The earth is flat and we never went to the moon

[DFT_Dave]

If you limit yourself to that then I doubt you'll ever be convinced. The Earth is, in fact, a very large sphere and your senses are not capable of directly sensing curvature (or anything else) on that scale. You're like the ant that insists that the entire world consists of his tunnels and a 300 square foot area of your back yard.

How would you propose to do it?

That is a totally serious question. If you can come up with something that I am both capable of and can afford to do, I'll do it.

The fact that the surface of water is level (neglecting waves) is not disputed by anyone. As I just said a moment ago, your senses are not capable of detecting curvature on that scale. With or without atmospheric lensing, you could not detect the curvature of the Earth by simply looking at the surface of water.

A well known and very well understood fact of life. No way possible - IT IS NOT AT ALL POSSIBLE - to keep such a colossal lie from being discovered.

It isn't relativism in the sense you mean it here. The scales involved are not the cause of the distortion nor is there anything inherent about me that is causing a distortion as is the case with Einsteinian style relativism. In this case, it is simply a matter of scale. Your eyes are only about two and a half or three inches apart and, with good eyesight, have a resolution of about 1 arc minute. Something that is 8 inches long that is a mile away would have an angular size of .43 minutes, a little more than half of what your eye can normally resolve. And the closer things get, the worse the issue becomes because the Earth curves at 8 inches per mile squared. So the curvature a quarter mile away isn't 2 inches (8/4=2) it's four times smaller than that! It's only half an inch! The angular size of something .5 inches long at .25 miles away is only .1 arc minutes! No one could resolve that with their naked eye on their best day and thus to us mere mortals, the Earth looks very flat.

I do, however, agree with you that the curvature is not so slight that it cannot be measured. Not only is it measurable, it's information that is easily found and universally excepted by everyone who believes in a spherical Earth. The notion that flat Earthers don't simply go out and do the experiments required to disprove it is rather telling, don't you think? Such an easily debunk conspiracy could not possibly be maintained. And that's just on one tiny details of a web of lies so large and complex that it boggles the mind to even contemplate.

I think the limited person is the one who knows only one view of this, or any thing else for that matter. I have always wanted to know both sides of almost everything I ever studied. Some have said I know more about evolution than most people who believe in it. I started out broadening my understanding of cosmology by trying to figure out quantum physics, relativity, and multiverse theories. Flat earth was coming up on you tube a lot so I thought, why not take a look. And so here we are.

The most intriguing aspect of this is the curvature issue that is being disputed. The Nikon P900 with a 83x optical zoom is the camera of choice that's creating new energy for this movement. I can't wait to get one this summer and conduct some experiments of my own.

NASA to me has always been a sink hole of wasted trillions of dollars. The moon landing has always been to me, and many others, bad sci-fi movie making. I had believed that the moon was just to far away, to difficult to get to, and a worthless trip to a desert with no water and no air.

There are millions and billions of people that are absolutely convinced of evolution, global warming, relativity, Islam, and coming soon Globalism a.k.a., one world government, new world order. All of this is founded in the insanity that out of chaos comes order. So, I personally think it very possible that we have been deceived about the nature of the world. I used to think it was highly improbable, but not any more. Most, but not all, video for flat earth is very very good. But you have not taken them seriously as I have.

Just maybe, with new technology (especially cameras) in the hands of the average person, this cosmological big lie is finally being exposed. Maybe the Copernican cosmological model, along with everything that is built upon it, is a house of cards about to come crashing down.

--Dave

 

[Clete]

I think the limited person is the one who knows only one view of this, or any thing else for that matter. I have always wanted to know both sides of almost everything I ever studied. Some have said I know more about evolution than most people who believe in it. I started out broadening my understanding of cosmology by trying to figure out quantum physics, relativity, and multiverse theories. Flat earth was coming up on you tube a lot so I thought, why not take a look. And so here we are.

The most intriguing aspect of this is the curvature issue that is being disputed. The Nikon P900 with a 83x optical zoom is the camera of choice that's creating new energy for this movement. I can't wait to get one this summer and conduct some experiments of my own.

NASA to me has always been a sink hole of wasted trillions of dollars. The moon landing has always been to me, and many others, bad sci-fi movie making. I had believed that the moon was just to far away, to difficult to get to, and a worthless trip to a desert with no water and no air.

There are millions and billions of people that are absolutely convinced of evolution, global warming, relativity, Islam, and coming soon Globalism a.k.a., one world government, new world order. All of this is founded in the insanity that out of chaos comes order. So, I personally think it very possible that we have been deceived about the nature of the world. I used to think it was highly improbable, but not any more. Most, but not all, video for flat earth is very very good. But you have not taken them seriously as I have.

Just maybe, with new technology (especially cameras) in the hands of the average person, this cosmological big lie is finally being exposed. Maybe the Copernican cosmological model, along with everything that is built upon it, is a house of cards about to come crashing down.

--Dave

Dave, the videos you've posted too are all a bunch of irrational nonsense. I spent considerable time debunking the first couple of dozen, so called "arguments" from that video with 300 reasons to believe in a flat Earth. All three hundred of them are ridiculous! How is it even possible to make a video where you present 300 erroneous arguments in a row on one subject?

My serious advice to you is to walk away from this. You are not thinking clearly. Step back far enough and long enough to realize that extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. You are claiming that every school, every government (including allies and enemies alike), every airliner, every surveyor, every weather man who uses satelite images, every GPS company, every science organization that exists practically, the movie making industry and probably many more groups that I can't think of off the top of my head all have to not only be in on the secret but actively prepetuating it in a coordinated manner and have been doing so for centuries.

Just as an example of the muddy water in your thinking on this. You seriously suggested that cameras in the hands of the average person is going to finally blow the lid off such a vast conspiracy. There are several problems with that not the least of which is that if cameras in the hands of average people was a threat to such a world-wide, multi-generational conspiracy, such cameras would not exist. But even if the conspirators screwed up their millienium long perfect track record by letting cameras slip through their fingers, the fact is that high quality cameras have been in the hands of average people for several decades now, as have really excellent telescopes and other scientific instruments. Not that really high quality instrumentation would even be necessary to debunk the numbers that every round Earth conspirator accepts and openly publishes. There is simply no possible way such a conspiracy could persist for 20 minutes in modern society, never mind hundreds of years.

