The earth is flat and we never went to the moon

Status
Not open for further replies.

Clete

Truth Smacker
Silver Subscriber
If the Earth is flat, the orbits of satellites are almost NEVER circular. In fact, they are usually very far away from circular and the satellites would perform impossible feats of speed. Click on the image below...

View attachment 25362
 

DFT_Dave

LIFETIME MEMBER
LIFETIME MEMBER
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?

An orbit is a circle. :beanboy:

No one has ever seen a satellite do a complete circle around the globe. We have only NASA to believe that this is happening. Just what does propel them? Once up there why don't they just come right back down and what keeps them on an exact course?

--Dave
 

Right Divider

Body part
An orbit is a circle. :beanboy:
Not necessarily Dave, an elliptical orbit works just fine.

No one has ever seen a satellite do a complete circle around the globe. We have only NASA to believe that this is happening. Just what does propel them? Once up there why don't they just come right back down and what keeps them on an exact course?
Because of inertia. It's simple physics Dave. I'm really surprised that you don't know about these things, especially since you seem to want to be a teacher of just such things.

How does GPS work Dave?
 

DFT_Dave

LIFETIME MEMBER
LIFETIME MEMBER
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.


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).


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.


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.


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

I can see the earth, unlike your examples, from the ground and from an air plane I can view it over many miles of what should be obvious curvature, and "all" visual evidence is that the earth is flat and stationary.

To say we can't see the curve because the earth is too large and then say we can see ships going over the curve is a clear contradiction.

--Dave
 

JudgeRightly

裁判官が正しく判断する
Staff member
Administrator
Super Moderator
Gold Subscriber
I can see the earth, unlike your examples, from the ground and from an air plane I can view it over many miles of what should be obvious curvature, and "all" visual evidence is that the earth is flat and stationary.

To say we can't see the curve because the earth is too large and then say we can see ships going over the curve is a clear contradiction.

--Dave

No, it's not a contradiction. Saying something doesn't make it true, Dave.

Sent from my Pixel XL using TheologyOnline mobile app
 

CabinetMaker

Member of the 10 year club on TOL!!
Hall of Fame
This is not a class and I'm not your student so make an argument. If you have a point to make, make it.

--Dave
I asked you a question: Why can two objects with the same density have different weights? I want to understand how gravity works in a flat Earth model.


Sent from my iPhone using TOL
I didn't make an argument, I asked you a question: Why do two objects with the same density have different weights? I am trying to understand how gravity works in your flat Earth model.
 

Yorzhik

Well-known member
LIFETIME MEMBER
Hall of Fame
Yes, swells can hide things in the distance on the ocean.

But the skyline from 60 miles away should "never" be visible "ever" if the earth is curved.

--Dave
This is simply not true. The Dunes are about 250 ft. higher than the lake. And the bluff a little farther north along the coast is a little more than 100 ft above the lake. And, BTW, the dunes are less than 60 miles from Chicago.

This is important because swells at the lake level matter very much because they are close in. But with a little elevation, the swells become less significant. Thus, the lights from the tall buildings are regularly seen on the many clear days, but not the short buildings, and the swells do not matter at all.
 

Clete

Truth Smacker
Silver Subscriber
An orbit is a circle. :beanboy:

No one has ever seen a satellite do a complete circle around the globe. We have only NASA to believe that this is happening. Just what does propel them? Once up there why don't they just come right back down and what keeps them on an exact course?

--Dave
We have a whole hell of a lot more than NASA. You think that every satellite in orbit is owned and operated by the United States government?

You know better. You knew better when you wrote this. Was this just you being the Devil's advocate, repeating some mindless argument you saw on a flat eath website or was this DFT Dave making statements he knew were false when he made them?

Multiple thousands of people would have to be in on the conspiracy to pull off keeping one single satellite in orbit over a flat Earth, Dave. Multiple thousands of people from scores of different organizations and entirely different walks of life. That is so far away from being possible that it is literal insanity to believe it.

And no, the would not all be circular! If the Earth is flat and laid out anything similar to the United Nations flag, which all flat earthers seem to agree on, there is no way to make a satellite go over (or near) both the north pole and what everyone has been tricked into believing is the south pole and have the orbit be anywhere near circular. It is not physically possible.

Not only that, but the satellite would have to dramatically speed up and slow down, covering 90% of the orbital distance in 10% of the orbital time and visa-versa. Utter lunatic, fantasy-land, nonsensical stupidity! That breaks every law of physics that exists. If the Earth is flat, there are no satellites in circumpolar orbits - period. The fact that there are satellites in circumpolar orbits (a whole lot of them) is proof that the Earth cannot be flat. Proof, Dave. If it isn't proof then the whole notion of a flat Earth is unfalsifible.

