The earth is flat and we never went to the moon

[JudgeRightly]

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

Right, the mountains most certainly wouldn't have been as tall as the ones we see today.

Sent from my Pixel XL using TheologyOnline mobile app

 

[CabinetMaker]

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

We shall. And I don't disagree with all that you said here.

 

[JudgeRightly]

Yes, I see you in this thread a lot and wondered if you have a background in science, biology, anthropology, etc.

Nope. Just a lowly truck driver who loves studying the Bible and how science supports it.

The answer to the question is in Genesis.

Spoiler

The waters prevailed and greatly increased on the earth, and the ark moved about on the surface of the waters. *And the waters prevailed exceedingly on the earth, and all the high hills under the whole heaven were covered. *The waters prevailed fifteen cubits upward, and the mountains were covered. - Genesis 7:18-20 http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Genesis7:18-20&version=NKJV

Fifteen cubits. A cubit is about 18 inches, or the length from one's elbow to the tips of his fingers. 18 times 15 is 270 inches, or 22 feet 6 inches, or about 6.85800 meters.

Sent from my Pixel XL using TheologyOnline mobile app

 

[Eagles Wings]

Nope. Just a lowly truck driver who loves studying the Bible and how science supports it.

The answer to the question is in Genesis.

Spoiler

The waters prevailed and greatly increased on the earth, and the ark moved about on the surface of the waters. *And the waters prevailed exceedingly on the earth, and all the high hills under the whole heaven were covered. *The waters prevailed fifteen cubits upward, and the mountains were covered. - Genesis 7:18-20 http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Genesis7:18-20&version=NKJV

Fifteen cubits. A cubit is about 18 inches, or the length from one's elbow to the tips of his fingers. 18 times 15 is 270 inches, or 22 feet 6 inches, or about 6.85800 meters.

Sent from my Pixel XL using TheologyOnline mobile app

Good for you!

 

[musterion]

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.

"The Hand of God."

High winds.

Force fields.

The fourth dimension.

Flying saucers.

Angels with 5 gallon buckets.

Not to be unkind but what difference will it make? You can't expect Dave to rationally explain anything he's putting forth as true. He can't and clearly isn't really interested in trying. His motivation for continuing this farce of a trainwreck of a discussion is what ought to be at issue.

 

[Truster]

No

comment.

 

[User Name]

This is the flat earth model.

View attachment 25418

So now you know the difference between the basic globe earth and flat earth models.

Dave,

How many miles is it from Sydney, Australia to Johannesburg, South Africa, when flying in a straight line?

 

[DFT_Dave]

How the Sun Works on the Flat Earth

This a very good video that show how the sun circles the earth with time laps video of the sun as it moves across the sky.

--Dave

 

[DFT_Dave]

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

How the Sun Works on Flat Earth - Part 2

This is an important question and is answered by Globe Skeptic in a 5 part series.

--Dave

 

[Clete]

How the Sun Works on Flat Earth - Part 2

This is an important question and is answered by Globe Skeptic in a 5 part series.

--Dave

This feels like video 1000 that is 100% stupidity!

The corpuscular rays do not in any way whatsoever contradict the notion that the Sun is far away. The guy in the video casts a shadow of a six in diameter piece of cardboard with holes in it and says "See! The rays don't splay out!" The implication being that this is somehow proof that the Earth is flat and the Sun is not far away.

If you buy that argument for one second, you are either a child or you are stupid.

The direction your shadow falls in has nothing whatsoever to do with how far away the light source is! If the light source is to the left of whatever object is casting the shadow, the shadow will fall to the right. It makes no difference if it's one inch away or fifty million miles.

And as for where shadows appear to fall is entirely relative to the observer. If you draw a line between you and a light source, any light source, and then you place an object between you and that light source, the only shadows that will fall straight are the ones that are on that line you drew between yourself and the light source. Every other shadow will be cast off at an angle.

So if the Sun is oriented straight in front of me and there is a cloud off at a 22.5° to my right, why would I expect the shadow to be cast at anything other than a line connecting the apparent position of the Sun with the apparent position of the cloud? I wouldn't! What I would expect to see is exactly what I do see!

The next part of the video is spent conflating the concept of parallel light rays with the direction those raise are going relative to an observer. In other words, he ignores the fact that the angle at which the Sun's rays are coming at you at noon isn't the same angle as they're coming at you at sunset. He also ignores that the clouds are miles away and that the angle the sun is hitting them is different that the angle that the sun is hit him (he does that from the moment the video starts).

That takes you half way through the video and about 40% past my tolerance for wading around is B.S. I didn't watch the rest. Sorry.

Clete

 

[DFT_Dave]

This feels like video 1000 that is 100% stupidity!

