If any argument presents a clear and obvious contradiction that argument is irrational.
In the heliocentric model the earth is spinning at the surface about 1,000 mph at the equator and about 700 mph across America. Jets move above us at about 500 to 700 mph. We move freely in any direction on earth.
That everything on earth can cut right through the atmosphere but the spinning earth does not is a clear and obvious contradiction.
It's clear and obvious stupidity is what it is.
When you go to the equator, there isn't a 1000 mph wind in your face. That's because the atmosphere is generally moving along with the surface of the Earth. In other words, the Earth is not moving at 1000 mph
relative to the atmosphere but relative to a fixed point. Usually this fixed point is determined by a position on the Earth directly under the Sun. So let's say you are on the equator on an equinox and you look straight up and see Sun directly overhead. If you want to keep the Sun directly overhead you'll have to move west at about 1000mph. Put another way, the
subsolar point on the Earth's surface moves at about 1000mph. It's actually a bit faster than that because the Earth is about 24900 miles in circumference and so 24900/24 is 1037.5 mph but there's no need to be more precise than the nice round number of 1000 mph.
The argument that we never sense the earth is moving because standing "on" the earth is like being "in" a car or plane, is a false analogy. The obvious analogy would be standing "on" a moving earth would be like standing on a jet moving at 600 to 700 mph.
No David no!
The atmosphere is moving WITH THE EARTH!!!!!!!!
You just cannot possibly be this stupid!
And I'm sorry but 'stupid' is the right word to be using here. There is just simply no way I can accept that you cannot use your imagination sufficiently well to be able to see how there'd be no way to detect the motion of the Earth if you and everything around you, including the air you breath and everything else is all moving right along with you.
And more than that, things do not just "cut right through the atmosphere" as though there were no resistance. There is resistance and quite a lot of it actually.
Here's an experiment you can perform yourself in your own kitchen. Take out a large bowl and fill it with water or fill your sink full of water, any large container will do. Then take your hand and start stirring the water in one direction or the other, clockwise or counter clockwise it doesn't matter. At first you will encounter a lot of resistance and feel a "wind" of water passing by your hand but before long most of the water will be moving right along with your hand and you won't feel any resistance and no "wind". If not for the friction that the water is experiencing against the walls of the container, this would be a nearly perfect analogy of what is happening with the Earth and the atmosphere. The atmosphere is spinning right along with the earth and, in fact, is part of the Earth and so it isn't cutting through itself.
The ancient flat earth model and the geocentric model since Plato and Aristotle have a motionless earth. Biblical earth does not move and the sun, moon, and stars do.
--Dave
P.S. I put 10,000 mph by mistake. I meant 1,000
So, I've responded to your argument, now I insist that you respond to mine. I'll repost it here so that you won't have to go looking for it.
I want either a direct and rational rebuttal of the argument or if you're unable to offer one of those then I want an explanation of why you refuse to allow it to persuade your mind.
Proof That the Earth Cannot Be Flat
The last few days I've been playing around with some math and thought I'd post some of it here to see if it might move some of the flat earthers maybe an inch or two back toward reality...
Let's put some of the sunset images we've taken to good use and see if what was observed can be made to fit with the FET (Flat Earth Theory).
FET claims the Sun is approximately 3000 miles above the Earth and they do not dispute well established distances between points on the surface of the Earth. I'm going to be using these two presuppositions in my calculations and you'll want to refer to the following diagram to keep track of the variables...
View attachment 26417
Side a is the distance from the ground to the Sun (3000 mi).
Side b is the distance from an observer to a point on the Earth where the Sun is directly over head.
Side c (a.k.a. the hypotenuse) is the distance from the observer to the Sun itself.
Angle A is the height of the Sun above the horizon in degrees as seen from the observer.
Angle C is always 90°
Angle B is not relevant to this discussion.
