genuineoriginal
New member
The sun, moon, stars and planets do not move together in unison and at the same apparent rate of speed.
Otherwise, we could not make an orrery.
The earth is flat and we never went to the moon--Part II
- Thread starter DFT_Dave
- Start date
- Status
The sun, moon, stars and planets do not move together in unison and at the same apparent rate of speed.
Otherwise, we could not make an orrery.
You're waiting for an argument that explains a phenomenon that does not exist.
The reason they are called planets in the first place is precisely because they do not move in unison with the stars.
The reason you go outside in the evening during the summer and see the constellations of Scorpio and Sagittarius and have to wait till winter to see Orion and Taurus in similar positions relative to the Sun is precisely because the Sun does not move in unison with the stars.
The reason the Moon will set shortly after the Sun tonight (8/14/2018) instead of shortly before the Sun just five days ago is precisely because the Moon does not move unison with the Sun or the Stars.
Go out this evening (8/14/2018) just after sunset, as soon as it is even sort of dark, and you'll see a sliver of a crescent Moon not far from Venus.
Then in two days, on 8/16/2018, go outside, at about the same time you went outside the first time. This time, the Moon will be much closer to Jupiter but still between Jupiter and Venus.
Then the very next night, on 8/17/2018, go outside again and the Moon will be on the opposite side of Jupiter relative to Venus.
On the night of 8/20/2018 the Moon will "pass by" Saturn. Go outside the evening of the 20th and look almost straight South and you'll see the Moon to the right of Saturn. The next night it will be on Saturn's left.
Then you can watch the Moon do the same "pass by" of Mars on the nights of the 23rd and 24th.
Okay David, there's at least five separate predictions that I've made in advance that start with tonight's sky.
Go prove me wrong. I dare you.
Clete
I have a prediction: another irrelevant and absurd video is headed your way.
Plus 20k more in the original thread. No idea how many others on other threads.
The arguments I make are clearly to the subject of my thread, flat earth has valid arguments. Flat earth is what we see and experience on earth, telephoto and time-lapse video are confirming it. Ignoring the video's and arguing the case for the globe misses the point of the thread.
Seem's we've been told what to believe about the heliocentric universe despite that it contradicts what we see and experience. Seem's we have to believe in the math that heliocentrists have created instead of what we can know by basic laws of physics.
Here's an example of the fallacy in an argument based on basic physics for globe earth. Water seeks it's own level as it fills whatever is below it's level. We are asked to believe that water filling whatever is below it's level and conforming to it is the same thing as water conforming to curvature of a globe. But the surface of water is not the same thing as below surface.
If the sun, moon, stars and planets were vast distances from us and from each other they would appear to us to move at different speeds across the sky. But that's not what we see.
If the sun is small and close to the flat earth then all that Eratosthenes did was to confirm it. Shadows at greater distance to the sun would obviously be longer than shadows closer to it. On a flat earth with a small low sun the sun would always be 90 degrees directly above it. But that angle gradually reduces to 0 degrees from every viewer as it moves away and eventually out of view.
And God said, “Let there be lights in the expanse of the heavens to separate the day from the night. And let them be for signs and for seasons, and for days and years, 15 and let them be lights in the expanse of the heavens to give light upon the earth.” And it was so. 16 And God made the two great lights—the greater light to rule the day and the lesser light to rule the night—and the stars.--Genesis 1:14-16
The sun, moon, and stars are "lights", not something else, not other earths or something else like it just without an atmosphere.
--Dave
Actually, this is precisely what we do see.
There is a clear obvious unison of movement in "speed" across the sky that does not conform to a universe of heavenly bodies that have "vast" distances from each other.
What you are arguing has nothing to with what I have said.
My argument is not that they are all at the exact same distance nor that there are no differences in the path they take.
The sun, moon, stars and planets move in a "unison of speed" that contradicts "vast" distances between them. This argument is qualified to "speed" and "vast distances", so you argument does not answer that clear observation.
--Dave
"Proof by repeated assertion" fallacy.
There is noticable difference in the speed of objects in the sky, Dave. Do what Clete said, and you'll see it for yourself.
Good point.
This is what we see. The moon would not travel at the same speed or path of stars if it circled the earth faster than the rotation of the earth. The only way moon and stars can be seen at a relative same speed and path would be if they were all close to each other and moving together over a flat earth.
--Dave
If everything is moving at the same speed, then what Clete said here
should be wrong.
Go out and do what he says, and if he's right, then your premise, that everything is moving at the same speed, is wrong.
It's simple observation. Yet I predict that you will refuse to do it.
Saying it doesn't make it so.
Of course it does. It just the differences in apparent speed aren't as big as you want them to be.
If this were so, I could not make the predictions that I've made.
The software I used to get the information is all based on a globe Moon orbiting a globe Earth around a globe Sun with several globe planets orbiting it.
I can predict there positions in the sky very precisely for as far into the future as you care to name. A feat that is utterly impossible for a flat-Earther.
Yes, it does David.
You're stupid and utterly ignorant. A complete waste of my time. Anyone else would be on my ignore list. The reasons to keep you off if it are dwindling.
Clete
Yes, they prove the point made. They are absurd and irrelevant to you because they don't show us a heliocentric universe.
--Dave
This is the point and you are ignoring it.
The moon would not travel at the same speed or path of stars if it circled the earth faster than the rotation of the earth. The only way moon and stars can be seen at a relative same speed and path would be if they were all close to each other and moving together over a flat earth.
I repeat the moon would not be moving at virtually the same speed and path as stars millions and light years away from it and us.
--Dave
Right Divider
Body part
:rotfl:
Dave, did you ever look into this? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stellar_parallax
Your FE "model" has a LOT of things to explain that you cannot explain.
- Status