Nope. 8kms.
Read the book I edited (see signature).
Sent from my SM-A520F using Tapatalk
The earth is flat and we never went to the moon--Part II
- Thread starter DFT_Dave
- Start date
- Status
Read the book I edited (see signature).
Sent from my SM-A520F using Tapatalk
We are not "in" the earth as "in" a car.
We are "on top" of the moving globe as "on top" of a moving car.
Do I have to explain the difference, or can you figure it out?
The globe spinning earth is not our experience from earth. This is an absolute certainty.
The moving sun, that we see moving above us along with everything else above us, does not tell us the earth is moving instead. What you should be admitting is that science informs us that what we see and experience is not what is real.
--Dave
Right Divider
Body part
I did NOT say that using quote marks is funny. This just goes, AGAIN, to show that you are not very bright.
I was talking about putting LITERAL and LITERALLY in quotes.
The earth is NOT "turning or changing" its speed. You are using a FALSE ANALOGY.
You are just so amazingly, totally clueless about FACTS and try to equivocate things that are DIFFERENT.
We are on top of a spinning globe not in it as in a car.
The globe model has a false analogy problem, not flat motionless earth.
--Dave
Right Divider
Body part
My POINT EXACTLY.... your attempt use a turning car or a car changing speeds is a COMPLETELY FALSE ANALOGY.
That is the most STUPID thing that you've said here and you've already said some incredibly stupid things.
I simply pointed that even in a moving car one can tell it's the car your in that's moving and not everything around is move instead of you.
The whole idea that our moving planet can be compared to being in a moving car is ridiculous when it's easy to know you are in moving car.
We observe the sun, moon, and stars are moving and we are not just as we see we are moving in a car and the world around us is not. Both observations are correct on flat earth.
--Dave
Right Divider
Body part
And there are REASONS for that.
You can also tell that the earth is moving by the RELATIVE motions of the other objects in the universe. I can see that you've not even attempted to investigate Stellar Parallax yet.
:dizzy:
Once again, you are incorrect and to not understand physics or relative motion. ALL motion is defined by using SOME FIXED REFERENCE POINT.
A spinning globe produces a "moving" sun just fine FROM THE PERSPECTIVE OF THE OBSERVER ON THE SPINNING GLOBE.
The theory of relativity is not a proof. That we can propose and explain a heliocentric where everything is moving is not proof that it's true.
--Dave
Right Divider
Body part
What I said had NOTHING TO DO with the theory of relativity. You are a dunce, Dave.
The proofs are NUMEROUS that the earth circles the sun and not the other way around. You're just too ignorant to understand any of it.
I stop at whatever point I find a false premise upon which the rest of what is said is based.
See the following...
It is not missing the point!
IT IS THE POINT!
Can you not tell the difference between proving that the Earth does not move vs proving that there is no ether?
The Michelson Morley experiment DID NOT prove that the Earth is stationary! It wasn't even designed to answer that question.
What the experiment supposedly proved was that there was no ether. This, I believe is not accurate either. The results of the experiment were used to declare that there was no eather but even the men who performed the experiment where saying that such a declaration was to supported by their experiment. The experiment was too small, with an insufficient sample size that, in fact, did not show a zero result!
It is true that the experiment did not show the expected shift in interference patterns but, again, the shift was not zero. At best the experiment failed to confirm the presence of an rather but saying that it disproved it's existence or that the Earth is stationary is an overstatement.
I highlighted the most important phrase in all of what you quoted here.
You need to read this...
Dayton Miller's Ether-Drift Experiments
To put it in the simplest of terms, the Michelson Morley experiment and others like it assume a static, rigid and motionless ether. If that assumption is false, their experiments are fatally flawed. If, for example, the ether is more like a viscous fluid rather than a rigid solid, then the Earth may drag a portion of the ether along with it as it moves through it. Similar to what happens when you drag a spoon through honey. If you were a tiny creature on the surface of a spoon being pushed through honey, because of the way the honey sticks to the the spoon, there would be little or no "honey wind" detectable to you. In the same way, an ether wind may be very difficult, if not entirely impossible to detect from the surface of the Earth because a large portion of ether might be moving along with the Earth.
Read that article. It is easy enough to understand and very well documented and sourced.
The bottom line here is that your use of the Michelson Morley experiment to say the Earth is motionless is as much a misuse of the experiment as was Einstein's - perhaps more so.
Clete
Right Divider
Body part
It terms of one's experience it is.
Isn't that your primary criteria - experience?
To everyone on the Earth, the Earth is stationary - relative to them. The Sun, on the other hand, is moving across the sky. If you stop the Earth from spinning on it's axis, everyone who has no concept of a spinning Earth is going to say that you stopped the Sun and it isn't inaccurate to say that you did not is it necessary for it to be explained.
The stopping of the Sun is the what, the stopping of Earth's spin is the how. The Bible is not a science textbook and the spinning of the Earth would have not relevance to the context of the story.
Yes, it absolutely is!
The difference is merely context. The Sun literally stopped in it's course across the sky. That literally happened - period.
You'd be laughed out of the room for calling me an idiot.
It would be like being chided by Hillary Clinton for being a liar or being called a pervert by Freddie Mercury.
Clete
Yes, of course we are.
We are encased in the atmosphere just as you'd be encased in water if you were submerged in a traveling swimming pool.
You think there ought to be some sort of space wind where the Earth would experience some sort of frictional force that would leave the atmosphere behind.
This thinking is question begging. It presumes the truth of your position in order to argue for it.
If the Earth is traveling through a vacuum then there would be no frictional force to remove the atmosphere which is held to the surface by the same force that holds you to the surface.