Note from the start that if the Earth is flat and the Sun is 3000 miles up (or any number of miles up for that matter) that angle A can never ever get to 0°. The Sun would never set because no matter how long you make side b of that triangle, angle A is always a positive number. The only way for the Sun to set on a flat Earth is if the Sun dipped below the plane of the flat Earth. If that were to happen, then it would be night everywhere on Earth at once, which we know does not happen. It's always noon somewhere on the Earth and not only that but the Sun is directly over head at some point on the Earth (this is called the subsolar point - look it up).
That, by itself, ought to be enough to convince anyone that the Earth cannot be flat but there's more. Let's take a look at some of these photos we took last week...
So, since we're assuming a flat Earth, I'm going to focus on just a couple of photos that both show the position of the Sun in degrees above the horizon. I should point out that you don't have to trust the numbers generated by the app on the phones used to take these photos. The numbers can be confirmed by anyone by simply fashioning a simple sextant from a cheap plastic protractor.
I'll use these two photos...
View attachment 26418 View attachment 26419
On the left is the Sun's position as seen from my house on May 8th, 2018 at 01:00 UCT (8:00:01pm central time)
On the right is the Sun's position as seen from Knight's house on the same day just 38 seconds later (7:00:39pm mountain time).
The position of the Sun at my house is just .1° above the horizon while at Knight's it was 10.2° (This information is displayed just to the right of the Sun position indicator. It shows the Sun's heading and then it's elevation in degrees. On Knight's photo it's sort of hidden a little by the NW direction indicator but it reads "Sun 284.0 W 10.2°" The 10.2 is the elevation above the horizon in degrees)
So, let's look at Knight's first...
How far West (more specifically, in the direction of the Sun - in Knight's case 284° W) would you have to go from Knight's house (where sides b and c meet) to get to a place on a flat Earth where the Sun was directily over head (where sides a and b meet)?
It turns out that when dealing with right triangles if you have the length of any one side and either angle A or B, you can know everything about the whole triangle!
The math is boring and so I'm not going to show all that. Just go
HERE and plug in the numbers for side b (3000) and angle A (10.2).
You get the following results...
Someone 16,700 miles (length of side b) to his west would see the Sun directly overhead.
There is no point on Earth 16,700 miles from Denver Colorado.
Still not convinced? Well just wait till you plug in the numbers from my house!
At my house the Sun was only .1 degrees above the horizon. So plugging in the numbers from my house (side b = 3000 and angle A = .1) we get the following results...
You have to go 1,720,000 miles to my West to find high noon beneath a Sun that was 3000 miles above the surface of a flat Earth.
That's One MILLION seven hundred twenty THOUSAND miles!
(That's more that 7 times the real distance to the Moon!)
Now seriously folks! What more proof could you possibly need? How are you going to possibly refute this?
Are you going to deny that the Sun is about 10° further above the horizon in Denver than it is in Houston? Even if you did that, the distance to noon calculations aren't dependent on that!
Are you going to challenge the validity of the
Pythagorean Theorem?
It seems that's your only option! It's either refute the Pythagorean Theorem or you must reject the notion that the Earth is flat based on the mere fact that the Sun gets to within .1° of the horizon at one point on the Earth while at the same time being directly over head at another.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
So let's do some more math!
This time let's assume that the distances on Earth as reported by Google Earth are accurate but that the Earth is flat.
To make the numbers easy, lets assume a location on the equator on an equinox.
And we'll use the same diagram as before...
View attachment 26421
When it is Noon (90° over head (angle C) in one place it is Sunset or Sunrise 6225.25 miles away (side b).
For our Sunset angle (angle A) we'll stick with .1° because any angle below that produces numbers that are even more embarrassing for the FET.
So, plugging in the numbers
HERE, we get the following results....
The Sun would have to be a mere 10.865122 miles above the surface of a flat Earth (side a).
If you use a smaller number for angle a, then the Sun has to be closer and closer to the surface. An angle of .01 would require the Sun to be just over one mile above the surface of the Earth at point C. That would make for one heck of a hot afternoon!
Clete
:bang:
