The earth is flat and we never went to the moon

[DFT_Dave]

:up:

Some arguments are just so transparently false and fraudulent that they really are a waste of time and even insulting.

I'm over it.

Why presuppose that it's about anything other than that some people see conspiracies behind every broken toaster and have no ability to think past their own nose?

This is why I disagree entirely with those that say that this thread has been a giant waste of time. No HONEST investigation of anything is a waste of time. I just caution you against assuming that there is some bigger reason why there is a tiny percentage of people who think the Earth is flat. There's a group of people who still believe that David Koresh was the second coming of Christ. There's a group of people who think the Earth is hollow and that there is a Sun inside the Earth.

No, that's what they say is the mechanism by which is self-illuminates but that isn't why they feel the need to say that it is self-illuminated. They'd be as pleased as punch to say that the Sun illuminates the Moon if doing so didn't cause them an insurmountable problem. It is precisely because of how right triangles work that they have to jettison the idea that the Moon is lit by the Sun. Once they've taken that step, however, then they have to explain how the Moon lights itself up. That's when they start talking about everything from electromagnetism to holograms to thin translucent discs to God knows what else. This, as you well know, is not a rational way of thinking.

They have accepted the flat Earth model a priori and reject any premise that allows for its falsification. A complaint that many atheists make against Christians and in many cases they do so for good reason. But I know from having read probably every word on your website that you are not that sort of Christian. You actually want to have a rational worldview and to discipline your mind to stay within the confines of rational thought. I submit to you then that the flat-earther's tendency toward such irrationality, (including cherry picking evidence, special pleading fallacies, false assumptions and question begging, etc), is a good reason to be suspicious of every argument they make.

Clete

What you say is the reason, and what they say is the reason, for the interest in flat earth is not the same.

I have posted the reasons this interests me. There is some honest questioning here and you would be better off, I think, by acknowledging that.

I see this as part of the whole history of cosmology and I don't think it should be discarded as the mere fantasy of those who don't know who broke their toaster.

There's another reason given for eclipses, and it's also part of ancient history, the dark sun.

--Dave

 

[DFT_Dave]

You just get sillier with every post Dave.

You probably believe that there are no other planets in the solar system also, right? Even though we can see them and plot their courses.

Things seem silly when they are way over your head, I'll try to remember to talk down to your level.

No one really knows what a star is or what moves them across the sky.

--Dave

 

[JudgeRightly]

No one really knows what a star is or what moves them across the sky.

--Dave

Dave, We know EXACTLY what a star is and EXACTLY why stars move across the sky. It's not a mystery like you're making it out to be. Stars are balls of super hot burning gases and plasma. They move across our sky because the earth is spinning once every 24 hours on its axis.

 

[DFT_Dave]

This is why I was asking you questions about how apples fall. How apples fall has profound implications to our understanding of the world we live on.

On a side note, physics and reason go together very well. When they don't, it is usually because a person is being unreasonable. They often are refusing to honestly examine the evidence to prevent challenging their world view.

Zen and Quantum Physics

Zen and quantum are a negation of rational thought.

--Dave

 

[DFT_Dave]

You're just simply wrong on this point, Dave.

Newton didn't just pull the idea of universal gravitation out of a hat.

What Newton did was to ask a question. Why do things fall to the ground?

He then set about making detailed observations about just how things fall. The rate at which they fall, the acceleration of the descent, whether large objects fall faster or slower than smaller objects, etc. He collected data and data and more data and then he applied his singularly brilliant mind to understanding the data that he had so carefully collected. It was not until AFTER he understood the way things fall here on Earth that he began to think about things like the Moon and other celestial bodies. It isn't Newton's fault that the Moon just happens to obey the exact same physical laws that apples do. That's just the facts of nature. Facts of nature that Newton observed with his own eyes with only the help of 17th-century technology. Facts that you could observe yourself. Facts that actually do PROVE that Newton's ideas are correct. It's called multiple, independent verification. What Newton discovered was that the same thing that causes apples to fall to the ground is precisely the same thing that holds the Moon in orbit around the Earth. That isn't what he set out to prove, that's what he discovered during an investigation into how the world works. It should be noted, by the way, that Newton's Universal Gravitation says nothing at all about what causes gravity. It only acknowledges that there is an attractive force between bodies of mass and describes that force. It makes no guess as to gravity's cause.

Newton's laws are among, if not the most extensively tested and scientifically verified ideas that have ever been present in a human mind. Suggesting that Newton was somehow question-begging is the height of intellectual hubris and is the opposite of scientific thinking. If Newton's Laws of motion and of universal gravitation are not verified hard science then nothing is nor even can be.

You know that Einstein and Newton don't agree on the nature of gravity, right?

View attachment 25503

Bending of space time is hardly rational and is beyond experiment. Newton's force has been replace with Einstein's fabric, so much for the laws of universal gravity.

This is what we actually observe about the moon:

1. The moon has no atmosphere.

2. The moon has no trees.

3. The moon has no rivers or oceans.

4. The moon has no life.

5. The moon has no clouds.

6. The moon does not rotate/spin.

The moon is not at all like the earth. What ever keeps us from floating off into outer space, call it gravity if you like, does not exist on the moon. If it did then there would be things on it just like on earth. Newton did not "discover" any thing.

