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

[Right Divider]

A flat motionless earth is clear from earth through experience and the flow of rivers.

No, it is not. Your repeated begging the question is also very old.

Water flows downhill on the globe. Water responds to ALL of the forces that affect it.

On any point on a globe earth the earth drops away in all directions. This means that the longest rivers in the world, Amazon, Nile, and Mississippi flow both up and down depending on where you are, more insane relativity.

Just wrong Dave.... just wrong. Your lack of knowledge in physics is grotesque.

Rivers flow one way only and this is impossible on a globe. They cannot flow upward, only downward.

Water flows from higher elevation to a lower on a globe. Just that simple.

Gravity is a magic wand to used answer all the contradictions the globe model presents us with.

--Dave

Look everyone, Dave defies gravity!!

That you cannot understand well known and well understood forces of nature is one of the reasons that you fall for FE nonsense.

P.S. Please address star field rotation.

 

[DFT_Dave]

In other words, you're just going to ignore everything that was just said and forge ahead with your nonsense?

At what point do you become just another troll, Dave?

You're not addressing my argument.

Rivers flow only downward from a higher to a lower elevation.

This can only be done on a flat earth for rivers as long as the Amazon.

On a globe the Amazon must flow upward to a higher elevation since from the mouth of the river all directions are downward because the curvature of the earth.

Yet from the origin of the river all directions are also downward.

Also from the middle of the river all directions are downward so that the river is going both upward from one direction then downward to the other.

There's a reason we don't see water or life on the sun, moon, or stars. It's because water and life cannot exist on spinning sphere's moving through space.

Nonsensical relativity. All rational thought with empirical evidence and Biblical Revelation was abandoned when the earth became a ball.

--Dave

 

[JudgeRightly]

You're not addressing my argument.

I wonder why...

Both RD and I, and several other people have given you plenty of challenges that you have completely ignored.

Another idiot FE "argument".

Sorry Dave.... there higher and lower elevations on a globe too.

Are you still confused about how gravity works?

Instead of fluttering from one topic to another, how about you address some of the issues that the "globers" have given you?

Please explain the FE "explanation" for the empirical fact that the stars rotate in opposite directions in the northern and southern hemispheres.

As RD said:

Instead of fluttering from one topic to another, how about you address some of the issues that the "globers" have given you?

I'm still waiting on a response to my challenge to you about the flood model you use to describe Noah's Flood. Could you please present a response?

Here are just a few things that need to be addressed:

1. Meteorites
2. Continental plates (volcanos, earthquakes, "ring of fire")
3. Rapid climate changes (no, not that "climate change")
4. Libration of the moon

And there are many more things that need to be addressed that are related to the flood.

What, if any, model does a flat earther use for Noah's flood?

and also, what scriptural support does that model have

========​

I asked about the flat earth flood model SEVERAL MONTHS AGO, Dave, and you said you would respond after doing some study into the Hydroplate theory (which only works on a globe earth), yet I have never seen you respond to it at all.

Have you even bothered to look at the model presented to you? Or have you completely ignored it in favor of your nonsensical beliefs?

You want us to address your arguments (even though they have ALL been addressed and invalidated), yet you won't bother to respond to ours.

You're either completely stupid, Dave, or you're just another troll. The possibility that you really are telling the truth about not taking a side in the debate is ZERO.

So Dave, before you go off on another tangent, answer, at the very least, Right Divider's challenge to you on the rotation of the stars in the northern versus the southern hemispheres, and then answer my challenge on the flood model the flat earth side uses, which needs to be a better fit than the Hydroplate theory for all the verses found in the Bible that are related to the flood of Noah, and which needs to address, at a minimum, that which I listed above.

 

[JudgeRightly]

Nonsensical relativity. All rational thought with empirical evidence and Biblical Revelation was abandoned when the earth became a ball.

The earth wasn't ever NOT a ball, Dave.

And now you're trying to be a revisionist historian.

