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

Status
Not open for further replies.

Clete

Truth Smacker
Silver Subscriber
Experience has nothing to do with what is written. The sun stood still is the same thing as the earth stopped spinning.

Literally taken it's the sun that stands still because it's the sun that's moving not the earth.

Non-literally the earth stands still because it's the earth that's moving not the sun.

Saying that God writes what is not true because he knows we see it differently is very problematic to say the least.
Saying it doesn't make it so, David.

Anyone reading that passage understands what is being said, both then and now. The only difference is that we understand something about how God accomplished what is being described as the Sun standing still.

And it did do exactly that, by the way. In every sense that it would make any sense to say such a thing, the Sun stood still just as the Bible describes.

We all see how we all are born into this world, no one saw God form the first man from the dust of the earth whole and complete. God revealed to us exactly what we would not know, and see very differently, in human origin and if the world is not the way we see it, and is very much the opposite, there is no doubt in my mind that God could have and would have "clearly" revealed it to us.
Yeah, yeah, yeah. Blah, blah, blah.

Repeat after me...

ARGUMENT FROM SILENCE!

1 The heavens are telling the glory of God; and the firmament proclaims his handiwork.

2 Day to day pours forth speech, and night to night declares knowledge.

3 There is no speech, nor are there words; their voice is not heard;

4 yet their voice goes out through all the earth, and their words to the end of the world. In them he has set a tent for the sun,

5 which comes forth like a bridegroom leaving his chamber, and like a strong man runs its course with joy.

6 Its rising is from the end of the heavens, and its circuit to the end of them; and there is nothing hid from its heat.

--Dave

It's too bad you won't pay attention to what the heavens have to say!

The Sun and Moon both have been used to tell you in no uncertain terms that the Earth cannot be flat and yet you persist.

Very carefully collected experimental data has demonstrated to the world that the Sun is millions of miles away, not a few thousand and yet you persist.

We've known for over two thousand years how far away the Moon is. That's a measurement that you could do yourself, and yet you persist.

The Sun and the shadows it casts have been used to measure the circumference of the Earth, again thousands of years ago, and yet you persist.

And on and on it goes.

Clete
 

DFT_Dave

LIFETIME MEMBER
LIFETIME MEMBER
Dave continues to add evidence to the idea that he is unable to think well enough, or focus well enough, to discuss the topic. As Knight has brought up, it seems like the mind that has spent too much time altered by marijuana. Although there may be other reasons why Dave shows this kind of behavior. All his attempts at deep thought are simply references to someone else who he thinks is showing us the deep thought he cannot express.

Questioning and debating a subject is not a "behavior".

--Dave
 

DFT_Dave

LIFETIME MEMBER
LIFETIME MEMBER
David has displayed the ability to think clearly many times in the past, not the least of which is his website. I cannot reconcile the David that authored the material on that website with the David on this thread. It feels to me like two different people.

My website was made after years of study, my debate here is based on a presentation of flat earth arguments I have not studied for years. The arguments for it are not mine in the same way arguments for God's existence and nature are mine from my website. I'm not making here personal final conclusions. I'm studying this subject from both side as we go. So yes, this is different from my past debates and from my website. I have taken the subject of cosmology as my last study, not getting any younger.

You all are not fighting me in this debate your fighting flat earth. Don't kill the messenger.

:angrymob:

--Dave
 

Clete

Truth Smacker
Silver Subscriber
My website was made after years of study, my debate here is based on a presentation of flat earth arguments I have not studied for years. The arguments for it are not mine in the same way arguments for God's existence and nature are mine from my website. I'm not making here personal final conclusions. I'm studying this subject from both side as we go. So yes, this is different from my past debates and from my website. I have taken the subject of cosmology as my last study, not getting any younger.

You all are not fighting me in this debate your fighting flat earth. Don't kill the messenger.

:angrymob:

--Dave
I so badly want to believe this!

Can you at least acknowledge how difficult it is for us to keep this in view? How hard it is to even believe?

We've thrown colossally debilitating arguments against the FET (Flat Earth Theory) and you react is if it's just so many spit balls at a battleship.

Clete
 
Last edited:

DFT_Dave

LIFETIME MEMBER
LIFETIME MEMBER
Yes, of course we are.

We are encased in the atmosphere just as you'd be encased in water if you were submerged in a traveling swimming pool.

You think there ought to be some sort of space wind where the Earth would experience some sort of frictional force that would leave the atmosphere behind.

This thinking is question begging. It presumes the truth of your position in order to argue for it.

If the Earth is traveling through a vacuum then there would be no frictional force to remove the atmosphere which is held to the surface by the same force that holds you to the surface.

And, in actual fact, there is a slight frictional force that would indeed strip the Earth of it's atmosphere if not for the fact that the Earth has a magnetic field that protects it from the solar wind. In this sense it is accurate to say that we are encased in a magnetic field as we travel through the solar system. The Sun itself also has a magnetic field that also has a protective effect as the solar system moves through the galaxy.

In any case, we are, in fact, inside the Earth (which includes the atmosphere). Indeed, we were formed from and remain a part of it.

