The earth is flat and we never went to the moon--Part II
- Thread starter DFT_Dave
- Start date
- Status
With the moon being in different places from one day to the next, well, I have seen video of someone on the moon?
The earth may be flat with a level. But there is a curve to it. There is a curve on the horizon. Curvature.
A globe. World. Earth.
There is earth and there is land.
Earth is dirt. Land is not something that everyone owns. As for a plane people land a plane. A flying aircraft. Or, a plane and a level go together. A flat surface. A person may or might want to create a plane.
The earth may be flat with a level. But there is a curve to it. There is a curve on the horizon. Curvature.
A globe. World. Earth.
There is earth and there is land.
Earth is dirt. Land is not something that everyone owns. As for a plane people land a plane. A flying aircraft. Or, a plane and a level go together. A flat surface. A person may or might want to create a plane.
1Mind1Spirit
Literal lunatic
Sluggard.
Level is the simplest of things to understand.
By it gravity is known to be bogus.
Wow. Is the best you can do when confronted by truth that doesn't match your opinioni?
Level is the simplest of things to understand. A bubble level is simplest to understand. The level of the oceans requires far more understanding than a bubble level.
By it gravity is known to be bogus. Post your evidence for this assertion. Explain why an apple falls to the ground when you drop it.
Sure, let's check Newton's 500 page attempt to explain it. Where he clearly says the equations are LIKE gravity, meaning the mathematics are simply poetry to explain the unprovable "theory". Along with the three dozen other theories required to make your favorite "planet" work. FE just needs the verifiable repeatable documented proofs we already have and what God clearly and plainly tells us in throughout scripture.
This means absolutely nothing. You have said nothing of any worth.
If you hold an apple out in front of you and open you hand, it falls to the ground. Why?
density weight and a SMALL amount of gravity.
What is density? What is a "small amount"?
You tell me, you're the gravity expert. Pretty sure you can type in density and get a proper definition.
Just for fun, lets see if we can scale down the size of the Earth a bit and figure out how much of it we can see with our eyes.
The average distance to the horizon is 3.1miles
If you were to spin in a circle, the area that you could see would be about 30.2 square miles. (pi*r^2 where r=3.1)
The radius of of the Earth is 3,959 miles.
The surface area of a spherical Earth is 3.087*10^15 sq miles. (4*pi*r^4 where r=3959)
The ratio of what you can actually see verses all that can be seen is 9.7796*10^-15. (0.00000000000097796%)
Those are hard numbers to grasp so lets scale this down to the size of a basketball.
The radius of a basketball is about 5" so the area of the basketball is 7853.98 square inches. (4*pi*r^4 where r=5)
Using the ratio calculated above, the equivalent area that a very tiny person standing on the basket ball could see would be 7.6809*10^-11 square inches.
Doing the math, that means that the distance to the horizon is 4.94459*10^-6 inches. That number doesn't mean much so lets convert it to something else.
There are 25,400,000 nano-meters per inch. So the distance to the horizon is 125.59 nano-meters. Still a very small number so lets see if we can put that in terms of something we are familiar with - a human hair.
Human hair averages between 80,000 and 100,000 nano-meters in diameter. If we use the 100,000 nano-meter hair the radius is 50,000 nano-meters.
On our basket ball, the distance to the horizon is 125.59 nano-meters so if we divide that by the diameter of the hair and express that as a percentage we get 0.25118%. That means that the distance to the horizon for a person standing on our basketball sized world is 1/4 of 1 percent of the radius of a human hair. That gives a viewing area of 49,5553 square nano-meters. The cross-sectional area of the human hair is 7,853,981,633.97 square nano-meters for comparison. (The area that our person on the basket ball can see is only 0.0000016% of the area of a human hair!!)
How reliable can our observations of the world as whole be given that we can only see about 0.00000000000097796% of that world at any one time? This is why we need science to help us understand. The scale of the world is so great that it is beyond the ability of our eyes to accurately see it from a mere 5' or so above the ground.
The average distance to the horizon is 3.1miles
If you were to spin in a circle, the area that you could see would be about 30.2 square miles. (pi*r^2 where r=3.1)
The radius of of the Earth is 3,959 miles.
The surface area of a spherical Earth is 3.087*10^15 sq miles. (4*pi*r^4 where r=3959)
The ratio of what you can actually see verses all that can be seen is 9.7796*10^-15. (0.00000000000097796%)
Those are hard numbers to grasp so lets scale this down to the size of a basketball.
The radius of a basketball is about 5" so the area of the basketball is 7853.98 square inches. (4*pi*r^4 where r=5)
Using the ratio calculated above, the equivalent area that a very tiny person standing on the basket ball could see would be 7.6809*10^-11 square inches.
Doing the math, that means that the distance to the horizon is 4.94459*10^-6 inches. That number doesn't mean much so lets convert it to something else.
There are 25,400,000 nano-meters per inch. So the distance to the horizon is 125.59 nano-meters. Still a very small number so lets see if we can put that in terms of something we are familiar with - a human hair.
Human hair averages between 80,000 and 100,000 nano-meters in diameter. If we use the 100,000 nano-meter hair the radius is 50,000 nano-meters.
On our basket ball, the distance to the horizon is 125.59 nano-meters so if we divide that by the diameter of the hair and express that as a percentage we get 0.25118%. That means that the distance to the horizon for a person standing on our basketball sized world is 1/4 of 1 percent of the radius of a human hair. That gives a viewing area of 49,5553 square nano-meters. The cross-sectional area of the human hair is 7,853,981,633.97 square nano-meters for comparison. (The area that our person on the basket ball can see is only 0.0000016% of the area of a human hair!!)
