Hi Berean, haven't seen you in a while. How've you been?
The earth is flat and we never went to the moon--Part II
- Thread starter DFT_Dave
- Start date
- Status
The collection of data is not an experiment.
When I see the horizon at eye level and someone tries too to tell me that's not what I see then I know that person is trying to decieve me.
--Dave
No, Dave, it's called reality.
It's called perspective.
The ground beneath my feet will be seen to rise, though not actually, to my eye level, if the earth is a flat plane.
Things in the sky above me, planes flying parallel to a flat plane, clouds over a long distance at the same elevation above the earth, will appear to descend to my eye level in the distance.
Things will disappear from both ground and sky at the furthest distance I can see. The ground is a solid so things will disappear from view from the bottom first.
The sun, moon, and stars will do the same if the earth is flat and they circle above the earth.
A dome over us will also affect how we view the movement of the heavenly bodies along with atmospheric conditions.
If we really had gone to the moon we would still be going there and beyond. In reality we have never gone beyond the dome.
--Dave
What do you think an experiment does? Science is done in steps. Step one - observe and hypothesize. Once you have your hypothesis, you want to test it to see if it is correct so you create a test scenario. That test scenario is called an experiment. The experiment generates data points. You may run the experiment several times to collect several sets of data points. The scientist takes those data points and compares them to the what the hypothesis predicted. If the data is within experimental error, the hypothesis is confirmed. If not, the scientist must revise his hypothesis to explain why the collected data did not match the predicted results. This process continuously repeats itself. So Dave, a collection of data IS actually an experiment. It may even be the first thing that a scientist "observes" to for their hypothesis.
Your own eye deceive you. For instance, are these lines parallel or not?
The correct answer is that the lines are parallel. If this simple test can deceive your eyes, why would not test things that you see to determine if they are an accurate representation of reality or just an optical illusion.
It actually didn't prove it but I concede the point. However, what it did not prove is that the Earth is stationary. In other words, space is a vacuum and does not have substance.
The Michael-Morley experiments were intended to test whether there was an "ether". The prevailing theory at the time was that light, being a wave, must propagate through something. If such an ether exists, the Michael-Morley experiments failed to definitively detect it. It should be pointed out, however, that their results were not zero and that there were several flaws in the methodology and as such do not constitute the proof that you suggest. Which is not to say that I believe that there is an ether, by the way. I'm just pointing out the facts.
The result had NOTHING to do with answering the question, "Is the Earth moving?" The idea was to test whether there was an ether. In fact, the movement of the Earth is a foundational premise of the experiment. That's why the two arms of the apparatus were set at 90° to each other. The question wasn't whether the Earth was moving but whether it was moving through something or through nothing (i.e. a vacuum). One of the several flaws of the methodology has to do with the presumption that the ether (if it exists) must be rigid. If, for example, the ether was viscous like a thick liquid then massive bodies like the Earth may drag part of the ether along with it as it moves like a spoon moving through honey. If this were the case, it would render their experiment, and all others like it, unable to detect the predicted effects that the experiment was designed to detect. It would look to the apparatus as though there were no ether whether there was one or not.
These objections to the Michelson-Morley experiment and to the mainstream interpretation of it's findings are not new. The problems with the experiment were pointed out at the time the experiments were undertaken and different scientists did similar experiments and got different results. None of this is my opinion and it's not difficult to find these facts with only modest digging. But you won't find a word of it on flat-earth websites and youtube channels.
I'm not sure if I'm following you here but as I said, other scientists performed similar experiments and got different results. Further, as I also said, the apparatus used in the experiments would fail to detect any significant alteration in the speed of light if there is no ether or if the ether was moving, in part, along with the Earth.
Clete
No, it hasn't David. On the contrary, I and several other have flatly proven (actually proven - not merely argued) that the Earth cannot be flat.
How so?
My point wasn't to accept his argument but to show that your objection was hypocritical! You are guilty of the very thing you were accusing him of!
Clete
I'm sorry, I thought you were talking about Christianity. There is no rational defense of any kind that would support what you've described above. If you believe that what you've described above has anything to do with Christianity, you've been lied to or are yourself a liar.
You know, I don't think I'll ever understand people like you. Why bother rejecting a religion or other worldview based on what it doesn't teach? I mean, if you're going to reject it why not reject the real thing rather than some version of it that sounds bad enough to make you feel good about having rejected it? Turning something into a monster that bears no resemblance to the real thing in order to justify it's rejection says far more about you than it does anything about what you've rejected. What's the point of such mental back bending? I truly don't get it. I mean, its just so much stupidity. You might as well refuse to drive Dodge trucks because the manufacturer holds two year old babies against their will so as to farm blood from their vanes to use as lubricant in their factories. It isn't at all true but if you're going to just make stuff up so you can reject it then why not just go hog wild?!
Clete
Descend in the distance maybe. But cross planes?? The sun disappears below the plane of the horizon. It doesn't merely descend... it crosses the plane of the horizon. It sinks behind the horizon at full size. This is something you can witness every single day with your own eyes! TWICE!! Once in the morning and once at sunset.
Dave are you suggesting that when the sun is halfway behind the horizon the bottom portion of the sun is too small to see but the top half is still at regular size??
This is not how perspective works.
An item as it moves of into the distance may appear to get smaller and smaller and more near the horizon line but they never cross the horizon line unless the object is moving in a non-parallel motion to the horizon.
The sun not only crosses the plane of the horizon it does not get any smaller as it crosses. It stays the exact same size as it is in the middle of the day when it's directly overhead.
Again this isn't true. Items that move parallel to each other cannot cross each others paths.
I think you need to refine your theory because you are simply wrong on your facts about perspective.
1Mind1Spirit
Literal lunatic
Perspective is hard to comprehend for those who think they can see something 93 million miles away.
Two points...
1. You are wrong. Perspective is a straightforward concept.
2. I'm not the one appealing to perspective. It was Dave who made the outrageous claim that due to perspective the sun (which is supposedly traveling parallel to the flat earth surface) can cross or "set" below the horizon.
Dave's claim is wrong. Heck I can't even theoretically make a case for it.
Last edited:
Right Divider
Body part
What's the problem with seeing something 93 million miles away?
1Mind1Spirit
Literal lunatic
Other than being impossible, nuthin'.
Why is it impossible?
1Mind1Spirit
Literal lunatic
He didn't say it crosses it, only that it can appear to.
Course not.
The preaching of the cross is foolishness.......
1Mind1Spirit
Literal lunatic
Romans 10:8
8But what does it say? "The word is near you; it is in your mouth and in your heart," that is, the message concerning faith that we proclaim:
Right Divider
Body part
Based upon what?
Right Divider
Body part
That has nothing to do with how are we can see.
Gen 24:64 (AKJV/PCE)
(24:64) And Rebekah lifted up her eyes, and when she saw Isaac, she lighted off the camel.
- Status