The earth is flat and we never went to the moon

[DFT_Dave]

That's a good one.

I also like this one....

I feel sorry for the narrator. You can tell he's like.... "do I really have to explain this??"

My first reaction to the video is that water seeks it own level is affirmed and we can see across a vast distance of it, from left to right and see no curvature along the horizon. So why should any one believe that the view straight ahead of us contains a "visible curve", as ships sail away from us seems to suggest? The common understanding is that as ships sail away from us they get smaller and smaller until the entirety of it can not be seen. They don't disappear from view all at once but little by little from the bottom up. If the water is level/flat across the entire horizon, and water seeks it's own level/flatness, then there is no reason to believe that the water away from us is not also level/flat.

C_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _B_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ D

_____________________A_____________________

If A sees from C to D a straight, flat, level horizon line then there is no curve from C to D.


A_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _C_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ B

_____________________D_____________________

If D sees from A to B a straight, flat, level horizontal line then there is no curve from A to B.

If the distance from A to B is the same as C to D. Then there is no curvature to the earth.

If a straight, flat, level horizon line can be seen from every angle, from any distance, across every ocean or large lake then it proves the earth is flat.

--Dave

 

[DFT_Dave]

The shape of the Earth has nothing to do with the concepts of multi-universe or relativity. Or quantum mechanic. Nor do those theories have anything to do with the shape of a basketball or pancake. You are simply muddying the waters- or your own head is muddied.

The shape of the earth was known to the ancient Greeks, long before modern science.

Modern cosmological theories incorporate a philosophy. So did geocentrism and flat earth. Does heliocentrism incorporate a philosophy as well? I believe it does.

--Dave

 

[DFT_Dave]

All of which have been refuted on this thread.

Well, not "ALL"! There seems to be an infinite number is irrationalities these folks can come up with. That one video has two hundred arguments that are all 100% wrong! I don't even know how you pull that off! I mean how can you make 200 false arguments in a row about the same subject?

I haven't denied that this is so. It may very well be true. But just saying it doesn't make it so. You have to make the argument. The only way I know of to do this is to show what Pythagoras' argument was. HOW did his paganism lead to his cosmology? That's the question you need to answer in order for the argument you are making to be valid.

Whether this is true or not is irrelevant. Evolution is not false because the guy who came up with the theory wasn't that great of a scientist. There are lots of different arguments that can be made to falsify the theory of evolution but the nature of its author's worldview is not one of them. Here's one...

"If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications my theory would absolutely break down." - Charles Darwin​

And they were either right or wrong about that but not because of their worldview. At least not directly. Otherwise, Pythagoras' geometry would have been just as wrong as his cosmology.

I agree that everyone makes the claim that they are careful observers and thinkers. The point is that not everyone who makes the claim is telling the truth.

It is no fallacy. It is not my opinion. Such a world wide, multi-generational, multi-millennial conspiracy is flatly impossible.

Nations fight about everything but somehow have come together to be in full and perfect agreement about not only that the flatness of the Earth should be kept secret but about just how that secret should be kept. You have every single nation ON THE WHOLE PLANET in agreement on nothing else but this one single meaningless secret! The Chinese and Vietnamese hate each other with an unbritalled passion but they're in perfect unified sync on the spherical Earth conspiracy. France truly, truly despises Germany but they are spooning bed-buddies on the round Earth conspiracy. Greece and Athens killed each other's armies till the beach sands were red with blood but still the secret of the flat Earth was held unassaulted! The United States will defy the entire world population, refusing to use the metric system but seemingly without effort fall in perfect lock step with protecting the flat Earth secret by spending billions and billions, if not trillions and trillions of dollars trying to maintain the illusion that there is a space program that sends things into Earth orbit, to the Moon and beyond.

NOT POSSIBLE!

I have a great deal of respect for you as well. I'm pretty sure I've read every word on your website. In fact, any irritation I've felt on this thread is rooted in my respect for your ability to think. I'm just confused about how the same guy who makes such brilliant arguments on one subject can entertain such intellectual flimsiness on another.

In any case, you are probably the only person I know of who could have made this topic worth the time I've spent on it. I've actually learned quite a lot. It hadn't ever occurred to me to bother learning the arguments about the nature of the Earth and Solar System.

Resting in Him,
Clete

I too am learning far more about the cosmologies through history then I ever thought to consider before. I didn't know that Plato and Aristotle gave us geocentrism over Pythagorean heliocentrism. I always ask why they believed it, which for me is as important as the what they believed, followed by evidence to support it.

See my answer to Knight about sea level. Let me know what you think. My approach is there are no experts, only ideas that everyone can consider if made simple and clear.

