I can suck gas up and out of a gas tank, but when I stop sucking guess what happens.
Your example, well, sucks. :rotfl:
--Dave
The earth is flat and we never went to the moon
- Thread starter DFT_Dave
- Start date
- Status
I can suck gas up and out of a gas tank, but when I stop sucking guess what happens.
Your example, well, sucks. :rotfl:
--Dave
Yup. You clearly don't know what capillary action is.
I suggest you look it up before you make a fool of yourself.
Sent from my Pixel XL using TheologyOnline mobile app
The word planet is not a Biblical one. It's Babylonian and Greek from Pythagoras. Having not even been to the moon I doubt everything from NASA.
What are stars? Do we actually see them or just the light that comes from them being so far away and all.
--Dave
Never said it was... I'm just asking a simple general question... But it doesn't seem that you know the answer, because your worldview (no pun intended) can't or doesn't explain planets or stars.
So by that logic, you should doubt every photographer/videographer in the world, because you haven't been to all the places they've taken photos of. Yet you don't, and rightly so. So again, why do you doubt what one person says, but completely accept what another person says about the same thing?
I guess my question is, what reason do you have to doubt what NASA is saying? Just because some random person on the internet says that they're corrupt/hiding something?
Stars are giant balls of burning gasses.
We see the actual stars. However, what we see is delayed by the amount of time that it takes light to travel the distance from the star to us.
For example, our star, the Sun, or Sol, if you prefer, is approximately 93 million miles away, or about 8 light-minutes. That means that it takes about 8 minutes for light from the sun to reach our planet. So when we look at the sun, we are looking at a sun that is 8 minutes older than it is the moment we look. When we look at Sol, we see it as it was 8 minutes ago.
The closest star to us, Alpha Centauri, is about 4 light-years away. So the light we see (and 'image') is 4 years out of date. We ARE seeing the star itself, but we're seeing it as it was 4 years ago.
Sent from my Pixel XL using TheologyOnline mobile app
There is so much contradiction from NASA about stars, can we see them from space or not. If you see a beam of light, and just how come it's a beam anyway, then you cannot directly see a star that's light years away. I've posted videos on this a couple of times already.
All the theories from globe earth are telling me nothing is where I see it. God only knows how I make it to work and back to my apartment everyday. :liberals:
--Dave
Dave, we've been through this. I'm not going to reply to it again. Actually I will, but this will be the last time.
I want you, Dave, to take out a digital camera (your phone camera will work, if you have a phone with a camera, even better if you can manually control the amount of light that is being let in). Now, go into a room that is very well lit and point the camera at the floor. Now pan the camera so that the light is just out of view on the camera's screen, then point the camera at the light. What happens?
Same as above.
Dave, A being true does not rely on B being true. What I said above does NOT rely on the earth being a globe. Please don't make this type of fallacious argument again.
You clearly don't understand how fast light travels, and how insignificant the amount of time it takes for light to travel from an object to your eye, to your brain. And I MEAN insignificant, because it's almost instantaneous. Just Google how fast light travels.
Sent from my Pixel XL using TheologyOnline mobile app
That was a cool episode of a very cool show but it's not as counter-intuitive as you might think.
If one car (C) is smashed against a solid wall at speed S, then a certain amount of total damage (D) is created (C*S = D). Damage per car: (D/C = X)
If one car (C) is smashed against a solid wall at twice the speed (2S), you get twice the total amount of damage (C*2S = 2D). Damage per car: (2D/C = 2X)
If two cars (2C) are smashed against each other at speed S, then the total damage is 2D (2C*S = 2D), but each car splits the damage between them so each car looks as if it ran into a solid wall. Damage per car: (2D/2C = D/C = X).
So, understanding the amount of damage any one car will get is all about the amount of energy involved per car. In the end, twice the total energy equals twice the total damage. Newton was right again!
Science is cool!
Am I a total nerd or what?
