The earth is flat and we never went to the moon

[DFT_Dave]

Dear friends,

I have not abandoned this thread.

My company continues to work me 10 to 12 hour days and that I start my day a t 5 a.m. I have been to tired to keep up with this.

When they asked me to start at 5 a.m. they said I would be done by 2 p.m. which did happen for a while. I hope to resolve this with them soon.

Remember, I am not out to win or lose, I wanted to have a debate. If I did not take the side of flat earth there would not have been one. And, hopefully, because of it we are all more informed.

--Dave

 

[Clete]

Why?

Because they state that the universe is self-contradictory.

 

[Derf]

A decrease that would be dramatic in the extreme!
3000 miles is 1.26% of its actual distance. It would have to be made of mostly nothing at all for the gravity to remain the same. Flat Earthers know this. It doesn't move them an inch. They are fully irrational.


Well, they consider the whole thing to be one contiguous system that is accelerating together.

The real problem with their exceleration idea is the fact that accelerating at 1G gets you to the speed of light in about a year (353 days). Just how fast do the Flat Earthers think the Earth is moving?


There are so many problems with the Flat Earth model that they can hardly be exhausted. We're over 3600 posts on this thread alone. If the material here is insufficient to convince anyone that the flat earth model is ridiculous then it's just proof that they aren't interested in being convinced.

Clete

Well, if it's made of almost nothing at all, then it will be easier to accelerate it at 1G-->F=ma. Plus, if it turns into a disk, then a lot of the mass isn't needed anymore.

I keep thinking about this story:

The rich man asked the mystic, "What does the world stand upon?" The mystic replied, "On the shell of a giant turtle." "But what does the turtle stand on?" "A massive elephant." "And what does that elephant stand on?" "Another elephant." The mystic held up his hand to forestall further questions: "It's nothing but elephants, all the way down."

I saw you took Dave off ignore. I applaud that move. Ignore shouldn't be used as a threat when we don't agree with someone, imo. We're welcome to come and go to these threads as we please.

 

[Nathon Detroit]

Dear friends,

I have not abandoned this thread.

My company continues to work me 10 to 12 hour days and that I start my day a t 5 a.m. I have been to tired to keep up with this.

When they asked me to start at 5 a.m. they said I would be done by 2 p.m. which did happen for a while. I hope to resolve this with them soon.

Remember, I am not out to win or lose, I wanted to have a debate. If I did not take the side of flat earth there would not have been one. And, hopefully, because of it we are all more informed.

--Dave

Thanks Dave.

When you get a chance... you mentioned that you posted a time lapse video of the sun setting which you claim demonstrates the sun disappearing into the horizon. I would like to check that video out. But this thread is a long one and I can't find it. Can you point me to it or better yet... repost it?

Thanks in advance.

 

[DFT_Dave]

Thanks Dave.

When you get a chance... you mentioned that you posted a time lapse video of the sun setting which you claim demonstrates the sun disappearing into the horizon. I would like to check that video out. But this thread is a long one and I can't find it. Can you point me to it or better yet... repost it?

Thanks in advance.

The video showed the sun getting smaller as it moved across the sky away from you, it did not show the sun setting. I'll look for it.

--Dave

 

[DFT_Dave]

Canigou Peak Seen From Allauch, France 160 Miles away

View attachment 25726

Refraction or flat earth? The viewing of this is a regular annual event. Notice in the video how the sun moves down and side ways not just straight down.

--Dave

 

[chair]

Canigou Peak Seen From Allauch, France 160 Miles away

View attachment 25726

Refraction or flat earth? The viewing of this is a regular annual event. Notice in the video how the sun moves down and side ways not just straight down.


--Dave

Curious effect. By the way, did you notice that sum moves down? Oh- you did! But that doesn't mean anything....

 

[Nathon Detroit]

Canigou Peak Seen From Allauch, France 160 Miles away

View attachment 25726

Refraction or flat earth? The viewing of this is a regular annual event. Notice in the video how the sun moves down and side ways not just straight down.

--Dave

That video you just posted is filled with clips of the sun clearly setting. Not getting smaller, but setting behind the horizon. Maybe I'm wrong but I thought you said the sun didn't set behind the horizon. Do you have a video that shows the sun gradually getting smaller until you can no longer see it?

On another note... do you reject the info in this video? I'm sorta surprised you posted it. After all in the video the sun is clearly setting behind the horizon. It cannot be circling 300 miles above us based on that video.

 

[DFT_Dave]

That video you just posted is filled with clips of the sun clearly setting. Not getting smaller, but setting behind the horizon. Maybe I'm wrong but I thought you said the sun didn't set behind the horizon. Do you have a video that shows the sun gradually getting smaller until you can no longer see it?

On another note... do you reject the info in this video? I'm sorta surprised you posted it. After all in the video the sun is clearly setting behind the horizon. It cannot be circling 300 miles above us based on that video.

You can only see the sun getting smaller over a long distance over the coarse of the whole day. You cannot see it over a short period time over a short distance.

--Dave

 

[DFT_Dave]

Curious effect. By the way, did you notice that sum moves down? Oh- you did! But that doesn't mean anything....

The sun gets bigger as it comes toward us and smaller as it moves away from us. Perspective is why we see it rises and sets.

