The earth is flat and we never went to the moon

[DFT_Dave]

You're not comprehending what I'm saying. I'm saying that while, relative to "sea level", the river is indeed flowing downhill, but relative to the center of the earth (the earth's core), the river is flowing uphill, as the equator is "higher" (read "farther away from the center of the earth") than the poles are.

There's no contradiction.

Diameter at the poles is less than diameter at the equator.

Direction of flow is from right to left, north to south, yet still uphill.

Sent from my Pixel XL using TheologyOnline mobile app

Only in your dreams?

--Dave

 

[jamie]

The earth and moons and planets are round - shown by eclipses. However, we did not send men to the moon, only probes and unmanned vehicles. The Van Ryan Belt is all the proof needed. Nobody else has sent "people" to the moon either. This will be proven further by seeing somebody figure out how to get through the radiation belt and all that it entails. Keep dreaming if you think we went

Radiation exposure is related to time and the density of the radiation. The astronauts passed quickly through the Van Allen belts. No problem.

 

[patrick jane]

Radiation exposure is related to time and the density of the radiation. The astronauts passed quickly through the Van Allen belts. No problem.

:rotfl:

 

[JudgeRightly]

:rotfl:

http://kgov.com/node/5067

Sent from my Pixel XL using TheologyOnline mobile app

 

[Clete]

If you know of any river that flows uphill give me the name of it.

I already said that everyone knows the river flow downhill, GENERALLY SPEAKING. But, if you know the name of a river that has no portion of it that ever flows up and over a rock or small hill or other uphill portion of any length of time or distance at all, give me the name of it. (Such a river does not exist.)

If you can't then I suggest you stop looking foolish by saying, "Water very simply does not always flow downhill" as if that counters my argument.

It completely does counter it, Dave. You're the one who's suggesting that rivers would flow differently than they do if the world was actually round, not me. And that position is predicated on the silly notion that water cannot flow uphill except that it does all the time, every day.

But, just as oceans are curved and not level, there is no up or down on a globed earth anyway!

Another relativity absurdity.

--Dave

This is approaching insanity! No up or down. Let me see...

Yep, I just took my finger and pointed up....


....and there I went, pointing my finger down.


What the hell does this "no up or down" even mean?

Down on a spherical Earth is toward the center of gravity, which is effectively the same as simply saying toward the center of the Earth. Up is the opposite. Water in all bodies of water (as well as every other thing with mass) is pulled by gravity toward the Earth's center of mass. (In actual fact, every piece of matter has gravity and are attracted to each other, the net effect is that each body of mass is pulled toward another as if they were a single point at their center of mass. A point of fact, by the way, that just so happens to be exactly consistent with what you'd theoretically expect mathematically.) This is why water flows toward the lowest point unless otherwise acted upon and why it does so, automatically (i.e. without having to be started in that direction by any other force). Thus water flows north in the Nile River because the elevation of Egypt away from the Earth's center of gravity decreases (not uniformly but generally speaking) from south to north.

Clete

 

[Right Divider]

This is approaching insanity!

Indeed.

 

[Clete]

The earth and moons and planets are round - shown by eclipses. However, we did not send men to the moon, only probes and unmanned vehicles. The Van Ryan Belt is all the proof needed. Nobody else has sent "people" to the moon either. This will be proven further by seeing somebody figure out how to get through the radiation belt and all that it entails. Keep dreaming if you think we went

This is the beginning of an argument that is not rational. There are dozens, perhaps hundreds, of articles, youtube videos and other sources that one can find in seconds with a google search that directly addresses the Van Allen Belts (there's more than one) but you won't believe any of them. They'll all be "lies" or part of the conspiracy or whatever they need to be in order for you to dismiss them.

If the moon landing and all space video of a spherical Earth, heliocentrism, etc is all one gigantic conspiracy, why do you suppose the conspirators made up this Van Allen problem?

