The earth is flat and we never went to the moon

[DFT_Dave]

Dave,

This unresponsiveness on your part is the reason you've driven everyone nearly insane on this thread.

Why are you afraid to address the arguments?

Do you believe that it is a rationally valid to ignore counter arguments and to simply jump from one refuted argument to the next? Is that how you developed your doctrine?

Why do you not only tolerate but actively display an attitude toward cosmology that neither you nor any rational third-grade child would permit into their doctrine?

It is precisely this sort of sloppy, mental laziness and irrationality that you've displayed on this thread that causes countless people to reject Christianity. You sound like a Yahweh Ben Yahweh for crying out loud. Not doctrinally, of course, but in the manner of reasoning.

You can never be convinced by arguments that you do not pay any attention too. And that is what you are doing. I've been doing this long enough to tell when someone isn't listening. Its as likely as not that you didn't even read most of JR's post.

Clete

I have read and addressed his arguments, which is not hard as per my last post to him. Most of his arguments are simply irrelevant. My arguments have not been refuted. The majority of people who have rejected Biblical Christianity is because of cosmology.

--Dave

 

[JudgeRightly]

The sun is a singular light source, your parallel lines argument does not apply.

The sun is much smaller than the earth and is close, not far away, if we go by the rays of the sun.

--Dave

Also, that's circular reasoning. "The sun is close because the rays angles indicate that it's close. And they indicate that the sun is close because the sun is close."

And yes, it does apply, Dave. Is the sun a single 1 dimensional point of light? Or is it a 3D object that has a surface that gives off light? If the sun were just a point of light in the sky, your argument would be valid, but the sun has more than one dimension, and therefore light emitted from two different points on the surface can be parallel.

 

[JudgeRightly]

I have read and addressed his arguments, which is not hard as per my last post to him. Most of his arguments are simply irrelevant. My arguments have not been refuted. The majority of people who have rejected Biblical Christianity is because of cosmology.

--Dave

You have not addressed all of my points, Dave, and yes, they are all relevant, whether you think they are or not.

You don't consider your arguments refuted because you refuse to consider the arguments that refute yours.

And the majority of people reject God because of the people who misrepresent reality. You are one of the latter.

 

[DFT_Dave]

Clouds behind the sun and moon

How do clouds get behind the sun and moon?

Clouds behind the sun and moon tell us they are close and much smaller than the earth.

View attachment 25824 View attachment 25825

--Dave

 

[DFT_Dave]

Also, that's circular reasoning. "The sun is close because the rays angles indicate that it's close. And they indicate that the sun is close because the sun is close."

And yes, it does apply, Dave. Is the sun a single 1 dimensional point of light? Or is it a 3D object that has a surface that gives off light? If the sun were just a point of light in the sky, your argument would be valid, but the sun has more than one dimension, and therefore light emitted from two different points on the surface can be parallel.

The argument is, because the rays of the sun converge at a point the sun is close.

That is not a circular argument, moron.

The counter argument you're presenting is that the rays of the sun are parallel even though they don't look like they are. This argument denies the visual empirical evidence.

--Dave

 

[JudgeRightly]

The argument is, because the rays of the sun converge at a point the sun is close.

That is not a circular argument, moron.

The counter argument you're presenting is that the rays of the sun are parallel even though they don't look like they are. This argument denies the visual empirical evidence.

--Dave

And you're only considering 2 pieces of the watch, and ignoring the rest.

Dave, do you know for a fact that where the rays of the sun hit are directly below the gaps in the clouds? Because if they are not, then it comes down to a matter of perspective, and not just simply "they don't look parallel." even bars parallel to each other perpendicular to the wall don't look like they're parallel when viewed from above and off to the side. So your argument is not good evidence that the sun is close.

Did you do that experiment yet that I asked you to do above?

 

[DFT_Dave]

Two horizons

In this picture you can see there is a reflection of the sun just below it that reveals a horizon line beyond the the first on. This is proof of an extended plane.

There are other pictures that I have seen that show this.

View attachment 25826

--Dave

 

[DFT_Dave]

And you're only considering 2 pieces of the watch, and ignoring the rest.

