Search results

I'm pretty sure he's retired now. I'm still waiting on a response to the Flood argument I presented.

Sorry, dave, but that box is, in fact, moving. The point I'm trying to make is that the point doesn't have to be immobile for it to be a reference point. Please answer my questions now: You're fixating on the earth, Dave. Forget the earth for a moment. Let's say you have a cardboard box...

Nope, sorry dave. The box is on a rocket ship flying through empty space. Care to actually answer the question this time, instead of dodging the question?

You're fixating on the earth, Dave. Forget the earth for a moment. Let's say you have a cardboard box, with two ants on top of it, and you somehow are able to control them, so you have them start in the center of the box, and have one go one direction, and the other ant go the opposite...

Incorrect. You have a reference point that, relative to itself, is not moving. You don't need the ground to measure distance, just a way to measure distance. SURE YOU DO! you have one car as your reference point, and the other car moving at 120 mph away from it. The ground has nothing to do...

Nope.

Sure it does. Relative to the reference point, the reference point is not moving, and everything else is. Relative to a car traveling at 60 mph, the car next to it going in the same direction is not moving at all, while the earth moves under both vehicle's wheels.

No, not that they're not moving. Just that they aren't moving relative to the other objects.

Dave, it's the same thing. The only difference is that the reference point is the other car, not the earth.

Stay on topic.

Nice bait and switch attempt, Dave. If they both travel in the opposite direction from the other, at 60 miles per hour, after one hour, they will be 120 miles away from each other, yet only 60 miles from their starting point. You, Dave, are the one saying that that doesn't make sense, when it...

The discussion was on whether the earth is FLAT, not if it's round. Clete proved that the earth was NOT FLAT.

Dime a dozen, it seems.

You would have a point, if it weren't for the fact, yes, FACT, that Clete HAS proven his position to be true. The threads are still there for everyone to read. That you won't shows you're not willing concede that Clete can and has backed up his claim that his position is true, and that the flat...

Because it's unnecessary. Perhaps you weren't aware of this, but this thread is PART 2 of the discussion. The original thread has over 5,000 posts. The difference is... Clete has every right to be angry, and has, in fact, proved the flat earth position to be wrong. You want to know what it...

If you are not in this thread to discuss the topic of the thread, please do not post here. This thread is about the flat earth position, et al. If you continue to try to derail the thread, I will remove you from it.

This just came across my Reddit feed. Should help anyone to visualize the area on the earth illuminated by the sun as the year progresses... https://v.redd.it/krzmtoosdmr21 (Find it here: https://www.reddit.com/r/dataisbeautiful/comments/bbyp3t/angle_of_sun_and_daylight_as_year_progresses/)

Do you even know what the Pythagorean theorem is? It has nothing to do with the sky. Mathematics, for the most part, IS etched in stone. We use math to calculate how far away objects here on earth, and we do the exact same thing for things in space. The burden of proof is on YOU to show that...

We do know, because of the Pythagorean theorem. As Clete said earlier, if you want to prove that the objects in the night sky are not as far away as are claimed to be, then you need to refute/disprove large portions of the foundations of mathematics. But you won't, because you can't, because...

Doesn't work if the stars are light-years to billions of light-years away. And we know that space is big enough for that to be true. The furthest stars would be moving at millions of times the speed of light if that were so to be able to get same amount of movement across the sky, and that's...