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

[DFT_Dave]

[MENTION=4980]DFT_Dave[/MENTION]

You never answered why everything is pulled in a downward direction rather than in any direction.

If you don't know the FE answer to this I can tell you.

I said on flat earth nothing needs to be "pulled" down or "pulled" in any other direction. On a spinning orbiting globe there has to be a reason that things not immovably attached to the earth don't fly off it. Gravity is not a discovery, it's a thought experiment used to explain the impossible.

But I want you to go ahead and make your argument.

--Dave

 

[daqq]

I've watched the video and I want you to give me time to analyze it since I have not heard an argument from the three paths of the sun before. I want to understand this argument well enough to give an appropriate response.

The video starts out with what I believe is the heart of the problem of globe earth, which is it begins with the sun/the heavens and not the earth itself. On a globe I have to believe that water/oceans are not level and that distant ships and landscapes are not parallel to where the viewer is standing, even though they appear that way.

--Dave

Fair enough.

 

[DFT_Dave]

Fair enough.

The videos you show for this I think are well done and easy to understand and not too offensive.

--Dave

 

[daqq]

The videos you show for this I think are well done and easy to understand and not too offensive.

--Dave

The first one does make a couple of off-the-cuff remarks and I did not want you or anyone to think that was any part of why I chose it. I think it was Patrick who mentioned that in his own thread; so I was just trying to be as polite about it as I could, while trying to make the points within that video, (I would not want anyone to discount everything said just because of a few comments at the start of the video which might be construed as rude, but I also know you have likely already heard much worse, especially around here, lol).

 

[Stuu]

On a globe I have to believe that water/oceans are not level and that distant ships and landscapes are not parallel to where the viewer is standing, even though they appear that way.

--Dave

Sorry I've not read the original thread, but did you deal with the question of why you can't see distant ships, even using a telescope?

Is that a shipping company conspiracy?

Stuart

 

[WatchmanOnTheWall]

I said on flat earth nothing needs to be "pulled" down or "pulled" in any other direction. On a spinning orbiting globe there has to be a reason that things not immovably attached to the earth don't fly off it. Gravity is not a discovery, it's a thought experiment used to explain the impossible.

But I want you to go ahead and make your argument.

--Dave

No, I want you to tell us why things move in a downward direction. Either you know the answer to this from a Flat Earth POV or you don't. Obviously you don't. If you would like me to give you the correct FE answer to this please just admit you don't know the answer to why everything moves towards the Earth rather than in any other direction or just tell us the answer.

 

[DFT_Dave]

Sorry I've not read the original thread, but did you deal with the question of why you can't see distant ships, even using a telescope?

Is that a shipping company conspiracy?

Stuart

We can see ships in the distance. The Nikon P900 is 83x--magnification. And we are seeing ships, landscapes, and cityscapes at distances that we are not supposed to see if the earth were a globe.

I honestly never realized that the curvature of the earth, if it's a globe, is 8 inch per mile squared. At three miles that's a 6 foot drop. I grew up in Wisconsin, next to Lake Superior, and Minnesota, land of lakes and rivers. I know rivers that flow out of lakes and those lakes are level, not curved. There are rivers that flow into Lake Superior and rivers that flow out of Lake Superior. That, and a few other reasons, is why I decided to both investigate and have a debate on flat earth.

The air as it meets the water will create atmospheric conditions that become a barrier we cannot see past at great distances, even with a telescope. A telescope will also not be able to see beyond the horizon line at some point in the distance.

Some have argued that we should always be able to see the sun, moon, and land across the ocean if the earth were flat. But that would not be the correct model of flat earth. But if you think otherwise make your case.

--Dave

 

[DFT_Dave]

No, I want you to tell us why things move in a downward direction. Either you know the answer to this from a Flat Earth POV or you don't. Obviously you don't. If you would like me to give you the correct FE answer to this please just admit you don't know the answer to why everything moves towards the Earth rather than in any other direction or just tell us the answer.

We "move" on earth in many directions. Just "move" your hands and fingers over your keyboard and make your point. Don't let gravity stop you.

--Dave

 

[1Mind1Spirit]

No, I want you to tell us why things move in a downward direction.

Bogus precept.

Romans X

6
But the righteousness which is of faith speaketh on this wise, Say not in thine heart, Who shall ascend into heaven? (that is, to bring Christ down from above
7
Or, Who shall descend into the deep? (that is, to bring up Christ again from the dead.)
8
But what saith it? The word is nigh thee, even in thy mouth, and in thy heart: that is, the word of faith, which we preach;

 

[1Mind1Spirit]

The air as it meets the water will create atmospheric conditions that become a barrier we cannot see past at great distances, even with a telescope. A telescope will also not be able to see beyond the horizon line at some point in the distance.

--Dave

Some folks just can't get past thinkin' their eyes are ray guns.

https://www.cloudynights.com/topic/592890-how-far-can-you-see/page-2

Excerpt:

How far can I see?

