence for the Hydroplate theory.
Right Divider
Body part
OK thanks... but irrelevant to the flat earth debate.
To a scientist, one weird misconception about reality, is like another weird misconception about reality.
Last edited:
Actually, I want to correct myself.
Was thinking about it just now, and if the atmosphere extending out past the moon is evidence for the hydroplate theory (which is a model of both the creation of the universe as described in the Bible, AND a model of the Biblical flood of Noah, then it isn't just not related to the flat earth debate, it (the atmosphere) is evidence that the earth is not flat at all.
Why?
If the Hydroplate Theory is correct (and the link above is evidence of that), then the earth cannot be flat, because the Hydroplate Theory is based on a round earth, and explains why our planet and moon are both ringing like bells when, according to secular scientists, they should have quieted down by now, and explains the deadly bullets hurtling through space that occasionally come back to their planet of origin.
So, no, the atmosphere extending out oast the moon really is related to the flat earth debate. I will agree that it isn't related to the current discussion, but let's not be fearful of evidence that helps our position, which is that the earth is round.
Right Divider
Body part
That's cool.... but I'd like to focus on just a few of the things that singularly disprove a flat earth (perhaps I'll start separate threads for them).
Those of the flat earth view like to avoid those things that singularly (i.e., each on its own) falsify their model and instead jump around and around.
This I will agree with. :thumb:
Something tells me that such threads won't live as long as this one has! :chuckle:
Right Divider
Body part
:french: I totally agree, but that's part of the problem. This thread became too broad and lacked focus, especially with DFT_Dave constantly fluttering around and redundantly repeating silly stuff over and over.
In doing some research into Sir Isaac Newton and his stance on creation I ran across the article in the following link on Newton's position about an immovable, like the flat earthers position, earth. He called it an abuse of scripture to take that position. Don't know if anyone else will find it interesting, but I certainly did.
http://www.newtonproject.ox.ac.uk/view/texts/normalized/THEM00291
http://www.newtonproject.ox.ac.uk/view/texts/normalized/THEM00291
Me too.
You too.
How can they not be valid?
They are taking pictures at high altitudes and no curvature shows.
On the ground they are using a high zoom camera and can see things that should be hid if there is a curvature.
You used a map that was a hypothesis.
Cities remain the same distance apart no matter if the earth is flat or globe.
Says who?
In both views it is going behind something.
Globe says behind the earth.
Flat says behind a window of heaven.
I'm claiming that cities are the same distance apart and do not move about making them farther apart in one model while not the other because you are basing your distance on a map that is a hypothesis.
I've seen several different models used as a hypothesis.
The plane is not sitting on the surface of the earth.
It's flying above in a circle.
Goes up and flies in a small circle way above Dallas.
Right Divider
Body part
Yes, we are.
I used a flat earth map. If you have a better one, please produce it so that we can all have a look.
On the flat earth map, the distance between Sydney and Santiago is TWICE as far as the distance between LA and Hong Kong!
Why are the flight times roughly the SAME? How is that possible?
Where do you find that information? What in the world is "a window of heaven".... never heard of this explanation.
Flat earther's claim that the sun circles the earth at an altitude of ~3000 miles. So the LOWEST point away from the most distant observer on the surface of earth still leaves the sun at an angle of ~9 degrees ABOVE the horizon.
View attachment 26871
If you have some other scientific evidence, please produce it and we can all have a look.
Right Divider
Body part
If you have a better flat earth map, please show us.
The plane is most definitely sitting on the surface of the earth until it takes off. Therefore, it has MOMENTUM that does not just suddenly disappear when it takes off.
These laws of physics are well understood and verified: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Newton's_laws_of_motion
Flat earther's have a major problem with their theory of the sun. They have it illuminating only a small part of the earth at a time. Take a bare lightbulb and hold it up and then look at how the light spreads out from the bulb. The light goes in all directions at the same time meaning the sun, at 3000 mile away from earth would illuminate the entire earth at all times. You could not get away from the sunlight. The only way to get a light beam, such as would be necessary for the sun to illuminate only part of the earth at a time, is to focus the light with a mechanical device. I've never yet seen a flat earther address this problem.
Let's say they make the argument that the sun is flat. That also has problems for the light will still spread indiscriminately once it leaves the surface for light spreads in all directions from all light points of the light source other than where it is physically blocked. This is easily demonstrated by the light from a welder welding a piece of metal. The only direction the light from that source doesn't travel is through the metal. Other than that it goes in all directions.
Right Divider
Body part
Would you be willing to find a map of the flat earth that you would deem acceptable and then share it here?
This is simply false, and whoever told you that was an idiot who has never tried to make a sphere out of paper without crumpling it up.
Experiment:
Take an orange, use a permanent marker to mark two points on either side of the bottom of the orange, measure the shortest distance between those two points, and write it down on a piece of paper. Then peel the orange, making sure to divide it between the two dots, keeping the entire peel intact, and lay it flat on a surface. Then measure the distance between the two dots, and write it down. Compare. The second measurement will be longer than the first measurement from when the peel was on the orange. (don't forget to enjoy the orange once peeled
)You can do the same thing with a baseball. Mark two points on opposite ends on one of the pieces of leather, measure the shortest distance you can between the two points, then cut the stitching apart, and lay out the piece with the dots on a flat surface, and measure the distance between the dots again.
The distances will be completely different.
So does it go behind a window for everyone at the same time?
Or just for each individual person?
:mock:
That video describes a completely separate problem. The net effect of the problem I see is that there can only be daytime on a flat earth. You can demonstrate this for yourself by using a round table, turning out the lights, and then using a flashlight with an adjustable beam where it can be focused in a tight beam or have the light greatly diffused. Hold the flashlight above the table with a focused beam and move it around. There will be areas of light and shadow on the table. Now take a bare light bulb and power it up over the table. The entire table will be bathed in light no matter where over the table you move it. This will happen with a flat light source too for the light will flow in all directions but behind the surface of it, not in a focused beam.
The same thing would happen on a flat earth just because of the omni-directional flow of light from a light source that has not been provided with a mechanical deflector of some type to focus the light.
[MENTION=3698]Tambora[/MENTION],
If one could prove that the Earth could not possibly be flat and do so in a way that you could verify for yourself, would that be sufficient to persuade you that the Earth is not flat and that the bible does not teach that the Earth is flat?
If one could prove that the Earth could not possibly be flat and do so in a way that you could verify for yourself, would that be sufficient to persuade you that the Earth is not flat and that the bible does not teach that the Earth is flat?
Right Divider
Body part
Yes, flat earther's claim that the sun shine down like a flashlight. But that video shows what we actually observe.
What we observe fits just fine with a globe but requires some strange explanation on the "flat earth".
- Status