The earth is flat and we never went to the moon

[DFT_Dave]

Oh man... if we could only get Dave to watch this video. :rotfl:

The mistake this video makes is that is assumes the globe model in order to establish the distance of sun from earth. It then applies those angels and distances to the flat earth model. Figures derived from an assumed globe model does not prove the earth model and does not disprove the flat earth model. There are at least three fallacies in his argument but it's simply circular reasoning.

--Dave

 

[DFT_Dave]

If you dismiss "experts" then why to post videos made by flat earth theory "experts", Dave? It's obvious that you deny experts because they refute your baseless claims. I have posted lots of info about geosynchronous telecommunications satellites. The fact that I am an expert on these types of satellites is irrelevant to my argument. All geosynchronous telecommunications satellites are designed to operate on the initial premise that the Earth is a globe. They would not work otherwise. Companies pay hundreds of millions of dollars to have geosynchronous satellites built. These customers expect to reap large profits from the operation of these satellites. None of these facts require expert knowledge. I have posted about how the pointing of the satellite is crucial to its operation and one way a satellite keeps itself pointing in the right direction is to scan for the Earth's curvature. If the Earth is flat then the Earth Sensor is useless. I asked how can a geosynchronous satellite operate over a flat Earth. You have not even addressed this simple question, Dave.

Sent from my SM-G920V using TheologyOnline mobile app

The experts once said the earth was flat, the experts then said it was a globe at the center of the universe. Next the experts said the sun was at the center and those other experts were wrong. Today the experts are telling us there are multi evolving universes in space time, or maybe some with out space time, it's all become relative so who knows?

You have to show me that there are actually satellites out there in orbit in order to prove your case.

--Dave

 

[The Berean]

The experts once said the earth was flat, the experts then said it was a globe at the center of the universe. Next the experts said the sun was at the center and those other experts were wrong. Today the experts are telling us there are multi evolving universes in space time, or maybe some with out space time, it's all become relative so who knows?

You have to show me that there are actually satellites out there in orbit in order to prove your case.

--Dave

And that is how knowledge progresses, Dave. The experts dismissed the flat Earth model because it does not model reality at all. And the idea of a global Earth is also an ancient one. Eratosthenes of Cyrene calculated an accuate estimate of the circumference the Earth over 2,000 years ago. He didn't use computers or spacecraft or telescopes to do so. He used simple geometry.

And I'll ask again, what type of evidence for the existence of orbiting satellites would you accept, Dave?

Sent from my SM-G920V using TheologyOnline mobile app

 

[DFT_Dave]

That video is fake Dave. See how easy it is to make bare assertions. :think:

Sent from my SM-G920V using TheologyOnline mobile app

A clear case that some one is faking it. It takes more than one video to make a case.

--Dave

 

[DFT_Dave]

And that is how knowledge progresses, Dave. The experts dismissed the flat Earth model because it does not model reality at all. And the idea of a global Earth is also an ancient one. Eratosthenes of Cyrene calculated an accuate estimate of the circumference the Earth over 2,000 years ago. He didn't use computers or spacecraft or telescopes to do so. He used simple geometry.

And I'll ask again, what type of evidence for the existence of orbiting satellites would you accept, Dave?

Sent from my SM-G920V using TheologyOnline mobile app

You make your case, I'll make the case for flat earth.

--Dave

 

[DFT_Dave]

Oh my gosh! I am holding back here from calling you a complete ignoramus Dave, and I don't believe that to be the case but, you certainly have been deceived, I am really surprised you have fallen for such an elaborate hoax/conspiracy theory. I have to ask what is the end game with this notion? What is the premise that you are supporting with this nonsense? I have made some comments below to this video you posted you seem invested into this lie so, I am not going to spend much time on it because Berean has given you enough of actual orbital science to disprove this ignorant illogical fabrication already.

1) It is absolutely clear from the video that the earth is a sphere, and the goofy line the wannabe scientist commentator draws even shows the curvature...just dumb really. :nono:

2) Whoever made the uninformed commentary to this video has never witnessed a launch clearly... the water for the "really big show" as he calls it, is sound suppression, the shock wave from a launch can blow out windows miles away, and cause destruction the the flight vehicle itself so, if the shock wave is not suppressed bad things can happen, it really is a standard procedure to flood the flame trench during engine ignition & launch. The comment asking why a camera is placed on the solid motor & not the orbiter shows really the ignorance of the commentator to understand what he is commenting on. The video is shows more than one camera after separation, given they pan back and forth from the orbiter camera and again to the motor falling back to earth, and yes, science even wants to witness, take data, & record the solid motor's trip back to earth being the motor casings are refurbished and reloaded with solid fuel for a later flight. Witnessing the descent is good data, I am sure there are accelerometers, strain gauges, potentiometers, pressure transducers and other data collection telemetry attached as well...this guy really shouldn't comment on what he doesn't understand, it just makes him & the video commentary all the more foolish. There are cameras & microphones everywhere on these NASA & commercial launches, they even have cameras that watch satellite separation into geosyncronous orbit as far away as 23,000 miles from earth in some cases. I have took the liberty of loading such a video for you below which clearly shows the earth is a sphere.