I've always found that question interesting. After a lifetime of using optical instruments and being an amateur astronomer, I know it's a fundamentally misguided question, but it can be hard to explain why.

There's a conception of "vision" as something that *comes from our eyes* - to put it a little crudely, that "rays" come out of our eyes and whatever they touch, we can see. Now, no one would explicitly say that's how vision works, but it can be pretty clear that, perhaps unconsciously, that's the model that some people are working from. (Well, hardly anyone would describe it that way...In fact it pretty much *is* the model explicitly described by a number of pre-scientific sources).

But quite a few people very much believe that vision has a hard limit we can't see past, no matter what, and that optical instruments extend that range of distance (rather than changing the apparent size/brightness of things in the visual field).

The fact of the matter is we don't "see" at a distance *at all*. We only see what's on our retinas, in our eye (and telescopes with cameras only "see" what hits their detectors, etc.). Distance isn't really a direct factor in what we see, because the light travels *to us*, our vision doesn't travel to the object.

I haven't really tried that explanation on an unsuspecting member of the public yet. I don't think it would go well, to be honest.

 

[DFT_Dave]

The first one does make a couple of off-the-cuff remarks and I did not want you or anyone to think that was any part of why I chose it. I think it was Patrick who mentioned that in his own thread; so I was just trying to be as polite about it as I could, while trying to make the points within that video, (I would not want anyone to discount everything said just because of a few comments at the start of the video which might be construed as rude, but I also know you have likely already heard much worse, especially around here, lol).

The guy on the video says at the beginning that we see that the sun moves at a constant speed across the sky but in the globe model the sun is not moving, the earth is spinning. Listen to it and tell my if I heard him correctly. Is his view geocentric or heliocentric?

--Dave

 

[1Mind1Spirit]

On the other hand, the calendar portrayed in the Book of the Luminaries is currently not possible anywhere on earth except around sixty degrees latitude south or possibly above sixty degrees latitude north, (and maybe not even anywhere in the northern latitudes). Sixty degrees south is below Australia, New Zealand, and the southern tip of Argentina: it is near the antarctic circle in the middle of nowhere, (nothing but ocean and perhaps a few islands). So if indeed there was any conspiracy, and NASA wanted to hide anything about God, it would more likely be something like a pole-shift at Golgotha, which may have changed the calendar and lengthened the year by a day and a quarter, (throwing off the Sabbath in what would have been a perfect 364-day year with fifty-two Sabbaths), and would thus prove to the world that the Prophets of old foretold the Messiah and the events surrounding his crucifixion, (Isaiah 24:19-20, Amos 8:9-10 etc., etc.).

First off the global latitudes have been proven bogus.

You might wanna get your facts straight before you start posting gobble-dee gook about conspiracy theories.

You're quite frankly.... all over the place.

 

[daqq]

First off the global latitudes have been proven bogus.

You might wanna get your facts straight before you start posting gobble-dee gook about conspiracy theories.

You're quite frankly.... all over the place.

Only all over the place when, quite frankly, responding to your bogus statements which are all over the place. Stop saying things that have nothing to do with the conversation and the responses will likely not have to be "all over the place". You get responded to according to your own "all over the placeness". :chuckle:

 

[1Mind1Spirit]

Only all over the place when, quite frankly, responding to your bogus statements which are all over the place. Stop saying things that have nothing to do with the conversation and the responses will likely not have to be "all over the place". You get responded to according to your own "all over the placeness". :chuckle:

Everybody here has seen the posts about the sailing expeditions.
If you are so dense as to need them reposted, I can oblige you.

Eyewitness testimony trumps your theoretical, speculative assertions.

Gobeesh?

 

[daqq]

The guy on the video says at the beginning that we see that the sun moves at a constant speed across the sky but in the globe model the sun is not moving, the earth is spinning. Listen to it and tell my if I heard him correctly. Is his view geocentric or heliocentric?

--Dave

He is talking about what is observed from the earth as the sun passes overhead on certain days and times of the year. For instance a person who lives on or near the tropic of cancer will see the sun do something different from what the sun appears to do over the equator, moreover, a person living on or near the tropic of capricorn will see the reverse path of the sun from what the person living near the tropic of cancer will see. These three different apparent paths of the sun, which are physical observations taken from the ground, all happen at the same time: the sun appears to be doing something entirely different at the three different locations, as observed from earth, and all at the same time. This is because the earth is spherical, a globe, and this cannot happen on a flat earth model with the sun circling overhead. When you are on a spinning globe that is tilted on its axis of rotation it causes the sun to appear to move across the sky in an arc that changes depending on where you are located on the spinning globe because the surface of the globe is curved. So not only does the apparent path of the sun change with the passing of days and seasons, as the earth traverses around the sun and rotates on its axis all at the same time: but the path of the sun appears different to different areas of the globe depending on where you happen to be on the globe. His view is certainly not geocentric but heliocentric.

