The earth is flat and we never went to the moon

[chair]

Aristarchus of Samos did not prove the earth was a globe. He demonstrates the distance of the sun from the earth "if" the earth is a globe, as you can see from the illustration that is always used to explain it.

View attachment 25491

--Dave

Dave,

Please try to get your facts straight. As you said- Aristarchus of Samos did not show that the earth was a globe. Nor was he trying to. That was Eratosthenes. The drawing you showed is simple trigonometry. It makes no difference what shape the Earth is for it to work.

edit: I see others have pointed out that the work of Aristarchus does not require a round earth. One decent reply will do for all of us.

 

[patrick jane]

An equation, in itself, is not a proof. All equations are only as good as the premises they are based on. Space time relativity is based on assumed premises as well. This does not mean, in all fairness, that globe earth is wrong, but this opens the door for questioning, it means that it's not based on purely empirical evidence and mathematical calculations.

--Dave

Dave, you have a flat head :chuckle:

 

[chair]

...

There are problems with the globe model that the flat earth people have pointed out, as far as I am personally concerned. There is no doubt that there is something absolutely wrong with Einstein's relativity and the theory of evolving universes. There are some of you who have become relativity cosmologists which is the direction that the globe model seems to be leading us.

...

Dave, please! There is nothing wrong with Einstein's theory of relativity. It is a legitimate scientific theory, and has a lot of evidence supporting it. And it is not necessary in the least in order to show that the Earth is a globe. You are confusing all sorts of things here.

The idea of "multiuniverses" is much more speculative, and as far as I know has no real evidence to supports it. Scientists know that, and as far as I know don't claim otherwise. That doesn't make relativity or a globe earth or gravity or trigonometry or anything else false.

 

[Yorzhik]

Aristarchus of Samos did not prove the earth was a globe. He demonstrates the distance of the sun from the earth "if" the earth is a globe, as you can see from the illustration that is always used to explain it.

View attachment 25491

--Dave

What are you talking about? I'm talking about the video that measured the angle of the sun and moon. Your reply is referencing a website that I didn't mention. So here are a few questions that might help us get on the same page and I'll look at your website after we finish with the video. One thing at a time.

1. Did you watch the video that I referenced?
2. Is the sun 90 degrees from your line of sight with the moon when the moon is half lit and half shadow?
3. What are the angles of the triangle if @2 is true?

That's it for now. We will be able to find out where we differ with an honest answer to these simple questions. When we figure out where we differ, then we can explore that aspect of the discussion.

 

[DFT_Dave]

Dave,

Please try to get your facts straight. As you said- Aristarchus of Samos did not show that the earth was a globe. Nor was he trying to. That was Eratosthenes. The drawing you showed is simple trigonometry. It makes no difference what shape the Earth is for it to work.

edit: I see others have pointed out that the work of Aristarchus does not require a round earth. One decent reply will do for all of us.

My post is in reference to a video that Clete posted.

--Dave

 

[musterion]

How could there be seasons on a flat Earth if the Sun is just a relatively small light circling above, and there's no axis tilt at opposite times of the year?

 

[Clete]

My post is in reference to a video that Clete posted.

--Dave

The calculations made in the video I posted did not make any assumptions about a flat or round Earth. Please respond to the following singular point, a point that everyone on this thread (seemingly) has made and which you have skillfully avoided responding to. Choosing instead to call into question the motives of the guy who first thought to do the math. I don't give a damn what Aristarchus said, did, thought or believed. He didn't invent math and he didn't invent triangles and nothing he said, did or thought could possibly have any effect on the ratio between two sides of a right triangle or on whether geometry works.

The calculation does not assume a globe model of the Earth, it assumes that the Moon is a sphere that is illuminated by the Sun. If that premise is true then the Moon is very much closer to us than the Sun is which would, in fact, falsify the flat earth model.