Or is the Van Allen Belts problem the only part of what Nasa found out about the only thing you believe is real?

In other words, we know what we know about the Van Allen Belts because of the very same NASA that you claim is lying about going to the Moon. On what basis do you accept the one and reject the other?

 

[JudgeRightly]

I already said that everyone knows the river flow downhill, GENERALLY SPEAKING. But, if you know the name of a river that has no portion of it that ever flows up and over a rock or small hill or other uphill portion of any length of time or distance at all, give me the name of it. (Such a river does not exist.)


It completely does counter it, Dave. You're the one who's suggesting that rivers would flow differently than they do if the world was actually round, not me. And that position is predicated on the silly notion that water cannot flow uphill except that it does all the time, every day.


This is approaching insanity! No up or down. Let me see...

Yep, I just took my finger and pointed up....


....and there I went, pointing my finger down.


What the hell does this "no up or down" even mean?

Down on a spherical Earth is toward the center of gravity, which is effectively the same as simply saying toward the center of the Earth. Up is the opposite. Water in all bodies of water (as well as every other thing with mass) is pulled by gravity toward the Earth's center of mass. (In actual fact, every piece of matter has gravity and are attracted to each other, the net effect is that each body of mass is pulled toward another as if they were a single point at their center of mass. A point of fact, by the way, that just so happens to be exactly consistent with what you'd theoretically expect mathematically.) This is why water flows toward the lowest point unless otherwise acted upon and why it does so, automatically (i.e. without having to be started in that direction by any other force). Thus water flows north in the Nile River because the elevation of Egypt away from the Earth's center of gravity decreases (not uniformly but generally speaking) from south to north.

Clete

Don't forget the Mississippi River! (See my posts above)

Sent from my Pixel XL using TheologyOnline mobile app

 

[JudgeRightly]

Only in your dreams?

--Dave

I realize now what I forgot to add to the second image.

The bottom line of the lower triangle represents the distance from the center of the earth to the surface "height" of the poles.

The left vertical line represents the height difference of the above to the height of sea level, which is 21.36km, at the equator.

The rightmost vertex is the North pole.

Obviously, the drawing is not to scale, and my art skills suck. Also, the straight "lines" represent the curve of the earth, not the flat earth.

Sent from my Pixel XL using TheologyOnline mobile app

 

[Clete]

From your picture we can see the ground, though flat, rises to your eye level just about where the yellow truck is in front of you. How far away would you say it is from you?

Now see the white car just in front of the yellow truck but further away. How far away do you think it is?

How far into the distance can you see? Does a car that seems to be on level ground disappear from you view because of the curvature of the earth or because it just gets to far away and too small for you to see it?

Do you have a telephoto lens on your camera? Test flat vs globe for yourself. Show us the results.

--Dave

This argument has already been directly refuted. Objects do not simply get so far away that they can no longer be seen because they've shrunk into the distance. They disappear from the bottom up over the horizon just as you'd expect them to do if the world was a sphere. If the world were flat, you could get a telescope and see Eaurope from New York or Australia from California. Things the size of continents would never get so small that you couldn't see them in the first place! You ought not even need a telescope. But I don't care how powerful a telescope you use, you will never ever be able to see all the way from California to Australia - period. You can't even see all the way across Kansas from Oklahoma to Nebraska, never mind across a whole ocean!

 

[Clete]

I found another video the debunks the flat earth theory. It's the best one I've seen yet when it comes to just really great, straightforward arguments as well as excellent production quality.

This video is the first in a series of videos on the subject but this one focuses on the horizon and all the flat Earth arguments that deal with the fact that the horizon we see is flat and not curved, which, as he demonstrates brilliantly in the video, is exactly what you'd expect on a spherical Earth.

