Daniel1611
New member
The Coriolis effect could be caused by magnetic force rather than the gravity of the earth curve.
Creation vs. Evolution
- Thread starter MichaelCadry
- Start date
- Status
The Coriolis effect could be caused by magnetic force rather than the gravity of the earth curve.
Daniel1611
New member
Qibla could be found using a compass, which works by magnetic north.
Daniel1611
New member
Not sure what your point is. Be more specific and I'll respond.
Daniel1611
New member
Flat doesn't mean square. It can be flat and round.
Daniel1611
New member
If newtons law if gravity, that he himself knew had problems, is not correct then this point is moot. A sphere earth needs gravity. A flat earth doesn't.
gcthomas
New member
The shadow is cast at different angles from a sun in different positions, so you'd expect to see elliptical shadows. We don't.
Daniel1611
New member
Bigger questions.
Why doesn't NASA take photos of earth instead of composites?
Why are there no stars in the few alleged photos they have taken?
Why is there no real time video of the earth spinning,?
Why don't we cross Antarctica?
Why is Antarctica so heavily guarded by 50 nations?
Why do airplanes make much longer trips than needed to avoid flying over Antarctica?
Daniel1611
New member
How do you know it's the earth's shadow,? It could be the shadow of any celestial object that intersects the light.
Daniel1611
New member
My point here is What do we KNOW? speculating that its the earth's shadow is not knowing. When I was being trained in my job, my teacher would ask a question, and if I said "I think it's this...". He always said, " We don't need to think. We need to know.". This is a good philosophy for anything important.
You trust your deity to take care of his creation? Doesn't seem to me as though that trust is very well placed.
Strange given that flat-Earthers are generally evolutionists. :chuckle:
alwight
New member
You had a teacher? :shocked:
Who taught you not to think? mmm :think:
And the answer is.....? Do you know? Or am I the only keeper of The Secret?
Another Stripe-sertion. (A factual assertion without any basis provided. A statement made to support an otherwise unsupportable position. A statement made to cause the reader to scratch his head and say "Why bother?")
Daniel1611, Like some other posters, I am uncertain whether your questions are serious or whether you are just enjoying a good laugh at our expense. One thing I conclude from your responses is that, assuming you are serious, your dearth of understanding is immense, and your distrust of science is equally pervasive. Neither of those is likely to be rectified by someone posting something that suddenly corrects your misconceptions. If, on the other hand, you are just a troll, then I will excuse myself from this exchange.
First, before I decide, let me touch on a couple of your responses.
Re ship appearing to sink below the horizon:
As to pictures of the earth, I am not sure what you are getting at. There are thousands of individual pictures clearly showing the spherical shape or the earth. In early space missions, many of those pictures were taken using ordinary film. Digital imaging now is much more efficient.
First, before I decide, let me touch on a couple of your responses.
Assume the earth is flat. Jump up. If no gravity, what is going to pull you back down to the ground?
The Coriolis effect, whether in weather or ballistic trajectories, has squat to do with magnetism.
Re ship appearing to sink below the horizon:
I could care less whether it is coming or going. Simple case, take 3 identical tall ships, on a calm day park them at 4 mile intervals going out from the shore, with each of them broadside to the shore and not moving. You sit on the shore so your view over the ocean is just above the wave crests. I claim that for the ship that is 4 miles out, about the lowest 16 feet just above the wateriine will be hidden below the horizon. The second ship, at 8 miles, will have the lowest 64 feet hidden from view. The third one, at only 12 miles, will be probably be completely below the horizon, even though it should be close enough for binoculars to easily spot it if it were in the line of sight.
As to pictures of the earth, I am not sure what you are getting at. There are thousands of individual pictures clearly showing the spherical shape or the earth. In early space missions, many of those pictures were taken using ordinary film. Digital imaging now is much more efficient.
I assume you have lots of interaction with flat earthers that allows you to make that claim. For my part, I don’t personally know a single one.
Daniel1611
New member
I have an idea of why. I don't KNOW because I haven't seen it. All I have is what the military says, and that means nothing. Tell me. Tell me why we don't cross Antarctica. If you tell me its because the equipment doesn't work in the cold, I will burst into laughter. That's usually the answer I get. South pole is too cold, but millions of miles out in space is fine for the equipment.
gcthomas
New member
Nasa does not have a monopoly on imaging from space. Most imaging is taken by other nations and many private companies. For whole earth shots , Google Meteosat.
Because they are exposed for daytime illumination. The stars do show up in longer exposure photographs.
You would need a relatively stationary satellite that wasn't in a nearby poorly. The Galileo probe took such a sequence as it did a gravitational slingshot on the way to Saturn. Google that.
People are forever crossing Antarctica. There is a research station at the south Pole.
It isn't. You can take a tour boat there.
They don't avoid. The only route that would routinely take you over Antarctica would be from South Africa to New Zealand. And no airline has that on its schedule. None detour to avoid overflying.
And these were your BIG questions?
Stipe has a competitor.
noguru
Well-known member
The "brilliant" gentlemen is obviously confused about epistemology, as most stubborn anti science people are. Yet in their zeal to prove they are right, they shoot themselves in the foot.
Knowledge is simply humans conceptualizing the objective reality around them. Of course it is wise to find a methodology that helps us get a conceptual model that is as close to the objective reality as is humanly possible. And since science takes hard facts that we call evidence and uses them to support a theoretical model, they are often confused about the nature of this exact relationship. In their zeal to conceal their confusion from others, they often sacrifice accuracy with the illusion of certainty.
- Status