The earth is flat and we never went to the moon

[DFT_Dave]

Notice the difference in these two pics of a "space walk". In the first photo we see space is black. In the second we see space is filled in with stars. One pic is obviously photo shopped. One is, supposedly, what we actually see. The other is what we should see, but don't. Actually both pics are fake. If we were walking in space we would see the stars and especially the "milky way", and it would not have to be photo shopped in.

--Dave

View attachment 25161 View attachment 25164

Proof of Fake Space: The Missing Milky Way...

 

[Town Heretic]

Notice the difference in these two pics of a "space walk". In the first photo we see space is black. In the second we see space is filled in with stars. One pic is obviously photo shopped. One is, supposedly, what we actually see. The other is what we should see, but don't. Actually both pics are fake. If we were walking in space we would see the stars and especially the "milky way", and it would not have to photo shopped in.

--Dave

View attachment 25161 View attachment 25164

Proof of Fake Space: The Missing Milky Way...

The second "photo" appears to be a graphics project. It's not a photograph. lain:

As to why we don't see stars in NASA photos of space walks, it isn't because NASA isn't as smart as flat earth adherents:

When there is a full moon go outside and see how many stars you can find compared to a night when the moon is not out. You will see the difference. The stars are very faint and get washed out by the bright light of the moon.

[SIZE=-1]The reason why no or very little stars can be seen is because of the Earth. The Earth, when lit by the Sun, is many thousands times brighter than the stars around it. As a result the Earth is so bright that it swamps out most if not all of the stars.

David Latchman, B.Sc. Physics, University of the West Indies[/SIZE]


Or, for a more particular answer about taking photographs:

The stars are there and the astronauts can see them if they look away from the sun. The reason that the stars do not show up on the film is that the stars are so dim that the camera cannot gather enough of their light in a short exposure. Our eyes are a lot more sensitive to light than photographic film. A good example of this is when we take a picture with a camera that is back lighted. The photographer can plainly see the features and colors of the object(usually a relative), but when the picture is developed, only the shadow outline can be seen of the person without any features.

Any picture that you may see of stars are from time-lapse photos. To take a time-lapse photo of the stars, the shutter must be left open on the camera in order for the lens to focus enough light on the film for the image to show up. Longer times allow more photons to enter the camera and record the image. The image is built over time from the total number of photons striking the film. The dimmer the object, the longer the film must be exposed because there are fewer photons per unit of time reaching the camera than for a brighter object. The brightness of an object is directly related to the number of photons that reach a recording device such as your eye or a camera. For example, to get a decent photo of the full moon, the shutter should be open for about a second or two. To record the image of a star, the shutter must be open from several minutes to several hours in order for enough photons to hit the film and make an image. Some of the spectacular photos that are made by the large telescopes, which col As for the pictures of the astronauts, the sunlight reflecting off of them is so bright that the shutter speed of the camera has to be a fraction of a second. If the exposure was longer, the film would absorb to many photons from the astronauts and they would become 'washed out' and appear as a featureless form of white, the opposite of the underexposed 'shadow'.

Matthew Allen, B.S., Physics/Calculus Teacher Saint Scholastica Academy

 

[DFT_Dave]

Your brother's face is moving. It's in a moving car
Resting in Him,
Clete

A persons face can be motionless inside a moving car.

This is absolutely true or we have no beginning point for this argument. With this being true, your argument is that my brothers face is both moving and not moving, which is obviously impossible. Saying what is happening "inside" a moving car tells me nothing about what is happening "on" earth. We are not "in the earth" we are "on top of" it. Being "on top of" a spinning globe is not the same as (equivalent to) being "inside" a moving car. Being "on top of" a moving car is equivalent to being "on top of" a spinning globe. Being "in" is not the same as being "on", this is a false equivalent fallacy.

Saying that we are "in" an atmosphere that moves with the spinning globe in unison is a belief not a proof. This explanation is offered in order to explain why we cannot see the earth moving below a the plane. This "explanation" fails for the following reasons.