The idea that the earth is flat originated with Samuel Rowbotham in 1849. From what little research I've done on him so far, it doesn't seem that he has any ties to a belief in God when he came up with his "theory," if you can even call it that, and if you read the wikipedia page on him, he doesn't seem to be a very intellectually honest man:

Rowbotham started out as an organiser of an Owenite commune in The Fens, where he formulated his theories about the Earth. After measuring a lack of curvature on the long straight drainage ditches of the Bedford Levels in his first Bedford Level experiment, he was convinced of the flatness of the Earth and began to lecture on the topic. He took a little time to learn his trade, running away from a lecture in Blackburn when he couldn't explain why the hulls of ships disappeared before their masts when sailing out to sea.[2] However, as he persisted in filling halls by charging sixpence a lecture, his quick-wittedness and debating skills were honed so much that he could "counter every argument with ingenuity, wit and consummate skill".[3] When finally pinned down to a challenge in Plymouth in 1864 by allegations that he wouldn't agree to a test, Parallax appeared on Plymouth Hoe at the appointed time, witnessed by Richard A. Proctor, a writer on astronomy, and proceeded to the beach where a telescope had been set up. His opponents had claimed that only the lantern of the Eddystone Lighthouse, some 14 miles out to sea, would be visible. In fact, only half the lantern was visible, yet Rowbotham claimed his opponents were wrong and that it proved the Earth was indeed flat so that many Plymouth folk left the Hoe agreeing that "some of the most important conclusions of modern astronomy had been seriously invalidated".[4] In 1861, Rowbotham married for a second time (to the 16-year-old daughter of his laundress) and settled in London, producing 14 children, of whom four survived. He was also alleged to be using the name "Dr. Samuel Birley", living in a beautiful 12-roomed house, selling the secrets for prolonging human life and curing every disease imaginable.[5] Augustus De Morgan refers to him as S. Goulden.[2] He patented a number of inventions, including a "life-preserving cylindrical railway carriage". His book Zetetic Astronomy: The Earth not a Globe appeared in 1864. His lectures continued and concerned citizens addressed letters to the Astronomer Royal seeking rebuttals for his claims. A correspondent to the Leeds Times observed that "One thing he did demonstrate was that scientific dabblers unused to platform advocacy are unable to cope with a man, a charlatan if you will (but clever and thoroughly up in his theory), thoroughly alive to the weakness of his opponents".[6]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Samuel_Rowbotham

 

[chair]

But you can't leave out that the cars are both moving at 100 mph relative to a motionless road. So both cars are moving at 100 mph not 0 mph.

You can't have a "speed/velocity" unless you have an immovable reference point.

Atheism is the absence of absolutes, nothing is constant, unchanging, or absolute in an evolving universe.

--Dave

Dave,

The cars are moving at 100 mph relative to the road, and 0 mph relative to each other. It's quite simple.
Here, try another example:

Two cars are on a East-West road, 100 miles apart from each other. One drives 100 mph East, and the other drives 100 mph West, both on the same road. How long does it take for the two cars to meet each other?
1. 1 hour, since both are moving 100 mph relative to the 'motionless road'
2. 30 minutes, because they are moving 200 mph relative to each other.

Which is it?

Chair

 

[DFT_Dave]

The earth wasn't ever NOT a ball, Dave.

And now you're trying to be a revisionist historian.

The idea that the earth is flat originated with Samuel Rowbotham in 1849. From what little research I've done on him so far, it doesn't seem that he has any ties to a belief in God when he came up with his "theory," if you can even call it that, and if you read the wikipedia page on him, he doesn't seem to be a very intellectually honest man:

Ancient Flat Earth
"The flat Earth model is an archaic conception of Earth's shape as a plane or disk. Many ancient cultures subscribed to a flat Earth cosmography, including Greece until the classical period, the Bronze Age and Iron Age civilizations of the Near East until the Hellenistic period, India until the Gupta period (early centuries AD), and China until the 17th century.

The idea of a spherical Earth appeared in Greek philosophy with Pythagoras (6th century BC), although most pre-Socratics (6th–5th century BC) retained the flat Earth model. Aristotle provided evidence for the spherical shape of the Earth on empirical grounds by around 330 BC. Knowledge of the spherical Earth gradually began to spread beyond the Hellenistic world from then on."--Wikipedia

Modern Flat Earth
"Modern flat Earth belief originated with the English writer Samuel Rowbotham (1816–1884). Based on conclusions derived from the Bedford Level experiment, Rowbotham published a pamphlet Zetetic Astronomy. He later expanded into a book Earth Not a Globe, proposing the Earth is a flat disc centered at the North Pole and bounded along its southern edge by a wall of ice, Antarctica. Rowbotham further held that the Sun and Moon were 3,000 miles (4,800 km) above Earth and that the "cosmos" was 3,100 miles (5,000 km) above the Earth. He also published a leaflet titled The inconsistency of Modern Astronomy and its Opposition to the Scriptures, which argued that the "Bible, alongside our senses, supported the idea that the earth was flat and immovable and this essential truth should not be set aside for a system based solely on human conjecture".--Wikipedia

Apparently you didn't research this very well.