How reliable can our observations of the world as whole be given that we can only see about 0.00000000000097796% of that world at any one time? This is why we need science to help us understand. The scale of the world is so great that it is beyond the ability of our eyes to accurately see it from a mere 5' or so above the ground.
I need to know what definition you're using. I need to understand what you think it is and how it works.
Small is a relative term and means nothing by itself. Gravity is measured at 9.8m/s^2, 1g for short. Is that small? Well, the sun's gravity is is about 30 times stronger than the Earth so on Earth, I guess you could say gravity is a small amount. On the other hand, the gravity of the moon is about 0.16 g's so I guess the gravity of the Earth is a large amount compared to that.
This is why clearly defining terms is important.
Last edited:
In what universe is the any sort of a rebuttal?
Major Premise: There is no way for the objects in the sky to rotate clockwise in one hemisphere and counter-clockwise in the other if the Earth is flat.
Undisputed fact: The objects in the sky do rotate clockwise in one hemisphere and counter-clockwise in the other.
Conclusion: Therefore, the Earth is not flat.
They are always parallel. This has been responded to over and over again without response from you whatsoever except to repeat the asinine argument. And while there are arguments that contradict it, THERE ARE NO FACTS THAT DO SO! - NONE!
You want to know why I get so angry? THIS IS WHY DAVID!!!!!!!!
Are you intentionally wasting my time?
Are you intentionally seeing if you can drive me insane with this crap?
For the last time, those corpuscular rays are created when the sun casts shadows of the clouds toward you. The rays are completely parallel, AS I HAVE FLATLY PROVEN. The reason they appear to be diverging as they get closer is because the shadows are being casts toward you. The closer portion of the shadow only appears to be wider because it is closer to you, not because it is actually wider. It's called perspective. The rays widen as they approach for the exact same reason that parallel train tracks do. The reason they are called corpuscular rays is because of when they are typically observed (i.e. during twilight) when the Sun is relatively low in the sky and the shadows are being casts at a flatter angle toward the observer. If the rays are being thrown flat enough they can actually go right on past you, in which case, they begin to converge again as they proceed away from you. It is perspective, pure and simple.
This has been demonstrated with photographic evidence over and over and over and I or others have stated and restated that what I just said seemingly a thousand times and you ignore it. Why?
And I want an answer, David. I want to know why you ignore this stuff. I won't answer you again until I get a satisfactory response to both of my last two posts. You will either substantively rebut the argument (simply repeating it doesn't count) or you can waste someone else's time with this stupidity. I've had all the waste of time repetition I can take.
Clete
Eric Dubay: Star Trails Explained
Here is good explanation from the flat earth perspective on this. Please remember I'm not saying it's correct. I spend hours watching video from both perspectives on this.
--Dave
I'm compiling a list of what we observe and how it is explained from both flat and globe perspectives.
You, and others, have provided the globe perspective and I have researched and presented the flat earth perspective with some help from others as well.
I wanted this to be a debate and a comparison because there's more than one aspect to this subject. I have have enjoyed the process I wish you could have done the same.
If the sun is as large and as far away as the globe model says then you are correct.
If the sun is close and small then the flat earth model is correct.
That the rays have a perspective aspect to them works with both arguments but we see the rays spread in all directions that leads right to the sun not to a layer of clouds and then spread out. The rays favor the flat earth model but is not an ultimate proof.
--Dave
They do NOT favor any such thing! Where else would they lead too? Corpuscular rays are no more evidence of a flat earth than are rail road tracks or any other parallel lines that converge into the distance.
Did you catch that, Dave? Let me repeat it because its important...
Corpuscular rays are no more evidence of a flat earth than are railroad tracks or any other parallel lines that converge into the distance.
So, on your way to work, look down a long stretch of road and notice how the road you're driving on seems to converge into the distance and widen out as you approach with its maximum apparent width at your location and then it begins to converge into the distance again in your rear view mirror. If you don't consider that to be evidence of a flat earth then there is precisely zero reason why you should allow these flat earth morons to convince you with what they know to be a lie.
Clete
I'm not watching any more videos, David.
What I and others here have presented to you is not merely some good arguments, it is unassailable proof that the Earth cannot be flat.
Your unwillingness to directly respond to the simplest of arguments presented as a perfectly clear syllogism with a single major premise is proof enough for me that you have no answer and that you're doing something other than an honest investigation into the issue. I don't have any idea what your motives are and I frankly don't care. If you want to be a fool, I can't stop you.
Clete
The rays of the sun are not like railroad tracks.
We know railroad tracks are parallel because see that at our feet right in front of us.
The rays of the sun are not parallel because they merge at a distant point whereas railroad tracks do not merge in the distance.
The appearance of merging is not the same thing as actual merging. The rays of the sun actually merge into the sun and therefore cannot be said to be parallel.
The merging rays of the sun are direct evidence of a close sun and support the flat earth model.
--Dave
I can't make you or anyone else consider how the path of the sun would work on the flat earth model covered by a dome, but you can't debunk what you have not even looked at.
I'm no fool for investigating and trying to understand flat earth any more than the space time block universe or multiverse theory or any other cosmology. You talk as if I have committed the sin of studying and defending flat earth.
And yes, I don't have answers as yet for some of the questions asked or points made in favor of globe earth. You have not answered every question and responded to every point I have made for flat earth either. But thats ok with me.
I think this is an important issue and one that needs to be addressed. I surely don't accept all that is been said to be facts about the heliocentric model of the universe.
--Dave
- Status