The earth is flat and we never went to the moon

Status
Not open for further replies.
Evil.Eye.<(I)>

Evil.Eye.<(I)>

BANNED
Banned
DFT_Dave said:
That we live in an invisible atmosphere that moves with the earth at 1000 mph and yet move in that atmosphere as if it were not moving at all is like being in a river that moves at 1000 mph?

Was not my analogy.

If a plane can move through the atmosphere then it does not move with the atmosphere

If the speed of the rotating earth is added to the speed of the plane going from LA to NY is the speed of the earth subtracted from the speed of the plane as is goes from NY to LA?

Is the earth "inside off" the atmosphere? Does the atmosphere contain the earth? Saying the atmosphere is like being in a moving car makes the atmosphere a container just as the car is a container. If an aircraft can pass right though the atmosphere and beyond it into outer space then it is not a container in the same way a car is which is why the analogy does not apply.

--Dave


Sent from my iPhone using TOL
Click to expand...

If you stretch a material like neopreme out into an elevated sheet, it mimics the characteristics of spatial fabric.

As objects are introduced onto the fabric, you see how the very mass of an object draws other objects to it. This idea is well known as gravity. The atmosphere of the earth is held to the earth by gravity.

In the observance of space through a telescope, we see that gravity has brought matter together in spherical forms, due to rotation, inertia and forces of physics.

If I apply equal force over the entire surface of a piece of clay, the most likely result will end up being a sphere of some sort. The entire universe is a masterpiece of balance and force that equals itself in a way that supports fragile life on our tiny orb.

A flat earth not only denies the very principles that are taught by observing molecular reaction to force, but it also denies what is easily observable through a telescope.

There are literally thousands of experiments that use common items to refute the flat earth theory and help us understand why the earth is "mostly" spherical.

Turn pizza dough on your finger and it will not end up a square. It indeed ends up flat, but in reference to drilling for oil or magma, it becomes exceedingly clear that our rotation is not fully "flattening" our planet. If it were, we would be up chocolate creek without a straw.

For the sake of giving you a bone, the earth is not a perfect sphere, like the spinning pizza on the chefs finger, it flattens out a bit from its insane rotation. It is more like a sort of gentle oval.

- Evil.Eye.<(I)>
 
Last edited:
Clete

Clete

Truth Smacker
Silver Subscriber
DFT_Dave said:
If a plane can move through the atmosphere then it does not move with the atmosphere
Click to expand...
What? Come on, Dave! Are you serious?

Try swimming across a flowing river and see if you don't both go across the river and down steam with the current.

This is really really simple stuff here. What's going on with you?

If the speed of the rotating earth is added to the speed of the plane going from LA to NY is the speed of the earth subtracted from the speed of the plane as is goes from NY to LA?
Click to expand...
Relative to the Earth's axis it is, yes!

It still has to travel through the same amount of atmosphere maintaining sufficient air speed such that the lift created by the wings is sufficient to overcome gravity and allow the plain to fly.

Is the earth "inside off" the atmosphere? Does the atmosphere contain the earth?
Click to expand...
That depends on the context of the question but its more accurate to say that the atmosphere is part of the planet.

Saying the atmosphere is like being in a moving car makes the atmosphere a container just as the car is a container.
Click to expand...
Sort of except that it isn't the atmosphere that's the container. We and the atmosphere are both contained by the Earth's gravitational field.

If an aircraft can pass right though the atmosphere and beyond it into outer space then it is not a container in the same way a car is which is why the analogy does not apply.
Click to expand...
You act like such a passage could be done without effort. Do you understand how much energy is involved in getting to space? You could break out of your car a million times and then vaporize your car with less energy than it takes to get into space from Earth's surface. Again, it isn't the atmosphere that's holding us here. It is gravity that is holding both us and the atmosphere.

If you say gravity makes everything move together then I would make the same argument.

I know about the universe, started learning about it some time ago. As you can see.

View attachment 25131

There is a history of rejection of the Copernican model that I was not aware of until recently. That history brought us to "relativity" as an answer. Saying space and time are the same thing, as the theory of relativity does, is irrational so excuse me for being very suspicious about the globalist model. The arguments that we are a flat and stationary world are not made by mad men.

--Dave
Click to expand...
Einstein's work is not directly related to Copernican cosmology, Dave. In fact, Einstien's work is a rather radical departure from Newtonian physics and replaced Newton's theory of gravity. I happen to agree with you that Relativity is irrational in many ways and to reject Newtonian physics entirely in favor of Relativity is premature at best and an outright error at worst. The point being that Einstein's being at least partially wrong does not imply that either Newton nor Copernicus nor Galileo nor anyone else who preceded him was on the wrong path or were wrong in any respect. This guilt by association fallacy is beneith you. Even if a direct association could be made, the logic is fallacious.

Resting in Him,
Clete

P.S. No time for editing - sorry for any typos!
 
musterion

musterion

Well-known member
beaker-wallpaper-video-plugin-tagged-firefox-16506.jpg
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top