Now, you said that you are going to keep an eye on the flat-earth model until some "indisputable evidence that is beyond dispute" comes along. Well, this is about as indisputable as it gets, Dave. If you want to retain any credibility with me at all, you'll acknowledge, without qualification, that either the Moon is much closer to the Earth than the Sun is or that the Moon is not a sphere that is illuminated by the Sun. Those are the only two logical alternatives and I'm pinning you against the intellectual wall and insist that you choose one or the other. If you refuse, it'll be you who have proven a bias that is insurmountable.

Clete

 

[DFT_Dave]

The calculations made in the video I posted did not make any assumptions about a flat or round Earth. Please respond to the following singular point, a point that everyone on this thread (seemingly) has made and which you have skillfully avoided responding to. Choosing instead to call into question the motives of the guy who first thought to do the math. I don't give a damn what Aristarchus said, did, thought or believed. He didn't invent math and he didn't invent triangles and nothing he said, did or thought could possibly have any effect on the ratio between two sides of a right triangle or on whether geometry works.

The calculation does not assume a globe model of the Earth, it assumes that the Moon is a sphere that is illuminated by the Sun. If that premise is true then the Moon is very much closer to us than the Sun is which would, in fact, falsify the flat earth model.

Now, you said that you are going to keep an eye on the flat-earth model until some "indisputable evidence that is beyond dispute" comes along. Well, this is about as indisputable as it gets, Dave. If you want to retain any credibility with me at all, you'll acknowledge, without qualification, that either the Moon is much closer to the Earth than the Sun is or that the Moon is not a sphere that is illuminated by the Sun. Those are the only two logical alternatives and I'm pinning you against the intellectual wall and insist that you choose one or the other. If you refuse, it'll be you who have proven a bias that is insurmountable.

Clete

The Fflat earth position is that the moon is self illuminating.

Flat earth people say the eclipses and phases of the moon do not correspond with the globe model in the exact pattern that is presented by the globe earth model.

I am studying all this as we go, if I don't answer right away it's because I am still working on comprehending both views and comparing them.

I am representing flat earth because I am not a flat earth person, I have tried to make everyone understand this. There is no smoking gun or one single argument that will resolve this issue.

I have repeatedly said that astronomy is not my thing, but I am enjoying the study and the debate. The history of it all is fascinating, for those of us who like history.

Please, be more patient.

--Dave

 

[Right Divider]

Thank you for proving my point, "any thing said as evidence for flat earth you will simply call a lie."

--Dave

:nono:

 

[DFT_Dave]

How could there be seasons on a flat Earth if the Sun is just a relatively small light circling above, and there's no axis tilt at opposite times of the year?

The sun "appears" to be about the size of the moon.

The question is, is the sun much larger and very far away, or very close and no to large.

Both models still produce seasons because if flat the sun does not follow a perfect circle above it and if far away the tilt of the the globe explains seasons. Either way seasons will not determine which model is correct.

--Dave

 

[Right Divider]

How could there be seasons on a flat Earth if the Sun is just a relatively small light circling above, and there's no axis tilt at opposite times of the year?

Add that one to the mountain of evidence in favor of a global earth and against a flat earth.

 

[JudgeRightly]

The Fflat earth position is that the moon is self illuminating.

Flat earth people say the eclipses and phases of the moon do not correspond with the globe model in the exact pattern that is presented by the globe earth model.

Saying something doesn't fit a model doesn't make it so, Dave. What is their evidence that the moon phases don't match the globe model? And how do the moon phases match the flat earth model more? We've already gone through this topic, even recently.

I am studying all this as we go, if I don't answer right away it's because I am still working on comprehending both views and comparing them.

I am representing flat earth because I am not a flat earth person, I have tried to make everyone understand this. There is no smoking gun or one single argument that will resolve this issue.

I have repeatedly said that astronomy is not my thing, but I am enjoying the study and the debate. The history of it all is fascinating, for those of us who like history.

Please, be more patient.

--Dave

Sent from my Pixel XL using TOL mobile app

 

[Clete]

The Fflat earth position is that the moon is self illuminating.

Flat earth people say the eclipses and phases of the moon do not correspond with the globe model in the exact pattern that is presented by the globe earth model.

I am studying all this as we go, if I don't answer right away it's because I am still working on comprehending both views and comparing them.

