The earth is flat and we never went to the moon

[DFT_Dave]

I wrote this:

Thank you for your biased summary. But I think much of "relativity" is unverifiable presuppositionalism, not real science. I hope you're not an atheist, absolutism, even in science, would be a philosophical contradiction for you, but in Einstein's Universe of Relativity your opinion, and mine, are predetermined. The "oddities" of space-time physics are not trivial.

View attachment 25115

"A 4-dimensional space-time presents an interesting problem for us free thinkers. You see, four dimensions of space-time not only physically plots the location of something, but it also defines its location along the time axis. In a 4-dimensional space-time, the entire timeline of the universe, past through future, beginning to end, is defined upon the universe’s inception. If everything that will ever happen is already predetermined, what does that say about the importance of our decisions?"

If you want to accept the "fatalism" of the Theory of Relativity be my guest. If you think you can have the theory with out the fatalism you're a fool.

--Dave

Then you had responded:

"Your nice image and commentary is about another theory, General Relativity. Our discussion was about another theory entirely.

This does prove, however, that you haven't fine your due diligence during this discussion - you freely should read a Special Relativity primer to avoid making silly, false assertions."

This was my correction of your error:

Space-time is special relativity.
"Einstein in his theory of special relativity, determined that the laws of physics are the same for all non-accelerating observers, and he showed that the speed of light within a vacuum is the same no matter the speed at which an observer travels. As a result, he found that space and time were interwoven into a single continuum known as space-time. Events that occur at the same time for one observer could occur at different times for another."--Space.com

What is the difference between general and special relativity?
"Einstein in his theory of Special Relativity came up with the idea that space and time are not two independent things. This is what is special about this theory. Special relativity basically says that all laws of physics are the same in all inertial frames. The law of gravitation as given by Isaac Newton didn't quite fit into this theory suggested by Einstein. After a lot of thought, Einstein came up with another theory, in 1915, called the General Theory of Relativity. In this theory, Einstein says that the space-time he described in Special Theory of Relativity, which he then considered to be flat, is not flat, but curved. By curved space-time, all he meant was that the Euclidean geometry fails on this surface. It's very tough (almost impossible) for us to imagine the curved 4 dimensional space-time as we are mere 3-Dimensional objects."

You should read a Special Relativity primer to avoid making silly, false assertions.

--Dave

 

[chair]

Inadvertently? You are a liar. Most of the time, the Arabs are defenseless.

Edit: It was a mistake to let the UN prevent Israel from doing this earlier.

OK. Let's be specific. Where and when exactly did Israel commit "Genocide"? I will help you. Here is teh definition of Genocide, from Webster's online dictionary: " the deliberate and systematic destruction of a racial, political, or cultural group"

By the way- this discussion does not belong in this thread, start your own thread.

 

[Clete]

There are videos that show the earth not moving at very high altitude, but how would you know that since you won't watch any of them.

NASA is the only place you will find video of a curved and moving earth.

All other private video at high altitude show no movement.

--Dave

Sorry for the delayed response to you last several posts, I've been away over the Christmas holiday.


The above post does not address what I said in rebuttal to one of, if not the only actual argument you've made on this thread. And nothing else you've said on this thread has been of sufficient mental acuity to cause me to believe that your videos are worth my time. I'm beiginning to wonder whether someone hasn't taken over your TOL account. I wouldn't have thought you capable of this level of mental laziness.

I'll respond to your other posts a little later. I've gotta go get a new battery put in my truck.

 

[Clete]

How does the atmosphere move????

Please explain this.

--Dave

The same way the air in your car (and you as well) moves with your car when you're driving it. The atmosphere is part of the planet, Dave. It all moves together. It all spins together on it's axis and it all orbits the sun - together. This is not at all a difficult concept. I am seriously beginning to wonder whether you are actually David and not some snot-nozed teenager having a laugh at his expense.

 

[Clete]

Yes, because we will be arguing about what we both have seen! Does that not make sense?

--Dave

Very well, I'll watch at least part of it.

 

[Clete]

If gravity is a force that pulls things towards the center of a sphere, the temperature should make no difference.

It doesn't.

A hot object falls at exactly the same rate as any other object. The variables are things like air resistance and boyancy which can be effected by heat.

I understand the reason they give. It's nonsense. They say gravity doesn't create tides in ponds because it only pulls on giant bodies of water like oceans.

NO ONE has ever said any such thing.

The reason tides aren't observable in ponds is because its too small a body of water to notice the difference. The moon pulls on the whole earth, Daniel. Not just the ocean. It pulls on the whole thing at once, including the ponds and rivers and you but the more mass something has the bigger the effect gravity has on it. The effect the tides have on the oceans as a percentage of their total size and area is incredibly tiny. The only reason its of significance is because the oceans are so huge.

I understand the explanation but it makes no sense that a force can pull on a heavy object but not a light one. "I can lift 500 pounds above my head, but I can't lift 3 pounds above my head because it's too light." It doesn't make any sense.

This comment doesn't make any sense. Pounds are nothing at all but a measure of the Earth's gravity pulling on the object. (Actually both objects have their own gravitational attraction but gravity is such a weak force that it takes an object the size of a planet or moon to be significant).

Resting in Him,
Clete

 

[Clete]

Dave,

I started the first video you linked too and made it all of two minutes before I had to turn it off.

You have got to be joking! You cannot possibly be taking these videos seriously!

The Mississippi River would have to ascend up hill to reach the Gulf of Mexico? Seriously?!

