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

[genuineoriginal]

Imagine how much moon dust would have been kicked up by the Lunar Module truster as it landed. The lander must have been covered by moon dust. Certainly those landing pods would have been covered in dust, right.

Can you provide the trajectory of the moon dust that was kicked up by the Lunar Module thrusters to show that it would have reversed direction so it could coat the landing pods?

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

No, this does not settle anything, since the trajectory of the dust in the video was changed by the atmosphere of the earth and the moon does not have any atmosphere to change the trajectory of the dust.

But, your mention of moon dust does bring up one of the many proofs that we landed on the moon.

Proof we landed on the Moon is in the dust The key is the trajectory of the dust as it flies up behind the lunar rover. Because the dust in the images is so fine it was impossible to track any individual grains. Instead, they used the top of the dust cloud as their marker. Tracking the movement of the dust cloud clearly shows characteristic rooster tails and not the simple parabolic arc of a dust cloud we would see produced by a rover driving through, say, dust on Earth. This specific rooster tail shape is contingent on the lunar environment: the initial velocity of dust particles based on the rover’s speed, the gravitational field strength that is one-sixth what we have on Earth, and the complete lack of air resistance because the Moon has no appreciable atmosphere. Turning this visual data in to formulas allowed Hsu and Horányi to plot the movement of dust on a graph, turning the Grand Prix’s rooster tails into a mathematical visualization. So here’s where this gets really interesting. Hsu and Horányi didn’t stop after tracing the movement of lunar dust particles. They used the same formulas to plot the trajectories of dust particles on Earth, taking into account air resistance. And because air resistance affects particles of difference sizes so drastically, they took two values for their Earthly dust for good measure. The two scientists plotted the movement of four particles on one graph, two in a lunar environment (the solid lines) and two in an Earthly environment (the dotted lines). The graph shows that in any environment the particles begin with the same initial velocity but their ballistic paths are very different. Air resistance on Earth drags particles down fairly quickly whereas on the Moon the lack of air resistance gives particles a longer trajectory.

​

 

[genuineoriginal]

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.

Was I the only one that was able to see and experience the movements of the orreries?

 

[DFT_Dave]

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.

Fish look closer and larger in water from outside of the water.

Fish look larger in water from water as well.

--Dave

 

[JudgeRightly]

Was I the only one that was able to see and experience the movements of the orreries?

The gifs were working for me...

 

[DFT_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.

I don't know what more I can say on this subject. I understand how motion is defined in physics and all of you are very good in physics. And you are all correct about how everything works in a heliocentric universe. You all have much more knowledge and understanding about this then I do. You know I'm not questioning your knowledge or your integrity and conclusions based on the heliocentric model.

I've given my reasons for objecting to the heliocentric spinning globe. I'm more or less back to summarize and conclude my case with the best arguments I have found.

--Dave

 

[Right Divider]

I've given my reasons for objecting to the heliocentric spinning globe. I'm more or less back to summarize and conclude my case with the best arguments I have found.

--Dave

You have failed miserably and yet cannot see that.

 

[genuineoriginal]

I've given my reasons for objecting to the heliocentric spinning globe. I'm more or less back to summarize and conclude my case with the best arguments I have found.

I can see the sun rise in the east and see the sun set in the west.
I can get on a train and see the earth moves while I sit still.

 

[DFT_Dave]

Was I the only one that was able to see and experience the movements of the orreries?

This is about as irrational a comment on what I have said that I have ever seen.

--Dave

 

[JudgeRightly]

This is about as irrational a comment on what I have said that I have ever seen.

--Dave

He's talking about these, you idiot:

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:

Those are called orreries.

 

[DFT_Dave]

I can see the sun rise in the east and see the sun set in the west.
I can get on a train and see the earth moves while I sit still.

This is why relativity is irrational and not reality.

In reality The train is moving.

You're on the train moving with it.

The earth is not moving.

--Dave

 

[JudgeRightly]

This is why relativity is irrational and not reality.

There is nothing irrational at all about it, AND it perfectly fits reality.

In reality The train is moving.

Relative to what?

Dave, when you have to concede the entire point to make the argument against your opponent's position, your argument has failed.

You're on the train moving with it.

Yup, the train is stationary relative to the person on the train, yet the earth is moving relative to both the train and the person.

The earth is not moving.

There you go again, ARBITRARILY defining the earth as an absolute reference point.

When in reality, relative to the train, the earth IS, in fact, moving.

 

[DFT_Dave]

He's talking about these, you idiot:

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.

Those are called orreries.

The model is not the perception of reality we get from earth on earth.

I don't actually see the universe when see model, I see a model.

On earth my perception (what I see and experience) is a flat motionless earth.

By seeing this model I'm asked to imagine the universe in not what I see and experience.