The part of the video dealing with boats and ships going over the horizon (starts at 6:23) is just outstanding. Notice the nice clear images without all the atmospheric lensing that I now know was a mistake to even get caught up in. No mirror lines, no upside down ships, just a boat disappearing bottom up over the horizon as clear as day. All the lensing effects are videos that flat earthers cherry pick in order to make fallacious arguments that don't even really work even with the lensing effect, as I've shown in this thread already and which the video deals with at about 12 minutes into the video.

Anyway, it's a really excellent video. I hope you all watch it.

 

[CabinetMaker]

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

Provided that we deal with reflection and refraction, yes.

 

[Clete]

The video linked to in my last post gives my proposed experiment new life!

Now I just have to figure out how to pay for the equipment I'd need to pull it off.

I'll also have to figure out how to convince someone to help me with it without making myself sound like a complete lunatic! :kookoo:

 

[Clete]

Dave,

If the Earth is flat, why isn't the Chicago skyline visible from across Lake Michigan all the time? It's plenty big enough and plenty tall enough to remain visible for hundreds of miles across a flat earth, but most of the time (nearly all of the time) it isn't visible at all.

 

[Clete]

Don't forget the Mississippi River! (See my posts above)

Sent from my Pixel XL using TheologyOnline mobile app

Sorry JR, I'm with Dave on this point. The Mississippi River does not run uphill in the way you're suggesting.

The centrifugal force caused by the Earth's rotation is only something like .03% of the force of gravity. Not nearly enough to cause the effect you are suggesting. The overall course of the Mississippi River (and all other rivers) is in a downhill direction relative to both the center of the Earth and sea level. Any exceptions are on a very small scale relative to the length of the river.

 

[JudgeRightly]

Sorry JR, I'm with Dave on this point. The Mississippi River does not run uphill in the way you're suggesting.

The centrifugal force caused by the Earth's rotation is only something like .03% of the force of gravity. Not nearly enough to cause the effect you are suggesting. The overall course of the Mississippi River (and all other rivers) is in a downhill direction relative to both the center of the Earth and sea level. Any exceptions are on a very small scale relative to the length of the river.

So what about the fact that the sea level at the equator is 21.36km farther from the center of the earth than sea level at the poles? Am I mistaken about that? And what about the physics stack exchange link I provided?

Sent from my Pixel XL using TheologyOnline mobile app

 

[JudgeRightly]

Dave, There's a small amount of discussion on a Globe earth on yesterday's BEL show.
http://kgov.com/bel/20170214

You may want to listen.

Sent from my Pixel XL using TheologyOnline mobile app

 

[Yorzhik]

Dave,

If the Earth is flat, why isn't the Chicago skyline visible from across Lake Michigan all the time? It's plenty big enough and plenty tall enough to remain visible for hundreds of miles across a flat earth, but most of the time (nearly all of the time) it isn't visible at all.

Not long ago we had an atmospheric event that allowed us on the east coast of Lake Michigan to see Chicago very clearly. The funny thing was that even as the air got *clearer*, the image faded and disappeared. That proves the image was due to factors other than Lake Michigan being completely flat.

 

[chair]

I have to hand it to people who have been arguing with Dave for so long.. I don't know where you find the patience.

One could make a solid case for almost anything using his tactics. Chickens grow on trees. Chickens look like fruit, taste like fruit. They are not animals- you never see one walking around. Anybody who says they do is part of a conspiracy or have been fooled. Videos showing chickens chickens hatching from eggs are faked by the agriculture department.

You are getting bogged down in unimportant details - the earth is not flat no matter how the Mississippi flows. It's like those endless discussions of the mechanism of evolution. It is a distraction from the basic point that evolution happens- irrespective of whether we understand how or don't understand.

 

[Clete]

So what about the fact that the sea level at the equator is 21.36km farther from the center of the earth than sea level at the poles? Am I mistaken about that? And what about the physics stack exchange link I provided?

Sent from my Pixel XL using TheologyOnline mobile app

Let's just say that I don't buy it. Maybe it's true but I doubt it. The centrifugal force is just not big enough.

Gravity vs. Centrifugal Force