Clete

 

[DFT_Dave]

Dave, the videos you've posted too are all a bunch of irrational nonsense. I spent considerable time debunking the first couple of dozen, so called "arguments" from that video with 300 reasons to believe in a flat Earth. All three hundred of them are ridiculous! How is it even possible to make a video where you present 300 erroneous arguments in a row on one subject?

My serious advice to you is to walk away from this. You are not thinking clearly. Step back far enough and long enough to realize that extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. You are claiming that every school, every government (including allies and enemies alike), every airliner, every surveyor, every weather man who uses satelite images, every GPS company, every science organization that exists practically, the movie making industry and probably many more groups that I can't think of off the top of my head all have to not only be in on the secret but actively prepetuating it in a coordinated manner and have been doing so for centuries.

Just as an example of the muddy water in your thinking on this. You seriously suggested that cameras in the hands of the average person is going to finally blow the lid off such a vast conspiracy. There are several problems with that not the least of which is that if cameras in the hands of average people was a threat to such a world-wide, multi-generational conspiracy, such cameras would not exist. But even if the conspirators screwed up their millienium long perfect track record by letting cameras slip through their fingers, the fact is that high quality cameras have been in the hands of average people for several decades now, as have really excellent telescopes and other scientific instruments. Not that really high quality instrumentation would even be necessary to debunk the numbers that every round Earth conspirator accepts and openly publishes. There is simply no possible way such a conspiracy could persist for 20 minutes in modern society, never mind hundreds of years.

Clete

I don't think you've debunked anything. You've just keep expressing the party line, which most people already know the basics of anyway, that's not how you debunk.

I've been studying the history of cosmology and this is what I have learned about it so far;

1. The very ancient world believed in a flat stationary earth with a dome, described in various ways. They have a creation account and flood story as well. It has been said that Moses did not create anything new in Genesis but simply took from previous ancient accounts.

2. The presocratic philosophers imagined an earth that they modeled after the moon and sun as a round sphere. This is the beginning of the thought experiment method. They used this method to prove that God was immovable, changeless, and timeless. Plato and Aristotle placed the earth at the center of the universe not the sun.

3. Both Plato and Aristotle's view of God and their cosmology were later adopted by the Church. The literal Biblical Genesis account became a metaphor and eventually a myth, replaced with Copernican cosmology, with the sun at the center of the universe not the earth, and Darwinian evolution--both based on thought experiment.

4. Flat earth was revived when experiments in the late 1800's were made that proved, to some in the scientific community, that the earth was motionless--Michelson–Morley, and things could be seen beyond the so called curvature of the earth through a telescope--Bedford Level experiment.

4. Albert Einstein comes to the rescue of globe earth cosmology with space-time relativity. All visible empirical evidence for movement of the earth around the sun is declared not possible, because "the observer" to himself is stationary while "the observed" appears to be moving. This is an irrational belief that everything is moving in a universe where "all" moments of time occupy an "immovable" place in space--a thought experiment that negates empirical visual evidence to the contrary.

5. Up until this time there has been no view of earth from above it until 1932 when Auguste Piccard went 10 miles up in his balloon. When asked what did the earth look like from up there he said, “It seems a disk with upturned edges.”--Popular Science, August 1931

6. It's not until 1950 a rocket ship is launched 250 miles into the thermosphere. Not until 1960's do we have any thing going into outer space with the Apollo missions to the moon from 1969 to 1972 and we have not been to outer space since. "Apart from...twenty-four people who visited the Moon, no human being has gone beyond low Earth orbit."--Wiki

7. NASA has controlled all that we know and see of outer space and the visible "only to a few of them" universe. Could a government agency conceal truth and perpetuate a lie, do you think?

--Dave

 

[Clete]

I don't think you've debunked anything. You've just keep expressing the party line, which most people already know the basics of anyway, that's not how you debunk.

No, Dave. The way you debunk the notion that water would have to run up hill in order for it to flow north is to simply state the notion to anyone who isn't stupid.

The way you debunk the idea the surveyors don't take the curvature is the Earth into account is to give counter examples where the construction of structures took the curvature of the Earth into account.

The way you debunk the claim that railroad builders would never take the curvature of the Earth into account is by pointing out that railroads are built on land and that therefore they follow the terrain whereever it might go (including around the curvature of the Earth).

Etc, etc, etc.

All such "reasons" are absurd on their face to the point I refused to even watch the video for a long time because I didn't get three minutes into it before he started talking about how rivers would have to run uphill if the world was round. I mean, surely a video with 300 reasons would at least start out with its strongest arguments, right?

I've been studying the history of cosmology and this is what I have learned about it so far;

1. The very ancient world believed in a flat stationary earth with a dome, described in various ways. They have a creation account and flood story as well. It has been said that Moses did not create anything new in Genesis but simply took from previous ancient accounts.

The very ancient world also believed that every lightning bolt came from an angry god and that magots spontaniously arose from rotting meat.

That isn't to say that what the ancients believed is entirely irrelevant but only that it isn't evidence that the world is actually flat.

2. The presocratic philosophers imagined an earth that they modeled after the moon and sun as a round sphere. This is the beginning of the thought experiment method. They used this method to prove that God was immovable, changeless, and timeless. Plato and Aristotle placed the earth at the center of the universe not the sun.

The form of the argument here is...

"A particular method of thought produced a false conclusion, therefore every conclusion derived using that method of thought must be also false."

Can you say, "Hastey Generalization Fallacy"?

3. Both Plato and Aristotle's view of God and their cosmology were later adopted by the Church. The literal Biblical Genesis account became a metaphor and eventually a myth, replaced with Copernican cosmology, with the sun at the center of the universe not the earth, and Darwinian evolution--both based on thought experiment.

A valid reason to reexamine each of those issues but not a valid reason to take leave of our ability to think! Things are not wrong because of their Greek philosophical origins. Indeed, if every other thing Aristotle said was false, what he gave the world by writing down the laws of reason makes him one of, if not the most important thinker in the history of philosophy.

4. Flat earth was revived when experiments in the late 1800's were made that proved, to some in the scientific community, that the earth was motionless--Michelson–Morley, and things could be seen beyond the so called curvature of the earth through a telescope--Bedford Level experiment.