--Dave

 

[genuineoriginal]

In reality The train is moving.

You're on the train moving with it.

The earth is not moving.

--Dave

On earth my perception (what I see and experience) is a flat motionless earth.

Also, in reality the earth is spinning on its axis and orbiting the Sun.

We are on the earth moving with it.

The sky is not moving.

 

[DFT_Dave]

There is nothing irrational at all about it, AND it perfectly fits reality.

Relative to what?

Dave, when you have to concede the entire point to make the argument against your opponent's position, your argument has failed.

Yup, the train is stationary relative to the person on the train, yet the earth is moving relative to both the train and the person.

There you go again, ARBITRARILY defining the earth as an absolute reference point.

When in reality, relative to the train, the earth IS, in fact, moving.

And if someone jumps off that train (not so as to badly injure himself) onto what he perceives is a moving earth will his reality change?

Will his perception now be that the train is moving and not the earth?

Or, will he continue to think the earth is still moving and the train is not?

--Dave

P.S. If the injured man went to the doctor would he say I jumped off the train and got hit by the moving earth?

 

[JudgeRightly]

The model is not the perception of reality we get from earth on earth.

I don't actually see the universe when see model, I see a model.

On earth my perception (what I see and experience) is a flat motionless earth.

By seeing this model I'm asked to imagine the universe in not what I see and experience.

--Dave

Hardly any of that made any sense at all.

Please correct your grammar.

And if someone jumps off that train (not so as to badly injure himself) onto what he perceives is a moving earth will his reality change?

Loaded question.

Reality is reality. It doesn't belong to anyone.

If a man jumps off a train, his perception will change, but not reality. Reality is that he was on a train, then he jumped off of it, and then landed on the ground. The only things that changed were his perspective and his position relative to the earth and train.

Will his perception now be that the train is moving and not the earth?

Once he stops moving relative to the earth, yes.

Or, will he continue to think the earth is still moving and the train is not?

Depends if his head is spinning from hitting the ground.

P.S. If the injured man went to the doctor would he say I jumped off the train and got hit by the moving earth?

Yes. It might sound weird, but it is logical.

 

[DFT_Dave]

Hardly any of that made any sense at all.

Please correct your grammar.

Loaded question.

Reality is reality. It doesn't belong to anyone.

If a man jumps off a train, his perception will change, but not reality. Reality is that he was on a train, then he jumped off of it, and then landed on the ground. The only things that changed were his perspective and his position relative to the earth and train.

Once he stops moving relative to the earth, yes.

Depends if his head is spinning from hitting the ground.

Yes. It might sound weird, but it is logical.

Do you still drive truck?

--Dave

 

[George Affleck]

The claim of flat earth is that we see everything over head in perspective just as we see everything in perspective on earth. But then it's argued that the sun should get much smaller the farther away it is from us.

It has been argued that the sun maintains it's size from sun rise to sun set from where ever we are on earth. But I argued back that this is wrong because even if the earth is a globe the sun is still farther away from us at sun set and sun rise than it is when it's directly above us.

Seeing the sun even from a globe is tricky business. At sun rise and sun set I'm not really seeing the sun anyway.

View attachment 26891

The most popular refraction example is the pencil in the glass of water.

View attachment 26892

Refraction not only bends light it also magnifies, or enlarges the pencil in the glass making it look bigger than it is. So if we can say at sun set and sun rise the sum is not where it actually is, we should also say it also looks larger than it actually is.

--Dave

The sun moves below the horizon in exactly the same time as it takes for it to move it's own arc diameter anywhere else in the sky.

 

[Right Divider]

The sun moves below the horizon in exactly the same time as it takes for it to move it's own arc diameter anywhere else in the sky.

Dave has been shown many clear, unambiguous and unequivocal proofs that the flat earth model is a complete failure.

He is oblivious to plain facts.

 

[George Affleck]

Dave has been shown many clear, unambiguous and unequivocal proofs that the flat earth model is a complete failure.

He is oblivious to plain facts.

I have asked him to explain this fact according to the flat earth model and he continues to avoid answering. I will continue to put it in his face until he does. This time he tried to answer it with the 'refraction' answer which is not applicable and he knows it.

 

[chair]

Dave has been shown many clear, unambiguous and unequivocal proofs that the flat earth model is a complete failure.

He is oblivious to plain facts.

Dave is convinced for religious reasons (apparently) that the Earth is stationary and flat. So he must, at any cost, reject or ignore reality. Add to that his idea that relative motion and relativity (which he confuses) are evil because they use the same term "relative" as is used in "relative morality". Top it off with a desire to feel that you are smarter than all those educated people (like those who paid attention in high school)- and you've got a toxic form of unshakable belief. A delusion.

not much can be done about it, as the wasted efforts of so many have shown.