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

[DFT_Dave]

https://youtu.be/CyH4Zaz3mEE

As you just learned, this is a false statement.

Your responses take up a lot of space so let me get to the main point.

As to the the claim there was very little dust kicked up by the moon lander and all the dust neatly settled leaving no visible disturbance.

INSANE! SpaceX Falcon Heavy Side Boosters Landing Simultaneously at Kennedy Space Center

I guess this settles this issue, right?

--Dave

 

[Right Divider]

Here is one website I found that addresses the whole Flat Earth Dome Model by Walter Bislin.

http://walter.bislins.ch/bloge/index.asp?page=flat+earth+dome+model

It shows what a flat earth model can and cannot account for.

--Dave

Did you even READ anything on that page?

Some observations like the positions of Sun, Moon and Star Constellations as well as Sun/Moon-rise/set can be explained by a Flat Earth Model if we allow strong light bending in a specific way and restrict the observers to sea level. Even the date of Eclipses can be predicted from this model.

But observations as the southern celectial pole, Moon Phases and its Orientation and apparent Rotation as well as the track of the Shadow of the Moon on solar Eclipses can not be computed from the Flat Earth Model, because you need the correct sizes and orbits of Sun, Moon and Earth to compute this. The essential third dimension is lost if you assume a Dome over the Flat Earth, where Sun and Moon are close and small. Observations other than from sea level can not match reality.

There is no explanation or scientific model that can physically explain why and how light is bent as needed by this Flat Earth Model. It is not possible to derive a light bending model that works for any altitude.

 

[Right Divider]

It seems I have to spell everything out for you guys.

You're not the one making intelligent statements here, so don't start patting yourself on the back.

At least you seem to understand that saying a flat motionless earth is God's and our reference point for everything else that moves in the universe is a proposition not a proof.

It is a false statement.

Saying that the earth is not a reference point for everything else in a universe where every thing else is moving means every moving thing can be a reference point (including the earth) but there would be no ultimate or final absolute reference point. The flat stationary earth would be that ultimate, final, absolute reference point. I thought maybe you would figure that out that is what I meant.

There is simply NO SUCH THING as the "ultimate reference point" with regards to object moving throughout the universe.

You can continue to fool yourself if you like.

 

[Right Divider]

I simply wanted to make the point it's not a proof along with my no trees no lakes etc example is not a proof either.

My problem is relativity. Relativity means for me contradiction. As a most basic example, water seeks it own level but not when a body of water gets too big. Water flows down hill but every direction is down hill on a globe.

And, ONCE AGAIN, you are confusing terms and ignoring facts.

Gravity it seems has been given supernatural powers just like God.

Another idiotic thing to say. The EFFECTS of gravity are quite well understood and demonstrate the complete FAILURE of the flat earth "model".

I see some problems with a globe and I see some problems with flat earth as do a lot of other people. I'm being just plain and openly honest about this. Most people find it hard to articulate their doubts and certainly don't want to be called insane or a lunatic. I'm not bothered by that, I just what to have both views explained and compared both from science and scripture. It took me a long time to finally settle with open view theism, it took me a long time to finally reject evolution. I don't have much time left but I'm not in a rush either.

:juggle::straight::AMR::freak:

 

[DFT_Dave]

People are allowed to use it. The reason the usage is RESTRICTED, not PROHIBITED, is that it is an INDUSTRIAL GRADE piece of equipment that NOT JUST ANYONE CAN USE! There are SAFETY procedures to follow, because of the fact that people can fit inside of it.

If no one was allowed to use it, then a few TV show hosts would have NEVER been allowed to use it.

If you have a legitimate reason to use it, and request to use it, I'm sure they would allow you to use it, provided you followed their guidelines.

EVEN IF YOU WERE NOT ABLE TO USE IT:

It's not impossible to build your own vacuum chamber, and run the same experiment the Mythbusters did. The only difference is that the vacuum chamber would not be as empty as the one NASA has can make.

Let's see what happened in the NASA vacuum chamber when it was first used.

The Time a NASA Experiment Gone Wrong Almost Killed Someone

Space Suit Testing

Someone made this comment:
"The tube pressurizing his suit had become disconnected" If that had happened, his suit would have depressurized instantly, not gradually. It's more likely it was the stitches that had given way. That was the last time they tested a 1960's suit in a vacuum chamber.

I tube disconnecting is not believable at all. People in this business absolutely would have made sure all tubes were secure.

