The earth is flat and we never went to the moon
- Thread starter DFT_Dave
- Start date
- Status
This thread has proved that the proofs for globed earth are not empirical but are imagined and more counter intuitive that I had previously thought. The following from Wiki under the heading of counter intuitive sums this up very well.
Globalism is the acceptance of "relativity" by virtue of the rejection of Michelson-Morley experiments that proved a stationary earth.
Globe earth also destroys our most basic visual perceptions. In the globe earth model nothing is truly level, perpendicular, horizontal, vertical, straight, motionless, up or down.
Because we accept carte blanche everything told to us by men of science we have abandoned absolutes and rationality in favor of a counter intuitive relativism in which nothing is what it seems to be. Relativistic cosmology goes hand in hand with relativistic morality in a Godless universe where nothing is truly good or evil.
--Dave
No one here, least of all me, has taken anything carte blanche.
There are two things that have been proven on this thread.
1. The Earth is round.
2. You do not know ANYTHING about science or rational thought.
Because there surely isn't any better place on TOL to post this, here's the first image of the Moon that I've shot through my new (new to me) 8" Schmidt-Cassegrain telescope.
This is without even having a tripod, by the way. All I've got is the Alt-Az. mount mounted on a piece of particle board for stability and I set that on the tailgate of my truck and line it up as best I can with the Celestial Pole - heaven knows why I'd have to do that if the Earth isn't spinning, but nevertheless....
View attachment 25637
This is without even having a tripod, by the way. All I've got is the Alt-Az. mount mounted on a piece of particle board for stability and I set that on the tailgate of my truck and line it up as best I can with the Celestial Pole - heaven knows why I'd have to do that if the Earth isn't spinning, but nevertheless....
View attachment 25637
Beautiful!
Here's the same image after stacking and processing the image.
It's a jpg file so the image isn't as good as the original but still not bad for a first try.
View attachment 25638
It's a jpg file so the image isn't as good as the original but still not bad for a first try.
View attachment 25638
All Christians are between a rock and a hard place, Christ being the rock and Einstein's relativism being the hard place.
The reason Einstein is wrong is because the Michelson-Morley experiment was correct, the earth is stationary. This experiment was supposed to show how fast the earth moved but instead it failed to show any movement at all.
The combination of space with time is an irrational synthesis that goes hand in hand with a timeless spaceless deity we have rightly rejected as open theists.
If you can defend relativism and show it to be valid then you can have globe earth, if you can't then you lose it.
--Dave
Are the satellites we put in space stationary?
Dave, Everything that I read about the MM experiment was that it failed to detect any evidence for an aether, not that it failed to detect movement in space.
From the Wikipedia article:
"After all this thought and preparation, the experiment became what has been called the most famous failed experiment in history."
"The Experiments on the relative motion of the earth and ether have been completed and the result decidedly negative. The expected deviation of the interference fringes from the zero should have been 0.40 of a fringe – the maximum displacement was 0.02 and the average much less than 0.01 – and then not in the right place. As displacement is proportional to squares of the relative velocities it follows that if the ether does slip past the relative velocity is less than one sixth of the earth’s velocity.
— Albert Abraham Michelson, 1887"
Dave, If anything, you're misreading the intent of the experiment, which was to see if there was any movement relative to the "lumineferous aether." It's intent was not to show if the earth was stationary, and you would have known that had you paid attention. And again, if anything, they also understood that the earth was in orbit around the sun (as far as I can tell from the wikipedia article). So there's that...
"The*Michelson–Morley experiment*was performed over the spring and summer of 1887 by*Albert A. Michelson*and*Edward W. Morley*at what is now*Case Western Reserve University*in*Cleveland,*Ohio, and published in November of the same year.*It compared the speed of light in perpendicular directions, in an attempt to detect the*relative motion of matter through the stationary*luminiferous aether("aether wind"). The result was negative, in that the expected difference between the speed of light in the direction of movement through the presumed aether, and the speed at right angles, was found not to exist; this result is generally considered to be the first strong evidence against the then-prevalent*aether theory, and initiated a line of research that eventually led to*special relativity, which rules out a stationary aether.*The experiment has been referred to as "the moving-off point for the theoretical aspects of the Second Scientific Revolution"."
