Right Divider
Body part
:thumb: Totally!
The earth is flat and we never went to the moon--Part II
- Thread starter DFT_Dave
- Start date
- Status
It is a scientific theory. A scientific theory is defined as: a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world, based on a body of facts that have been repeatedly confirmed through observation and experiment. Such fact-supported theories are not "guesses" but reliable accounts of the real world. Again, it is very important to make sure that you know the meaning of the terms you are using.
The equations developed by Newton are a mathematical model of a physical property of the universe we call gravity. We can use those equations to do a great many things. While many physicists are still studying gravity, our mathematical models the predict how gravity effects things are accurate.
Weight is not a, "determining factor in magical gravity." Weight is the result of gravity. Weight is defined as your mass times gravity. Note that mass is not weight. Your mass never changes but your weight does based on where you are. You weigh less on the moon than you do on Earth.
Why wouldn't gravity work on a globe? That's what needs proving. As I've repeatedly said, I'm not looking for globe proof derived from globe math and starting with a globe model to get all the data. I knew I lived on a globe for 50 years. I went from cartoons to college and beyond seeing, hearing, and learning about the globe. From what I've seen, all your globe calculations work just fine in flat earth.
Right Divider
Body part
Who put the #2 take poo in the tags?
I'm sorry that you cannot see that this was a joke. I'll make sure to put lots of smilies next time. :banana::cigar:K::french::chuckle:
With a lot of what has been said on this thread and others, I'm not so sure it WAS sarcasm.
Right Divider
Body part
I figured that you had read enough posts to know who is on what side of the "debate". It's OK.
Why wouldn't gravity work on a globe? Our best understanding of gravity is that it is a function of mass. The more mass something has, the more gravity it has. Gravity always pulls towards the center of mass so on a globe model, gravity always pulls to the center of the globe. On a flat disc, the theory of gravity says that it would pull towards the center of the disk with means the further you get away from that center, the more you will have to lean away from the center to feel like you are standing straight up. Trees would be growing at odd angles. We never observe these things in the world.
Well I feel stupid. For some strange reason I thought PJ had written that post. Totally my bad.
Question.... if that image were accurate why can't we see the sun close-up when we fly above the clouds?
When we fly on commercial airlines we never pass by the sun or worse yet run into it. When we fly on a commercial airline above the clouds we see the sun the same way we see it here on the ground. I.e., very far above us. So far in fact that no matter how fast or how high we fly the sun never appears to change locations.
Dave... if the earth is flat and the sun is merely circling overhead it would never set. We have been down this path already with you. If the earth is flat and sun is circling overhead it might get smaller as it moves away from us but it could never set below the horizon because it's traveling parallel to the surface of the flat earth. Parallel lines can converge but they cannot cross each other. Therefore the sun could not set behind the horizon on a flat earth model.
Furthermore... look at the sun as it sets. Does it get smaller? No it doesn't get smaller, it stays the same size. The sun setting behind the horizon and the fact it doesn't get smaller as it sets completely debunks your flat earth model.
Right Divider
Body part
Indeed, no might about it... it must get dramatically smaller at "evening".
Supposedly at noon, the sun is 1-3 thousand miles away from the observer. But at "sunset" it would be 20-30 thousand miles away!
Any child understands that this means a HUGE difference in the apparent SIZE that the sun appears to us.
Good point. After all... with the flat earth model as the sun moves away from us it must get so small that we can't even see the light emanating from it.
Right Divider
Body part
That's their silly claim... that the sun sets by getting far away.
Can you even imagine that they think that an object will appear to be the same size up "close" as it does when it's 10-20 times as far away? Just nuts!
This documentary/movie is not on youtube but can be watched free at the link below. This really is a must watch for anyone debating or trying to understand geocentric cosmology. This movie interviews top scientists from both sides and NEVER mentions flat earth. It is not a flat earth documentary. Anyone that professes to "know science" should watch this, otherwise the debate is over because globers only want to hear themselves talk.
https://123moviesfree.watch/watch/the-principle/full-movie-free-putlocker.html
https://123moviesfree.watch/watch/the-principle/full-movie-free-putlocker.html
Yeah, that's pretty much what you do, smilies.I'm sorry that you cannot see that this was a joke. I'll make sure to put lots of smilies next time. :banana::cigar:
From the Holy Wikipedia:
The Principle is a 2014 American independent documentary film produced by Rick Delano and Robert Sungenis. It rejects the Copernican principle and supports the pseudoscientific, long-superseded notion that Earth is at the center of the Universe. The film is narrated by Kate Mulgrew and features scientists such as Lawrence M. Krauss and Michio Kaku. Mulgrew and scientists who were interviewed in the film have repudiated the ideas advocated in the film and stated that their involvement was the result of being misled by the filmmaker.
The film was criticized by the physicists who were misled into appearing in the film for being a dishonest presentation of its material and purpose, makes an invalid philosophical assumption that defining physical relationships among objects in space one way or another, necessarily must limit what one can say about the relationship between God and humanity in theology, and treats science as a belief system dealing with the same matters as religion. The movie rejects the scientific consensus that the Earth and other planets orbit their stars, and distorts other elements of the actual Copernican principle.
Following the release of the film's trailer, narrator Kate Mulgrew said that she was misinformed about the purpose of the documentary. Max Tegmark explained that DeLano "cleverly tricked a whole bunch of us scientists into thinking that they were independent filmmakers doing an ordinary cosmology documentary, without mentioning anything about their hidden agenda." George Ellis corroborated. "I was interviewed for it but they did not disclose this agenda, which of course is nonsense. I don't think it's worth responding to -- it just gives them publicity. To ignore is the best policy. But for the record, I totally disavow that silly agenda."
Michio Kaku said that the film was probably using "clever editing" of his statements and bordered on "intellectual dishonesty" and Lawrence Krauss said he had no recollection of being interviewed for the film and would have refused to be in it if he had known more about it. British physicist Julian Barbour said that he never gave permission to be in the film.
Maybe we should all be watching the Flintstones as evidence of humans coexisting with dinosaurs.
Stuart
Yeah, they didn't like it because they tell the truth. That's what lying media type scientists and bad used car salesmen type scientists say when they get busted. "I don't remember" - "it was intellectually dishonest" boo hoo. The truth hurts, nobody forced those leading "experts" to testify or appear in the movie. Thanks for making it more of a must watch !!!
The Principle - Watch it in chunks if you don't have time today
https://123moviesfree.watch/watch/the-principle/full-movie-free-putlocker.html
Last edited:
All flying shows a flat stationary earth or we would not be having this debate.
That globe earth appeals to the sun to prove a moving globe is counter intuitive. Because we live on the earth one would think that we would be able to know the shape of it from it and not from moving sun, moon and stars over it.
View attachment 26304
https://www.metabunk.org/atmospheri...-the-eratosthenes-triangulation-method.t7801/
This debate site deals with sun and refraction for flat earth model.
--Dave
- Status