--Dave

 

[chair]

Modern cosmological theories incorporate a philosophy. So did geocentrism and flat earth. Does heliocentrism incorporate a philosophy as well? I believe it does.

--Dave

Um, Dave? Um...geocentrism predated relativity by a few centuries. And the round earth was understood many many centuries before that.

You are confusing historical facts. Is this deliberate?

 

[DFT_Dave]

Um, Dave? Um...geocentrism predated relativity by a few centuries. And the round earth was understood many many centuries before that.

You are confusing historical facts. Is this deliberate?

You are not reading all my posts. Heliocentrism from the Phythagoreans was rejected by Plato and Aristotle, They were all philosophers. Their beliefs had much to do with their cosmology. It was a package deal. God, or no God, and cosmology go hand and hand from past to present. Hello!!!

--Dave

 

[chair]

You are not reading all my posts. Heliocentrism from the Phythagoreans was rejected by Plato and Aristotle, They were all philosophers. Their beliefs had much to do with their cosmology. It was a package deal. God, or no God, and cosmology go hand and hand from past to present. Hello!!!

--Dave

DAVE, DERN IT!
This is not a religious issue. It is a question of facts. Speaking of which- did you ever hear of Copernicus?

 

[DFT_Dave]

That's a good one.

I also like this one....

I feel sorry for the narrator. You can tell he's like.... "do I really have to explain this??"

My next objection to this video is that on a flat earth density and buoyancy account for why some things go up and other things go down. On a globe density and buoyancy are not enough so a third force was not discovered it was imagined. Gravity is imagined as to why things don't fly off a spinning round globe. Gravity itself is invisible, odorless, tasteless, etc. it lacks empirical evidence. Gravity is known only for it's effect, which is presupposed. That gravity exists because things don't fly off a spinning globe is not a proof of a spinning globe and therefore not a proof of the existence of gravity.

Atheists should be well versed in this argument, they use it against the existence of God. They believe that "an invisible God" that lacks empirical evidence does not exist but they contradict themselves by believing that "invisible Gravity" that lacks empirical evidence is holding the entire universe together against the evil force of expansion. If gravity had a mind then it is God by another name, but gravity is mindless yet all powerful.

--Dave

 

[chair]

. Gravity itself is invisible, odorless, tasteless, etc. it lacks empirical evidence. Gravity is known only for it's effect, which is presupposed.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cavendish_experiment
The Cavendish experiment, performed in 1797–1798 by British scientist Henry Cavendish, was the first experiment to measure the force of gravity between masses in the laboratory[1] and the first to yield accurate values for the gravitational constant.

 

[Clete]

I too am learning far more about the cosmologies through history then I ever thought to consider before. I didn't know that Plato and Aristotle gave us geocentrism over Pythagorean heliocentrism. I always ask why they believed it, which for me is as important as the what they believed, followed by evidence to support it.

I'm very glad you've brought up Aristotle and Plato because it gives me an opportunity to make one of my recent points in a way that I'm hoping will reach you.

You and I reject the doctrine of Immutability and other related doctrines. We often make arguments that have to do with the fact that the idea of immutability came from Aristotle and Plato. But what we do not do is make the argument that the doctrine is false BECAUSE it came from Aristotle and Plato. Instead, we show the historical linkage between what Aristotle believed and the arguments he made with the modern belief in God's immutability. We thereby demonstrate that the doctrine is extra-biblical and therefore must be discarded and replaced with a biblical doctrine.

Now, the topic of a flat vs round Earth isn't a doctrine and so we don't require a solely biblical solution to the question but that isn't the point. The point is that simply saying the heliocentrism came from Pythagoras is not a sufficient argument to debunk the idea. I don't care who thought of it and I frankly don't even care if his arguments were fallacious. I'm not making "Pythagorian arguments"! Even if the arguments I'm making are the exact same one's he made, I'm not making them because they were his arguments. They're just arguments! They're either valid arguments or they aren't

In order for this Pythagorean tack you're on to be valid, you have to demonstrate that the arguments are wrong and that they have not changed to the modern day. I don't care about his religious beliefs any more than I care about how many teeth he had in his head. It's the arguments that matter, not who's mouth they came out of.

See my answer to Knight about sea level. Let me know what you think. My approach is there are no experts, only ideas that everyone can consider if made simple and clear.


My first reaction to the video is that water seeks it own level is affirmed and we can see across a vast distance of it, from left to right and see no curvature along the horizon. So why should any one believe that the view straight ahead of us contains a "visible curve", as ships sail away from us seems to suggest? The common understanding is that as ships sail away from us they get smaller and smaller until the entirety of it can not be seen. They don't disappear from view all at once but little by little from the bottom up. If the water is level/flat across the entire horizon, and water seeks it's own level/flatness, then there is no reason to believe that the water away from us is not also level/flat.