1. Their would be no "coriolis effect".

The "apparent" portion of the Coriolis effect's definition is also important to take into consideration. This means that from the object in the air (i.e an airplane) the earth can be seen rotating slowly below it. From the earth's surface that same object appears to curve off of its course. The object is not actually moving off of its course but this just appears to be happening because the earth’s surface is rotating beneath the object.

I hope you, and everyone else can see the contradiction in this description of the coriolis effect. We cannot have the plane moving with the earth/atmosphere as it spins and at the same time see the earth "rotating slowly below" the plane. The car analogy is not a proof or a reasonable explanation of "how things move inside a moving atmosphere".

2. Gravity would negate all contrary movement in the atmosphere that it moves in one direction.

"The Earth's atmosphere is a layer of gases surrounding the planet Earth that is retained by the Earth's gravity. This mixture of gases is commonly known as air. There is no definite boundary between the atmosphere and outer space. It slowly becomes thinner and fades into space."

These gasses cannot both move around inside the gravitation in different directions of the earth and at the same time be pulled by the rotating earth in one direction. If gravity causes "all" of the particles "of the atmosphere" to move in unison and in one direction as the earth rotates then no particles of the atmosphere could move in any other direction. If gravity effects all the particles (solids and liquids) "in the atmosphere" as well then nothing could move about the planet freely or in a direction contrary to gravity's pull in the direction of earths rotation.

--Dave

 

[ok doser]

A persons face can be motionless inside a moving car.

This is absolutely true ...

well, only if they're dead and frozen into a block of ice

otherwise, if their heart's beating their tissue is moving



don't even get me started on brownian motion

 

[DFT_Dave]

The second "photo" appears to be a graphics project. It's not a photograph. lain:

As to why we don't see stars in NASA photos of space walks, it isn't because NASA isn't as smart as flat earth adherents:

[FONT=&]When there is a full moon go outside and see how many stars you can find compared to a night when the moon is not out. You will see the difference. The stars are very faint and get washed out by the bright light of the moon. [/FONT]

[SIZE=-1][FONT=&]The reason why no or very little stars can be seen is because of the Earth. The Earth, when lit by the Sun, is many thousands times brighter than the stars around it. As a result the Earth is so bright that it swamps out most if not all of the stars.

David Latchman, B.Sc. Physics, University of the West Indies[/FONT][/SIZE][FONT=&]

Or, for a more particular answer about taking photographs:

[/FONT][FONT=&]The stars are there and the astronauts can see them if they look away from the sun. The reason that the stars do not show up on the film is that the stars are so dim that the camera cannot gather enough of their light in a short exposure. Our eyes are a lot more sensitive to light than photographic film. A good example of this is when we take a picture with a camera that is back lighted. The photographer can plainly see the features and colors of the object(usually a relative), but when the picture is developed, only the shadow outline can be seen of the person without any features. [/FONT]

[FONT=&]Any picture that you may see of stars are from time-lapse photos. To take a time-lapse photo of the stars, the shutter must be left open on the camera in order for the lens to focus enough light on the film for the image to show up. Longer times allow more photons to enter the camera and record the image. The image is built over time from the total number of photons striking the film. The dimmer the object, the longer the film must be exposed because there are fewer photons per unit of time reaching the camera than for a brighter object. The brightness of an object is directly related to the number of photons that reach a recording device such as your eye or a camera. For example, to get a decent photo of the full moon, the shutter should be open for about a second or two. To record the image of a star, the shutter must be open from several minutes to several hours in order for enough photons to hit the film and make an image. Some of the spectacular photos that are made by the large telescopes, which col As for the pictures of the astronauts, the sunlight reflecting off of them is so bright that the shutter speed of the camera has to be a fraction of a second. If the exposure was longer, the film would absorb to many photons from the astronauts and they would become 'washed out' and appear as a featureless form of white, the opposite of the underexposed 'shadow'.

