The earth is flat and we never went to the moon

Status
Not open for further replies.

chair

Well-known member
... Satan does not want the Bible to be taken seriously--literally, now does he? The Biblical significance of this should be obvious to all, which is why so many Christian, like myself, are interested in this subject today.
...

This is clearly a religious issue for you. You pretend to have a scientific discussion, but it is a pretense- which is why you brush off any factual criticism as being false, lies, a conspiracy. There is no possible fact that will ever convince you, as long as you believe that the Bible says the Earth is flat, and that Satan is behind anybody who says differently.

Apparently honesty isn't in your Bible.
 

JudgeRightly

裁判官が正しく判断する
Staff member
Administrator
Super Moderator
Gold Subscriber
In debate, you or I make a point/argument, then there is a response, counter point.

Make a point and stop asking leading questions, which are pointless until you make an argument.

--Dave
The question is the point. You cannot have GPS or satellite phones without satellites in orbit.

Sent from my Pixel XL using TheologyOnline mobile app
 

DFT_Dave

LIFETIME MEMBER
LIFETIME MEMBER
So you don't know. Got it.

P.S. Hint: It works because there are satellites orbiting the globe.

You mean, "gotcha", you're so clever, I surrender :rotfl:

Now if you knew any thing about the flat earth model, you would know that you can still put planes, satellites, balloons, etc. and fly them in a "circle" in low earth orbit for GPS, or what ever. That's why I want you all to stop creating in your minds a false flat earth model that you think you can debunk. But those arguments are not based on a true flat earth model.

--Dave
 

JudgeRightly

裁判官が正しく判断する
Staff member
Administrator
Super Moderator
Gold Subscriber
You mean, "gotcha", you're so clever, I surrender :rotfl:

Now if you knew any thing about the flat earth model, you would know that you can still put planes, satellites, balloons, etc. and fly them in a "circle" in low earth orbit for GPS, or what ever. That's why I want you all to stop creating in your minds a false flat earth model that you think you can debunk with arguments that are not based on a true flat earth model.

--Dave
Dave, do you know how momentum works?

Sent from my Pixel XL using TheologyOnline mobile app
 

DFT_Dave

LIFETIME MEMBER
LIFETIME MEMBER
Nikon P900 Superzoom: Lake Pontchartrain Causeway

From this short video we can "see" actual traffic beyond the horizon line leading up to the bridge. The traffic has a direct mirrored image (reflection) "under" it and "upside down" that we call an inferior mirage that obscures that is actually directly under the traffic.

That this bridge is a refraction of what is actually below a curved earth would make it an upright superior mirage, that are upside down (usually) and "on top" of the actual object being reflected. It would be strange if not even impossible that a refracted mirage would also produce an inferior mirage with it. A double mirage?


--Dave
 

Right Divider

Body part
You mean, "gotcha", you're so clever, I surrender :rotfl:

Now if you knew any thing about the flat earth model, you would know that you can still put planes, satellites, balloons, etc. and fly them in a "circle" in low earth orbit for GPS, or what ever. That's why I want you all to stop creating in your minds a false flat earth model that you think you can debunk. But those arguments are not based on a true flat earth model.

--Dave
:french:
Silly Dave.... the reason that GPS works is because the ORBITS of the satellites can be PRECISELY known. Not like your "planes circling" overhead.
 

Clete

Truth Smacker
Silver Subscriber
What ever you see "overhead" (plane or satellite) is not seeing it "orbit" a globed earth. By that the I mean seeing something, yourself, "orbit" is impossible.
Yet you claim that it is visible evidence that convinces you (flat-earthers) that the Earth is stationary and that the whole universe revolves around it once a day.

A video you posted had the guy who said that long distance shooters had to adjust for the rotation of the earth, the Coriolis effect, that you said was incorrect.
Long distance shooters do have to adjust for it, it's the explanation as to why that isn't correct. It isn't that the bullet suddenly loses the momentum it already had by virtue of having been in motion along with the surface of the Earth. It's a common misunderstanding of the Coriolis effect. It has to do with the preservation of momentum (angular), not the magical loss of it. In either case, the Coriolos effect is absolute proof positive that the Earth is spinning (i.e. not stationary).

