The earth is flat and we never went to the moon--Part II

[chair]

I wouldn't say ignorant either, but just how much one knows is not always obvious to someone else. Some of us don't like to reveal all of our cards. But despite how much one knows here and now there is still an eternity of things to learn.

If you've been reading the latest posts you know I'm resisting the relativity of motion. I have been explaining where and why I see contradiction in the belief that everything is moving. Explain to me why you think I'm wrong.

--Dave

Dave, when it comes to things scientific, you ARE ignorant. Yes, it is obvious. And no, no hidden cards will help you here.

I think that the idea of velocity being relative spooks you, because it sounds like the Theory of Relativity, which you view as fake and evil and anti-Bible. But it is simple plain physical logic, and has been explained to you repeatedly by a number of people right here, over the past two days.

 

[Right Divider]

But there can be only one reality. Right?

You have an incorrect understanding of the word "reality". Right!

I don't know how we can be going both 60 mph and 120 mph at the same time in the same reality.

That is because you refuse to understand simple facts.

BOTH distance measurements are EQUALLY VALID.

They are moving away FROM THE CENTRAL REFERENCE POINT @ 60 MPH EACH
They are moving away FROM EACH OTHER @ 120 MPH.

No matter what you believe... these are the FACTS.

Saying in one relationship we are actually going 60 but in another relationship we are also actually going 120 mph at the same time just does not make sense if both speeds are actually real.

It doesn't make sense to you because you are stubbornly refusing to understand simple facts.

The title of the video I posted where I saw this equation "v = v1 = v2" was titled "Rethinking Reality" not "Rethinking Relationships". This was not a flat earth video, it was about spacetime and gravity waves.

I don't care what the name of the video was. It is irrelevant to facts of reality that you are stuck misunderstanding.

I think a case can be made that everything that moves on and above earth does so in the reality that the earth is not moving.

--Dave

:juggle:

Once AGAIN... for the hard of hearing.... the earth is NOT the only frame of reference for the motion of every other object in the universe.

It matters not whether you accept that or not... it is a FACT.

 

[DFT_Dave]

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 direction. They both go 5 ant-lengths per second.

Dave: After 3 seconds, how far is each ant...

From the starting point:_____________

From each other:_____________

What was each ant's speed in ant-lengths...

Relative to the starting point on the box:_____________

Relative to the other ant:_____________

But the box ain't moving, so there's our immovable fixed earth idea again.

You can't get an ant speed without that an immovable box.

Nice try though.

--Dave

 

[chair]

But the box ain't moving, so there's our immovable fixed earth idea again.

You can't get an ant speed without that an immovable box.

Nice try though.

--Dave

Dave, just answer the questions- fill in the blanks. You won't learn anything by running away from questions.

 

[JudgeRightly]

But the box ain't moving, so there's our immovable fixed earth idea again.

You can't get an ant speed without that an immovable box.

Nice try though.

--Dave

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 direction. They both go 5 ant-lengths per second.

Dave: After 3 seconds, how far is each ant...

From the starting point:_____________

From each other:_____________

What was each ant's speed in ant-lengths...

Relative to the starting point on the box:_____________

Relative to the other ant:_____________

 

[DFT_Dave]

Dave, when it comes to things scientific, you ARE ignorant. Yes, it is obvious. And no, no hidden cards will help you here.

I think that the idea of velocity being relative spooks you, because it sounds like the Theory of Relativity, which you view as fake and evil and anti-Bible. But it is simple plain physical logic, and has been explained to you repeatedly by a number of people right here, over the past two days.

My disagreement with much of science does not mean I'm ignorant of science.

There is something anti-logical and anti-Biblical about relativism in physics and not only to me, and, although I wouldn't say this spooks me, but it is the reason for my skepticism.

There's no such thing as "physical logic" as opposed to other types of logic.

If you want to give me reasons to change my mind on this view of motion please do.

--Dave

 

[DFT_Dave]

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?