[/FONT][FONT=&]Matthew Allen, B.S., Physics/Calculus Teacher Saint Scholastica Academy[/FONT]

NASA astronauts train for their next mission in world's largest swimming pool

Do all space missions in the "pool" then edit the video to look like it was done in space as well. They could edit in the stars and the milky way but "Apollo" missions did not have that technical ability for the first faked moon landing so space went black, from outer space. We are being asked to believe we can go to the moon but don't have cameras that can show us all the stars out there from space. Really???

--Dave

 

[DFT_Dave]

well, only if they're dead and frozen into a block of ice

otherwise, if their heart's beating their tissue is moving

don't even get me started on brownian motion

Your point is non sequitur as are almost all your comments which is why I usually ignore them.

--Dave

 

[ok doser]

Your point is non sequitur as are almost all your comments which is why I usually ignore them.

--Dave

most of your "arguments" are non sequitur


isn't that what this thread is about - a magnet for non sequiturs? :idunno:

 

[DFT_Dave]

You know I do. Why do you ask?

If you are attempting to suggest that the theory of evolution beleives that nature makes decisions via some sort of thought process then, again, I have to wonder just what it is that you're up too here, David. I seriously reject the notion that you are this ignorant or stupid. There is nothing you could say to me that you make me believe that you actually do not understand what the process of natural selection is and that it has nothing at all to do with any thought process.

No, it isn't, Dave. Your convoluted understanding of it may be but you don't get to define terms for your own benefit.

The formal defintion of natural selection is the differential survival and reproduction of individuals due to differences in phenotype. "Phenotype" being the set of observable characteristics of an individual resulting from the interaction of its genotype with the environment.

In short, an individual (whether microbe or man) that can better survive and reproduce in a particular environment will eventually out number individuals who do not have his advantage. It isn't a decision that nature makes, it's just math.

No need to so such a fallacy. I agree that natural selection cannot over come entropy for long periods of time and even if it could, there is simply no evidence that evolution has occured. There's tons and tons of evidence that natural selection happens on a daily basis but that's not at all the same thing.

Resting in Him,
Clete

To create a "hybrid" requires a mind, requires a thought process.

Natural selection is "not a thought process" and therefore cannot create a "hybrid".

The words "nature" and "selection", properly understood, do not belong together as I explained. But yes I do know what atheists mean by natural selection. If a person believes there is a though process in natural selection then that person would be a pantheist, not an atheist.

--Dave

 

[chair]

To create a "hybrid" requires a mind, requires a thought process.

Natural selection is "not a thought process" and therefore cannot create a "hybrid".

The words "nature" and "selection", properly understood, do not belong together as I explained. But yes I do know what atheists mean by natural selection. If a person believes there is a though process in natural selection then that person would be a pantheist, not an atheist.

--Dave

Dave, your deliberate ignorance and fake stupidity is getting tiresome.

 

[DFT_Dave]

Dave, your deliberate ignorance and fake stupidity is getting tiresome.

We all know, including me, what is the accepted cosmological view and why we believe in it. Most people don't know anything about the flat earth view and why some today believe in it. This thread, my deliberate ignorance and fake stupidity as you put it, is for the purpose of exploring and comparing both views. I think a lot of us would like to do this and for those of you who do not think this is of any value I say you are welcome to your opinion and please let me have mine.

I have been studying cosmology for some time and wanted to understand, the best I can, multi universe theory, quantum vs relativity, the origin and destiny of the universe as today's physicists see it. Flat earth came up as a new movement and since it was a very ancient cosmology even possibly Biblical I thought I would take a look and see why people are taking this seriously.

Take a nap, get some rest and come back with a better understanding of what this thread is about and enjoy the debate.

--Dave

 

[Clete]

A persons face can be motionless inside a moving car.

This is absolutely true or we have no beginning point for this argument.

Nope! It is not "absolutely" true. It is relatively true. For what feels like the 50th time. Motion of an object is only meaningful RELATIVE to another object. So your brother's face is motionless RELATIVE to the car. It is still moving relative to the road on which the car is driving. Since the road is motionless RELATIVE to the Earth then we can say that your brother's face is moving RELATIVE to the Earth.

With this being true, your argument is that my brothers face is both moving and not moving, which is obviously impossible.

Except that you do it every day and in fact are doing it right now.

