Search results

A HORIZON WILL FORM ON A FLAT EARTH --Dave

--Dave

The sun "appears" to drop below the horizon just as clouds and planes do. You rightly correct Stuu for his incorrect depiction of Christianity but then you incorrectly depict perspective. Your flat earth understanding is no better than Stuu understanding of Christianity. --Dave

It's called perspective. The ground beneath my feet will be seen to rise, though not actually, to my eye level, if the earth is a flat plane. Things in the sky above me, planes flying parallel to a flat plane, clouds over a long distance at the same elevation above the earth, will appear to...

It's called a compromise. --Dave

The collection of data is not an experiment. When I see the horizon at eye level and someone tries too to tell me that's not what I see then I know that person is trying to decieve me. --Dave

That there is no curvature has been demonstrated and shown many times in many ways. That an object hit the earth millions of years ago and tilting it off its axis but not moving it out of its path is not even possible to empirically verify. You seem very willing to accept this atheistic...

That's your opinion. You're welcome to it. These tests proved that the earth was not moving through anything. Einstein and company rejected the ether but he stated he did not believe any test of the kind that had been performed could demonstrate the movement of the earth through space. Yet he...

Scientism has replaced experiments with theories and is atheistic. How they get away with constructing irrational theories is amazing. Cosmology looks more and more like the theory of evolution where explanations are taken as facts rather than imaginative speculation and data is not subject to...

A constant variation is the problem, it's a self contradiction. --Dave

The delusion of atheism is a "self organizing" mindless universe. You must admit the self contradiction. --Dave

Dull for an atheist, no doubt. There have been actual experiments that prove a stationary earth, Michelson-Morley, Sagnac, and Airy. A flat stationary earth is empirically verifiable by all its inhabitants. An earth that predicates a drop of 8 in per mile squared has been proven false. --Dave

Please, and you expect me, and everyone else, to just accept this a verified scientific fact? --Dave

Theories about the end of the universe 1. Big Freeze or heat death 2. Big Rip 3. Big Crunch 4. Big Bounce A moving universe, a moving galaxy, and moving planets, are all under the same laws of physics. Neither gravity nor velocity are constant over time. There is not a single prediction...

I didn't call atheism a religion. A religion is a world view that is a belief that there is a God, or gods, of a supernatural realm, which would include a human soul/spirit. Atheism is also a world view that is a negation of such a realm. A world view incorporates human origin with destiny...

Variance is the opposite of being constant. You can't have variance if you are constant, and you can't be constant if you have variance. If the speed of a planet around the sun lessens the pull toward the sun becomes greater. If the speed of the planet becomes greater the pull of the sun...

The atheist under the illusion he is not under just another kind of meme, you've rendered a self defeating argument. Do you get it? --Dave

The question is not does the earth orbit in an ellipse the question is how can gravity be consistently weaker and stronger, that means consistently inconsistent, which is a contradiction of terms. Saying gravity is constant within a variable is saying its not constant, it's just absurd. How...

This thread and flat earth is clearly a challenge to heliocentrism or why else are you here opposing flat earth? What you really mean is flat earth fails in its challenge. I think it is successful in some ways but not completely in my mind as yet. As an atheist you will have trouble with...

Laws of planetary motion don't prove the earth is a spinning, orbiting, sphere. These equations assume the model is true. You can't start with a model then create equations to explain it then declare you have proved it. This is clearly classical circular reasoning. The equations are like...