It does not matter where the box is located. It still is the immovable point from which and on which the ants are moving and everything I've already said applies.

--Dave

 

[Right Divider]

My disagreement with much of science does not mean I'm ignorant of science.

There is something anti-logical and anti-Biblical about relativism in physics and not only to me, and, although I wouldn't say this spooks me, but it is the reason for my skepticism.

There's no such thing as "physical logic" as opposed to other types of logic.

If you want to give me reasons to change my mind on this view of motion please do.

--Dave

Nope... you're too stubborn to understand facts.

 

[DFT_Dave]

Nope... you're too stubborn to understand facts.

Lucky for you you're not stubborn.

--Dave

 

[Right Divider]

Lucky for you you're not stubborn.

--Dave

In this particular case, you're just blindly wrong and unwilling to be otherwise.

Unlucky for you... not really, luck has nothing to do with it.

 

[JudgeRightly]

It does not matter where the box is located. It still is the immovable point from which and on which the ants are moving and everything I've already said applies.

--Dave

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, 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 direction. They both go 5 ant-lengths per second. Dave: After 3 seconds, how far is each ant... From the starting point:_____________ From each other:_____________ What was each ant's speed in ant-lengths... Relative to the starting point on the box:_____________ Relative to the other ant:_____________

 

[Right Divider]

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.

Dave cannot seem to understand these simple concepts.

Declaring something to be "the reference point" BY DEFINITION makes it "not moving".

So simple and yet so beyond his reach.

 

[chair]

It does not matter where the box is located. It still is the immovable point from which and on which the ants are moving and everything I've already said applies.

--Dave

The box is an "immovable point" even if it is on a rocket flying through space? Think before you answer.

 

[Right Divider]

The box is an "immovable point" even if it is on a rocket flying through space? Think before you answer.

Until we can get Dave to understand the definition of a reference point, it's hopeless.

 

[Clete]

Until we can get Dave to understand the definition of a reference point, it's hopeless.

I just don't buy it.

There is just no way that he doesn't understand. Something else is going on here.

 

[chair]

I just don't buy it.

There is just no way that he doesn't understand. Something else is going on here.

I agree. He is not dumb- he just insists that reality is different than, well, reality. My guess is that he has a fixed (and wrong) conception of what the Bible says about reality, and is horribly afraid that if he admits, for example, that the earth moves, all his faith will go down the drain.

 

[Clete]

I agree. He is not dumb- he just insists that reality is different than, well, reality. My guess is that he has a fixed (and wrong) conception of what the Bible says about reality, and is horribly afraid that if he admits, for example, that the earth moves, all his faith will go down the drain.

I don't know. Maybe.

It feels more like deception to me. As if he has consciously decided in advance that he's going to disagree with and dispute anything anyone says on this thread no matter what it is or how much sense it makes.

I mean how hard is it to understand something as simple as ants in a moving box are moving with the box? That shouldn't be anything that someone could dispute and yet he does.

That doesn't feel like some sort of fearful loyalty to the bible. That sounds like, well, I don't know what it sounds like. I can relate neither to that level of stupiity if its real nor to that level of deception is it isn't.

Clete

 

[Right Divider]

I just don't buy it.

There is just no way that he doesn't understand. Something else is going on here.

I get that feeling as well.

 

[chair]

It does not matter where the box is located. It still is the immovable point from which and on which the ants are moving and everything I've already said applies.

--Dave

Here Dave is almost, just almost, getting the idea of how one needs a reference point when measuring velocity. By the way, when he disappears for a week or so, is it because he's busy, or he's working on a his answers, or trying to find more youtube videos?

 

[JudgeRightly]

Here Dave is almost, just almost, getting the idea of how one needs a reference point when measuring velocity. By the way, when he disappears for a week or so, is it because he's busy, or he's working on a his answers, or trying to find more youtube videos?

I'm pretty sure he's retired now.

I'm still waiting on a response to the Flood argument I presented.