--Dave

 

[DFT_Dave]

That video you just posted is filled with clips of the sun clearly setting. Not getting smaller, but setting behind the horizon. Maybe I'm wrong but I thought you said the sun didn't set behind the horizon. Do you have a video that shows the sun gradually getting smaller until you can no longer see it?

On another note... do you reject the info in this video? I'm sorta surprised you posted it. After all in the video the sun is clearly setting behind the horizon. It cannot be circling 300 miles above us based on that video.

The sun is smaller than the flat earth and close not larger than the earth and far away as in the globe earth model.

--Dave

 

[chair]

The sun gets bigger as it comes toward us and smaller as it moves away from us. Perspective is why we see it rises and sets.

--Dave

Dave, "perspective" won't make the sun sink below the horizon. really really. I think you know that, and you are being dishonest at least with me, and quite likely with your self.

 

[DFT_Dave]

Dave, "perspective" won't make the sun sink below the horizon. really really. I think you know that, and you are being dishonest at least with me, and quite likely with your self.

Just watch the video, you'll see it.

--Dave


Sent from my iPhone using TOL

 

[chair]

Just watch the video, you'll see it.

--Dave


Sent from my iPhone using TOL

Sorry, I am not going to watch 25 more minutes of this foolishness. Perspective makes things look smaller as they get more distant. it does not make the bottom half of the object invisible.

 

[Clete]

Well, if it's made of almost nothing at all, then it will be easier to accelerate it at 1G-->F=ma. Plus, if it turns into a disk, then a lot of the mass isn't needed anymore.

I keep thinking about this story:

The rich man asked the mystic, "What does the world stand upon?" The mystic replied, "On the shell of a giant turtle." "But what does the turtle stand on?" "A massive elephant." "And what does that elephant stand on?" "Another elephant." The mystic held up his hand to forestall further questions: "It's nothing but elephants, all the way down."

I saw you took Dave off ignore. I applaud that move. Ignore shouldn't be used as a threat when we don't agree with someone, imo. We're welcome to come and go to these threads as we please.

I took him off ignore because I was reminded of something I had intended to present as an alternative cosmology that wasn't complete lunatic insanity. He'll be back on it if he doesn't drop this flat earth stupidity.

 

[Clete]

The sun gets bigger as it comes toward us and smaller as it moves away from us. Perspective is why we see it rises and sets.

--Dave

The Sun is the EXACT same angular size in the sky AT ALL TIMES! It does not change in apparent size at all - period.*

Flat Earth debunked.

Clete


* There is a tiny change in apparent size of the Sun through the year because of the fact that the Earth's orbit is not perfectly circular and we are therefore somewhat closer to the Sun during parts of the year than we are at others but you couldn't notice the difference with your naked eye if you tried and it would very difficult to measure the difference even with expensive equipment. In addition to that, this tiny difference has nothing to do with the sun rising and setting. In other words, for the sake of this assinine conversation, the difference in apparent size due to the Earth's orbital eccentricity is not relevant and can be ignored.

 

[Nathon Detroit]

Just watch the video, you'll see it.

--Dave

I have watched all of your videos. Every single one shows the sun setting behind the horizon. :idunno:

Setting that aside for a moment...

Seeing the sun set or not set behind the horizon isn't why I wanted you to link to those videos. I want to have at least some type of agreement here. In every video you have linked to the sun is always a circle. When we go outside wherever we are on the earth and at any time of day the sun is a circle. Since the sun is always a circle from any vantage point can we at least agree on the shape of the sun? The sun MUST BE a sphere if it appears as a circle from literally any angle or vantage point on earth. There can be no other shape than a sphere that would cause the sun to always appear as a circle in the sky from any vantage point.

Can we agree on that?

 

[Right Divider]

I have watched all of your videos. Every single one shows the sun setting behind the horizon. :idunno:

Setting that aside for a moment...

I want to have at least some type of agreement here. In every video you have linked to the sun is always a circle. And when we go outside wherever we are on the earth and at any time of day the sun is a circle. Since the sun is always a circle from any vantage point can we at least agree on the shape of the sun? The sun MUST BE a sphere if it appears as a circle from literally any angle or vantage point on earth. There can be no other shape than a sphere that would cause the sun to always appear as a circle in the sky from any vantage point.

Can we agree on that?

:thumb:
It just doesn't get any simpler than that!

 

[JudgeRightly]

Dave, here's an interview with one of the men who ACTUALLY in fact walked on the moon.

http://kgov.com/astronaut-alan-bean-moonwalker-interview

 

[DFT_Dave]

Debunking flat earth debunkers

As far as I know, I have covered just about all of the main arguments for flat earth. Now I want to cover the arguments that have been made against those arguments in more detail.

I'm going to begin with the basics first that are well argued in this video in which the flat earth arguments are debunked by two logical fallacies committed by flat earth advocates.

1. The common sense fallacy

2. The personal incredulity fallacy

The video begins with Neil deGrasse Tyson saying that flat earth is the result of a deep failure of education. He then states that "science is a way of thinking", that seems to be at odds with the "common sense" of those who reject globe earth.

In this video it's agreed that the earth looks flat and there is no debate about that. But the claim in the video is that "our senses can be fooled and therefore they are not reliable".

So can we conclude that the globe earth model does not rely on our sense perceptions?

I will go more into this but first I want your response to this one point.

--Dave