I am representing flat earth because I am not a flat earth person, I have tried to make everyone understand this. There is no smoking gun or one single argument that will resolve this issue.

I have repeatedly said that astronomy is not my thing, but I am enjoying the study and the debate. The history of it all is fascinating, for those of us who like history.

Please, be more patient.

--Dave

I'm as patient as the day is long so long as you don't avoid the arguments and pretend like they don't exist or that they are assuming something that they do not assume and which has been repeatedly pointed out to you that they do not assume.

When you respond to an argument that has to do with math and the ratio between two sides of a right triangle by stating outright that the argument is question begging because it presupposes a spherical Earth and is the product of some ancient guy's predisposition to the globe earth model, that doesn't come off as intellectually honest, Dave! It just doesn't.

As for flat Earther saying that the moon is self-illuminating, do you know why they say that?

It's because of this exact argument! It's a special pleading fallacy of there ever was one.

How could the Moon be self-illuminating?
How could a self-illuminating body be partially illuminated?

You think the globe Earth model contradicts what we see?

Why would the illuminated portion ALWAYS be pointing directly toward the Sun in just such a way so as to look EXACTLY like a sphere that was illuminated by the Sun?

If the Moon is self-illuminating, why can we see the night (unlit) portions of the crescent Moon? (The real answer to this question is that the night portions of the Moon are illuminated by light reflecting off the Earth, by the way. God only knows what insanity the flat-Earthers think is causing it.)

And, your video, which I have not watched and have no intention of watching, is a fake. If it shows a lunar eclipse while the Sun is still in the sky, it's a load of bull excrement. It's not very hard to produce fake videos.

Clete

 

[Clete]

I foolishly changed my mind and decided to watch that STUPID video!

I shouldn't have done it because it just makes me angry for people to insult my intelligence with ignorant foolishness like what is presented in the moronic video!

Listen. If you (anyone - not just Dave) do not have the mental acuity required to imagine how a lunar eclipse can work EXACTLY like it is shown to work in that video then I can't help you.

The Moon is not setting because it is orbiting the Earth, it's setting because the Earth is spinning on its axis! While the Earth is spinning on its axis the Moon is moving into the Earth's shadow in its orbit around the Earth. The shadow always moves across the Moon's surface in the direction opposite of its orbit. ALWAYS! If the Moon is high in the sky, the shadow will appear to move from left to right. If it is low in the sky in the morning the shadow will appear to move from bottom to top and if the eclipse happens in the evening it will appear to go from top to bottom. Never-ever-ever-never does it move in the other direction no matter where in the sky the Moon happens to be when the eclipse takes place. That's because the eclipse is not happening because of Earth's rotation but because the Moon is in orbit around the Earth and both are illuminated by the Sun and therefore both cast shadows.

Notice how elegantly simple it is to explain what we see with our own eyes from within the confines of reality (a.k.a. the Globe-Earth Model).

The guy in that video is a con-artist! He is a liar! He KNOWS what he is saying is false! He KNOWS! He is intentionally misleading people he thinks are stupid! He's laughing at the morons that believe him! I guarantee it!

Yes, that was seven sentences in a row ended with an exclamation point! (Now eight )

Clete

P.S. Earth's shadow would appear to move from right to left for those in the southern hemisphere because they are on the "bottom" of the globe and thus everything is "upside down". The more accurate way to state it then is that the Earth's shadow always moves across the Moon from East to West because the Moon orbits the Eart from West to East.

A point, incidentally that is easily explained from the confines of reality (a.k.a. the globe-Earth model) but cannot be rationally explained at all by those in the Twilight Zone.

 

[Clete]

The sun "appears" to be about the size of the moon.

The question is, is the sun much larger and very far away, or very close and no to large.

Both models still produce seasons because if flat the sun does not follow a perfect circle above it and if far away the tilt of the the globe explains seasons. Either way seasons will not determine which model is correct.

--Dave

The problem with this idea is that the Sun supposedly goes in this circle every single day, right?