Any little hole in a space suit or a space craft will be penetrated by a vacuum with disastrous results.

--Dave

 

[JudgeRightly]

Your responses take up a lot of space so let me get to the main point.

As to the the claim there was very little dust kicked up by the moon lander and all the dust neatly settled leaving no visible disturbance.

INSANE! SpaceX Falcon Heavy Side Boosters Landing Simultaneously at Kennedy Space Center

I guess this settles this issue, right?

--Dave

As long as by "settled" you understand that there is no necessity for there to be a blast crater on the surface of the moon, because of how little thrust was needed by the main thruster on the lunar lander because it wasn't moving very quickly, then yes, this matter is settled.

If by posting the above video of the SpaceX rocket, you intend to make the argument that such a blast crater IS necessary, I would, first, like to point out to you that those rockets did, in fact, go into space, and second, the circumstances of EACH of those thrusters are COMPLETELY AND UTTERLY DIFFERENT.

Did you even bother to watch the video?

The lunar landers landed in 1/6th gravity and landed very slowly.

The SpaceX rockets landed in full earth gravity and landed very quickly, because they weighed much more than first of all the lunar landers, and second than they would had they landed on the moon.

In essence, there's almost no comparison to make, other than they are both spacecraft that land.

 

[JudgeRightly]

Let's see what happened in the NASA vacuum chamber when it was first used.

The Time a NASA Experiment Gone Wrong Almost Killed Someone

Space Suit Testing

And?

Notice how Dave completely ignored the point that was made about NASA allowing very few people (not "no one") to use their industrial grade vacuum chamber?

Someone made this comment:
"The tube pressurizing his suit had become disconnected" If that had happened, his suit would have depressurized instantly, not gradually. It's more likely it was the stitches that had given way. That was the last time they tested a 1960's suit in a vacuum chamber.

False premise.

Tell ya what, Dave. Why don't you try researching this topic for a bit before you start commenting on it and making arguments about it.

I tube disconnecting is not believable at all. People in this business absolutely would have made sure all tubes were secure.

Humans make mistakes, Dave. Even professionals.

Any little hole in a space suit or a space craft will be penetrated by a vacuum with disastrous results.

--Dave

False.

 

[DFT_Dave]

DUH, DAVE! That is, BY DEFINITION, how motion is determined!

What do you think we've been SAYING for the past few months!?

MOTION IS DEFINED BY ARBITRARILY DESIGNATING AN EXTERNAL FRAME OF REFERENCE!

Except that, BY DEFINITION, there IS no such absolute reference point, BECAUSE OF THE FACT THAT RELATIVE TO EVERYTHING ELSE, THE FLAT EARTH WOULD ALSO BE MOVING...

BY DEFINITION!!!!

By definition a stationary, immovable flat earth does not move and logically is the absolute.

Motion is what is moving as opposed to what is not moving. Motion is not what is moving in relation to what else is moving, that's irrational. Modern physics is relative--irrational.

--Dave

 

[genuineoriginal]

We all share the same perception from earth. That won't change.

Cosmologies come from expanding our imagination not our perception.

--Dave

Watching machines move involves our perception.

Orreries can show us how the planets and moons in our Solar System move when the timeframe is sped up.

The motions of the planets in a geocentric orrery:

The motions in a heliocentric orrery:

 

[DFT_Dave]

Did you even READ anything on that page?

Yes, I said this website showed both what a flat earth model can and cannot explain.

I should have said what the "current" flat earth model can and cannot explain.

It explains a lot more than most people think.

--Dave

 

[Right Divider]

By definition a stationary, immovable flat earth does not move and logically is the absolute.

It is the "absolute reference" BY YOUR CHOICE and NOT by any sort a real "absolute" sense.

Motion is what is moving as opposed to what is not moving. Motion is not what is moving in relation to what else is moving, that's irrational. Modern physics is relative--irrational.

Still idiotically CONFLATING terms.

 

[Right Divider]

Yes, I said this website showed both what a flat earth model can and cannot explain.

I should have said what the "current" flat earth model can and cannot explain.

It explains a lot more than most people think.

--Dave

Now you're a comedian.

 

[DFT_Dave]

You're not the one making intelligent statements here, so don't start patting yourself on the back.

It is a false statement.

There is simply NO SUCH THING as the "ultimate reference point" with regards to object moving throughout the universe.