C_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _B_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ D

_____________________A_____________________

If A sees from C to D a straight, flat, level horizon line then there is no curve from C to D.


A_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _C_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ B

_____________________D_____________________

If D sees from A to B a straight, flat, level horizontal line then there is no curve from A to B.

If the distance from A to B is the same as C to D. Then there is no curvature to the earth.

If a straight, flat, level horizon line can be seen from every angle, from any distance, across every ocean or large lake then it proves the earth is flat.

--Dave

I have already debunked this, Dave.

All of your "if" statements are false.

The "flat and level" surface of water (or other liquid) isn't as "flat and level" as it seems. The problem is the scale. The Earth is really big and on small scales the curvature is negligible. In fact, for many liquids, including water, on small enough scales, the curvature is overcome by other factors such as surface tention but that's something of a distraction. The fact of the matter is that the curvature is there and can be easily observed.

One way to observe the curvature is for you to go out on a lake in calm weather. The more still the water is, the better. Go off shore and have a fellow scientist friend of yours point a lazer beam from a stable place on shore where he can know with some precision how far abave the water level the lazer is. If the Earth is curved, then the lazer point should rise on your boat mounted tarket by aproximately 8 inches per mile. Which is exactly what it will do.

Likewise, as I pointed out in my previous rebuttall to this point, bridge builders do, in fact, account for the curvature of the Earth. There's only one reason that bridge builders would do such a thing. And, of course, we all know that the reason they do it is because they're one of the elite who are in on the conspiracy and building curved bridges is a really clever (not to mention time consuming and expensive) way to preserve the secret that the Earth is flat.

Resting in Him,
Clete

 

[DFT_Dave]

I'm very glad you've brought up Aristotle and Plato because it gives me an opportunity to make one of my recent points in a way that I'm hoping will reach you.

You and I reject the doctrine of Immutability and other related doctrines. We often make arguments that have to do with the fact that the idea of immutability came from Aristotle and Plato. But what we do not do is make the argument that the doctrine is false BECAUSE it came from Aristotle and Plato. Instead, we show the historical linkage between what Aristotle believed and the arguments he made with the modern belief in God's immutability. We thereby demonstrate that the doctrine is extra-biblical and therefore must be discarded and replaced with a biblical doctrine.

Now, the topic of a flat vs round Earth isn't a doctrine and so we don't require a solely biblical solution to the question but that isn't the point. The point is that simply saying the heliocentrism came from Pythagoras is not a sufficient argument to debunk the idea. I don't care who thought of it and I frankly don't even care if his arguments were fallacious. I'm not making "Pythagorian arguments"! Even if the arguments I'm making are the exact same one's he made, I'm not making them because they were his arguments. They're just arguments! They're either valid arguments or they aren't

In order for this Pythagorean tack you're on to be valid, you have to demonstrate that the arguments are wrong and that they have not changed to the modern day. I don't care about his religious beliefs any more than I care about how many teeth he had in his head. It's the arguments that matter, not who's mouth they came out of.

I have already debunked this, Dave.

All of your "if" statements are false.

The "flat and level" surface of water (or other liquid) isn't as "flat and level" as it seems. The problem is the scale. The Earth is really big and on small scales the curvature is negligible. In fact, for many liquids, including water, on small enough scales, the curvature is overcome by other factors such as surface tention but that's something of a distraction. The fact of the matter is that the curvature is there and can be easily observed.

One way to observe the curvature is for you to go out on a lake in calm weather. The more still the water is, the better. Go off shore and have a fellow scientist friend of yours point a lazer beam from a stable place on shore where he can know with some precision how far abave the water level the lazer is. If the Earth is curved, then the lazer point should rise on your boat mounted tarket by aproximately 8 inches per mile. Which is exactly what it will do.

Likewise, as I pointed out in my previous rebuttall to this point, bridge builders do, in fact, account for the curvature of the Earth. There's only one reason that bridge builders would do such a thing. And, of course, we all know that the reason they do it is because they're one of the elite who are in on the conspiracy and building curved bridges is a really clever (not to mention time consuming and expensive) way to preserve the secret that the Earth is flat.

Resting in Him,
Clete

Are you trying to reach me? :maxi:

Remember, not one single argument for either side has originated from us or any one else on this website. That's why it's not personal and why I have not made up my mind yet. The devil's advocate is not really the devil, right? :devil:

I never said that my argument is merely based on Greek paganism per se, it's still an important influence. I don't like Plato and Aristotle's view of God or the cosmos any more than the Pythagorean view of the same if I see flat earth to be both Biblical and real.