And, in actual fact, there is a slight frictional force that would indeed strip the Earth of it's atmosphere if not for the fact that the Earth has a magnetic field that protects it from the solar wind. In this sense it is accurate to say that we are encased in a magnetic field as we travel through the solar system. The Sun itself also has a magnetic field that also has a protective effect as the solar system moves through the galaxy.
In any case, we are, in fact, inside the Earth (which includes the atmosphere). Indeed, we were formed from and remain a part of it.
It is also the reason why it is entirely accurate to state the the Sun stood still.
No, on the contrary, it is careful observations of the Sun's position relative to other objects in the sky that does tell us that the Earth is spinning and is in orbit around the Sun. It is only the general experience that fails to inform such a conclusion. In other words, the fact that the Earth is spinning on it's axis and is in orbit around the Sun is not intuitive but is evident if one looks closely enough, which a great many brilliant minds have done and which you dismiss without cause.
What you are doing is the opposite of science. Instead of doing experiments with careful and detailed observation to collect data that either confirms or contradicts a theory, you are rejecting a theory on the basis of a lack of careful observation. You think that because the spin of the Earth isn't obvious to anyone who happens to be outside, that it is therefore false. That is literally the opposite of science.
Clete
Very frustrating.
Dave continues to add evidence to the idea that he is unable to think well enough, or focus well enough, to discuss the topic. As Knight has brought up, it seems like the mind that has spent too much time altered by marijuana. Although there may be other reasons why Dave shows this kind of behavior. All his attempts at deep thought are simply references to someone else who he thinks is showing us the deep thought he cannot express.
David has displayed the ability to think clearly many times in the past, not the least of which is his website. I cannot reconcile the David that authored the material on that website with the David on this thread. It feels to me like two different people.
Lets send Dave into space!!
https://www.kickstarter.com/projects/488792279/launch-a-flat-earther-into-space?ref=thanks_share
https://www.kickstarter.com/projects/488792279/launch-a-flat-earther-into-space?ref=thanks_share
Sagnac confirmeds Michelson Morley and Michelson Gale.
“The experiment known as “Airy's Failure” proved that the stars move relative to a stationary Earth and not the other way around." --Wiki
Light travels and stars move through the same medium in space, regardless of what you call it, and the earth does not is the what the experiments conclude.
I've been reading the article you linked to and watching many videos and reading articles on these tests from both perspectives.
I have known that there are counter arguments that contradict the results of these tests but many of the videos I have seen and articles I have read address these objections.
I found these two interesting remarks in this article.
Tesla vs. Einstein: The Ether & the Birth of the New Physics BY MARC SEIFER
"I hold that space cannot be curved, for the simple reason that it can have no properties. It might as well be said that God has properties. He has not, but only attributes and these are of our own making. Of properties we can only speak when dealing with matter filling the space. To say that in the presence of large bodies space becomes curved, is equivalent to stating that something can act upon nothing. I for one, refuse to subscribe to such a view."-– Nikola Tesla
"Einstein never came to view gravity as the absorption of ether by elementary particles and electromagnetism as a product of this process, because to do so would be to abandon relativity. Einstein also never was able to integrate gravity into his grand unification scheme, a problem he wrestled with for the entire last half of his life."
--Dave
Experience has nothing to do with what is written. The sun stood still is the same thing as the earth stopped spinning.
Literally taken it's the sun that stands still because it's the sun that's moving not the earth.
Non-literally the earth stands still because it's the earth that's moving not the sun.
Saying that God writes what is not true because he knows we see it differently is very problematic to say the least.
We all see how we all are born into this world, no one saw God form the first man from the dust of the earth whole and complete. God revealed to us exactly what we would not know, and see very differently, in human origin and if the world is not the way we see it, and is very much the opposite, there is no doubt in my mind that God could have and would have "clearly" revealed it to us.
1 The heavens are telling the glory of God; and the firmament proclaims his handiwork.
2 Day to day pours forth speech, and night to night declares knowledge.
3 There is no speech, nor are there words; their voice is not heard;
4 yet their voice goes out through all the earth, and their words to the end of the world. In them he has set a tent for the sun,
5 which comes forth like a bridegroom leaving his chamber, and like a strong man runs its course with joy.
6 Its rising is from the end of the heavens, and its circuit to the end of them; and there is nothing hid from its heat.
--Dave
Look, debating the M&M experiment and others like it is not the point.
The point is that it does NOT prove that the Earth is motionless. It just simply does not do that. It was never intended to do that and it cannot rightly be interpreted as doing that. To do so demonstrates either an agenda, which is almost always the case, or else a complete lack of understanding of what the experiment was intended to measure. The experiment was simply intended to indirectly detect what amounts to an "ether wind", for want of a better term.
Suppose for a moment that you were on a small boat floating down a river. On this boat, you have the Stars and Stripes hoisted atop a flag pole. If you were to look up and see the flag completely slack and motionless, would you conclude that you had stopped floating down the river? Would you conclude that you were in a vacuum where there was no air? Surely, you wouldn't come to either conclusion but that is the equivalent of the two most common ways in which the M&M experiment is interpreted. Wouldn't it be far more rational to simply conclude that your boat and the wind where moving in the same direction and at the same speed? It is only the apparent motion of the Earth, relative to the ether that one might conclude is zero based on the M&M experiment. In fact, it is either that or that there is no ether.
In ANY case, there is simply to rational way to conclude that the Earth is at absolute rest base on the M&M experiment, especially since their results were not nill in the first place.
Clete
- Status