Come on Dave, what is really going on here. You aren't stupid. There is no way you'll ever convince me that you've actually bought into this stupidity. I don't even think the guy doing the video believes it nor the author of that book. It's a joke! It has to be a joke. No one is this stupid! Are they?

 

[gcthomas]

I wrote this:

Thank you for your biased summary. But I think much of "relativity" is unverifiable presuppositionalism, not real science. I hope you're not an atheist, absolutism, even in science, would be a philosophical contradiction for you, but in Einstein's Universe of Relativity your opinion, and mine, are predetermined. The "oddities" of space-time physics are not trivial.

Presuppositionalism is a school of Christian apologetics, isn't it? What has that to do with Special Relativity?

And predetermination is not part of SR, so you have got that wrong. SR is about the relationships between time and space (viz Lorentz transformations). The speed of light is a constant for all observers regardless of the speed of the source (as I said before), and time and space get mixed about when the observed speeds are great. There is nothing about fatalism or predeterminism in SR. (Your links to "wooo" sites notwithstanding.)

And so far you haven't identified where I got any details of SR wrong - posting long cut'n'pasted texts from popular science and wooo sites does not count as an actual criticism unless you point out where my statements disagree with reality.

 

[Clete]

What's the motive, Dave?

Why would anyone care to keep the flatness of the Earth a secret or to trick the world into thinking its a sphere?

Who benefits and how/why?

 

[Tambora]

[MENTION=4980]DFT_Dave[/MENTION]

Are you suggesting that the earth can only be described accurately as "flat"?

Or is that the earth can sometimes be described as flat and sometimes described as a globe/sphere, depending on the perspective one is viewing it from?

 

[Clete]

Presuppositionalism is a school of Christian apologetics, isn't it? What has that to do with Special Relativity?

And predetermination is not part of SR, so you have got that wrong. SR is about the relationships between time and space (viz Lorentz transformations). The speed of light is a constant for all observers regardless of the speed of the source (as I said before), and time and space get mixed about when the observed speeds are great. There is nothing about fatalism or predeterminism in SR. (Your links to "wooo" sites notwithstanding.)

And so far you haven't identified where I got any details of SR wrong - posting long cut'n'pasted texts from popular science and wooo sites does not count as an actual criticism unless you point out where my statements disagree with reality.

He doesn't have it wrong. Special Relativity states that time (all of it - past, present and future) exists. This is fundamentally fatalistic.

There are many people who have made this and similar arguments for decades...

The Block Universe of Special Relativity



This is not be taken to suggest that Dave has a leg to stand on in this ridiculous flat earth theory.

 

[SaulToPaul 2]

What's the motive, Dave?

Why would anyone care to keep the flatness of the Earth a secret or to trick the world into thinking its a sphere?

Who benefits and how/why?

The Globe manufacturers!

 

[Clete]

The Globe manufacturers!

Pretty sure that they're the same people who publish the flat fold-up maps!

They're clearly in on the conspiracy though!



P.S. Your avatar is terrific, by the way! One of my favorites I've ever seen.

 

[john w]

The Globe manufacturers!

ABC's "Wide World Of Sports"...."Spanning the globe..."?

 

[john w]

The Globe manufacturers!

I would like sluggo Dave to address Mr. Tucker's argument, Mayor-how do you orbit a flat earth? It's a mite curious:

And what is Dave's hurry, Mayor? Is he not a Breenite? I wonder what causes that?

 

[Tambora]

The Globe manufacturers!

Them spinning globes!

 

[john w]

Them spinning globes!

Someone has to derail this straight jacket thread...

 

[Grosnick Marowbe]

What's the motive, Dave?

Why would anyone care to keep the flatness of the Earth a secret or to trick the world into thinking its a sphere?

Who benefits and how/why?

House of Pancakes?

 

[DFT_Dave]

The same way the air in your car (and you as well) moves with your car when you're driving it. The atmosphere is part of the planet, Dave. It all moves together. It all spins together on it's axis and it all orbits the sun - together. This is not at all a difficult concept. I am seriously beginning to wonder whether you are actually David and not some snot-nozed teenager having a laugh at his expense.

I have given my reply to an enclosed atmosphere that moves with the rotating globe in many posts that you have not seen. I will re-post them if you like or you can go back and look at them.

I have also posted my personal motive in reply to knight.

Win or lose this debate is not important to me. As I have said repeatedly because there seems to be a growing movement on this subject I think it is worth examining. I am taking the side of "the earth is flat and we never went to the moon" because if I don't there will be no real debate. To have a good debate there must be an advocate, or advocates, for both sides of an argument.

Ridicule and questioning the sanity of either side is not helpful.

Participate and enjoy. The nature of this debate is not like arguing theology and philosophy. Visual/empirical evidence from both sides is an important part of this topic. There are good arguments from both sides as well bad ones from both sides.

Cosmology has gradually become irrational and empirically unverifiable within an atheistic worldview that is being used to destroy the Biblical worldview. How and why have today's cosmologists come to this point? I would like to know. For me every cosmological view needs to be looked at, re-evaluated and debated from ancient flat earth, to Copernicus, to Einstein, to Alan Guth and Max Tegmark.

What I don't want to debate is that there is nothing here to debate.

--Dave

 

[DFT_Dave]

Someone has to derail this straight jacket thread...

Who gave you the right to decide this?
If you don't like the topic just don't view it!
--Dave



Sent from my iPhone using TOL