The Michelson-Morley experiment does not prove that the Earth is motionless. It proves only that if an aether exists, we are unable to detect it. The error that scientists made as a result, in my view, is to assume that there is, therefore, no aether at all. In any case, the Michelson-Morley experiment never put the spherical nature of the globe into any doubt. It had nothing to do with that subject.

4. Albert Einstein comes to the rescue of globe earth cosmology with space-time relativity. All visible empirical evidence for movement of the earth around the sun is declared not possible, because "the observer" to himself is stationary while "the observed" appears to be moving. This is an irrational belief that everything is moving in a universe where "all" moments of time occupy an "immovable" place in space--a thought experiment that negates empirical visual evidence to the contrary.

Where are you reading this ridiculous stuff at? Einstein did not believe and his theories do not imply that because all motion is relative that therefore we aren't actually moving. And even if it did, how would that not benefit the cosmology that says the Earth is stationary?
I agree with you that "space-time" is bunk but if we're going to reject something, let's reject it based on what it actually says, not on what some flat-earther contrives it into.

5. Up until this time there has been no view of earth from above it until 1932 when Auguste Piccard went 10 miles up in his balloon. When asked what did the earth look like from up there he said, “It seems a disk with upturned edges.”--Popular Science, August 1931

And so you believe this one account (which doesn't actually even argue against a spherical Earth by the way) and think that every account since then has been a piece of propaganda designed to perpetuate an omni-national, multi-generational, insanely complex and profitless conspiracy?

6. It's not until 1950 a rocket ship is launched 250 miles into the thermosphere. Not until 1960's do we have any thing going into outer space with the Apollo missions to the moon from 1969 to 1972 and we have not been to outer space since. "Apart from...twenty-four people who visited the Moon, no human being has gone beyond low Earth orbit."--Wiki

But scores of people have been into low Earth orbit and they all universally testify to the existence of a round Earth, as the fact that they went into orbit at all proves even without their testimony.

7. NASA has controlled all that we know and see of outer space and the visible "only to a few of them" universe. Could a government agency conceal truth and perpetuate a lie, do you think?

--Dave

Not of this magnitude, no, they couldn't. There is no way to create the images we have from space. Even today, it cannot be done. The best special effects we have today are digital and as such even the best special effect can be differentiated from reality rather easily by those who understand how digital FX work. And it's only digital FX that can even get close to the level of detail and clarity that we see from space mission footage. No such technology was present in the sixties, seventies and eighties. The best they could do was what was done in movies like 2001 A Space Odyssey, Moon Raker and Star Wars. A comparison of movie footage from that era with the footage we have of Space Lab and other 60s, 70s and 80s era space missions is a complete joke.

PLEASE watch this video, Dave! It's a true slam dunk! The conspiracy aspect of this whole issue is more than enough by itself to debunk the flat-earthers but that video shows a ship going over the horizon with no "mirror line" and all kinds of other things. You've simply gotta watch it.

"We've been to the Moon nine times. I mean, why did we fake it nine times?" - Charlie Duke- Apollo Astronaut - 10th man to walk on the moon - American hero - Born Again Christian lover of Jesus Christ - all around brilliant guy.​

 

[DFT_Dave]

No, Dave. The way you debunk the notion that water would have to run up hill in order for it to flow north is to simply state the notion to anyone who isn't stupid.

The way you debunk the idea the surveyors don't take the curvature is the Earth into account is to give counter examples where the construction of structures took the curvature of the Earth into account.

The way you debunk the claim that railroad builders would never take the curvature of the Earth into account is by pointing out that railroads are built on land and that therefore they follow the terrain whereever it might go (including around the curvature of the Earth).

Etc, etc, etc.

All such "reasons" are absurd on their face to the point I refused to even watch the video for a long time because I didn't get three minutes into it before he started talking about how rivers would have to run uphill if the world was round. I mean, surely a video with 300 reasons would at least start out with its strongest arguments, right?

The very ancient world also believed that every lightning bolt came from an angry god and that magots spontaniously arose from rotting meat.

That isn't to say that what the ancients believed is entirely irrelevant but only that it isn't evidence that the world is actually flat.

The form of the argument here is...

"A particular method of thought produced a false conclusion, therefore every conclusion derived using that method of thought must be also false."

Can you say, "Hastey Generalization Fallacy"?

A valid reason to reexamine each of those issues but not a valid reason to take leave of our ability to think! Things are not wrong because of their Greek philosophical origins. Indeed, if every other thing Aristotle said was false, what he gave the world by writing down the laws of reason makes him one of, if not the most important thinker in the history of philosophy.

The Michelson-Morley experiment does not prove that the Earth is motionless. It proves only that if an aether exists, we are unable to detect it. The error that scientists made as a result, in my view, is to assume that there is, therefore, no aether at all. In any case, the Michelson-Morley experiment never put the spherical nature of the globe into any doubt. It had nothing to do with that subject.

Where are you reading this ridiculous stuff at? Einstein did not believe and his theories do not imply that because all motion is relative that therefore we aren't actually moving. And even if it did, how would that not benefit the cosmology that says the Earth is stationary?
I agree with you that "space-time" is bunk but if we're going to reject something, let's reject it based on what it actually says, not on what some flat-earther contrives it into.

And so you believe this one account (which doesn't actually even argue against a spherical Earth by the way) and think that every account since then has been a piece of propaganda designed to perpetuate an omni-national, multi-generational, insanely complex and profitless conspiracy?

But scores of people have been into low Earth orbit and they all universally testify to the existence of a round Earth, as the fact that they went into orbit at all proves even without their testimony.

Not of this magnitude, no, they couldn't. There is no way to create the images we have from space. Even today, it cannot be done. The best special effects we have today are digital and as such even the best special effect can be differentiated from reality rather easily by those who understand how digital FX work. And it's only digital FX that can even get close to the level of detail and clarity that we see from space mission footage. No such technology was present in the sixties, seventies and eighties. The best they could do was what was done in movies like 2001 A Space Odyssey, Moon Raker and Star Wars. A comparison of movie footage from that era with the footage we have of Space Lab and other 60s, 70s and 80s era space missions is a complete joke.