Saying what is happening "inside" a moving car tells me nothing about what is happening "on" earth.

Yes it does! "a moving car"! Moving, relative to what? THE EARTH!!!

We are not "in the earth" we are "on top of" it. Being "on top of" a spinning globe is not the same as (equivalent to) being "inside" a moving car. Being "on top of" a moving car is equivalent to being "on top of" a spinning globe. Being "in" is not the same as being "on", this is a false equivalent fallacy.

No Dave. You're wrong. We are IN the atmosphere, which is part of the Earth. As I've said several times now, the analogy is perfect. Analogies are not perfect very oftenand I don't make the claim that this one is perfect lightly. IT IS A PERFECT ANALOGY!

The air in the car is being held there by the walls of the car. The Earth has an atmosphere that is being held to the Earth's surface by gravity. The difference is only in the mechanisms which hold the air in place. The relevant fact is that the air is being held in place, the mechanism by which it is being held is irrelevant.

Saying that we are "in" an atmosphere that moves with the spinning globe in unison is a belief not a proof. This explanation is offered in order to explain why we cannot see the earth moving below a the plane. This "explanation" fails for the following reasons.

1. Their would be no "coriolis effect".

The "apparent" portion of the Coriolis effect's definition is also important to take into consideration. This means that from the object in the air (i.e an airplane) the earth can be seen rotating slowly below it. From the earth's surface that same object appears to curve off of its course. The object is not actually moving off of its course but this just appears to be happening because the earth’s surface is rotating beneath the object.

I hope you, and everyone else can see the contradiction in this description of the coriolis effect. We cannot have the plane moving with the earth/atmosphere as it spins and at the same time see the earth "rotating slowly below" the plane. The car analogy is not a proof or a reasonable explanation of "how things move inside a moving atmosphere".

I've already directly refuted this point. This argument is based on a false definition of the coriolis effect. The coriolis effect is not about the Earth spinning undernieth a plane or the atmosphere. The fact is the the Earth does indeed spin underneith the atmosphere to some extent because the atmosphere is not rigidly attached to the surface but this IS NOT what the coriolis effect is.

The coriolis effect has to do with the conservation of angular momentum and nothing else. When you start something spinning it wants to keep on spinning and anything that is on a spinning object want to fly off the object along a tangential line parallel with the spin of the object. If you move against that angle you have to overcome the angular momentum in order to do so. This is what causes the coriolis effect. The coriolis effect can be directly experienced by taking one of those cheap toy gyroscopes, spin it up and then simply try to turn the gyroscope over where what was pointing up, points down. The force you feel resisting you is the coriolis effect in action and the Earth is one gigantic gyroscope! It is caused by one thing and one thing only, the conservation of angular momentum - period.

And here's the most important point of this entire discussion about the coriolis effect.

Ready?...

The coriolis effect is absolutely irrevutable, scientific PROOF the the Earth is spinning!

Co·ri·o·lis ef·fect
ˌkôrēˈōləs iˌfekt/

noun: Coriolis effect; noun: Coriolis force; plural noun: Coriolis forces

an effect whereby a mass moving in a rotating system experiences a force (the Coriolis force ) acting perpendicular to the direction of motion and to the axis of rotation. On the earth, the effect tends to deflect moving objects to the right in the northern hemisphere and to the left in the southern and is important in the formation of cyclonic weather systems.​

2. Gravity would negate all contrary movement in the atmosphere that it moves in one direction.

"The Earth's atmosphere is a layer of gases surrounding the planet Earth that is retained by the Earth's gravity. This mixture of gases is commonly known as air. There is no definite boundary between the atmosphere and outer space. It slowly becomes thinner and fades into space."

These gasses cannot both move around inside the gravitation in different directions of the earth and at the same time be pulled by the rotating earth in one direction. If gravity causes "all" of the particles "of the atmosphere" to move in unison and in one direction as the earth rotates then no particles of the atmosphere could move in any other direction. If gravity effects all the particles (solids and liquids) "in the atmosphere" as well then nothing could move about the planet freely or in a direction contrary to gravity's pull in the direction of earths rotation.

