The earth is flat and we never went to the moon
- Thread starter DFT_Dave
- Start date
- Status
I need a number, Dave, not a picture where perspective could be ambiguous.
Sent from my Pixel XL using TheologyOnline mobile app
You need to do a little home work of your own, that's an easy thing to find out.
--Dave
You misunderstand. Much of modern physics, String Theory in particular, is conceptually untestable. It isn't a lack of technology or intelligence; it is that there are large swaths of what passes for science today are fundamentally untestable and will forever be so.
It is, I believe, a consequence of having gone way too far down the road of mathematical "science". In fact, because of their fundamentally untestable nature, such theories ought not to be called science at all. A mathematician exploring the intricacies of multi-dimensional topology is not thought to be doing science and rightly so. Why then do we call it science when some mathematician (a.k.a. physicist) focuses his attention on twelve-dimensional gravity equations? It isn't science. It's math. That doesn't mean it doesn't or won't have an impact that is important. I'm not denigrating the work mathematicians do. I'm just saying that it's something other than science, especially when your mathematics based theories run into all kinds of infinities and are forced to add dimension upon dimension to get the numbers to work with no possible correlation to anything experimental (even conceptually) to suggest that doing so is warranted or has anything to do with reality. From a scientific point of view, scrapping an idea completely and starting over from scratch is just as valid (if not more so) as adding and extra nine dimensions to keep the numbers from blowing up in your face (figuratively speaking of course). But scrapping things and starting over tends to ruin people's careers and reputations. It isn't sexy and doesn't blow people's minds on the Discovery Channel or sell magazine subscriptions or keep the government grant money flowing.
Anyway. It doesn't seem like we disagree all that much here and I don't want to derail the thread. Let's discuss ideas having to do with how we know (or don't know) that the Earth is a sphere, shall we?
Clete
Hey Dave,
What do flat earthers say causes what we refer to as gravity? Why are things attracted to the ground? Why do things fall?
I'm certain this was brought up before but it's one horse we haven't beaten to death yet so I thought I'd bring it up again.
What do flat earthers say causes what we refer to as gravity? Why are things attracted to the ground? Why do things fall?
I'm certain this was brought up before but it's one horse we haven't beaten to death yet so I thought I'd bring it up again.
Dave, I'm not asking because I'm lazy, I'm asking because I want to know if you know your own theory.
So Dave, how tall are the ice walls surrounding the earth?
Sent from my Pixel XL using TheologyOnline mobile app
One of the biggest problems with the idea that the Sun and Moon are close is perspective. Things take up more or less of your field of view depending upon how close or far away they are. One object very close might take up a very large percentage, perhaps even all of your field of view. While the same object from further away might be undetectable. An airplane the size of three school busses can be completely obscured by your thumb while its flying over head. This is what we see but it isn't really so small that you could cover it with your thumb. It just appears that way because of perspective. (So much for going with what we see.)
But here's the real problem. If the Sun and Moon are close by, why don't they get bigger and smaller as they rise and set? If the Sun only sets because of perspective as the flat-earthers say (vanishing points and all that), why don't the Sun and Moon shrink into the distance? The apparent angular size of the Sun and Moon are precisely the same for all observers all over the planet. It makes no difference how far east or west you are. If someone in New York and someone else in Las Angeles observes the Moon at the same moment, the Moon is exact the same size in the sky for both. Not only that but both see precisely the same face of the Moon as well, which is another thing that you wouldn't expect of a nearby spherical body. And if you say it isn't a sphere then you add the additional problem that the Sun and Moon are always circular to every observer everywhere and never ever appear as ovals as you'd expect if they were discs being observed from differing angles.
Clete
Dave, you wanted to discuss the evidence for this, now let's discuss.
How tall are the walls of ice surrounding the earth?
Sent from my Pixel XL using TheologyOnline mobile app
Dave,
I don't mean to bombard you with stuff here but the mention of the ice-wall got me to wondering about something. Up until you posted that picture I was imagining the ice-wall to be an immensely large impenetrable barrier with a totally mysterious no man's land beyond it.
Is that what the flat-earth model states or is it just a big wall that's maybe ten or twelve stories high as in the picture you posted? If the later, do flat-earthers expect that people have ventured beyond the wall but are just keeping what they've found there (if anything) a secret?
I don't mean to bombard you with stuff here but the mention of the ice-wall got me to wondering about something. Up until you posted that picture I was imagining the ice-wall to be an immensely large impenetrable barrier with a totally mysterious no man's land beyond it.
Is that what the flat-earth model states or is it just a big wall that's maybe ten or twelve stories high as in the picture you posted? If the later, do flat-earthers expect that people have ventured beyond the wall but are just keeping what they've found there (if anything) a secret?
Good point. I also want to add that if Dave here believes in the flat earth and the Bible, then he also has to explain how the Flood waters were about 6 meters above the tallest mountain before they started to recede, yet didn't overflow over what appears to be a wall only a few hundred feet tall, let alone the required thousands of feet of height to cover the tallest mountain.
Even Mount Moriah is about 2520 feet. Just to cover that mountain, the water on the earth would have overflowed over the ice wall long before it even reached the halfway point of Mount Moriah.
Sent from my Pixel XL using TheologyOnline mobile app
Eagles Wings
New member
What? That the waters covered the tallest mountain by about 6m?
Sent from my Pixel XL using TheologyOnline mobile app
I have seen this question asked, well the gist of it anyway, on other sites. The only plausible (and I use that word trepidatiously) answer I've seen is that the flood waters were held in by the crystalline dome fermament, the termination of which is somewhere beyond the ice-wall.
This is nuts! If you had told me six months ago that I'd be able to answer that question, I'd have thought you were crazy.
The problem with that answer is, how do we know where the dome perimeter meets the ice wall.
If we knew that, then we could calculate roughly just how much water would be needed for such an event. The problem then becomes, where did all that water come from, and where did it all go, and what does the Bible say about it. Does the theory match up with what the Bible says.
Sent from my Pixel XL using TheologyOnline mobile app
To answer your question you must first answer mine: why does the apple fall to the ground. Again, I am trying to understand your flat earth model. A basic question is why do Apple fall and why do people stay on the ground.
Also JR,
There is no need to suppose that the mountains we see today were even there when the Flood happened. The same event that caused the Flood could also have created the mountains thus removing the need for 30,000 ft deep waters.
The Hydroplate Theory
There is no need to suppose that the mountains we see today were even there when the Flood happened. The same event that caused the Flood could also have created the mountains thus removing the need for 30,000 ft deep waters.
The Hydroplate Theory
Eagles Wings
New member
Yes, I see you in this thread a lot and wondered if you have a background in science, biology, anthropology, etc.
- Status