PLEASE watch this video, Dave! It's a true slam dunk! The conspiracy aspect of this whole issue is more than enough by itself to debunk the flat-earthers but that video shows a ship going over the horizon with no "mirror line" and all kinds of other things. You've simply gotta watch it.

"We've been to the Moon nine times. I mean, why did we fake it nine times?" - Charlie Duke- Apollo Astronaut - 10th man to walk on the moon - American hero - Born Again Christian lover of Jesus Christ - all around brilliant guy.​

Water on a spinning ball earth would fly of into space with everything else that was not tied down and "immovable". Gravity is another irrational cosmological thought product, imagine a force that can hold everything on a spinning globe but allow there to be things that can still "move" and not be tied down. Gravity is an obvious contradiction.

The flow of water is from higher to lower elevations. Water descends it never ascends. The Great lakes requires a system of locks to lower boats from higher to lower levels. The 120 mile long Suez Canal connecting The Mediterranean Sea with the Red Sea requires none. There are no locks on the Suez canal because there's no elevation or descent, no curvature of the earth. All oceans connect and are as one because they are all on the same "level". Level is not a relative concept, which it would be if the earth were curved.

You continue to use the same "false conclusion" fallacy. Because Pythagoras was correct about geometry does not make him correct about his cosmology. Because Aristotle was right about the laws of rational thought, which he did not invent, does not make him right about his cosmology and the nature of God.

Aristotle affirms the laws of thought in order to reach a logical conclusion. He used them to correct Plato's belief that the movement of the elements of the universe were ever in "chaos" then moved into order by God. Plato and Aristotle shared the same premise, nothing moves itself but is moved by something else--cause and effect. Plato contradicts this premise and states that the elements moved without a divine or prime "unmoved mover" moving them until "God seeing the universe in disorder decided to put it into order".

Aristotle also corrects the Pythagorean philosophy who believed there is no divine mind (they were atheists) and who also believed that the universe has evolved. He also rejected the cosmology that the earth revolved around the sun. Aristotle maintained that the universe was always ordered, always existed and ultimately everything in it was "moved" by the eternal "unmoved mover". Aristotle's God could not have created the world because that would logically require God to experience movement, change, and time and he would no longer be the unmoved, unchanging, and timeless being that perfection required.

The ether was a word to explain that space had to have something in it that could transmit light waves. Just as light travels and is transmitted through our atmosphere, there must be something beyond it and into outer space that can be a medium through which light can travel.

The MM test was not to establish the existence of an ether, a substance so called that is a medium for light to move through, it was to see how fast the earth moved through it. The "null result" result did not mean the ether did not exist it meant that the earth was not moving in relation to it. The tests proved a stationary earth.

Einstein changed the playing field in order to negate this logical and tested fact. He said all movement is relative to the viewer. In other words reality, morality, and now cosmology is in the "eye of the beholder". What is and is not moving cannot be known according to Einstein. In his space time "block universe" every event is now, there is no flow of time. This also is implied in quantum physics. In other words, from what ever location everything is moving around that presumed stationary point. But nothing is actually moving if there is no flow of time. I hope you see the contradiction.


All NASA low earth orbit video and pics are as contradictory as their moon trip.

I will comment on your video next.

--Dave

 

[Right Divider]

Water on a spinning ball earth would fly of into space with everything else that was not tied down and "immovable". Gravity is another irrational cosmological thought product, imagine a force that can hold everything on a spinning globe but allow there to be things that can still "move" and not be tied down. Gravity is an obvious contradiction.

You just get more irrational with every post.

Even on your "flat earth", what keeps you from flying off into space when you jump up into the air?

 

[JudgeRightly]

Water on a spinning ball earth would fly of into space with everything else that was not tied down and "immovable".

That would only be true if there was no such thing as gravity or mass.

Gravity is another irrational cosmological thought product, imagine a force that can hold everything on a spinning globe but allow there to be things that can still "move" and not be tied down. Gravity is an obvious contradiction.

No, Dave, the only thing that is a contradiction is your perception of gravity. You think that if there is gravity, then there is not movement of anything. Yet you completely forget that gravity is, in scientific terms, a "weak" force.

Gravity works because of the mass/density of an object. The Earth is very dense, compared to humans, but the gravitational pull is not so strong as to flatten us. The sun (Sol) is much more dense than the Earth. If we were somehow be able to stand on Sol (without being burnt to a crisp and then some, we would be crushed under our own weight. Black holes are many times more dense than Sol. they are so dense that the gravitational pull from them can bend and even trap light (the "shell" around the black hole at which it traps light is what is called the 'event horizon'). Gravity can be explained in just one sentence. "The denser an object is, the stronger the pull of gravity."

The flow of water is from higher to lower elevations. Water descends it never ascends. The Great lakes requires a system of locks to lower boats from higher to lower levels. The 120 mile long Suez Canal connecting The Mediterranean Sea with the Red Sea requires none. There are no locks on the Suez canal because there's no elevation or descent, no curvature of the earth. All oceans connect and are as one because they are all on the same "level". Level is not a relative concept, which it would be if the earth were curved.

Dave, If the Earth is flat, and water finds it's own level, and all the oceans are connected, then why does the Panama canal, which connects two bodies of water, the Pacific Ocean and the Atlantic Ocean, have locks? The oceans should be the same level on a flat earth, so the canal shouldn't need locks.

This can ONLY be explained by a round earth and gravity, with different parts of the earth more dense than others. I could go into why some parts are more dense than others, but I think I'll hold off for now. I challenge you to explain my previous paragraph with some other mechanism.

You continue to use the same "false conclusion" fallacy. Because Pythagoras was correct about geometry does not make him correct about his cosmology.

Geometry can be used to figure out certain aspects of cosmology, such as how far away things are, and how far apart two objects are from each other. We use geometry to figure out how large celestial bodies are.

Aristotle affirms the laws of thought in order to reach a logical conclusion. He used them to correct Plato's belief that the movement of the elements of the universe were ever in "chaos" then moved into order by God. Plato and Aristotle shared the same premise, nothing moves itself but is moved by something else--cause and effect. Plato contradicts this premise and states that the elements moved without a divine or prime "unmoved mover" moving them until "God seeing the universe in disorder decided to put it into order".