Dave, do you know for a fact that where the rays of the sun hit are directly below the gaps in the clouds? Because if they are not, then it comes down to a matter of perspective, and not just simply "they don't look parallel." even bars parallel to each other perpendicular to the wall don't look like they're parallel when viewed from above and off to the side. So your argument is not good evidence that the sun is close.

Did you do that experiment yet that I asked you to do above?

Look at those clouds behind the sun and moon. Kinda backs up what the rays of the sun tell us.

--Dave

 

[JudgeRightly]

Look at those clouds behind the sun and moon. Kinda backs up what the rays of the sun tell us.

--Dave

I don't see any clouds that are behind any celestial objects. I see light shining through the very thin clouds in your previous post that claims there are "two horizons", but I don't see any clouds behind the sun.

 

[Nathon Detroit]

Clouds behind the sun and moon

How do clouds get behind the sun and moon?

Clouds behind the sun and moon tell us they are close and much smaller than the earth.

View attachment 25824 View attachment 25825

--Dave

Dave... you believe the Sun and the Moon are approximately 300 miles above the earth (per the Flat earth theory). Yet now you are asserting that clouds can be behind the sun and moon and therefore higher in altitude than the sun and the moon???

You realize the the highest clouds are about 20,000 feet in altitude right?? You can verify this by flying in any commercial airliner on any day of the week. That means the highest regular clouds are only a bit more than 3 miles high. Which is 100 times lower than you believe the Sun and the moon are.

How could clouds be 1,564,000 feet higher than anyone has ever observed?

 

[Nathon Detroit]

If I'm not mistaken, the sun and moon are closer and so appear a bit larger at different times of the year since their orbit is elliptical.

I'm not talking about different times of the year. I am talking about within a single evening. As the moon rises over the horizon it is just as large as it is when it is directly overhead which contradicts your theory that the moon sets merely because it gets too far away for us to see.

I have not as yet seen a video of the moon as it moves across the sky for a whole night.

Here's a novel idea... go outside on any day of the week and look with your own eyes. You don't need a time lapse video.

Look at the moon and observe it's size as it rises over the horizon. Then look at it again when it's directly overhead. Finally look at it one last time as it moves down below the horizon. You will see that the moon appears just as big near the horizon as it does when it is directly overhead. None of this could happen based on your model of the earth and the moon.

 

[Clete]

I have read and addressed his arguments, which is not hard as per my last post to him. Most of his arguments are simply irrelevant. My arguments have not been refuted.

Saying it doesn't make it so.

The majority of people who have rejected Biblical Christianity is because of cosmology.

--Dave

Precisely my point, Dave!

Contrary to what you're suggesting, the vast majority of scientists are not members of some secret society which is promoting some grand anti-Christian conspiracy. On the contrary, the fathers of most any science you care to name were all Christian men who, because of the rational nature of both existence and the Christian faith, as well as a curiosity to understand the world around us and thereby to better understand the God who created it, explored and investigated nature with an intransigent search for the truth and who's work still exists for anyone who wants to look at and to verify. Newton's work, in particular, has been studied, scrutinized, tested, verified and reverified more than any other scientific work in the whole history of mankind. Newton's work did not rest on his intuition or on purely mental exercises as Aristotle's worldview did. It was worked out by way of a very methodical process of observation and real-world, empirical, experimental results that, as I just mentioned, has been repeated countless times by other scientists over the last several centuries.

Newton's science is entirely contrary to the FEM (Flat Earth Model). They cannot both be true. Either Newton was wrong or you are. Where is the science that supports the FEM? Where are the published experimental results? Where is the evidence, Dave?

It DOES NOT EXIST because the Earth is not flat, which has not only been argued, with very little to basically no response from you whatsoever, but it has, in fact, been proven multiple times and in multiple ways on this thread. All of which is all still here for everyone to read and/or watch or listen too. (i.e. No one has to take my word for it.)

Indeed, if it could be proven that the Bible taught that the Earth is flat, that single point alone would be sufficient to disprove the divine inspiration of the Bible and thereby falsify both Judaism and Christianity and people would be right to reject it as a fairy tale.

Clete

 

[DFT_Dave]

Sun rise under the clouds

--Dave

 

[DFT_Dave]

Sun Sets IN the Clouds

--Dave

 

[DFT_Dave]

Flat Earth Clouds Behind My Local Sun

--Dave

 

[Derf]

Look at those clouds behind the sun and moon. Kinda backs up what the rays of the sun tell us.