You can continue to fool yourself if you like.

I agree, there's no such thing as an "ultimate reference point" in the heliocentric model.

In the geocentric and flat earth model there is an "ultimate reference point".

--Dave

 

[Right Divider]

I agree, there's no such thing as an "ultimate reference point" in the heliocentric model.

In the geocentric and flat earth model there is an "ultimate reference point".

--Dave

Bluff and bluster.

 

[genuineoriginal]

Refraction not only bends light it also magnifies, or enlarges the pencil in the glass making it look bigger than it is.

The magnification you are claiming only happens when the refraction medium (water in this case) is seen through a convex side.

Refraction can also make things look smaller that it is when looked at through a concave side.

 

[DFT_Dave]

As long as by "settled" you understand that there is no necessity for there to be a blast crater on the surface of the moon, because of how little thrust was needed by the main thruster on the lunar lander because it wasn't moving very quickly, then yes, this matter is settled.

If by posting the above video of the SpaceX rocket, you intend to make the argument that such a blast crater IS necessary, I would, first, like to point out to you that those rockets did, in fact, go into space, and second, the circumstances of EACH of those thrusters are COMPLETELY AND UTTERLY DIFFERENT.

Did you even bother to watch the video?

The lunar landers landed in 1/6th gravity and landed very slowly.

The SpaceX rockets landed in full earth gravity and landed very quickly, because they weighed much more than first of all the lunar landers, and second than they would had they landed on the moon.

In essence, there's almost no comparison to make, other than they are both spacecraft that land.

I think the video speaks for itself and the conclusion that the Lunar Lander would have no dust on the landing pods and no sign of any disturbance under it from the lander's thruster is nonsense. This is especially evident when you see how easily the so call lunar surface is kicked up by the astronauts.

--Dave

 

[JudgeRightly]

By definition a stationary, immovable flat earth does not move and logically is the absolute.

Motion is what is moving as opposed to what is not moving. Motion is not what is moving in relation to what else is moving, that's irrational. Modern physics is relative--irrational.

--Dave

The definition of motion, once again, is this:

Motion: "the action or process of moving or being moved."

How is motion defined:

In physics, motion is the change in position of an object or a physical system with respect to its surroundings. Motion is mathematically described in terms of displacement, distance, velocity, acceleration, and speed.
- Wikipedia

All motions are relative to some frame of reference. Saying that a body is at rest, which means that it is not in motion, merely means that it is being described with respect to a frame of reference that is moving together with the body. For example, a body on the surface of the Earth may appear to be at rest, but that is only because the observer is also on the surface of the Earth. The Earth itself, together with both the body and the observer, is moving in its orbit around the Sun and rotating on its own axis at all times. As a rule, the motions of bodies obey Newton’s laws of motion.
- Britannica https://www.britannica.com/science/motion-mechanics

You don't get to just redefine terms or call them irrational because you think they are, Dave, ESPECIALLY when you have not done ONE OUNCE of work to show that such terms and definitions are incorrect. To do so is irrational itself, and thus self-contradictory.

 

[JudgeRightly]

Watching machines move involves our perception.

Orreries can show us how the planets and moons in our Solar System move when the timeframe is sped up.

The motions of the planets in a geocentric orrery:

The motions in a heliocentric orrery:

That second orrery looks like it was designed.

The first just looks like a jumbled mess...

 

[DFT_Dave]

Watching machines move involves our perception.

Orreries can show us how the planets and moons in our Solar System move when the timeframe is sped up.

The motions of the planets in a geocentric orrery:

The motions in a heliocentric orrery:

No, it effects how we imagine the cosmos to be.

By perception we mean what we all see and experience from and on the earth.

This would effect our perception only if we were actually out there in space and could see all the planets just as presented in the model.

--Dave

 

[JudgeRightly]

I think the video speaks for itself and the conclusion that the Lunar Lander would have no dust on the landing pods and no sign of any disturbance under it from the lander's thruster is nonsense. This is especially evident when you see how easily the so call lunar surface is kicked up by the astronauts.

--Dave

It was explained clearly in the video. Calling it nonsense when you don't provide reasonable evidence against it is called an "appeal to the stone" fallacy.

That is the kind of argument you have made.

The SpaceX video does nothing to contradict the video I posted, and if anything, is completely in line with it.

That you reject clear and concise, and even simple and when thinking about it, SUPER OBVIOUS, explanations, is no surprise to any of us.