Aristotle also corrects the Pythagorean philosophy who believed there is no divine mind (they were atheists) and who also believed that the universe has evolved. He also rejected the cosmology that the earth revolved around the sun. Aristotle maintained that the universe was always ordered, always existed and ultimately everything in it was "moved" by the eternal "unmoved mover". Aristotle's God could not have created the world because that would logically require God to experience movement, change, and time and he would no longer be the unmoved, unchanging, and timeless being that perfection required.

Aristotle, et al, was a pagan Greek Philosopher who knew nothing about the one true God. Do you really trust them when it comes to matters dealing with Him?

Aristotle taught that God is immutable, impassive, omniscient, omnipresent, and omnipotent. He (Aristotle) was completely wrong.

God is omniscient in that He can know everything that He wants to know, and cannot know that which is unknowable.

God has power and authority over all, but He delegates power and authority to governments, churches, and families.

God is omnipresent in that He can be wherever He wants to be, and does not have to be anywhere that He wants to avoid.

God is not impassive. He can be affected by His creation, and was affected many times in the Bible.

God is not immutable. He does change, and in drastic ways, but His righteousness and goodness never changes. We can count on Him to remain faithful to us, because He has shown Himself to be faithful to those who love Him.

The earth (and indeed the universe) could not have always been here, for if it was, it's current state would violate the second law of thermodynamics, which is that entropy always increases. In other words, a fire cannot burn forever. If the universe had always existed, it should be cold and lifeless by now, yet there are an untold number of stars in our night sky, that we can see and that we cannot, and there is plenty of energy in the universe to keep them burning for many billions of years to come.

Sent from my Pixel XL using TheologyOnline mobile app

 

[ok doser]

You just get more irrational with every post.

Even on your "flat earth", what keeps you from flying off into space when you jump up into the air?

you beat me to it! :sibbie:

 

[JudgeRightly]

You just get more irrational with every post.

Even on your "flat earth", what keeps you from flying off into space when you jump up into the air?

If I remember correctly, I think he said something like how dense somthing is...

Wait a minute, that sounds a bit like... no, that can't be...

It sounds like gravity. (See my single sentence explanation of what gravity is in my above post.)

Sent from my Pixel XL using TheologyOnline mobile app

 

[Clete]

Water on a spinning ball earth would fly of into space with everything else that was not tied down and "immovable". Gravity is another irrational cosmological thought product, imagine a force that can hold everything on a spinning globe but allow there to be things that can still "move" and not be tied down. Gravity is an obvious contradiction.

Saying it doesn't make it so, Dave. The force we call gravity exists, whether you like it or not. The force itself is quite well understood even if it's cause isn't. There have been calculations done that tell you precisely how fast the Earth would have to spin to counteract the force of gravity and it's very much faster than the Earth is actually spinning. There is no contradiction whatsoever.

The flow of water is from higher to lower elevations.

This is generally the case but the more accurate way to state it would be to say that liquids follow the path of least resistance.

Water descends it never ascends.

This is not so. Water flows uphill quite often actually. It's momentum in a particular direction is merely slowed by an uphill path. Depending on how much momentum it has, it can actually rise in elevation for quite some distance. An excellent example of this is in action...

The Great lakes requires a system of locks to lower boats from higher to lower levels. The 120 mile long Suez Canal connecting The Mediterranean Sea with the Red Sea requires none. There are no locks on the Suez canal because there's no elevation or descent, no curvature of the earth.

This was accurate until you said "no curvature of the Earth". The elevation of the water level in relation to where it's going to flow has to do with its distance from the center of gravity (i.e. the center of the Earth). Even having to make this point sort of angers me, frankly. This stupidity is beneath us both.

All oceans connect and are as one because they are all on the same "level". Level is not a relative concept, which it would be if the earth were curved.

Of course, "level" is entirely a relative concept.

Look, this flowing up the curvature of the Earth argument is literal stupidity that I am no longer willing to even entertain. Drop it.

You continue to use the same "false conclusion" fallacy. Because Pythagoras was correct about geometry does not make him correct about his cosmology.

I never made any such argument. Not even close.

You are making that argument, not me. You're the one saying that since Pythagorean cosmology, by some vague pathway, gave us evolution, Pythagorean cosmology must, therefore, be entirely false. Ridiculous nonsense!

Because Aristotle was right about the laws of rational thought, which he did not invent, does not make him right about his cosmology and the nature of God.

That's my exact point, Dave! I stated it in direct opposition to YOUR argument! Man! This is really making me mad! What the hell happened to your ability to think clearly

Aristotle affirms the laws of thought in order to reach a logical conclusion.

Therefore, rejecting all things related to Greek philosophical thought would be a stupid thing to do, which is precisely the form OF YOUR ARGUMENT, not mine!

He used them to correct Plato's belief that the movement of the elements of the universe were ever in "chaos" then moved into order by God. Plato and Aristotle shared the same premise, nothing moves itself but is moved by something else--cause and effect. Plato contradicts this premise and states that the elements moved without a divine or prime "unmoved mover" moving them until "God seeing the universe in disorder decided to put it into order".

Aristotle also corrects the Pythagorean philosophy who believed there is no divine mind (they were atheists) and who also believed that the universe has evolved. He also rejected the cosmology that the earth revolved around the sun. Aristotle maintained that the universe was always ordered, always existed and ultimately everything in it was "moved" by the eternal "unmoved mover". Aristotle's God could not have created the world because that would logically require God to experience movement, change, and time and he would no longer be the unmoved, unchanging, and timeless being that perfection required.

Once again, their having been wrong about one thing doesn't mean they're wrong about everything or about any other specific thing for that matter.

The ether was a word to explain that space had to have something in it that could transmit light waves. Just as light travels and is transmitted through our atmosphere, there must be something beyond it and into outer space that can be a medium through which light can travel.

The MM test was not to establish the existence of an ether, a substance so called that is a medium for light to move through, it was to see how fast the earth moved through it. The "null result" result did not mean the ether did not exist it meant that the earth was not moving in relation to it. The tests proved a stationary earth.

Nope! You're flatly wrong.

I understand what the experimenters expected based on their belief that light has to propagate through something and that they called that something the aether, but just because they got a result that they didn't expect does NOT mean that they were right about the existence of an aether. The experimental results mean that there are at least the following three possibilities...