--Dave

 

[DFT_Dave]

No, it is not. Your repeated begging the question is also very old.

Water flows downhill on the globe. Water responds to ALL of the forces that affect it.

Just wrong Dave.... just wrong. Your lack of knowledge in physics is grotesque.

Water flows from higher elevation to a lower on a globe. Just that simple.

Look everyone, Dave defies gravity!!

That you cannot understand well known and well understood forces of nature is one of the reasons that you fall for FE nonsense.

P.S. Please address star field rotation.

As I said, if the earth is a globe, the Amazon flows upward if you're standing at the mouth of it as it enters the Atlantic Ocean. We know this would be the case because where ever we are standing on a globe the ground beneath our feet gradually drops away from us downward at 8 inches per mile squared.

Earth curvature chart
View attachment 26853

So my point is confirmed, rivers run both upward and downward depending on where you are standing on a globe, which is absurd. Relativity is nonsense.

Only on a flat earth can we have rivers descending from higher to lower elevations.

How about if I address the nature of the sun, moon, planets and stars. They have no oceans, lakes, or rivers. They have no life either. Funny how they are all said to be spheres. I would conclude that spheres cannot contain oceans, rivers, or an atmosphere that can produce life. Therefore earth must not be a sphere.

The nature of stars is more important than their rotation. From earth, the stars are moving across the sky just as does the sun, moon, planets, clouds, birds, and what ever air craft or balloon we see in the sky above us.

--Dave

 

[DFT_Dave]

Dave,

The cars are moving at 100 mph relative to the road, and 0 mph relative to each other. It's quite simple.
Here, try another example:

Two cars are on a East-West road, 100 miles apart from each other. One drives 100 mph East, and the other drives 100 mph West, both on the same road. How long does it take for the two cars to meet each other?
1. 1 hour, since both are moving 100 mph relative to the 'motionless road'
2. 30 minutes, because they are moving 200 mph relative to each other.

Which is it?

Chair

Two cars 100 miles apart will meet at the center of 100 miles which is 50 miles if they travel at the same speed.

If each car is moving at 100 mph they will both meet at the center 50 miles away in 30 min.

--Dave

 

[Right Divider]

As I said, if the earth is a globe, the Amazon flows upward if you're standing at the mouth of it as it enters the Atlantic Ocean. We know this would be the case because where ever we are standing on a globe the ground beneath our feet gradually drops away from us downward at 8 inches per mile squared.

Earth curvature chart
View attachment 26853

So my point is confirmed, rivers run both upward and downward depending on where you are standing on a globe, which is absurd. Relativity is nonsense.

Only on a flat earth can we have rivers descending from higher to lower elevations.

That is idiotic and once AGAIN shows your complete and utter lack of knowledge regarding physics.

The term DOWNHILL is with respect to the earth's CENTER OF GRAVITY.

I'm embarrassed for you.

How about if I address the nature of the sun, moon, planets and stars. They have no oceans, lakes, or rivers. They have no life either. Funny how they are all said to be spheres. I would conclude that spheres cannot contain oceans, rivers, or an atmosphere that can produce life. Therefore earth must not be a sphere.

More lunacy... please seek profession help immediately.

The nature of stars is more important than their rotation. From earth, the stars are moving across the sky just as does the sun, moon, planets, clouds, birds, and what ever air craft or balloon we see in the sky above us.

The stars rotate around the poles Dave. Get out of your basement and take a look.

And they rotate in OPPOSITE directions in the northern and southern hemispheres

ADDRESS how that can be on a flat earth (hint: it can't).

 

[DFT_Dave]

That is idiotic and once AGAIN shows your complete and utter lack of knowledge regarding physics.

The term DOWNHILL is with respect to the earth's CENTER OF GRAVITY.

I'm embarrassed for you.

More lunacy... please seek profession help immediately.

The stars rotate around the poles Dave. Get out of your basement and take a look.

And they rotate in OPPOSITE directions in the northern and southern hemispheres

ADDRESS how that can be on a flat earth (hint: it can't).

Clearly you can't answer my argument.

--Dave

 

[Right Divider]

Clearly you can't answer my argument.

--Dave

Clearly you've made no argument (that makes sense anyway).

 

[Right Divider]

[MENTION=4980]DFT_Dave[/MENTION]

Please explain this on the "flat earth"

View attachment 26854

 

[Right Divider]

 

[Right Divider]

[MENTION=4980]DFT_Dave[/MENTION]
View attachment 26855
Same flight time for both paths... Why?