--Dave

 

[Right Divider]

You know that Einstein and Newton don't agree on the nature of gravity, right?

View attachment 25503

Bending of space time is hardly rational and is beyond experiment. Newton's force has been replace with Einstein's fabric, so much for the laws of universal gravity.

This is what we actually observe about the moon:

1. The moon has no atmosphere.

2. The moon has no trees.

3. The moon has no rivers or oceans.

4. The moon has no life.

5. The moon has no clouds.

6. The moon does not rotate/spin.

The moon is not at all like the earth. What ever keeps us from floating off into outer space, call it gravity if you like, does not exist on the moon. If it did then there would be things on it just like on earth. Newton did not "discover" any thing.

--Dave

Wow Dave, just wow.

Your unscientific (really anti-scientific) announcements are just amazing.

 

[JudgeRightly]

6. The moon does not rotate/spin.

Actually it does. It rotates about as fast as it orbits, which is about once every 27 days or so, give or take.

What ever keeps us from floating off into outer space, call it gravity if you like, does not exist on the moon.

Actually it does. Its effect is aproximately 1/6th that of Earth's gravity.

If it did then there would be things on it just like on earth.

So regolith doesn't count? The equipment we left there doesn't count?

Newton did not "discover" any thing.

--Dave

No one here, as far as I'm aware, says that Newton "discovered" gravity. We're saying that he was the first to actually study it's effects scientifically and to give a name to it.

 

[DFT_Dave]

Actually it does. It rotates about as fast as it orbits, which is about once every 27 days or so, give or take.

What ever keeps us from floating off into outer space, call it gravity if you like, does not exist on the moon.

Actually it does. Its effect is aproximately 1/6th that of Earth's gravity.

So regolith doesn't count? The equipment we left there doesn't count?

No one here, as far as I'm aware, says that Newton "discovered" gravity. We're saying that he was the first to actually study it's effects scientifically and to give a name to it.

We only ever see one side of the moon.

You mean fake equipment.

Thanks for affirming my point about Newton.

--Dave

 

[DFT_Dave]

Wow Dave, just wow.

Your unscientific (really anti-scientific) announcements are just amazing.

And just what has science told us about the moon that contradicts what I said?

--Dave

 

[JudgeRightly]

What ever keeps us from floating off into outer space, call it gravity if you like, does not exist on the moon.

Yes, Dave, it does, and its effect is about 1/6th that of Earth's. We've measured it.

We only ever see one side of the moon.

And I gave you the reason why. You even quoted it. It orbits as fast as it rotates, which is once about every 27 days, give or take. Don't believe me? How long from new moon to new moon? How long from full moon to full moon?

You mean fake equipment.

No, I mean actual equipment, like the Lunar rover, the bases of the landers, the flag, the plaque, and the Lunar Laser Ranging Experiment.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lunar_Laser_Ranging_experiment

And you're telling me that this is fake? That we didn't leave retroreflectors on the moon to measure it's distance? Talk about denying science......

Thanks for affirming my point about Newton.

--Dave

What are you talking about? I was burning down your straw man argument so that you would stop using it.

 

[Right Divider]

And just what has science told us about the moon that contradicts what I said?

--Dave

How do you "know" that the moon has no atmosphere?
How do you "know" that the moon has no life?
How do you "know" that the moon does not spin?

Please give us the "science" for those claims.

 

[JudgeRightly]

And just what has science told us about the moon that contradicts what I said?

--Dave

How do you "know" that the moon has no atmosphere?
How do you "know" that the moon has no life?
How do you "know" that the moon does not spin?

Please give us the "science" for those claims.

Funnily enough, the moon actually does have an atmosphere. It's so thin that it's almost non-existant, but it is there. It's called an "exosphere."

http://www.space.com/18067-moon-atmosphere.html

There is also water ice at the poles, which agrees with the Hydroplate theory, which says that when the Fountains of the Great Deep broke forth, it launched water out into space, which slammed into the moon and pummeled the side facing us, which heated it (giving us the mares) as more landed as meteorites on the far side, leaving thousands of craters.

http://www.space.com/7987-tons-water-ice-moon-north-pole.html

 

[chair]

You'd be shocked to find out just how connected they all are.
...
Clete

Do you think relativity and quantum mechanics (specifically) are real scientific theories, or nothing more than mathematical constructs and speculation?

 

[chair]

...
"Thought experiment" is the beginning of the globe model, and the foundation of quantum mechanics...

No. This is not true.

 

[DFT_Dave]

A very good explanation of the phases of the moon from flat earth.

--Dave

 

[patrick jane]

A very good explanation of the phases of the moon from flat earth.

--Dave

You live in a fantasy world Dave

 

[DFT_Dave]

Moon shot with Nikon P900

No air, no life, no trees, no rivers or oceans, no clouds, no rotation

Not at all like earth.

--Dave

 

[JudgeRightly]

Moon shot with Nikon P900

No air, no life, no trees, no rivers or oceans, no clouds, no rotation

Not at all like earth.

--Dave

Nice straw man.

 

[DFT_Dave]

Nice straw man.

This is observable empirical evidence of what is on, and not on, the surface of the moon.

The only straw man I can think of on this thread is sitting behind the steering wheel of your truck.

--Dave

 

[DFT_Dave]

Evidence of flat earth dome from the Hale Telescope and Astrolabe

View attachment 25506

--Dave