ok doser
lifeguard at the cement pond
there is no "actual" uphill or downhill on a flat earth model
The earth is flat and we never went to the moon
- Thread starter DFT_Dave
- Start date
- Status
there is no "actual" uphill or downhill on a flat earth model
Just stand and imagine you're on a globe, where you are standing is exactly at the very top off the globe. As you turn every direction gradually over distance curves down ward away from you.
Some one at the very bottom of this globe is seeing it exactly as you are. To them you are at the bottom and they are at the top.
Do you see it now?
There is no "actual" top or bottom to earth if it is a globe. If everyone's perspective is the same, and no one is actually standing upside down, then the earth is a plain not a sphere.
You have a false, straw man, view of flat earth.
--Dave
Dave, the "top" and "bottom" of the earth are considered to be the north and south poles, because there's a north star and a southern cross. And while your analogy in general is acceptable, "top" and "bottom" have very little, if anything, to do with "uphill" and "downhill."
Dave, on the Noachian Flood, what is the flat earth model for it?
Sent from my Pixel XL using TheologyOnline mobile app
Both flat earth and globe earth have hills, mountains, and valleys. Flat earth simply means the land and oceans are not on a huge spinning sphere moving through space around the sun. Flat earth means, what you see is real. The earth is seen to be stationary and "over all" (think big) flat. This is confirmed by commercial flights, the earth from above appears flat and stationary.
--Dave
Dave, what is the flat earth's theory for the Noachian Flood?
Sent from my Pixel XL using TheologyOnline mobile app
He's mocking you, in case you weren't aware.
Dave, What is the model the flat earthers use for Noah's Flood?
Sent from my Pixel XL using TheologyOnline mobile app
Dave, what is the Flood model for the flat earth?
Sent from my Pixel XL using TheologyOnline mobile app
I don't want to expand this thread to include flood geology and the nature of the firmament above. But I will simply say that the flood story does not negate the flat earth model in my view. The flood story does not negate the globe model either in my view. But I will absolutely not get into the flood on this thread. My view on the flood will not determine if we live on a flat or globe earth. I may be convinced other wise but not here on this thread. I fear my subject covers too much ground already.
--Dave
Then make another thread for the flat earth model of the Flood vs globe models.
I'm going to go insane from this thread if I don't take a break from it.
Sent from my Pixel XL using TheologyOnline mobile app
gcthomas
New member
When comparing models, it is much more instructive to list what they do not have in common.
1. Basic Physics is observably different in the two models. One of them matches reality. Guess which one?
2. We don't need a second difference. The first one is fatal to the other models.
There's are important common "unknown" aspects to all three. The differences are already obvious.
--Dave
Except that has been refuted by science since the time that Christ walked on this beautiful little globe we live on.
Dave, how does gravity work?
gcthomas
New member
'Top' and 'Bottom' are conventions: you can consider them to be wherever you fancy and it makes not difference to the reality.
Yes, I realize that. In fact, that's why I said what I said in that post.
Okay, so let's think this through...
The centrifugal force, at no point, is even close to fully counteracting the force of gravity. At best, it modifies its strength and direction. Centrifugal force is always at 90° to a line drawn connecting the poles while gravity is always pulling toward the center of mass. At no point does the vector line of the combined forces point at something that isn't nearly 4000 miles below the surface. All of that to say this. If it is true that the river runs away from the center of the Earth, then the river's rise away from the center would have to be very slight indeed, especially at its headwaters.
The distance from a pole to the equator is 3178.39km. The equatorial bulge is 42.77km. That give you an average rise away from the center of the Earth of 1.34 m/km. That is otherwise expressed as a 1.34% slope, which isn't much but I suppose enough slope for water to flow down but that's an average across the entire distance between the pole where the centrifugal force is zero to the equator where it is 0.0339 m/s². But even still, using the average number this would mean that water flowing toward the equator would run up a 1.34% uphill grade (relative to the center of the Earth). So, theoretically it's true but that just isn't very much at all. That's 1.34mm per meter. The average household level isn't that accurate. I doubt that it would be a sufficient slope to overcome the frictional forces involved.
Dave posted an image showing the river's downhill course relative to sea level (Which includes a bunch of uphill lumps and bumps, by the way). I'd love to see one that gives the same information relative to the center of the earth.
Dave, this sort of argument bothers me greatly. This is flat out dishonesty. I know that you're doing the whole devil's advocate thing but some arguments just aren't even worth putting out there.
Up and down are relative terms. That means that up might mean an entire difference thing in one frame of reference than it does in another and in a third, it might have no meaning whatsoever.
As far as spheres, in general, are concerned, you're quite right, what is up or down on a globe is entirely arbitrary. We orient the globe the way we do, with the north pole at the "top", because globes were invented in the northern hemisphere and for no other reason. (If modern society had developed in the south, flat earthers would have a real problem. There'd be no "ice wall" and no way to explain how it's so much easier to get from Anchorage to Moscow by flying over...
What - the edge of the world?
But that has nothing whatsoever to do with the way rivers run!
When we human beings, who live on the surface of the Earth, talk about 'downhill' and 'uphill' we are talking about the slope of the ground going along with the pull of gravity (down) or going against the pull of gravity (up).
Your argument makes the equivalent to a category error. You conflate two entirely different frames of reference. This is either intentionally misleading or it is an example of what I said before where flat-earthers misunderstand some concept and formulate objections that are based on their own misunderstanding and not the actual facts of reality.
Dave,
Why are the two celestial poles?
One for the north...
View attachment 25345
And a different one for the south...
View attachment 25346
If the Earth is flat, with the stars rotating above the stationary Earth, how can there be two celestial poles and why can't you see Polaris from Chile?
Why are the two celestial poles?
One for the north...
View attachment 25345
And a different one for the south...
View attachment 25346
If the Earth is flat, with the stars rotating above the stationary Earth, how can there be two celestial poles and why can't you see Polaris from Chile?
- Status