1. There is no aether and that light can travel through a vacuum. (The experiment says nothing at all about HOW this might occur.)
2. There is an aether and that the experiment is not designed in a manner that allows it to be detected.
3. There is an aether and the Earth is stationary RELATIVE to it.

There may be other possibilities as well, but the point is that their experiment DID NOT PROVE that the Earth is stationary - period.

Einstein changed the playing field in order to negate this logical and tested fact.

False premise. Everything else said on this point is moot.

He said all movement is relative to the viewer.

No, he didn't. He said that all motion is relative. It makes no difference is there is a viewer or not. The motion of one thing only makes sense in terms of its change in position relative to something else, a frame of reference. Just try it, if you don't believe it. Make a statement about something's motion without making reference to something else (even by implication). You'll find that you can't do it.

In other words reality, morality, and now cosmology is in the "eye of the beholder".

Motion cannot be said to be a matter of opinion as this irrational equivocation implies.

When you talk about motion you talk in terms of vectors and speeds. Well, a vector points towards one thing and away from another, even if it is nothing but a point in space. Speed is about distance over time. Distance from what?

You can say that a car is moving toward another car at 60 mph. It could be that both cars are doing 30 mph relative to the ground but on a vector towards each other. So are they moving at 30 mph or 60 mph? Well, the answer depends on your frame of reference. That's all that is being said when you talk about motion being relative. It is not saying, nor can it rationally be made to mean that motion is a matter of opinion.

What is and is not moving cannot be known according to Einstein.

Only in ABSOLUTE terms. I dare you to attempt to prove him wrong. Even if he is wrong, you have no means to prove it.

In his space-time "block universe" every event is now, there is no flow of time.

This is flatly wrong. Completely backward, actually. For Einstein, there is no absolute 'now'.

This also is implied in quantum physics. In other words, from what ever location everything is moving around that presumed stationary point. But nothing is actually moving if there is no flow of time. I hope you see the contradiction.

I see that it is entirely irrelevant to whether the Earth is or is not a sphere. Einstien could have been wrong about everything he ever said and the Earth could still be a round ball. The two are not mutually dependent on each other in any way. Proving either false does no harm to the other.

All NASA low earth orbit video and pics are as contradictory as their moon trip.

Which is not at all.

I will comment on your video next.

--Dave

:up:

 

[DFT_Dave]

That would only be true if there was no such thing as gravity or mass.

No, Dave, the only thing that is a contradiction is your perception of gravity. You think that if there is gravity, then there is not movement of anything. Yet you completely forget that gravity is, in scientific terms, a "weak" force.

Gravity works because of the mass/density of an object. The Earth is very dense, compared to humans. The sun (Sol) is much more dense than the Earth. Black holes are many times more dense than Sol. Gravity can be explained in just one sentence. "The denser an object is, the stronger the pull of gravity."

Dave, If the Earth is flat, and water finds it's own level, and all the oceans are connected, then why does the Panama canal, which connects two bodies of water, the Pacific Ocean and the Atlantic Ocean, have locks? The oceans should be the same level on a flat earth, so the canal shouldn't need locks.

This can ONLY be explained by a round earth and gravity, with different parts of the earth more dense than others. I could go into why some parts are more dense than others, but I think I'll hold off for now. I challenge you to explain my previous paragraph with some other mechanism.

Geometry can be used to figure out certain aspects of cosmology, such as how far away things are, and how far apart two objects are from each other. We use geometry to figure out how large celestial bodies are.

Aristotle, et al, was a pagan Greek Philosopher who knew nothing about the one true God. Do you really trust them when it comes to matters dealing with Him?

Aristotle taught that God is immutable, impassive, omniscient, omnipresent, and omnipotent. He (Aristotle) was completely wrong.

God is omniscient in that He can know everything that He wants to know, and cannot know that which is unknowable.

God has power and authority over all, but He delegates power and authority to governments, churches, and families.

God is omnipresent in that He can be wherever He wants to be, and does not have to be anywhere that He wants to avoid.

God is not impassive. He can be affected by His creation, and was affected many times in the Bible.

God is not immutable. He does change, and in drastic ways, but His righteousness and goodness never changes. We can count on Him to remain faithful to us, because He has shown Himself to be faithful to those who love Him.

The earth (and indeed the universe) could not have always been here, for if it was, it's current state would violate the second law of thermodynamics, which is that entropy always increases. In other words, a fire cannot burn forever. If the universe had always existed, it should be cold and lifeless by now, yet there are an untold number of stars in our night sky, that we can see and that we cannot, and there is plenty of energy in the universe to keep them burning for many billions of years to come.

Sent from my Pixel XL using TheologyOnline mobile app

View attachment 25324

The land mass of Panama rises up to an elevation higher than sea level. Locks are used to bring ships up to that point and then lowered back down to the same sea level. The Pacific and Atlantic Oceans are at the same level.

The Suez Canal has no land mass elevation to deal with so it is level, with no lock's from end to end.

All we need is density and buoyancy, Tesla added electromagnetism, on a flat stationary earth.

The argument for gravity is simple circular reasoning. What keeps things from flying off a spinning globe? Gravity. How do we know gravity exists? Because things don't fly off a spinning globe. The density part simply assumes what we see and assumes gravity but does not prove the existence of this invisible "finely tuned" force.

I know all about Aristotle and I am an open theist. I don't think I wright that poorly, so I think your lack of knowledge on the subject is why you missed my point.

See my website. Dynamic Free Theism

www.dynamicfreetheism.com

--Dave

 

[DFT_Dave]

You just get more irrational with every post.

Even on your "flat earth", what keeps you from flying off into space when you jump up into the air?

What ever keeps us on the ground on a flat stationary earth is not the same thing that would be required to keep us from flying of a spinning globe.

Density and buoyancy and electromagnetism--Tesla, meets all the requirements needed to explain why everything is not floating in space on a flat earth.

--Dave

 

[JudgeRightly]

You can say that a car is moving toward another car at 60 mph. It could be that both cars are doing 30 mph relative to the ground but on a vector towards each other. So are they moving at 30 mph or 60 mph? Well, the answer depends on your frame of reference.

Interestingly enough, if each of the cars ran into each other, both at 30 miles per hour, then both vehicles would experience the same amount of force as if just one of those vehicles hit a solid brick wall. Mythbusters even did an episode about that.

