And I'm presenting you evidence that refutes the conspiracy, to the point where a conspiracy is not possible.
Sent from my Pixel XL using TheologyOnline mobile app
The earth is flat and we never went to the moon
- Thread starter DFT_Dave
- Start date
- Status
Sent from my Pixel XL using TheologyOnline mobile app
So leaving aside for a minute who these Illuminati etc, are...Let's think who ought to know better, but helps keep the fraud going.
Historians ought to know, since they claim that Eratosthenes measured the circumference of the Earth. Have they been mislead by a few historians long ago that planted a lie? Or was Eratosthenes himself a conspirator? Same for Copernicus- he never claimed what people say he did- or was he part of the conspiracy?
Are astronauts all actors, part of that plot? They must be. Hundreds of them from many nations. All actors. All liars. All frauds.
Astronomers. Thousands of them. I am sure there are many Christians among them. All liars. All secretly working for Satan!
The Google Lunar X contest must be a complete fraud too. And supported by amateur teams all over the world. How did they pull that one off?
And how do my phone calls get overseas? I've been told through satellites, but now it seems there can't be such things.
Both models will have a horizon which is a limit as to how far we can see in the distance. A flat earth would produce a straight horizon. A globe would produce a curved horizon. What do we actually see from earth, a straight or curved horizon? What do we actually see from high elevation and air planes, a straight or curved horizon? All that we ever actually see is a straight horizon except from NASA, the people who faked moon landings. The horizon continues to stay at eye level when we go to higher elevations, which is evidence of a plain--flat earth. The horizon of a curved earth would go lower as we went higher, something we never see.
--Dave
That which you call evidence is in dispute. The globe model is not an indisputable fact of science any more than the evolution of the entire universe is. If you think it is indisputable then a debate for you is not possible. For me, both models are disputable and both need to be debated. If you don't get this then don't be here and agonize over this.
--Dave
Again, if the many were not lying about the space program, about the earth being round, then what is the point in a few lying and saying we've been lied to?
Sent from my Pixel XL using TheologyOnline mobile app
Dave, what you basically do is claim that any evidence that the earth is a globe is false up-front. All scientists from all generations are frauds. You will not consider any evidence whatsoever that the Earth is not flat. Or that gravity is real (recall how you dismissed the Cavendish experiment? "Accurate? How do we know? What controls did this experiment use? Who else was there to validate his, so called, results?"). And yet you expect people to seriously consider your evidence.
The Turtle Moves!
ok doser
lifeguard at the cement pond
is that like "the dude abides"? :freak:
Please, ask one question at a time. As you can see I can answer those. And I have posted many videos, pics, and commentary that has already answered most of your questions. I am doing a lot of research on this issue and apparently most of you are not doing any of your own. I don't mind finding the answers from the flat earth perspective, go back and read what I have written on this and view some of the video I have suggest. You may not agree with all of it, some of flat earth I don't agree with either, but at least I know and understand it. Flat earth has a great deal of validity in my opinion.
I must continue to say that neither your or my salvation and eternal destiny is a stake here. The deception of the world that follows Satan is. We do not reject Christ because of a globe earth model but atheists do use globalism cosmology to reject Christ and the existence of God. Anti-Christian globalism, one world government, is based on globe earth cosmology not flat earth.
--Dave
Dave, I don't know about you, but I know that a one world government will not happen until the Antichrist comes. The Bible says that He will be the only who will be able to unite the world. Not some conspiracy. Answer chair's question, all of it, in one post, here and now.
Sent from my Pixel XL using TheologyOnline mobile app
There have been many scientists who have disputed globe, or moving globe, in the past but they obviously are not considered credible by those who advocate for the opposite view.
Yes, I refute globe earth up front because I am taking the side for the advocate, flat earth. I am presenting their arguments and their evidence in my "unique" way.
That's how debate works. How is it that some of you are here, a debate website, and don't understand debate???
--Dave
Who are these scientists? How did they refute it? Can their experiments be repeated?
Sent from my Pixel XL using TheologyOnline mobile app
While I haven't yet confirmed this, I really think that atmospheric refraction has to be accounted for, which the video does not do.
Also, the video sort of testifies against its own premise. If the Earth was flat, shouldn't he have been able to video the entire bridge pillar all the way to the ground?