It is also the reason why it is entirely accurate to state the the Sun stood still.

No, on the contrary, it is careful observations of the Sun's position relative to other objects in the sky that does tell us that the Earth is spinning and is in orbit around the Sun. It is only the general experience that fails to inform such a conclusion. In other words, the fact that the Earth is spinning on it's axis and is in orbit around the Sun is not intuitive but is evident if one looks closely enough, which a great many brilliant minds have done and which you dismiss without cause.

What you are doing is the opposite of science. Instead of doing experiments with careful and detailed observation to collect data that either confirms or contradicts a theory, you are rejecting a theory on the basis of a lack of careful observation. You think that because the spin of the Earth isn't obvious to anyone who happens to be outside, that it is therefore false. That is literally the opposite of science.

Clete

Being on top of the earth is not like being in water either, another false analogy.

Neither the air, the atmosphere, nor gravity effects the movement of anything through it. Only if the earth had a "solid" ceiling above and around it would we have a equivalent analogy that being on earth is like being in a plane or in a car. But we can't have this ceiling effect and still go to the moon.

The spinning solid globe earth would cut through a atmosphere of gases just as we do and everything else that moves through it, and being on top of the earth would be like being on top of a moving car or plane and not like being in them.

"Scientists knew a lot about waves. ... They gave it a name: luminiferous ether, which means "the stuff which carries light waves." As the Earth orbits around the Sun, it must run through the ether. That will cause an "ether wind" near the Earth's surface, blowing in the direction opposite to the Earth's motion."--Wiki

The ether wind is not moving through space, the earth's movement through space causes a wind and direction through it. That's why no wind means no movement for earth. The wind effect is caused by the moving earth, everybody I quoted got the connection right. Those who opposed the appropriate conclusion made a false distinction that the movement of the earth and the ether wind were not connected, they deny the ether wind is caused by the moving earth.

Flat earth argues it can also account for the movement of sun, moon, and stars and the Copernican model is not the only way to interpret the universe.

--Dave
 

DFT_Dave

LIFETIME MEMBER
LIFETIME MEMBER
I so badly want to believe this!

Can you at least acknowledge how difficult it is for us to keep this in view? How hard it is to even believe?

We've thrown colossally debilitating arguments against the FET (Felt Earth Theory) and you react is if it's just so many spit balls at a battleship.

Clete

You're very correct in that in order to "really" undo the globe one must undo almost all the historical support for it.

This seems an impossible task. I don't see as yet how I can personally take either side with full confidence. I have been studying this for a while now hoping for a way to confirm to my satisfaction either GE or FE.

Other than doing what Knight has suggested, taking a trip to outer space, I don't know how anyone can be absolutely convinced.

I have countered your "good" arguments as flat earther's do, that does not mean they are all good arguments. But there are good arguments for FE. Are they sufficient enough to over turn the centuries long held GE model? Until I think I can comprehend well enough the globe model arguments and see for myself why they are wrong I cannot say.

You'll have to forgive me for thinking it's possible that FE is true. You have a far better understanding of the subject of GE than I probably ever will. For me, questioning and debating is a good thing, having doubts is not a bad thing. I'm open to both views at this time.

--Dave
 

Yorzhik

Well-known member
LIFETIME MEMBER
Hall of Fame
Questioning and debating a subject is not a "behavior".

--Dave
The word "behavior' is close enough, even if it isn't the perfect word. You've reduced yourself to a meme:

View attachment 26638

This brings up the point of my post. You don't respond to people discussing each topic with you using only reason. And you don't counter with any of your own words except on a surface level.

Perhaps you can provide evidence against my theory. Remember the picture you drew on grid paper with the sun approaching some mountains/trees? How big will the sun be just before it disappears behind them? It should be smaller, correct? And, if you need to respond, just look up "rob skiba lensing sun size"... see, I've done your thinking for you.

So let me respond to Rob's video. You should notice that the sun in his model still does not stay the same size, and that the 'atmosphere lens' would have to have the same orientation as his model. Is either of these things true? You can test it - grab your cell phone and take pictures of the sun throughout the day. Make sure to use a filter to avoid lens flare and so you don't destroy the camera on your phone. Post the pictures and we'll measure them for you.

My prediction is that your response will not include the relevant discussion of your picture because it will require too much thinking to figure out the size of the sun in your model to draw the picture with the sun just before it goes behind the mountains/trees.
 

Yorzhik

Well-known member
LIFETIME MEMBER
Hall of Fame
David has displayed the ability to think clearly many times in the past, not the least of which is his website. I cannot reconcile the David that authored the material on that website with the David on this thread. It feels to me like two different people.
And he's posted good thinking in some evolution threads as well. Perhaps we should ask directly if he's been self medicating?
 

Yorzhik

Well-known member
LIFETIME MEMBER
Hall of Fame
Neither the air, the atmosphere, nor gravity effects the movement of anything through it.
If this isn't true

Only if the earth had a "solid" ceiling above and around it would we have a equivalent analogy that being on earth is like being in a plane or in a car. But we can't have this ceiling effect and still go to the moon.
then this isn't true either.

