Search results

No pics. You'll just have to take my word for it or else go to Craig's List and buy a cheap telescope and look for yourself. This is what it looks like though (only a lot smaller and less clear - the image in the link is taken with a much higher quality telescope)...

The videos are lies, not NASA. I have seen both a gibbous and crescent Venus with my own eyes as have countless millions of people all over the world and throughout the history of astronomy beginning with Galileo. How much weight do you ascribe to first person witness testimony? I have seen it...

No you don't, David. You don't have to prove a hypothesis in order to perform an experiment based upon it. That fact is that if the earth was stationary, they'd have attempted such an observation and would have seen nothing. There would have been no shift in the appearant position of any star...

If you refuse to give me the gist of the arguments in the videos you post, I refuse to watch them.

I have seen the phases of Venus with my own $50 telescope. If you were to do the observation tonight, you'd see a small crescent sliver. It would be oriented with the ends of the crescent pointed upward (away from the horizon (and the Sun) like a smile.

NO! It most certainly is not circular! (I did like the pun though!) Before the measurement is made, the word you give it is "hypothesis". You then run the experiment (i.e. take two images, six months apart.) and see if there is a measurable parallax. If there is, then your hypothesis is...

It isn't purely subjective, Dave. They can indeed empirically measure a star's parallax by taking an image one day and then another 6 months later, using the size of the Earth's orbit to gain sufficient distances between the two observations to produce a measurable parallax. They can then...

Give me the gist of these videos, Dave. That one I just watch and responded to was a stupidity parade. Convince me that they are worth my time by giving me some idea of what the argument is.

You'd expect to see the circles made by stars in we are under a reflective glass dome. This explanation is only convincing to people who have no ability to think. He refutes the arguments moments after making it. The circles you'd see inside a spherical mirror are ALWAYS THERE!!! You wouldn't...

One point I want to make about "ad populum" arguments. I've made no such arguments. And Ad Populum argument is one where one attempts to establish a truth claim by appealing to its popularity. "Millions of people can't all be wrong." is the shorthand version of the argument. That is not at...

There actually is a star at the south celestial pole, it's just not a bright star like Polaris. But whether there is a star in that particular location is irrelevant. The fact that there is a south celestial pole at all is what destroys the flat Earth model. If the Earth is a flat disk, people...

Oh. Well, that's different. I don't know of any off the top of my head aside from the Coriolis Effect and all the related phenomena. That doesn't mean there aren't any but only that I'm still new to the defense of the globe earth model so I've never needed to collect the arguments before. I...

No. I will not get dragged into a debate about whether the conservation of momentum is a proven fact of science. If you don't believe that then you're hopeless and you're basing your worldview on blind beleifism. You might as well go join the Branch Davidians. It has nothing whatseover to do...

Well, okay but the conservation of momentum is only one of the most tested and thoroughly proven concepts in all of science, so no pressure trying to disprove it or anything. There are lots of reasons, not the least of which is that God hides Himself. (Isiah 45:15) Not only that but because...

This is only true if you accept that the universe wasn't created and even then it's only an intuition. There are all kinds of things in nature that are contrary to what we might expect. This is why a hypothesis must be tested. Why is that funny? I mean I understand what you mean, I just don't...

Dave, I really cannot tell whether you are just being intentionally obtuse in an attempt to convey the arguments made by mindless flat-earthers or what. Nothing you've said here has anything to do with explaining why the Coriolis Effect implies a contradiction with the notion that the atmosphere...

This is a claim, not an argument. In what way would the Coriolis effect, which is caused by the spinning of the Earth, contradict the idea that the atmosphere is moving with the Earth? There would be a Coriolis Effect even if there were no atmosphere at all. It's the conservation of angular...

All the arguments listed below are paraphrases of the arguments made in the above video. Argument 1: The Earth cannot be spinning on its axis or orbiting the Sun because we don't feel any movement and because the atmosphere doesn't come flying off the planet. We don't "feel" the movement...

I get that, which is why I still want to participate. I admit that I sometimes let it stray from my mind but I do get it. Okay, fine but in a real trial, I'd at least be able to look over at the jury box to get a feel for how they're reacting to the case being presented. Can you just try to...

"If Dave is flying at 800km/h how come he can only see his movement. If the land is moving at double his speed, why can't he see it?" Because motion is always relative to a frame of reference. His 800 km/h flight speed is relative to the ground. In a larger frame of reference, his 800 km/h...