--Dave

Once again, you prove this point false every time you take a breath in your moving car. The walls of your car are 'causing "all" of the particles "of the atmosphere" to move in unison and in one direction as the car drives down the road' and yet some of those same particles can move in and out of your lungs.

Resting in Him,
Clete

 

[Clete]

To create a "hybrid" requires a mind, requires a thought process.

Natural selection is "not a thought process" and therefore cannot create a "hybrid".

A short Dandelion weed is not a hybrid version of a tall one. It's simply a different expression of the Dandelion weed's genetic code. And yet, in spite of not being a "hybrid", the shorter one's have a survival advantage in my front yard because there are these crazy humans that come along with their tools and cut all the tall ones down before they can reproduce. Before long, there are no tall Dandelions in my yard! They're all short ones! This is natural selection at work.

And it makes no difference that humans were involved in the above example. The mechanism can be anything. If the flowers were edible then the tall ones, being more easily seen by birds, might get eaten before they can germinate. Regardless of the mechanism, if a particular version of an organism has a survival advantage over another then it will eventually be the predominant, if not the only, version of that organism within that environment.

This is what natural selection is, Dave. There is no point in making it into something it isn't in order to reject it based on the false definition.

Natural selection happens all the time and is not the same as evolution.

The words "nature" and "selection", properly understood, do not belong together as I explained. But yes I do know what atheists mean by natural selection. If a person believes there is a thought process in natural selection then that person would be a pantheist, not an atheist.

--Dave

There is no one that believes that there is a thought process, Dave! My point is that your objection to the terminology is based on the notion that such a thought process exists. Since there is no such thought process then your objection to the term is not valid.

Resting in Him,
Clete

 

[Town Heretic]

NASA astronauts train for their next mission in world's largest swimming pool

Do all space missions in the "pool" then edit the video to look like it was done in space as well. They could edit in the stars and the milky way but "Apollo" missions did not have that technical ability for the first faked moon landing so space went black, from outer space. We are being asked to believe we can go to the moon but don't have cameras that can show us all the stars out there from space. Really???

--Dave

More conspiracy piled on conspiracy, but I note you fail to address the actual, clear answer on your point that negates the attempt. That's what distinguishes you from someone playing devil's advocate and makes you more someone nervously hiding behind the notion. No one looking for a clear, ready answer would do what you just did. So enjoy what you're actually doing. There's no sense in wasting more time on it.

 

[JudgeRightly]

(moved)

 

[DFT_Dave]

Nope! It is not "absolutely" true. It is relatively true. For what feels like the 50th time. Motion of an object is only meaningful RELATIVE to another object. So your brother's face is motionless RELATIVE to the car. It is still moving relative to the road on which the car is driving. Since the road is motionless RELATIVE to the Earth then we can say that your brother's face is moving RELATIVE to the Earth.

Except that you do it every day and in fact are doing it right now.

Yes it does! "a moving car"! Moving, relative to what? THE EARTH!!!

No Dave. You're wrong. We are IN the atmosphere, which is part of the Earth. As I've said several times now, the analogy is perfect. Analogies are not perfect very oftenand I don't make the claim that this one is perfect lightly. IT IS A PERFECT ANALOGY!

The air in the car is being held there by the walls of the car. The Earth has an atmosphere that is being held to the Earth's surface by gravity. The difference is only in the mechanisms which hold the air in place. The relevant fact is that the air is being held in place, the mechanism by which it is being held is irrelevant.

I've already directly refuted this point. This argument is based on a false definition of the coriolis effect. The coriolis effect is not about the Earth spinning undernieth a plane or the atmosphere. The fact is the the Earth does indeed spin underneith the atmosphere to some extent because the atmosphere is not rigidly attached to the surface but this IS NOT what the coriolis effect is.

