How many theories did you count up, like I asked if you could do? Is it four dozen, or only three dozen?
The earth is flat and we never went to the moon--Part II
- Thread starter DFT_Dave
- Start date
- Status
Did you mean theories as in scientific theories, the proper explanations that really are explanations, that only survive if they explain all the evidence and are contradicted by none; or did you mean conspiracy theories, where one phenomenon is explained badly and all other evidence is ignored?
Stuart
You know exactly what I mean. Count them all and let us know.
Stuu, you should know how many theories you believe in. Why don't you know what you believe? I do. Work on that, and instead of deflecting and avoiding a simple question, find out exactly what you actually believe.
Well, I know a handful, like gravity, the amazing everything from nothing big bang, we came fro apes evolution, deep space, dark matter, dark energy, massive black holes everywhere with one really really really really massive one, the great attractor. Relativity, special relativity, multi verses, the Theory of Everything, lol and that's just far starters. You feel good about all those? Because they're all necessary for your wild fantasies to work. You count all the other theories I missed. Not for me, but just so you know everything you believe in.
Well, that certainly helps me to deal with your speculation about it being four dozen or three dozen: I'd say neither, it's about a handful.
Well, you're asking for trouble straight away there, aren't you. Anyway, mass bends space-time. Theory 1.
I think you should start a new thread: The gravity conspiracy, and why mainstream science is suppressing Intelligent Falling Theory
Yes, the explanation for why the sum total of everything in the universe is actually exactly nothing, if you add all the positive matter/energy to the negative gravitational energy. Theory 2.
I'll have to deny you that one. It's just a fact that we are African great apes. You were so close to forcing me to concede Theory 3. But you will need to express it properly to achieve the concession. Them's the rules, methinks.
Didn't realise that one was controversial. But by all means, tell us about Shallow Space and its suppression by NASA.
Let's deal with those two together. They are place-fillers for the missing stuff in the universe, that cannot be detected in the same way that matter can. Whatever it is, it causes the apparent accelerating expansion of the universe, from sizes that are not permitted by Genesis, to dimensions that are more mind-boggling than talking snakes and donkeys. Not really a theory as such, although by all means tell us what Answers in Genesis thinks about it.
Yes, I'll buy that. An excellent idea, and thanks for mentioning it. Theory 3.
Do you mean General Relativity? That was Theory 1. You can't count that twice, sorry.
That's already been mentioned under Big Bang, given the constant nature of the speed of light in determining mass/energy equivalence. But all right, Theory 4.
Given that there is no evidence for multiverses, that has to remain an hypothesis.
Not dealing in hypotheticals, sorry.
Well, you got me on four theories there. But just to show I am not mean-spirited, here are some more for you:
Theory 5: The germ theory of disease
Theory 6: Plate tectonics
Theory 7: The Chromosome theory of heredity
Theory 8: The atomic theory
Given that not one of Theories 5-8 are mentioned in relation to Jesus, I expect you will be able to say nothing about them. So, to your denial of them...
Stuart
jaybird
New member
so following this logic one in north carolina should have no trouble seeing the rock of gibraltar, yet never in a million years will they be able to.
No, that's not the logical conclusion given the distance and that the atmospheric conditions over water prohibit a viewing distance that looking up into the sky does not.
--Dave
No, Dave, that is the logical conclusion. What you are suggesting is commonly known as a "rescue device."
Dave, how often have you looked out to the horizon at night and been able to see stars directly above the horizon.
If what you are saying is true, then we SHOULD NOT BE ABLE to see those stars. Yet we can. There is no atmospheric effect that affects our viewing distance in the way you are suggesting.
jaybird
New member
distance, i have no trouble seeing the moon at night. its 200 thousand miles away but the Atlantic ocean about 2-3 thousand, thats just to great a distance to see across?? lol umm ok.
Sun, moon, and stars are close and small and not far away on flat earth model, compared to globe earth model.
The heliocentric model presumes the stars are millions of miles away. I know that NASA and Star Trek say differently but sadly moon landings were no more real than Buck Rogers.
Atmospheric conditions are real and effect how far we can see at sea level.
When we see things at distances we are not supposed to because of a curved earth at the distances we can see with what cameras/telescopes we have then one can only conclude that the greater distances we cannot see at ground or sea level would give the same result. It would be illogical to presume a different result.
All experiments with lasers, and now microwave technology are also confirming a flat earth.
FLAT EARTH -- Line-of-Sight Microwave IMPOSSIBLE ON A GLOBE
--Dave
SO WHAT?
SURELY they're closer than things that are on the surface of the earth! ESPECIALLY BUILDINGS! Yet you can see the stars just fine, but the buildings you cannot see at all.
Which has nothing to do with what we're talking about.
THEN THEY SHOULD AFFECT THE STARS WHICH ARE BEYOND THE VISIBLE HORIZON, MEANING WE SHOULDN'T BE ABLE TO SEE THEM, BUT WE CAN!
THEN WHY CAN WE SEE STARS ABOVE THE HORIZON, BUT NOT SHIPS OR BUILDINGS?
Stop hiding behind videos, Dave.
Tell me why stars (which are farther away) are visible just above the horizon whereas ships and buildings (which are closer) are not, even though atmospheric effects should affect the stars as well as the ships and buildings.
Tell me why stars (which are farther away) are visible just above the horizon whereas ships and buildings (which are closer) are not, even though atmospheric effects should affect the stars as well as the ships and buildings.
A fine question with no answer from a flat earther!
A fine question with no answer from a flat earther!
He will never do it.
He isn't interested in being convinced. He isn't interested in proof. He isn't interested in the truth or anything else that resembles rational thought. He has lost his mind.
We live on earth and we should be determining the shape and nature of earth from earth.
That globe model continually appeals to the heavens makes one wonder how in the world does anyone have certain knowledge of earth by looking up there instead of down here???
Experiments by valid men of science; Michelson-Morley, Sagnac, and Airy proved ether and a stationary earth but their findings were declared invalid because the heliocentric universe would have been nullified. Rather than face the facts, the world of cosmologists accept Einstein's irrational space is time imagined universe. Rejecting that ether existed as a medium for light Einstein declares space a vacuum but then in contradiction to his vacuum he fills space with invisible gravity waves.
The 124 miles of direct line of sight microwave targeting is absolute proof of a flat earth from earth, and the people who performed the test were not even trying to prove it.
You don't even want to see evidence that contradicts a globe.
Don't watch the video, the fact is the 124 mile targeting of microwave happened.
--Dave
Last edited:
Above the horizon with perspective means not near the water, not even close.
Globe earth must entirely reject that perspective exists.
--Dave
The targeting of a microwave 124 miles away is not a proof of a flat earth?
Perpendicular ships and cityscapes in the distance are not a proof of a flat earth?
You can question my mind and my motives but you cannot question what we all see on earth from earth.
--Dave
Answer my question, Dave. Why can't we see ships or buildings beyond a certain point because of view distance, but we can see stars which, according to you, are a lot farther away than the ships/buildings, directly above the horizon?
- Status