Are you sure "Neither the air, the atmosphere, nor gravity effects the movement of anything through it."? Can you think of a way to test this?

edit: HT to JudgeRightly
 

Nathon Detroit

LIFETIME MEMBER
LIFETIME MEMBER
Other than doing what Knight has suggested, taking a trip to outer space, I don't know how anyone can be absolutely convinced.
--Dave
Seriously?? This boggles my mind that any human could actually utter those words. Dave just go outside.... watch the sun rise or set above and below the horizon (without getting smaller) and be honest with yourself. There is NO possible way that could could happen using the FE model. And it happens twice a day!!

That alone has me absolutely convinced.

The pictures from space of a globe earth and then all the rest of the stuff are just icing on the cake. Honestly I don't think you have presented a single argument in any of these posts that has been the slightest bit convincing. You have never made me once say... "Hmmm that's pretty good". It's a totally bankrupt theory.
 

Caino

BANNED
Banned
Just like Lucifer, David's mischief making pride has gone too far to reverse course. "The heart is deceitful above all things, and desperately wicked: who can know it?"
 

Clete

Truth Smacker
Silver Subscriber
You're very correct in that in order to "really" undo the globe one must undo almost all the historical support for it.

This seems an impossible task. I don't see as yet how I can personally take either side with full confidence. I have been studying this for a while now hoping for a way to confirm to my satisfaction either GE or FE.

Other than doing what Knight has suggested, taking a trip to outer space, I don't know how anyone can be absolutely convinced.

I have countered your "good" arguments as flat earther's do, that does not mean they are all good arguments. But there are good arguments for FE. Are they sufficient enough to over turn the centuries long held GE model? Until I think I can comprehend well enough the globe model arguments and see for myself why they are wrong I cannot say.

You'll have to forgive me for thinking it's possible that FE is true. You have a far better understanding of the subject of GE than I probably ever will. For me, questioning and debating is a good thing, having doubts is not a bad thing. I'm open to both views at this time.

--Dave

My arguments are not merely good arguments. I have falsified this idiotic flat Earth stupidity.

You're stupid and that's all there is too it.
 

Clete

Truth Smacker
Silver Subscriber
Being on top of the earth is not like being in water either, another false analogy.
It is "being on top" of the Earth that is false. You are swimming in an ocean of air.

Neither the air, the atmosphere, nor gravity effects the movement of anything through it. Only if the earth had a "solid" ceiling above and around it would we have a equivalent analogy that being on earth is like being in a plane or in a car. But we can't have this ceiling effect and still go to the moon.
It wouldn't have to be solid. Why would it have to be solid?

The spinning solid globe earth would cut through a atmosphere of gases just as we do and everything else that moves through it, and being on top of the earth would be like being on top of a moving car or plane and not like being in them.
No, the atmosphere is part of the Earth and moves with it. It also moves and swirls around relative to the surface of the Earth but it's more general movement is mostly with the Earth.

When Huricane Harvey came to Houston, it sat pretty much right on top of one area just to the southwest of Houston for days and barely moved at all, except that it was spinning around the axis of the Earth along with the city of Houston and the whole rest of the world.

The point is that the globe of the Earth is not in and moving through an atmosphere, the atmosphere is part of the Earth that is spinning on it's axis and moving through space around the Sun.

"Scientists knew a lot about waves. ... They gave it a name: luminiferous ether, which means "the stuff which carries light waves." As the Earth orbits around the Sun, it must run through the ether. That will cause an "ether wind" near the Earth's surface, blowing in the direction opposite to the Earth's motion."--Wiki

The ether wind is not moving through space, the earth's movement through space causes a wind and direction through it. That's why no wind means no movement for earth. The wind effect is caused by the moving earth, everybody I quoted got the connection right. Those who opposed the appropriate conclusion made a false distinction that the movement of the earth and the ether wind were not connected, they deny the ether wind is caused by the moving earth.

Flat earth argues it can also account for the movement of sun, moon, and stars and the Copernican model is not the only way to interpret the universe.

--Dave
The lack of the expected amount of ether wind (as I have already said) is only proof that the Earth is not moving much RELATIVE TO THE ETHER!!!! (i.e. If an ether exists at all.)

David, if you want to know why you piss me off so badly, its because you ignore nearly everything I say and then just repeat yourself as though that constitutes a rebuttal.

Can I take your having repeated yourself here to mean that if you were on a boat going down a flowing river and saw the flag lying slack at the top of its pole, that your boat was motionless?



I WILL NOT POST ONE SINGLE MORE SYLLABLE ON THIS THREAD UNTIL YOU ANSWER THAT QUESTION DIRECTLY!!!
 
Last edited:

chair

Well-known member
Seriously?? This boggles my mind that any human could actually utter those words. Dave just go outside.... watch the sun rise or set above and below the horizon (without getting smaller) and be honest with yourself. There is NO possible way that could could happen using the FE model. And it happens twice a day!! ...

This one fact is so clear cut, and so easily observed. Yet Dave won't go and watch a sunset. He will watch videos with all sorts of weird photographic effects (but Only those, mind you).

He is dishonest. With himself more than anybody else.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top