Assuming you are using a hose, if you lay the hose down when you stop sucking it turns into a siphon and sucks all the gas out of tank.
This is a meaningless distinction. All our eyes see can detect is light. When we see an object our eyes are sensing the light that has been reflected off of the object. When we see stars our eyes are detecting the light that was emitted by the star.
Up to this point, I'm with you 100%.
There is no question that the thrust of what you said here is true. Atheistic science turns to gravity to explain all kinds of things that I've never thought made any sense whatsoever. They have indeed turned gravity into a sort of god. They complain that we Christians are always making the "God did it." argument for anything that isn't otherwise explained but fail to realize that they do something very similar with gravity.
But granting all of that, here's the point that is pertinent to this discussion. The worship of a thing does not imply that it does not exist. Just because they use gravity to explain nearly everything in their cosmology is not a reason to reject the existence of gravity. Rejecting their cosmology is one thing but rejecting the whole concept of gravity is quite another. The fact is that apples do fall to the ground when dropped and that something causes that to happen. That cause is what we call gravity and it behaves very regularly. So regularly, in fact, that Newton was not only able to figure out the rate at which all things fall to the ground but was able to calculate how fast something would have to go around the Earth so that the curvature of the Earth fell away from you at the same rate that you fall toward it. A calculation that isn't that hard if you know the rate of gravitational acceleration and you know the size (i.e. the curvature) of the Earth. From there you can figure out how far away something is by knowing how long it takes to go around the Earth. Newton was thus able to calculate, by careful observation of how things fall to the ground here on Earth, how far away the Moon is from the Earth. You can then calculate the Moon's size based on its apparent size in the sky and its distance. Newton was unable to go further and figure out the mass of the Moon because he didn't know what the the gravitational contant is (the so-called big G) but had he known that, as we do, he'd have gone on to calculate the Moon's mass.
This same line of thought is brought to bear on the Earth - Sun relationship as well as the orbits of all the rest of the planets and their moons as well. And it works, Dave. It doesn't just work a little bit either. It works really really well. Newton's Law of Universal Gravitation is what makes it possible for them to know that the U.S. will be the only continent on the planet that gets to witness a total solar eclipse this year and just where each of the planets and each of their moons will be next week or next year or a century from now. Those are things that Nasa cannot fake, by the way. You can take any telescope and point it at Jupiter and see for yourself where its moons are. You can look at Saturn and see just how its rings are tilted relative to the Earth. You can look at Venus and see what phase it is in. All of which I can pull up on my computer and predict with exact precision as far in advance as you want, based solely on the equations associated with Newton's Law of Universal Gravitation. It is anything but contradictory.
This is taking the concept too far. It is the introduction of wider and wider frames of reference that tell you whether it's the plane moving over the surface or the surface moving under the plane.
And, once again, you are suggesting that cosmological relativism turns motion into a matter of opinion the way moral relativism does to morality. This is not correct! There may be some lunatic somewhere who thinks this way but that is certainly is not what Einstein was suggesting. All that is being said when discussing relative motion is that when you say something is moving you must necessarily answer the question, "Moving, relative to what?". Otherwise, the concept of motion has no meaning. If you say that a car is moving at 60 mph it has no meaning unless it is understood what it is moving relative to. Is is moving at 60mph relative to the ground? Is it moving at 60 mph relative to another car? Is it moving at 60mph relative to the center of the Earth? Is it moving at 60mph relative to God Himself? All motion is relative to some frame of reference. This truth is entirely intuitive and undeniable.
The concept of time is similar in this regard. It is meaningless to talk about timeless existence (of God or anything else) because time is just information about one event relative to another event. Did this happen before, during or after that? Time is nothing at all but the duration and sequence of events. The existence of a thing is an event with duration. Thus timeless existence is a contradiction. Thus time, being an idea, is absolute, it is events (events like an object's motion through space) that are relative to each other.
It cannot go BACK down hill until after it is finished going up hill, Dave.