--Dave

Are you sure you want to go there? We have a fairly good handle on how high clouds get to be. Most are below 20,000 ft, a fair amount below the altitude airplanes routinely fly. Some are a little higher, maybe reaching over 50,000 feet. That's about 10 or so miles. Are you saying the sun is below the highest clouds, and likely below some of the lower ones--the ones we can and usually do fly over in commercial jets? Even 50,000 ft is below the Concorde's flight altitude, when it was flying. I can't recall anyone ever releasing pictures of the sun with the earth behind it, but let us know if you find some.

Let's do some math. If the sun at 93,000,000 miles distance has to be 875,000 miles in diameter to appear the size it appears to be, the sun at only 10 miles (52,800 ft) would only be 497 feet in diameter. Just for comparison, the Airbus 380 is 239 ft long. An airbus flying just under the sun, which you seem to think is possible, would cast a sizeable shadow over the whole day-time earth.

Despite how improbable it seems, though, I think we can back up this height with a look at sun-beams. I was driving into Colorado Springs yesterday about 7pm, and there was a beautiful example of crepuscular rays shining down on the city. I apologize for not snapping a photo, but I was driving, after all. Here are some photos that are similar, and you can get some idea of distance in them.

The rays I saw were hitting the ground at angles ranging from 90 deg (as measured from the ground, directly under the sun no doubt) out to maybe 30 deg, similar to the photos above. Since 45 degrees is in that range, I started thinking about the geometry of the rays, and remembered that the two short legs of a 45 deg right triangle, the ones opposite the 45 degree angles, are the same length. Here's a picture of such a triangle, with the short sides normalized to "1":

The rays I could see did not reach beyond the city limits, and since the total length of Colorado Springs that I could view was less than 20 miles, the half distance is 10 miles, which gives us a maximum for the length of the short sides of the 45 deg right triangle.

As you can see in the triangle image, that would equal the height of the sun from Co Springs. Co Springs is some 6000 feet above sea level, or just over a mile. That puts the sun right at 58,000 ft, or 11 miles above sea level.

Of course, this height is much lower than the distance given in most flat earth models. I wonder why that is?


The other interesting thing about your crepuscular sun beam arguments is that if the sun can actually illuminate clouds from below, as shown in your figure (below), then it once more gives evidence that the sun is much lower than flat earth models say. Low enough that we could fly over the sun.

 

[DFT_Dave]

THE most undeniable proof of the Flat Earth SUN!

--Dave

 

[DFT_Dave]

Sun in the clouds

--Dave

 

[Derf]

THE most undeniable proof of the Flat Earth SUN!

--Dave

I think the only thing that video proves is that guy who filmed it does NOT believe what he is pushing. You can tell because he had to set the table up so that it was ABOVE the level of the camera, thus causing the dime to sink out of sight as it moved away from the viewer.

You can also tell by looking at the windowsill behind the table with the flower pots on it. The setup was done deliberately to make it look like there was something on the at the end of the table at the same level, to make it seem like the viewer could see all the way across the table. Look at time 1:01 on the video compared to 1:05, which shows the view from above the table, including the windowsill. It is obvious that the windowsill is higher than the table. So, with the table above the viewing angle of the camera, the dime would "sink" below the horizon. This would be similar to watching the sunrise or sunset from slightly below ground level, but not at all similar to what a viewer would see if watching a sun at 3000 miles above the flat earth.

The funny thing is that when I viewed it on youtube (to avoid missing the right side of it due to the frame widths in TOL), the automatic following video was one that was debunking the flat earth model.:doh:

 

[DFT_Dave]

Dave... you believe the Sun and the Moon are approximately 300 miles above the earth (per the Flat earth theory). Yet now you are asserting that clouds can be behind the sun and moon and therefore higher in altitude than the sun and the moon???

You realize the the highest clouds are about 20,000 feet in altitude right?? You can verify this by flying in any commercial airliner on any day of the week. That means the highest regular clouds are only a bit more than 3 miles high. Which is 100 times lower than you believe the Sun and the moon are.

How could clouds be 1,564,000 feet higher than anyone has ever observed?

I have never said how far the sun and moon are from the earth. They are very far away as per globe model or they are very close as per flat earth model. The video evidence says very close.

--Dave