3) This genius commenting then asserts his next fallacy concerning the speed of the of the flight article which really takes the cake...It begs the question do you always believe everything you see on the internet Dave? The orbiter is actually traveling at 17,500 mph to not only reach orbit but, to maintain it, or did you believe that gravity does not effect satellites? Do you even believe in the force of gravity? The shuttle, or any rocket is traveling at the speed of sound within seconds of launch and is traveling at escape speed 17,500 mph to achieve orbit within 3 minutes, the guy commenting on the video supplied is either purposely or willfully ignorant of space launch.

When you are actually ready to observe an actual satellite launch video that goes way beyond the ISS/low earth orbit, and shows the sphere that is the earth, than watch this video. This video shows from launch, to first stage separation, fairing jettison, second stage traveling ever further away from earth into a geosynchronous orbit, and satellite separation. You will see the entire earth clearly from a distance far enough away to observe the earth is a sphere. I actually worked this launch...enjoy.

Regardless of comments on the video and the questioning of the speed of the rocket, the video speaks for itself and its clearly shows a flat horizon though only a small part of it but the motionless earth beneath it contradicts the ISS.

The second half of the video also clearly shows a flat horizon and motionless earth.

--Dave

 

[DFT_Dave]

Near Space Weather Balloon Launch With Gopro To 109 000 Feet!

Here we see how the GoPro fish eye distorts the horizon. The horizon bends from concave, to flat, to convex, and back to flat, it's actual shape. This occurs also because the camera is moving. The video proves what is meant by a rising horizon line that extends slightly upward and out ward as the balloon rises. If the earth were a ball then the horizon would slowly and gradually fall away from you the higher the balloon rises.

--Dave

 

[Lon]

Try here and here.

 

[WizardofOz]

Spoiler

 

[DFT_Dave]

Crashed Satellite Caught On Video and it was hanging on a balloon !!

--Dave

 

[JudgeRightly]

Near Space Weather Balloon Launch With Gopro To 109 000 Feet!

Here we see how the GoPro fish eye distorts the horizon. The horizon bends from concave, to flat, to convex, and back to flat, it's actual shape. This occurs also because the camera is moving. The video proves what is meant by a rising horizon line that extends slightly upward and out ward as the balloon rises. If the earth were a ball then the horizon would slowly and gradually fall away from you the higher the balloon rises.

--Dave

Dave, What's your point with this video? We've already said that cameras like GoPros have a wide-angle lens that provides a lot of distortion. It sounds like you're trying to make a straw-man argument.

Funnily enough, Dave, did you notice that even when the camera in that video was pointing above the horizon line, the horizon hardly curved "upwards"? Yet when the camera pointed below the horizon line, the horizon was much more sharply curved "downwards". Perhaps you could explain that. If the camera spends an equal time angling above and below the horizon, should it not have the same amount of "upwards" curvature as it does "downwards" curvature if the horizon is flat?

 

[Sherman]

When you are actually ready to observe an actual satellite launch video that goes way beyond the ISS/low earth orbit, and shows the sphere that is the earth, than watch this video. This video shows from launch, to first stage separation, fairing jettison, second stage traveling ever further away from earth into a geosynchronous orbit, and satellite separation. You will see the entire earth clearly from a distance far enough away to observe the earth is a sphere. I actually worked this launch...enjoy.

The Earth is very beautiful from outer space. Thanks for sharing.

 

[The Berean]

Crashed Satellite Caught On Video and it was hanging on a balloon !!

--Dave

Dave, do you actually know what satellites look like? That is not any kind of satellite I have even seen. It looks more like student project or something. But that is certainly not a geosynchronous satellite. Also, I've watched the video about five times and I don't see any balloon.

 

[rocketman]

Regardless of comments on the video and the questioning of the speed of the rocket, the video speaks for itself and its clearly shows a flat horizon though only a small part of it but the motionless earth beneath it contradicts the ISS.

Actually you are correct the video does speak for itself, and it clearly shows even at a low altitude that the curvature is in fact there even after the goofy line is drawn by the narrator, furthermore the video I posted at much further distances, multiple views as the spacecraft travels to it's destination that the curvature & spherical nature of our planet are clearly evident. You have bought into a grand lie...

The second half of the video also clearly shows a flat horizon and motionless earth.

No, it does not, and asserting it over & over still does not make it so. I asked you earlier and you still have not answered if you believe the moon is flat as well? the sun? other planets in our solar system which can be studied from earth with an amateur telescope?

 

[rocketman]

You make your case, I'll make the case for flat earth.