Sent from my Pixel XL using TheologyOnline mobile app

 

[DFT_Dave]

Saying it doesn't make it so, Dave. The force we call gravity exists, whether you like it or not. The force itself is quite well understood even if it's cause isn't. There have been calculations done that tell you precisely how fast the Earth would have to spin to counteract the force of gravity and it's very much faster than the Earth is actually spinning. There is no contradiction whatsoever.

This is generally the case but the more accurate way to state it would be to say that liquids follow the path of least resistance.

This is not so. Water flows uphill quite often actually. It's momentum in a particular direction is merely slowed by an uphill path. Depending on how much momentum it has, it can actually rise in elevation for quite some distance. An excellent example of this is in action...

This was accurate until you said "no curvature of the Earth". The elevation of the water level in relation to where it's going to flow has to do with its distance from the center of gravity (i.e. the center of the Earth). Even having to make this point sort of angers me, frankly. This stupidity is beneath us both.

Of course, "level" is entirely a relative concept.

Look, this flowing up the curvature of the Earth argument is literal stupidity that I am no longer willing to even entertain. Drop it.

I never made any such argument. Not even close.

You are making that argument, not me. You're the one saying that since Pythagorean cosmology, by some vague pathway, gave us evolution, Pythagorean cosmology must, therefore, be entirely false. Ridiculous nonsense!

That's my exact point, Dave! I stated it in direct opposition to YOUR argument! Man! This is really making me mad! What the hell happened to your ability to think clearly

Therefore, rejecting all things related to Greek philosophical thought would be a stupid thing to do, which is precisely the form OF YOUR ARGUMENT, not mine!

Once again, their having been wrong about one thing doesn't mean they're wrong about everything or about any other specific thing for that matter.

Nope! You're flatly wrong.

I understand what the experimenters expected based on their belief that light has to propagate through something and that they called that something the aether, but just because they got a result that they didn't expect does NOT mean that they were right about the existence of an aether. The experimental results mean that there are at least the following three possibilities...

1. There is no aether and that light can travel through a vacuum. (The experiment says nothing at all about HOW this might occur.)
2. There is an aether and that the experiment is not designed in a manner that allows it to be detected.
3. There is an aether and the Earth is stationary RELATIVE to it.

There may be other possibilities as well, but the point is that their experiment DID NOT PROVE that the Earth is stationary - period.

False premise. Everything else said on this point is moot.

No, he didn't. He said that all motion is relative. It makes no difference is there is a viewer or not. The motion of one thing only makes sense in terms of its change in position relative to something else, a frame of reference. Just try it, if you don't believe it. Make a statement about something's motion without making reference to something else (even by implication). You'll find that you can't do it.

Motion cannot be said to be a matter of opinion as this irrational equivocation implies.

When you talk about motion you talk in terms of vectors and speeds. Well, a vector points towards one thing and away from another, even if it is nothing but a point in space. Speed is about distance over time. Distance from what?

You can say that a car is moving toward another car at 60 mph. It could be that both cars are doing 30 mph relative to the ground but on a vector towards each other. So are they moving at 30 mph or 60 mph? Well, the answer depends on your frame of reference. That's all that is being said when you talk about motion being relative. It is not saying, nor can it rationally be made to mean that motion is a matter of opinion.

Only in ABSOLUTE terms. I dare you to attempt to prove him wrong. Even if he is wrong, you have no means to prove it.

This is flatly wrong. Completely backward, actually. For Einstein, there is no absolute 'now'.

I see that it is entirely irrelevant to whether the Earth is or is not a sphere. Einstien could have been wrong about everything he ever said and the Earth could still be a round ball. The two are not mutually dependent on each other in any way. Proving either false does no harm to the other.

Which is not at all.

:up:

I understand your problem with my "connections" and I agree that you are right that A does not prove B. But all cosmologies have a philosophic or theological connection that is part of them. We have in theology the "cosmological arguments for the existence of God". Pythagoras had his impersonal "Apeiron of infinite numbers" woven into his cosmology, Aristotle had his "unmoved mover". These answer the question, "What keeps everything in the universe together and organized instead of there being "chaos"? You are right that what is observed does not have to be connected to why it exists the way it does, but these connection do exist and are the bases of thought experiments.

Does the existence of the universe prove an apeiron, an unmoved mover, a perfect being, or that there is no God?

The cosmology of today is based on atheism in which an expanding universe moving from disorder to order and then back to disorder needs a lot of explaining. The thing that gave it order in the first place is theological/philosophic thought (imagined) experiment, not a science based on empirical evidence.

Gravity is that which formed the universe from chaos into order. Gravity is what holds the universe together. Gravity is far more than what holds you to a spinning globe. Without gravity there would be no planets and therefore no life on earth. Only when the expansion of the universe pulls it apart will gravity be overcome in our universe and all life on our planet will end. Gravity is the god of atheism.

Cosmological relativism is a contradiction with all other relativistic theories that says what you see is not what actually is seen by others. Moral relativism: what you see as injustice is not what injustice is to someone else. Cosmological relativism: what you see as stationary or moving is not what is stationary or moving to some one else. If you are on a plane the earth is moving beneath you if you are on the ground the plane is moving above you. Make the plane a different planet and you'll get the picture.

A big wave caused by an earth quake has absolutely nothing to do with water being level and water going up hill is not possible, even the water from a tsunami will go back down to sea level.

Since we have "never" been to outer space/the moon we don't know what's out there! That low earth orbit shows a curved rotating earth is not what others are seeing. There is certainly no way to prove which view is right or wrong if everything about it is relative and not subject to visual empirical evidence. Flat earth is a movement that says what you see is what actually "is" and empirical visual evidence is proving it.

All we need is density and buoyancy not gravity, on a flat stationary earth. Tesla added electromagnetism.

--Dave

 

[Right Divider]

What ever keeps us on the ground on a flat stationary earth is not the same thing that would be required to keep us from flying of a spinning globe.

Density and buoyancy and electromagnetism--Tesla, meets all the requirements needed to explain why everything is not floating in space on a flat earth.

--Dave

None of those things even remotely answer the question that I asked.

What keeps you from flying off into space when you jump up into the air?

Density? really.... buoyancy? What!!

Electromagnetism??? Not a chance.