 

[chair]

Two cars 100 miles apart will meet at the center of 100 miles which is 50 miles if they travel at the same speed.

If each car is moving at 100 mph they will both meet at the center 50 miles away in 30 min.

--Dave

So the pair of cars between them, cover 100 miles in 30 minutes.
That is 100 miles in 30 minutes. The cars are travelling 200 mph relative to each other, though they are going only 100 mph relative to the road.

And no, for the umpteenth time, this has nothing to do with Relativity or Atheists. Is is classical Newtonian mechanics, and simple facts.

 

[Clete]

Clearly you can't answer my argument.

--Dave

This post is not addressed to Dave but to those of you who are engaging him here.



David is not merely spouting lunacy, he has lost his mind. He can no longer see up from down, left from right or right from wrong.
Nothing - and I mean literally nothing you will ever say will have any effect on him at all except to further cement him into his delusional state of mind.

He has been refuted in a 1000 different ways and he doesn't even acknowledge the rebuttal's existence and simply repeats arguments that were refuted before this thread was a month old. Here we are YEARS later and he's not one inch closer to be convinced of anything other than that we "clearly can't answer his argument". And he says things like that immediately after having quoted a post that did precisely that and more! Just what is it that you all think you're accomplishing here?

What David needs is shunning not sound reason, ridicule not rebuttal. To engage his "arguments" is to do him harm. To act as if he is rational is to give him cause to think he's being reasonable. My advice is to leave him alone. Let him be by himself in his stupidity. Chances are, he's a lost cause already but, just in case, I'd advise against adding any more fuel to the fire that has consumed David's mind.

Clete

 

[Right Divider]

This post is not addressed to Dave but to those of you who are engaging him here.

David is not merely spouting lunacy, he has lost his mind. He can no longer see up from down, left from right or right from wrong.
Nothing - and I mean literally nothing you will ever say will have any effect on him at all except to further cement him into his delusional state of mind.

He has been refuted in a 1000 different ways and he doesn't even acknowledge the rebuttal's existence and simply repeats arguments that were refuted before this thread was a month old. Here we are YEARS later and he's not one inch closer to be convinced of anything other than that we "clearly can't answer his argument". And he says things like that immediately after having quoted a post that did precisely that and more! Just what is it that you all think you're accomplishing here?

What David needs is shunning not sound reason, ridicule not rebuttal. To engage his "arguments" is to do him harm. To act as if he is rational is to give him cause to think he's being reasonable. My advice is to leave him alone. Let him be by himself in his stupidity. Chances are, he's a lost cause already but, just in case, I'd advise against adding any more fuel to the fire that has consumed David's mind.

Clete

While I fully agree with you about Dave's lunacy (and have told him so in many posts), I'm hopeful that the continued refutation of the silly "flat earth model" might be helpful for others that will find this thread.

 

[DFT_Dave]

So the pair of cars between them, cover 100 miles in 30 minutes.
That is 100 miles in 30 minutes. The cars are travelling 200 mph relative to each other, though they are going only 100 mph relative to the road.

And no, for the umpteenth time, this has nothing to do with Relativity or Atheists. Is is classical Newtonian mechanics, and simple facts.

Two cars 100 miles apart only have to travel 50 miles each in order to meet in the middle of the 100 mile distance.

Correct?

--Dave

 

[DFT_Dave]

I've seen this at least twice. This video is good evidence for the spinning globe.

I have said in the past that there exists "good evidence" for both spinning globe and "flat motionless earth".

I've also said that the evidence for globe comes from looking into space not looking at the earth.

When I posted many videos how flat earth deals with the movement of the sun, moon, and starts you all won't even view hardly any of them then protested that this was not a video site.

I have been viewing all the video I can from both sides of the argument. I've seen this and other videos like it.

Just as flat earth has to find an answer for this video, spinning globe must provide an answer for it's inconsistencies and contradictions.

Physics, some how, and in some way, has placed it's propositions above the rules of rational thought and replaced it with relativity.

--Dave

 

[DFT_Dave]

And no, for the umpteenth time, this has nothing to do with Relativity or Atheists. Is is classical Newtonian mechanics, and simple facts.

Who was Newton? Who was Darwin? Who was Einstein? Can they not be questioned? I'm sure these men discovered many things that are true. But does that mean everything?

In theology and philosophy we question everything and every body. It seems physics is holy ground.

--Dave