--Dave

Why? what is the purpose?

 

[rocketman]

Why do I have to keep explaining what a debate is???

I already posted this to you, here it is again:

When you figure out the fact that you actually have to prove your assertions with facts that is when the debate starts Dave. You have not posted fact one to defend your argument yet there have been at least two people here that are experts in the aerospace field explaining to you with facts, science, photos, videos, et al. and you haven't defended spit.

All arguments "to the man", or "to the majority", and "to the expert" will be considered logical fallacies and dismissed by me.

Do whatever you please Dave but, when you dismiss science, math, physics, and any semblance of logic and reason the logical fallacy is your own.

Good arguments in favor of globe earth that are made in regard to flat earth are what I want to see.

Why, thus far plenty of evidence has been presented that proves your theory is not only debunked but, quite an embarrassing position.

I would like to see if flat earth can be defeated in an acceptable way with out using thought experiment and assumptions that all physics and all astronomy simply affirm the static quo. There are a number of contradictions in globe earth and we went to the moon that do not make any sense at all.

So, because people have attempted to use science to prove a bogus theory (evolution) it somehow makes all science bogus? that is just absurd especially since science can be used to prove the creation model as well, and has, ever heard of Chuck Missler or Dr.Mark Eastman? they lectured on "The Creator Beyond Time & Space" back in the 90's and used all the physical & biological sciences to prove their point. Rejecting genuine science because people have attempted to pervert science is not the answer.

I will point out all contradictory and imagined thought projections that prove nothing.

Then you had better start with your own contradictory and imagined thought projections that prove nothing, which is most of what you have proposed in rejection of actual facts.

The theory of evolution is all about imagined evidence that prove nothing. I want to make sure that my cosmology is not built on the same.

We are not talking about evolution Dave, and deciding that actual science is false because one piece of it is built on a lie does not make all science suspect.

I will make the case for flat earth and you can make it for the globe model.

Please begin... I have been waiting for the indisputable facts that can be scientifically tested to be presented. You haven't showed us anything yet except conspiracy theory nonsense that is devoid of facts. Your theory has to be tested, how do you intend to show us the science that proves your theory?

Name calling is not an argument, make your point without them or go away.

I haven't called you any names unless you consider ignoramus to be a pejorative. In this case it is not, it is a descriptive term given to one that lacks, or rejects knowledge. You can be the judge whether that term fits or not...

 

[chair]

Why? what is the purpose?

I think that the purpose is clear. When you know better than everybody else, and better than all those so-called experts, it gives you a warm feeling inside. This works especially well if you don't actually know much and have a hard time following facts and arguments. Why feel ignorant when one can feel superior?

 

[DFT_Dave]

Dave, do you actually know what satellites look like? That is not any kind of satellite I have even seen. It looks more like student project or something. But that is certainly not a geosynchronous satellite. Also, I've watched the video about five times and I don't see any balloon.

There's more than one kind of satellite. It's a video, you see the balloon in the trees at the end of it.

--Dave

 

[DFT_Dave]

Why? what is the purpose?

I've already made that clear. If you don't like it, why are you here???

--Dave

 

[DFT_Dave]

When you figure out the fact that you actually have to prove your assertions with facts that is when the debate starts Dave. You have not posted fact one to defend your argument yet there have been at least two people here that are experts in the aerospace field explaining to you with facts, science, photos, videos, et al. and you haven't defended spit.

Do whatever you please Dave but, when you dismiss science, math, physics, and any semblance of logic and reason the logical fallacy is your own.

Why, thus far plenty of evidence has been presented that proves your theory is not only debunked but, quite an embarrassing position.

So, because people have attempted to use science to prove a bogus theory (evolution) it somehow makes all science bogus? that is just absurd especially since science can be used to prove the creation model as well, and has, ever heard of Chuck Missler or Dr.Mark Eastman? they lectured on "The Creator Beyond Time & Space" back in the 90's and used all the physical & biological sciences to prove their point. Rejecting genuine science because people have attempted to pervert science is not the answer.

Then you had better start with your own contradictory and imagined thought projections that prove nothing, which is most of what you have proposed in rejection of actual facts.

We are not talking about evolution Dave, and deciding that actual science is false because one piece of it is built on a lie does not make all science suspect.

Please begin... I have been waiting for the indisputable facts that can be scientifically tested to be presented. You haven't showed us anything yet except conspiracy theory nonsense that is devoid of facts. Your theory has to be tested, how do you intend to show us the science that proves your theory?

I haven't called you any names unless you consider ignoramus to be a pejorative. In this case it is not, it is a descriptive term given to one that lacks, or rejects knowledge. You can be the judge whether that term fits or not...

You're arguing there is nothing here to debate.

You made your point and you have nothing left to say accept to say you have all the "facts" and anything said to the contrary is not a "fact".

This is a debate not a lecture.

--Dave