The coriolis effect has to do with the conservation of angular momentum and nothing else. When you start something spinning it wants to keep on spinning and anything that is on a spinning object want to fly off the object along a tangential line parallel with the spin of the object. If you move against that angle you have to overcome the angular momentum in order to do so. This is what causes the coriolis effect. The coriolis effect can be directly experienced by taking one of those cheap toy gyroscopes, spin it up and then simply try to turn the gyroscope over where what was pointing up, points down. The force you feel resisting you is the coriolis effect in action and the Earth is one gigantic gyroscope! It is caused by one thing and one thing only, the conservation of angular momentum - period.

And here's the most important point of this entire discussion about the coriolis effect.

Ready?...

The coriolis effect is absolutely irrevutable, scientific PROOF the the Earth is spinning!

Co·ri·o·lis ef·fect
ˌkôrēˈōləs iˌfekt/

noun: Coriolis effect; noun: Coriolis force; plural noun: Coriolis forces

an effect whereby a mass moving in a rotating system experiences a force (the Coriolis force ) acting perpendicular to the direction of motion and to the axis of rotation. On the earth, the effect tends to deflect moving objects to the right in the northern hemisphere and to the left in the southern and is important in the formation of cyclonic weather systems.​

Once again, you prove this point false every time you take a breath in your moving car. The walls of your car are 'causing "all" of the particles "of the atmosphere" to move in unison and in one direction as the car drives down the road' and yet some of those same particles can move in and out of your lungs.

Resting in Him,
Clete

The argument of the moving car and flying plane as an example of why nothing flies of the face of the spinning ball earth traveling through space does not "prove" the earth is a spinning ball traveling through space. It's a classic circular argument. A spinning earth/atmosphere is NOT like a moving car or flying plane anyway. These analogies are used only to explain a model, they do NOT prove the model.

This argument also presumes that the atmosphere has a solid shell surrounding it. The car and plane have solid shells that can contain gases, liquids, and other smaller solids. The atmosphere is made up of gases, vapors etc. and has no solid cover or shell to contain it. Only if the atmosphere had an impenetrable shell surrounding it could it be compared to a moving car or flying plane. The flat earth model does have such a shell as part of its structure.

The definition of the coriolis effect exists just as I have quoted it. Toys spinning on tables and water whirling in a tub as it goes down the drain don't prove the earth is rotating as it travels around the sun within a galaxy hurling through infinite space. Whirling water and spinning toys can have the same effect on a flat earth and again, are not proofs.

Experiments were conducted, as already shown, in order to see how fast the earth moved through space/ether, and the experiment revealed the earth to be stationary.

"Ether or aether, in physics and astronomy, a hypothetical medium for transmitting light and heat (radiation), filling all unoccupied space; it is also called luminiferous ether. In Newtonian physics all waves are propagated through a medium, e.g., water waves through water, sound waves through air. When James Clerk Maxwell developed his electromagnetic theory of light, Newtonian physicists postulated ether as the medium that transmitted electromagnetic waves. Ether was held to be invisible, without odor, and of such a nature that it did not interfere with the motions of bodies through space. The concept was intended to connect the Newtonian mechanistic wave theory with Maxwell's field theory. However, all attempts to demonstrate its existence, most notably the Michelson-Morley experiment of 1887, produced negative results and stimulated a vigorous debate among physicists that was not ended until the special theory of relativity, proposed by Albert Einstein in 1905, became accepted. The theory of relativity eliminated the need for a light-transmitting medium, so that today the term ether is used only in a historical context."

--Dave

 

[JudgeRightly]

This argument also presumes that the atmosphere has a solid shell surrounding it. The car and plane have solid shells that can contain gases, liquids, and other smaller solids. The atmosphere is made up of gases, vapors etc. and has no solid cover or shell to contain it. Only if the atmosphere had an impenetrable shell surrounding it could it be compared to a moving car or flying plane. The flat earth model does have such a shell as part of its structure.

The "shell" is called gravity.