Please explain.

 

[JudgeRightly]

I understand your problem with my "connections" and I agree that you are right that A does not prove B. But all cosmologies have a philosophic or theological connection that is part of them. We have in theology the "cosmological arguments for the existence of God". Pythagoras had his impersonal "Apeiron of infinite numbers" woven into his cosmology, Aristotle had his "unmoved mover". These answer the question, "What keeps everything in the universe together and organized instead of there being "chaos"? You are right that what is observed does not have to be connected to why it exists the way it does, but these connection do exist and are the bases of thought experiments.

Does the existence of the universe prove an apeiron, an unmoved mover, a perfect being, or that there is no God?

The cosmology of today is based on atheism in which an expanding universe moving from disorder to order and then back to disorder needs a lot of explaining. The thing that gave it order in the first place is theological/philosophic thought (imagined) experiment, not a science based on empirical evidence.

Gravity is that which formed the universe from chaos into order. Gravity is what holds the universe together. Gravity is far more than what holds you to a spinning globe. Without gravity there would be no planets and therefore no life on earth. Only when the expansion of the universe pulls it apart will gravity be overcome in our universe and all life on our planet will end. Gravity is the god of atheism.

Cosmological relativism is a contradiction with all other relativistic theories that says what you see is not what actually is seen by others. Moral relativism: what you see as injustice is not what injustice is to someone else. Cosmological relativism: what you see as stationary or moving is not what is stationary or moving to some one else. If you are on a plane the earth is moving beneath you if you are on the ground the plane is moving above you. Make the plane a different planet and you'll get the picture.

A big wave caused by an earth quake has absolutely nothing to do with water being level and water going up hill is not possible, even the water from a tsunami will go back down to sea level.

Since we have "never" been to outer space/the moon we don't know what's out there! That low earth orbit shows a curved rotating earth is not what others are seeing. There is certainly no way to prove which view is right or wrong if everything about it is relative and not subject to visual empirical evidence. Flat earth is a movement that says what you see is what actually "is" and empirical visual evidence is proving it.

All we need is density and buoyancy not gravity, on a flat stationary earth. Tesla added electromagnetism.

--Dave

The idea of "gravity" did not come from someone who believed in materialistic origins.

Sent from my Pixel XL using TheologyOnline mobile app

 

[ok doser]

Water descends it never ascends.

obviously you've never heard of capillary action

 

[DFT_Dave]

The idea of "gravity" did not come from someone who believed in materialistic origins.

Sent from my Pixel XL using TheologyOnline mobile app

Yahoo Answers
"The story I heard is that he was sitting under an apple tree and a small gust of wind caused an apple to fall to the ground. He looked up in the sky and saw the Moon (in the daytime) and it came to him that the force that kept the Moon in orbit was the same force that caused the apple to fall. He then reasoned in a "thought experiment" (similar to Einstein's thought experiments) that if you threw the apple laterally, it would travel a distance and then fall to the ground. If you threw it harder, it would fall farther from the starting point before it hit the ground. if you could throw it hard enough, the curvature of it's fall would match the curvature of the Earth, and it would NEVER hit the ground. It would then be "in orbit", like the Moon." --Link

The Church's answer is that gravity comes from God. An atheists answer is that it replaces God. Today's cosmology, which is what I was talking about, is atheistic not theistic, why we don't need God not why we do.

The men in cosmological Church history were more philosophers than theologians--closet atheists in my view. The Catholic Church is a pagan system as far as I'm concerned. And anyone who is a member of the secret society of Free Masons is not a christian whatsoever.

Newton developed his theory on a pagan model not the Biblical one. Pythagoras's cosmology is outright atheism, so gravity is also a pagan concept imagine to support another pagan concept. Genesis says that the sun, moon, and stars are essentially different things and not the same thing as the earth. Atheism imagines that the earth, sun, and moon are essentially the same thing, spheres/planets moving through space. That which is made for day light and night light, is hardly the same thing that was made be a place for life and habitation with oceans Biblically speaking.

--Dave

 

[JudgeRightly]

Yahoo Answers
"The story I heard is that he was sitting under an apple tree and a small gust of wind caused an apple to fall to the ground. He looked up in the sky and saw the Moon (in the daytime) and it came to him that the force that kept the Moon in orbit was the same force that caused the apple to fall. He then reasoned in a "thought experiment" (similar to Einstein's thought experiments) that if you threw the apple laterally, it would travel a distance and then fall to the ground. If you threw it harder, it would fall farther from the starting point before it hit the ground. if you could throw it hard enough, the curvature of it's fall would match the curvature of the Earth, and it would NEVER hit the ground. It would then be "in orbit", like the Moon." --Link

The Church's answer is that gravity comes from God. An atheists answer is that it replaces God. Today's cosmology, which is what I was talking about, is atheistic not theistic, why we don't need God not why we do.

The men in cosmological Church history were more philosophers than theologians--closet atheists in my view. The Catholic Church is a pagan system as far as I'm concerned. And anyone who is a member of the secret society of Free Masons is not a christian whatsoever.

Newton developed his theory on a pagan model not the Biblical one. Pythagoras's cosmology is outright atheism, so gravity is also a pagan concept imagine to support another pagan concept. Genesis says that the sun, moon, and stars are essentially different things and not the same thing as the earth. Atheism imagines that the earth, sun, and moon are essentially the same thing, spheres/planets moving through space. That which is made for day light and night light, is hardly the same thing that was made be a place for life and habitation with oceans Biblically speaking.

--Dave

Dave, would you say that most advancements in science have been from atheists/pagans? Or would you say that the advancements have been from Christians?

Sent from my Pixel XL using TheologyOnline mobile app

 

[JudgeRightly]

Newton developed his theory on a pagan model not the Biblical one. Pythagoras's cosmology is outright atheism, so gravity is also a pagan concept imagine to support another pagan concept. Genesis says that the sun, moon, and stars are essentially different things and not the same thing as the earth. Atheism imagines that the earth, sun, and moon are essentially the same thing, spheres/planets moving through space. That which is made for day light and night light, is hardly the same thing that was made be a place for life and habitation with oceans Biblically speaking.

--Dave

Also, are stars made of the same things as planets?

Sent from my Pixel XL using TheologyOnline mobile app