The video about the curve over oceans I have countered with video that shows otherwise. Let everyone see both and decide for themselves.
Your video shows cherry-picked examples of atmospheric lensing whereas the one I posted explains why cherry picking is irrational and demonstrates such by showing counter-examples. In other words, the videos you posted present arguments that are dependent upon a phenomenon that often isn't present and that would have to be present every single time for the argument to be valid.

That you think flat earth is debunked and globe earth is actual arguments is your opinion.
No, it isn't. That's the equivalent of you suggesting that my thinking that 2 + 2 = 4 is a matter of opinion.

The arguments have either been debunked or they haven't - no opinions are necessary.
As for the videos you've presented making arguments predicated on atmospheric lensing. The counter-examples showing very clear images of ships disappearing over the horizon from the bottom up without the atmospheric lensing seen in your videos REFUTE the argument made in the videos you posted by proving the major premise of the video's argument false.
What else does it mean for an argument to be refuted? What more could be done to refute it? Nothing! The argument is either refuted or it's unfalsifiable. In either case, clinging to it is irrational.

The last video I posted directly refutes many of the arguments flat earthers make and does so in several different ways. There are two other videos in that three part series that refute several more arguments. And I do mean that the arguments have been rationally REFUTED. Clinging to them after watching that video is a matter of belief, not science and not intellectual honesty.

From the earth and from commercial flights everyone experiences and sees a flat stationary earth with straight horizon lines and level oceans. We are being lead to believe it is just the opposite, a spinning globe.

--Dave
It isn't just the opposite. What you see is not in contradiction to a large spherical Earth.

It simply a matter of scale. It works in both directions.

The fact that you can't see germs doesn't mean they don't exist. You have no more reason to believe in atoms, molecules, and bacteria than you have to believe that the Earth revolves around the Sun. Why do you accept the one and not the other?

In fact, that question can be asked about anything that you haven't discovered to be true by your own personal investigation. Your objections to a round Earth are based on a premise that undermines your ability to know or understand much of anything. Society as a whole can progress to higher and higher feats of discovery and accomplishment because each successive generation is not required to independently verify the knowledge of previous generations. We are all allowed to stand on the shoulders of giants. It's called multiple source, independent verification. All investigation is predicated on it. 2 Corinthians 13:1

Clete
 
Last edited:

Clete

Truth Smacker
Silver Subscriber
Nikon P900 Superzoom: Lake Pontchartrain Causeway

From this short video we can "see" actual traffic beyond the horizon line leading up to the bridge. The traffic has a direct mirrored image (reflection) "under" it and "upside down" that we call an inferior mirage that obscures that is actually directly under the traffic.

That this bridge is a refraction of what is actually below a curved earth would make it an upright superior mirage, that are upside down (usually) and "on top" of the actual object being reflected. It would be strange if not even impossible that a refracted mirage would also produce an inferior mirage with it. A double mirage?


--Dave
On most days, that mirage would not be present and all you'd see in your camera is the empty horizon. All arguments based on what you see in that video are thereby refuted.
 

Clete

Truth Smacker
Silver Subscriber
You mean, "gotcha", you're so clever, I surrender :rotfl:

Now if you knew any thing about the flat earth model, you would know that you can still put planes, satellites, balloons, etc. and fly them in a "circle" in low earth orbit for GPS, or what ever. That's why I want you all to stop creating in your minds a false flat earth model that you think you can debunk. But those arguments are not based on a true flat earth model.

--Dave

Do you mean to suggest that you(flat earthers) believe that satelites (weather, GPS, communication, etc) are being flown in a circle?

If so, what are they flying in? Airplane fly through the air, using pressure differencials above and below the wing to create sufficient lift to conteract the force pulling them toward the ground (gravity). Satelites are well above the atmosphere and even if they weren't, they have no wings nor means of propultion (i.e. engines of any sort). Just what do flat earthers believe is holding satelites in orbit?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top