"Ether or aether, in physics and astronomy, a hypothetical medium for transmitting light and heat (radiation), filling all unoccupied space; it is also called luminiferous ether. In Newtonian physics all waves are propagated through a medium, e.g., water waves through water, sound waves through air. When James Clerk Maxwell developed his electromagnetic theory of light, Newtonian physicists postulated ether as the medium that transmitted electromagnetic waves. Ether was held to be invisible, without odor, and of such a nature that it did not interfere with the motions of bodies through space. The concept was intended to connect the Newtonian mechanistic wave theory with Maxwell's field theory. However, all attempts to demonstrate its existence, most notably the Michelson-Morley experiment of 1887, produced negative results and stimulated a vigorous debate among physicists that was not ended until the special theory of relativity, proposed by Albert Einstein in 1905, became accepted. The theory of relativity eliminated the need for a light-transmitting medium, so that today the term ether is used only in a historical context."

--Dave

Since we're talking about waves and Newton...

https://mobile.nytimes.com/2016/02/12/science/ligo-gravitational-waves-black-holes-einstein.html

Sent from my Pixel XL using TheologyOnline mobile app

 

[JudgeRightly]

Some pretty cool news from SpaceX today.

Successful takeoff and landing of their Iridium-1 rocket.
https://youtu.be/tTmbSur4fcs
Descent begins at around 33:00.

Dave, I know you're going to say "oh it's a fisheye lense," NO. IT'S NOT. Watch the fins that pop up as it begins it's descent. With a fisheye lens, the fins would be distorted as they extend out from the cylindrical body of the rocket. The video does not show any distortion.

Also, notice that as the rocket rotates the engine above the horizon of the Earth that the Earth itself is not distorted as it moves across the screen, as a fisheye lens would cause distortion.

Sent from my Pixel XL using TheologyOnline mobile app

 

[DFT_Dave]

Some pretty cool news from SpaceX today.

Successful takeoff and landing of their Iridium-1 rocket.
https://youtu.be/tTmbSur4fcs
Descent begins at around 33:00.

Dave, I know you're going to say "oh it's a fisheye lense," NO. IT'S NOT. Watch the fins that pop up as it begins it's descent. With a fisheye lens, the fins would be distorted as they extend out from the cylindrical body of the rocket. The video does not show any distortion.

Also, notice that as the rocket rotates the engine above the horizon of the Earth that the Earth itself is not distorted as it moves across the screen, as a fisheye lens would cause distortion.

Sent from my Pixel XL using TheologyOnline mobile app

As we compare pics and video from both sides we see inconsistencies and contradictions. There will be distortions in some cases for sure and no "one" pic or video will determine the globe or flat model to be correct. I think one side is being, over all, fraudulent and the other is not.

So far, from my personal experience, when flying from NY to MN the plane is flying over a flat stationary earth with a straight horizon as far as I can see.

In my head I believed the in globe model and then began to question it after seeing a flat earth presentation. I had to ask myself if my senses were correct or was my science correct? That both my senses and my global cosmology were correct no longer seemed possible, one contradicts the other.

--Dave

 

[DFT_Dave]

The "shell" is called gravity.

Since we're talking about waves and Newton...

https://mobile.nytimes.com/2016/02/12/science/ligo-gravitational-waves-black-holes-einstein.html

Sent from my Pixel XL using TheologyOnline mobile app

What is the sound of two black holes colliding a billion light-years away?

A team of scientists say they know what that would be and they have heard it.

Ripples of space time traveling through space time? Perfect non-sense.

Maybe we can put some in a bottle, drink it, and live forever? :kookoo:

P.S. Gravity is not a shell.

--Dave

 

[JudgeRightly]

What is the sound of two black holes colliding a billion light-years away?

A team of scientists say they know what that would be and they have heard it.

Ripples of space time traveling through space time? Perfect non-sense.

Maybe we can put some in a bottle, drink it, and live forever? :kookoo:

P.S. Gravity is not a shell.

--Dave

Did you not happen to notice the "" I put around shell? Dave, you're becoming more and more of a numbskull the more you dig in. This is EXACTLY why God tells us to guard our thoughts. Dave, by not guarding your mind you're sinning. And because of it, you're getting stupider and stupider.

As Pastor Bob Enyart would say, "Stupid doesn't make you sin, sin makes you stupid."

Sent from my Pixel XL using TheologyOnline mobile app