 

[daqq]

Everybody here has seen the posts about the sailing expeditions.
If you are so dense as to need them reposted, I can oblige you.

Eyewitness testimony trumps your theoretical, speculative assertions.

Gobeesh?

Why do you yourself not respond to any of the physical observations presented herein?
Because you cannot. Gobeesh?

 

[1Mind1Spirit]

He is talking about what is observed from the earth as the sun passes overhead on certain days and times of the year. For instance a person who lives on or near the tropic of cancer will see the sun do something different from what the sun appears to do over the equator, moreover, a person living on or near the tropic of capricorn will see the reverse path of the sun from what the person living near the tropic of cancer will see.

Do tell?

The sun has now been seen traveling from west to east?

 

[patrick jane]

Pangea, Peleg & Biblical Flat Earth...




About a half hour - Interesting examination of parts of Genesis

 

[daqq]

Do tell?

The sun has now been seen traveling from west to east?

So your only recourse is to corrupt what I said?
I spoke of the following courses which are well documented and observed:

It is very simple: these are physical observations taken from these three different locations on the earth, all on the same day, (I cannot tell by the sound quality but I believe he means an equinox, (but may be speaking later of a solstice because he mentions December)), and the path of the sun moves in three different directions, that is, a straight line across the equator and opposing curvatures on the the two tropics. This is actually the curvature of the earth which is being revealed in the three different paths of the sun which all occur on the same day: not the sun itself moving in three different directions at the same time, (which is impossible). This is not possible on a flat earth model and the various types of sundials work for the very same reasons and in much the same way because the earth is spherical and spinning. You can theoretically place sundials at three locations on the same day, (I believe the equinoxes), on the two tropics and the equator, and they will all work properly so long as they are positioned correctly. Again these are physical observations: there is no question about these things, and they cannot work if the earth is flat and the sun is moving in a circle above a flat earth model. They only work in the heliocentric model with a spinning globe. It is all in the observations and observable realities we see from the earth even though things may not appear to be what they are.

Your flat earth maps are a 3D projection of the globe stretched out into a 2D version as viewed from above the north pole: and that is what causes you much of your confusion. When you look at a side view of the globe the tropics and the equator are parallel lines because they traverse around a spherical globe with a curved surface. However when you take that 3D side view of a globe or sphere, and make it 2D, the following is the proper representation of the view which is created because you are going from 3D into 2D and stretching the parallel lines out onto a flat surface:

I suppose most everyone but you can see that the sun is still traversing from east to west in all three examples in the image file. However what this means is that your flat earth maps are misunderstood because the people promoting them do not understand that they are 2D representations of a 3D globe onto a flat surface map as viewed from above the north pole of a sphere. The supposed flat earth map is still a representation of a sphere as viewed from above the north pole but stretched out onto a flat surface for flat mapping purposes. It is all an illusion in your mind for not understanding what you are looking at.

It actually does not even matter if this can all be viewed on the same day of the year or not because, nearly all year long, this or something near to this is what people see from these three locations on the earth, that is, from the northern hemisphere, from the southern hemisphere, and from the equatorial region. Again, this is not possible on a flat earth model, with the sun circling above a flat earth, because everyone would see the sun moving in the same arc across the sky, even though for some the arc of the path would be wider and for some the arc of the path would be narrower.

 

[1Mind1Spirit]

So your only recourse is to corrupt what I said?
I spoke of the following courses which are well documented and observed:



Your flat earth maps are a 3D projection of the globe stretched out into a 2D version as viewed from above the north pole: and that is what causes you much of your confusion. When you look at a side view of the globe the tropics and the equator are parallel lines because they traverse around a spherical globe with a curved surface. However when you take that 3D side view of a globe or sphere, and make it 2D, the following is the proper representation of the view which is created because you are going from 3D into 2D and stretching the parallel lines out onto a flat surface:

I suppose most everyone but you can see that the sun is still traversing from east to west in all three examples in the image file. However what this means is that your flat earth maps are misunderstood because the people promoting them do not understand that they are 2D representations of a 3D globe onto a flat surface map as viewed from above the north pole of a sphere. The supposed flat earth map is still a representation of a sphere as viewed from above the north pole but stretched out onto a flat surface for flat mapping purposes. It is all an illusion in you mind for not understanding what you are looking at.

It actually does not even matter if this can all be viewed on the same day of the year or not because, nearly all year long, this or something near to this is what people see from these three locations on the earth, that is, from the northern hemisphere, from the southern hemisphere, and from the equatorial region. Again, this is not possible on a flat earth model, with the sun circling above a flat earth, because everyone would see the sun moving in the same arc across the sky, even though for some the arc of the path would be wider and for some the arc of the path would be narrower.

:rotfl:

Sorry bro but there is no such thing as a hemisphere:crackup: on a 3D flat earth.