Every point on my horizon test is absolutely valid.
If you think it is invalid then try to refute it. I will be developing this more. All the original and basic reasons for globe and flat earth are based on observations any one can make without the aid of powerful telescopes etc. If the curve of the earth is so slight we cannot detect it then why do we see boats going over it?

--Thanks, Dave

 

[Clete]

Are you trying to reach me? :maxi:

Remember, not one single argument for either side has originated from us or any one else on this website. That's why it's not personal and why I have not made up my mind yet. The devil's advocate is not really the devil, right? :devil:

I get that but it wouldn't hurt for you to modify your arguments based on the arguments I make.

You should keep a scorecard. It would be somewhere in the neighborhood of :Clete: 230 :devil: 0

I never said that my argument is merely based on Greek paganism per se, it's still an important influence.

You haven't even established that it was any influence, must less an important one. My bet is that his paganism had no more to do with believing in heliocentrism than it had to do with his mathematics.

I don't like Plato and Aristotle's view of God or the cosmos any more than the Pythagorean view of the same if I see flat earth to be both Biblical and real.

The difference is that there is nothing biblical that requires a flat stationary Earth. It does require a personal God who is relational, just and, as you put it, dynamic.

Every point on my horizon test is absolutely valid.
If you think it is invalid then try to refute it. I will be developing this more. All the original and basic reasons for globe and flat earth are based on observations any one can make without the aid of powerful telescopes etc. If the curve of the earth is so slight we cannot detect it then why do we see boats going over it?

--Thanks, Dave

You just do not seem to be reading my posts! The curvature is NOT so slight that we can't detect it. It is, in fact, aproximatly 8 whole inches per mile! That isn't so much that you're going to notice it with your naked eye on some small body of water but it is easily detectable on large bodies of water as has been shown multiple times on this thread already. It is necessary to have some large object in play in order to notice it with the naked eye because the resolution limit of your eyes is such that you can't see something 8 inches across from a mile away. But with something as simple as a lazer pointer and a target with a ruler on it, you can measure the curvature of the Earth by simply get on a body of water large enough for you to get as little as 1/8th of a mile from shore (perhaps less if you can measure carefully).

 

[JudgeRightly]

Excellent point!

Why not say that the Earth isn't actually here at all? I've seen some suggest that the moon doesn't exist. That it's a hologram or something. They cite the fact that there are no photographs of the moon prior to 1950 or something as proof. Never mind the countless paintings, books, songs, and ancient religions that depict, speak of and worship the moon. They clearly have no need for their worldview to be consistent, which makes it basically impossible to debate, by the way.

And going down that route, you eventually get to the Boltzmann Brain problem.

Sent from my Pixel XL using TheologyOnline mobile app

 

[JudgeRightly]

The devil's advocate is not really the devil, right? :devil:

Defending a murderer makes you just as guilty.

Sent from my Pixel XL using TheologyOnline mobile app

 

[DFT_Dave]

I have been watching this evening this very professional presentation of Nikola Tesla. Electromagnetism explains much about flat earth theory but the video is not about flat earth but is a testament to Tesla's incredible life and work. Just offering this as a great historical account for those interested.

--Dave

 

[DFT_Dave]

Horizon line and vanishing point

The horizon line is where sky meets earth but there exists another line that is the limit that we can see, which is about 3 miles that comes the vanishing point where objects disappear from or sight. The land and seascape "rise up" to our eye level but the sea and land in reality is flat. We can see higher elevations behind the 3 miles we can see but they will be "cut off" at the bottom only because off our limited viewing range of 3 miles. There is no curvature of the earth.

View attachment 25207

This video from 14:00 to 30:00 show how perspective works in reality.

--Dave

 

[chair]

DFT. You really do ignore uncomfortanble posts.

 

[DavidK]

Wow, 83 pages of this.

Has there already been any discussion of why aircraft fly curved routes over a flat earth?

 

[JudgeRightly]

Wow, 83 pages of this.

Has there already been any discussion of why aircraft fly curved routes over a flat earth?

Yup

Sent from my Pixel XL using TheologyOnline mobile app

 

[DavidK]

How about the reason for winter and summer on a flat earth?

Or why the length of days and nights changes as you get farther from the equator?

 

[chair]

How about the reason for winter and summer on a flat earth?

Or why the length of days and nights changes as you get farther from the equator?

Mr. DFT Dave has a handy habit of posting links to long videos, and ignoring posts that contain uncomfortable facts.

We have been stupidly wasting our time with him. His self-imposed ignorance is rock solid.