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michelson–Morley_experiment
Dave, I'm an open theist, yet I don't believe in a flat or stationary earth, nor do I believe in a timeless God (ie that God is outside of time), though God is a supernatural being that is not part of this universe, but is instead outside of it.
But again, what does being an open theist have to do with whether the earth is flat or stationary or not? That's theology, not cosmology.
Dave, the exact experiment I linked to in this post that you claim supports your position IN FACT is strong evidence against the aether theory.
From the wiki article on "lumineferous aether":
"In the late 19th century,*luminiferous aether,*aether, or*ether, meaning light-bearing*aether, was the postulated*medium*for the propagation of*light.*It was invoked to explain the ability of the apparently*wave-based light to propagate through empty space, something that waves should not be able to do. The assumption of a spatial plenum of luminiferous aether, rather than a spatial vacuum, provided the theoretical medium that was required by wave theories of light.
The concept was the topic of considerable debate throughout its history, as it required the existence of an invisible and infinite material with no interaction with physical objects. As the nature of light was explored, especially in the 19th century, the physical qualities required of the aether became increasingly contradictory. By the late 1800s, the existence of the aether was being questioned, although there was no physical theory to replace it.
The negative outcome of the*Michelson–Morley experiment*suggested that the aether was non-existent. This led to considerable theoretical work to explain the propagation of light without an aether. A major breakthrough was the*theory of relativity, which could explain why the experiment failed to see aether, but was more broadly interpreted to suggest that it wasn't needed. The Michelson-Morley experiment, along with the*blackbody radiator*and*photoelectric effect, was a key experiment in the development of*modern physics, which includes both relativity and*quantum theory, the latter of which explains the wave-like nature of light."
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Luminiferous_aether
Dave. The sun does not get smaller as it sets. despite what one fake video on youtube claims. The sun sets everyday. It is not much effort to watch it do so. And you can do time lapse photography yourself, even with a cell phone.
Dave, something I just thought about that you've mentioned. You say the moon is transparent, correct?
Well, if it's transparent, then how does it block the light from the sun during a solar eclipse?
Well, if it's transparent, then how does it block the light from the sun during a solar eclipse?
Or has he?
What if the thing he is talking about is not the point but a stimulus by which he can make another observation?
Right Divider
Body part
No, they're station-wagons.
It just isn't so. You just simply don't know what you're talking about.
THAT IS NOT WHAT THE M-M experiment showed!
OMG! Please read a history book!
The Michealson-Morley experiment demonstrated that there was no aether! Einstein's work is PREDICATED upon those experimental results, not falsified by them! :bang:
That entirely depends on just what you mean by space and what you mean by time and what you mean when you say that they are the same thing.
That's three different things that you have absolutely no clue about whatsoever. Not that you don't know what space and time are but that you have no idea about what Einstein meant (most people don't).
Read Enyart's thread about his summit clock experiment and when you do, understand that while Bob is entirely correct about the point he makes, he does not falsify Relativity. His point only highlights the difference between "t" in Einstien's equations and the actual passage of time itself. One is about clocks the other is about the sequence and duration of events. The two aren't always the same thing. As I've pointed out before in this thread, there is no need to throw out the baby with the bath water. There is no Scylla and Charybdis (rock and hard place) scenario here.
Relativism? What is that, exactly?
Do you mean Relativity?
If so, you've got big problems, David, because we know - know for a fact - that Einstein was, at the very least, mostly correct. You actively use Relativity every time you use GPS but then again, you think GPS is a hoax of some kind too. How about nuclear bombs - are those fake too? A nuclear bomb is E=MC2 in action. Einstein's work accurately predicts all kinds of things that have been confirmed. Things like the weird orbit of Mercury, gravitational lensing, gravitational waves, the amount of energy contained in a neuclear explosion, etc.
Clete
You think the Moon goes around the Earth once a day!
Or is it the entire universe the does that and the Moon independently goes a bit further than once around the Earth per day?
No need to answer, the questions answer themselves and are rhetorical.
- Status