The corpuscular rays do not in any way whatsoever contradict the notion that the Sun is far away. The guy in the video casts a shadow of a six in diameter piece of cardboard with holes in it and says "See! The rays don't splay out!" The implication being that this is somehow proof that the Earth is flat and the Sun is not far away.

If you buy that argument for one second, you are either a child or you are stupid.

The direction your shadow falls in has nothing whatsoever to do with how far away the light source is! If the light source is to the left of whatever object is casting the shadow, the shadow will fall to the right. It makes no difference if it's one inch away or fifty million miles.

And as for where shadows appear to fall is entirely relative to the observer. If you draw a line between you and a light source, any light source, and then you place an object between you and that light source, the only shadows that will fall straight are the ones that are on that line you drew between yourself and the light source. Every other shadow will be cast off at an angle.

So if the Sun is oriented straight in front of me and there is a cloud off at a 22.5° to my right, why would I expect the shadow to be cast at anything other than a line connecting the apparent position of the Sun with the apparent position of the cloud? I wouldn't! What I would expect to see is exactly what I do see!

The next part of the video is spent conflating the concept of parallel light rays with the direction those raise are going relative to an observer. In other words, he ignores the fact that the angle at which the Sun's rays are coming at you at noon isn't the same angle as they're coming at you at sunset. He also ignores that the clouds are miles away and that the angle the sun is hitting them is different that the angle that the sun is hit him (he does that from the moment the video starts).

That takes you half way through the video and about 40% past my tolerance for wading around is B.S. I didn't watch the rest. Sorry.

Clete

Well, before you can dismiss some ones argument you have to understand it. There are I think 5 parts to the sun for flat earth that I will post. They are very well done, which does not make them true, but makes them easy to watch.

I think I will then start my summary and final comparisons in a format I hope will be easy for everyone to evaluate.

Since my salvation and mental health is not dependent on which is true, flat earth or globe earth, I'm not suffering the stress that many seem to be experiencing and I have no anger or bad feelings for those in either camp.

Your not related to Copernicus are you??? :cheers:

--Dave

 

[Nathon Detroit]

This is the flat earth model.

View attachment 25418

So now you know the difference between the basic globe earth and flat earth models.

--Dave

Dave I can debunk your model every day when I look at the sunrise and the sunset.

View attachment 25424

 

[DFT_Dave]

Dave I can debunk your model every day when I look at the sunrise and the sunset.

View attachment 25424

Flat earth is not my model, but the last two videos and the next two will probably debunk your sun set sun rise defense.


Sent from my iPhone using TOL

 

[Right Divider]

Flat earth is not my model, but the last two videos and the next two will probably debunk your sun set sun rise defense.

Probably not.

 

[Clete]

Well, before you can dismiss some ones argument you have to understand it. There are I think 5 parts to the sun for flat earth that I will post. They are very well done, which does not make them true, but makes them easy to watch.

I think I will then start my summary and final comparisons in a format I hope will be easy for everyone to evaluate.

Since my salvation and mental health is not dependent on which is true, flat earth or globe earth, I'm not suffering the stress that many seem to be experiencing and I have no anger or bad feelings for those in either camp.

Your not related to Copernicus are you??? :cheers:

--Dave

I'm sorry to be so insulting in some of my responses to these videos. Just understand that it isn't aimed at you. I just cannot get my head around that fact there are people who think that these arguments pass for clear thinking. It offends me as an insult to my inteligence.

How can anyone find it convincing, no matter which side the arguer is on, when they effectively argue that shadows should fall in some direction other than straight away from the light source and then to support his "argument" he shows shadows falling in straight lines away from light sources?

I mean, seriously! :bang:

 

[chair]

Flat earth is not my model, but the last two videos and the next two will probably debunk your sun set sun rise defense.

Sent from my iPhone using TOL

Stop watching videos, and go outside to watch the sun set. Then think.

 

[User Name]

Dave,

How many miles is it from Sydney, Australia to Johannesburg, South Africa, when flying in a straight line?

It's a reasonable question, Dave. I'm sure we all would appreciate an answer.

 

[JudgeRightly]

It's a reasonable question, Dave. I'm sure we all would appreciate an answer.

I've asked him many different (but relatively simple) questions that he has either ignored or outright refused to answer. I wouldn't hold your breath to get your question answered.

Sent from my Pixel XL using TheologyOnline mobile app

 

[JudgeRightly]

Dave I can debunk your model every day when I look at the sunrise and the sunset.

View attachment 25424

Watch Dave say that that image is photoshopped or fake.

Sent from my Pixel XL using TheologyOnline mobile app

 

[DFT_Dave]

Dave I can debunk your model every day when I look at the sunrise and the sunset.

View attachment 25424

Ok, so how does sun rise and sun set debunk flat earth?

--Dave