You're conflating water at rest with water in motion. One has kinetic energy the other does not. Water flows up hill all the time! No tsunami required! All that is required is sufficient kinetic energy (momentum) to overcome the gravitational and frictional forces that are trying to keep it from doing so. It happens every single day in your very own house (assuming you have a toilet or any running water).
View attachment 25326
Imagine if that toilet was on the 2nd floor! How far did it have to flow up to get there? And it all flows almost entirely by gravity in most places, unless you live in a highrise or something where addition pressure (i.e. energy) is added to the system.
We have been to outer space and the moon and we do know some of what's out there.
Seeing from what perspective? From what frame of reference?
This assertion is only true if you take the leap from "relative to" to "personal opinion", which is fallacious.
No, it is a movement that says that our perspective from the Earth's surface is the only one we want to hear about or will take seriously.
Stolen concept fallacy! Bouyancy is a function of gravity.
Weight is the force exerted on a body by gravity (W = mg), where W is the weight, m the mass of the object, and g gravitational acceleration. Density is the amount of mass in a given volume (p=m/V) where density (p) is equal to mass (m) divided by volume (V). Bouyancy has to do with the relative densities of two or more bodies in a given gravitational field. The steal that ships are made of is WAY WAY WAY more dense than water but the ship itself (as a whole) is not (Everything seems to be relative to a frame a reference aroud here!). The reason a ship floats on the sruface of the sea is because the weight of the water it displaces is equal to the weight of the ship. If the ship was unable to displace enough water it would sink like a... well, like a ship with a hole in it. And I do mean weight, NOT MASS! There is no bouyancy without gravity or where gravity is negated (i.e. free fall or outerspace).
Clete
Last edited:
Gravity in action!
I wonder how the flat-earth "density and buoyancy" folks explain how siphons work? The water in the tank is the same density as the water in the siphon and yet it flows up hill!
One might be tempted to suggest that they work because of pressure differentials but that's only how someone might get a siphon started. The fact is that while siphons work just fine in a vacuum, they do not work in free fall or in outer space.
Right Divider
Body part
Next up from DFT_Dave: "There is no gravity; the earth sucks".
I talk about oceans and rivers and you all answer with capillaries, siphons, and toilets as if that disproves that oceans are flat and level and water does not travel uphill. And you think that flat earth people are crazy.
--Dave
And we can say that, with the aid of light, we can see what things are out there and where everything is as the rule.
--Dave
Remember we are talking about what keeps oceans from being "level" not what keeps boats from sinking. Water seeks it's own level and never runs uphill, in any and every testable visual way. Tidal waves, toilets, siphons, and capillaries are not oceans or rivers, etc. they do not negate the law of nature and visual confirmation.
All movement is in contrast to things that don't move. 60 miles an hour is in relation to a stationary earth. The earth does not move as seen from earth and plane.
--Dave
NOPE. We just[/] showed you how water can and does run uphill.
All movement of an object is in contrast to another object that can appear to be stationary. There is no absolute way to figure out if something is not moving at all, as any measurements you would take of such an object would be in relation to that or another object.
60 miles per hour is saying that one object is moving at a certain speed in relation to another. You cannot state that the earth is absolutely stationary, because as I said above, there is no way to say that something is not moving because measuring it's movement will always be in relation to another object.
You've got it backwards. In relation to a plane, the earth is the object that is moving, the plane is not. But in relation to the earth, the plane is the object that is moving, the earth is not.
Sent from my Pixel XL using TheologyOnline mobile app
Ever watch these Flat Earth videos? The narrator is always very calm, measured, soft-spoken, reasonable sounding, just_wants_to_check_the_evidence. They sound so serious- but they are spewing nonsense. Intelligent-sounding nonsense.
Our friend DFT is no different. "Just want to get at the truth" - and then he goes ahead and throws away tons of science and simple facts- all the while sounding oh so calm and reasonable.
- Status