Search results

Yet it still accurately reflects the relative sixes of the coontinents, something that a flat Earth map fails to do. It interesting to note that if you hold a light on a globe and spin the globe, the light we see on the globe is exactly the same as the sun shining in the Earth.

Did you have a globe in your classroom when you were a kid. Those globes are as close to perfect as we fave. They accurately represent the relative sizes of the continents.

Yes it is different but that doesn't mean NASA is wrong. It means that the Nikon laks the resolution of telescopes used by NASA and observatories. Your evidence is inconclusive.

All this video proves is that most people do not know how to read a map. The map in the video is worthless because it does not include the scale. That map has a scale that adjusts for the curvature of the Earth. Your video is somewhat accurate, but misleading in its presentation.

NASA and most observatories have far more powerful optics than the Nikon . The video you posted does nothing to explain what a star is and why we see its light.

NASA has much better cameras than Nikon P900 so NASA is far more likely to provide better photographic evidence.

Better than yours.

Pretty pictures but they do not support your assertion as they do nothing to explain what stars are and why we can see them. Yet another failure of your defense.

That is another unsupported assertion. What kind of lights are they?

They tell us something about how the world works. So you have to explain why the apple falls on a flat Earth. Once you explain that then you have to look at the implications that reason has on your model. That is how science is done.

Unsupported assertion. Can you prove that the stars are much closer? Can you explain what stars are, why we can see them?

You missed my point. You are attempting to present a case to get people to accept a flat earth model. But you don't answer questions people ask (why does the apple fall, Dave). You ignore anything that factually contradicts your position. You are not building a compelling case.

Your doing a very bad job.Unanswered questions, unsupported assertions, condescending attitude. You have not made one compelling argument for your "client". As a member of the jury watching your presentation I have no reason to find in favor of your client. Try harder.

We shall. And I don't disagree with all that you said here.

To answer your question you must first answer mine: why does the apple fall to the ground. Again, I am trying to understand your flat earth model. A basic question is why do Apple fall and why do people stay on the ground.

Some of what Einstein hypothesized is still hypothesis and other parts are now accepted theory. Sorry for the overstatement. If something cannot be tested that does not make it false nor untrue. Atoms were hypothesized long before they could be tested. Did that mean that they were not a valid...

Do tell Dave, why did the apple fall to the ground? That is where Newton started, or so the legend goes. He saw an apple fall from a tree to the ground and wondered why. Why does the apple fall Dave?

At its simplest, Newtonian gravity is based on what Newton could observe. Einstein gravity is based on the broader principals that Newton had no way of grasping when he was doing his work. Each has its specific applications. Yes, any two particles of matter mutually attract. But when we...

I must have missed his answers because I certainly didn't see anything that actually addressed those points. I don't think he told you the whole truth.

Ah, but there is difference. I can answer all the questions in a unified way. You cannot. Care to discuss gravity?