When he zooms way in, the waves at the edge of the horizon are in better focus than the bridge is and there is a section of the bridge hidden behind the horizon. In other words, you can see the bridge but you cannot see the surface of the lake all the way between the camera and the other bridge.
So, presuming that there is some optical effect happening due to atmospheric refraction to account for the otherwise unexpectedly large amount of the bridge that can be seen from that distance, I'd say that the video is pretty good evidence that the Earth is round.
Last edited:
ok doser
lifeguard at the cement pond
i'm afraid this is impossible to explain - the measured diameter of antarctica just does not accommodate a flat earth model
Oh. No problem there. Those who measured Antarctica are liars. Part of the conspiracy. That's how debate works- don't you get it?
Well, it didn't take long for me to confirm that atmospheric refraction does indeed play a very significant role when performing such experiments...
The article is packed full of mathematical formulas. If anyone is interested enough to do the math, my bet is that the bridge video show EXACTLY what one would expect to see on a globe with a thick atmosphere.
Effect of atmospheric refraction
If the Earth were an airless world like the Moon, the above calculations would be accurate. However, Earth has an atmosphere of air, whose density and refractive index vary considerably depending on the temperature and pressure. This makes the air refract light to varying extents, affecting the appearance of the horizon. Usually, the density of the air just above the surface of the Earth is greater than its density at greater altitudes. This makes its refractive index greater near the surface than higher, which causes light that is travelling roughly horizontally to be refracted downward. This makes the actual distance to the horizon greater than the distance calculated with geometrical formulas. With standard atmospheric conditions, the difference is about 8%. This changes the factor of 3.57, in the metric formulas used above, to about 3.86. This correction can be, and often is, applied as a fairly good approximation when conditions are close to standard. When conditions are unusual, this approximation fails. Refraction is strongly affected by temperature gradients, which can vary considerably from day to day, especially over water. In extreme cases, usually in springtime, when warm air overlies cold water, refraction can allow light to follow the Earth's surface for hundreds of kilometres. Opposite conditions occur, for example, in deserts, where the surface is very hot, so hot, low-density air is below cooler air. This causes light to be refracted upward, causing mirage effects that make the concept of the horizon somewhat meaningless. Calculated values for the effects of refraction under unusual conditions are therefore only approximate.[5] Nevertheless, attempts have been made to calculate them more accurately than the simple approximation described above. Horizon - Wikipedia Emphasis added
If the Earth were an airless world like the Moon, the above calculations would be accurate. However, Earth has an atmosphere of air, whose density and refractive index vary considerably depending on the temperature and pressure. This makes the air refract light to varying extents, affecting the appearance of the horizon. Usually, the density of the air just above the surface of the Earth is greater than its density at greater altitudes. This makes its refractive index greater near the surface than higher, which causes light that is travelling roughly horizontally to be refracted downward. This makes the actual distance to the horizon greater than the distance calculated with geometrical formulas. With standard atmospheric conditions, the difference is about 8%. This changes the factor of 3.57, in the metric formulas used above, to about 3.86. This correction can be, and often is, applied as a fairly good approximation when conditions are close to standard. When conditions are unusual, this approximation fails. Refraction is strongly affected by temperature gradients, which can vary considerably from day to day, especially over water. In extreme cases, usually in springtime, when warm air overlies cold water, refraction can allow light to follow the Earth's surface for hundreds of kilometres. Opposite conditions occur, for example, in deserts, where the surface is very hot, so hot, low-density air is below cooler air. This causes light to be refracted upward, causing mirage effects that make the concept of the horizon somewhat meaningless. Calculated values for the effects of refraction under unusual conditions are therefore only approximate.[5] Nevertheless, attempts have been made to calculate them more accurately than the simple approximation described above. Horizon - Wikipedia Emphasis added
The article is packed full of mathematical formulas. If anyone is interested enough to do the math, my bet is that the bridge video show EXACTLY what one would expect to see on a globe with a thick atmosphere.
That's almost got it. It isn't "those who measured Antarctica" it's "those who claim to have measured Antarctica". In other words, they deny that any such measurement has ever been made or even that it could be made.
Poe's Law is truly in full effect here.
Actually, many claim that gravity is a form of energy deforming the space-time continuum. The extent to which gravity pushes the space-time continuum is related to the mass of the object causing the deformation.
For example, gravity is less on the moon than on earth.
- Status