Or are they (you) suggesting that there is another circle, an annual circle, superimposed upon the daily circle that the Sun travels above the flat Earth?

Also, this idea suggests, if I understand correctly, that the Sun produces the season on the flat earth because it is further away during parts of the year. If that understanding is correct, why doesn't the Sun change in its apparent size and why is it winter in the south when its summer is the north and vise-versa?

Clete

 

[chair]

Yes, that was seven sentences in a row ended with an exclamation point! (Now eight )

Clete

“Multiple exclamation marks,' he went on, shaking his head, 'are a sure sign of a diseased mind.”
Terry Pratchett, Eric

 

[Clete]

“Multiple exclamation marks,' he went on, shaking his head, 'are a sure sign of a diseased mind.”
Terry Pratchett, Eric

Whether his own or the man's with whom he is speaking.

 

[CabinetMaker]

The sun "appears" to be about the size of the moon.

The question is, is the sun much larger and very far away, or very close and no to large.

Both models still produce seasons because if flat the sun does not follow a perfect circle above it and if far away the tilt of the the globe explains seasons. Either way seasons will not determine which model is correct.

--Dave

What is the Sun in a flat Earth model? Does it provide heat to the Earth? How big does it need to be to do that?

 

[Nathon Detroit]

How could there be seasons on a flat Earth if the Sun is just a relatively small light circling above, and there's no axis tilt at opposite times of the year?

The video that Dave provided shows the sun circling over the earth using different circumferences which would make up the different seasons (See attachment).

This obviously raises dozens of questions not the least of which is... how does the sun maintain the speed in different seasons to make it's daily circle last the same amount of time? In other words the sun must accelerate dramatically when it's in the "Tropic of Capricorn" phase compared to when it's in the "Tropic of Cancer" phase. How and why would the sun be able to speed up and slow down keeping every day in every season the same length? :idunno:

 

[DFT_Dave]

I'm as patient as the day is long so long as you don't avoid the arguments and pretend like they don't exist or that they are assuming something that they do not assume and which has been repeatedly pointed out to you that they do not assume.

When you respond to an argument that has to do with math and the ratio between two sides of a right triangle by stating outright that the argument is question begging because it presupposes a spherical Earth and is the product of some ancient guy's predisposition to the globe earth model, that doesn't come off as intellectually honest, Dave! It just doesn't.

As for flat Earther saying that the moon is self-illuminating, do you know why they say that?

It's because of this exact argument! It's a special pleading fallacy of there ever was one.

How could the Moon be self-illuminating?
How could a self-illuminating body be partially illuminated?

You think the globe Earth model contradicts what we see?

Why would the illuminated portion ALWAYS be pointing directly toward the Sun in just such a way so as to look EXACTLY like a sphere that was illuminated by the Sun?

If the Moon is self-illuminating, why can we see the night (unlit) portions of the crescent Moon? (The real answer to this question is that the night portions of the Moon are illuminated by light reflecting off the Earth, by the way. God only knows what insanity the flat-Earthers think is causing it.)

And, your video, which I have not watched and have no intention of watching, is a fake. If it shows a lunar eclipse while the Sun is still in the sky, it's a load of bull excrement. It's not very hard to produce fake videos.

Clete

Let's keep in mind, these are not "my" videos.

It's good to vent, but I hope you can eventually calm down and just concentrate on your arguments with out all the emotion.

I am researching both sides of this, buy neither you nor I can debate this without understanding what flat earth is really about.

When I was in Washington Square Park in the middle of New York University I had to know, and accurately present arguments against other religions and evolution. If I misrepresented any other view I would have been laughed right out of the park as some one who didn't know what he was talking about.

I was able to debate Buddhism and Hinduism because I have studied it well enough, along with evolution and atheistic philosophy. I want everyone, not just you, to study flat earth so you all know what you're talking about when you oppose it. No one can intelligently oppose what they don't really understand.

I have always had a basic understanding of the globe model because it's all I ever knew and never questioned.

The reason they say the moon is self illuminating is because electromagnetism.

Electromagnetism may be what governs the sun, moon, and stars, not gravity.

--Dave