And the fact is that satellites do fall right back down. That's precisely what Newton figured out is happening with not just apples but the Moon and everything else that orbits anything. It's called the inverse square law and it is one of the most tested and firmly established ideas in all of science. The reason a satellite or moon doesn't crash into the ground is because it is moving vertically across the surface of the planet at a speed such that the curvature of the planet's surface moves away from the falling object at the same speed at which it is falling. That's what makes orbits happen, that's what makes them possible. No such orbit is at all possible on a flat Earth - period.

Clete
 

Clete

Truth Smacker
Silver Subscriber
That's an opinion.

--Dave

No, it isn't David.

Look, I don't tolerate this sort of thing from Calvinist and I see no reason why I should tolerate it from you either.

I have made actual arguments, Dave. You have made claims. One claim after another, after another. What few actual arguments exist are almost entirely on those videos, which I have watched and paid close attention too. The arguments made in regards to the way ships (or other things) disappear on the horizon are all PREDICATED on the premise that the atmospheric lensing shown in those videos happens EVERY SINGLE TIME something disappears on the horizon. That means even one single counter-example DISPROVES the argument! It utterly, totally and in all possible meanings of the word, REFUTES the argument, David! That's not the same as proving that the Earth is a sphere but it most certainly is not a matter of opinion that the arguments themselves, in support of a flat earth, are fully refuted.

If you think otherwise then present a counter argument, admit that you cannot do so or keep it to yourself. This, "that's your opinion", crap is an insult to my intelligence (and to your own for that matter).
 

Clete

Truth Smacker
Silver Subscriber
I can see the earth, unlike your examples, from the ground and from an air plane I can view it over many miles of what should be obvious curvature, and "all" visual evidence is that the earth is flat and stationary.
This thread is over 1700 posts long at this point. There have been mutilple examples of visual evidence of the curvature of the Earth. You're in denial and need to wake up.

To say we can't see the curve because the earth is too large and then say we can see ships going over the curve is a clear contradiction.

--Dave
This is the single stupidest thing you've said in this entire thread, David.

The ship has to be several miles away from you before it even starts to look like its going over the horizon and even then you need to augment your visual abilities in order to see it, not to mention the fact that it shouldn't disappear over the horizon in the first place if the Earth is flat!
 

DFT_Dave

LIFETIME MEMBER
LIFETIME MEMBER
We have a whole hell of a lot more than NASA. You think that every satellite in orbit is owned and operated by the United States government?

You know better. You knew better when you wrote this. Was this just you being the Devil's advocate, repeating some mindless argument you saw on a flat eath website or was this DFT Dave making statements he knew were false when he made them?

Multiple thousands of people would have to be in on the conspiracy to pull off keeping one single satellite in orbit over a flat Earth, Dave. Multiple thousands of people from scores of different organizations and entirely different walks of life. That is so far away from being possible that it is literal insanity to believe it.

And no, the would not all be circular! If the Earth is flat and laid out anything similar to the United Nations flag, which all flat earthers seem to agree on, there is no way to make a satellite go over (or near) both the north pole and what everyone has been tricked into believing is the south pole and have the orbit be anywhere near circular. It is not physically possible.

Not only that, but the satellite would have to dramatically speed up and slow down, covering 90% of the orbital distance in 10% of the orbital time and visa-versa. Utter lunatic, fantasy-land, nonsensical stupidity! That breaks every law of physics that exists. If the Earth is flat, there are no satellites in circumpolar orbits - period. The fact that there are satellites in circumpolar orbits (a whole lot of them) is proof that the Earth cannot be flat. Proof, Dave. If it isn't proof then the whole notion of a flat Earth is unfalsifible.

And the fact is that satellites do fall right back down. That's precisely what Newton figured out is happening with not just apples but the Moon and everything else that orbits anything. It's called the inverse square law and it is one of the most tested and firmly established ideas in all of science. The reason a satellite or moon doesn't crash into the ground is because it is moving vertically across the surface of the planet at a speed such that the curvature of the planet's surface moves away from the falling object at the same speed at which it is falling. That's what makes orbits happen, that's what makes them possible. No such orbit is at all possible on a flat Earth - period.

Clete

I don't see GPS or satellites as a proof of any thing. The fact remains that you and I and 99.9% of the rest of the world don't "see" satellites circling a globed earth.

NASA controls space regardless of who owns whatever goes there.

--Dave
 

DFT_Dave

LIFETIME MEMBER
LIFETIME MEMBER
This thread is over 1700 posts long at this point. There have been mutilple examples of visual evidence of the curvature of the Earth. You're in denial and need to wake up.


This is the single stupidest thing you've said in this entire thread, David.

The ship has to be several miles away from you before it even starts to look like its going over the horizon and even then you need to augment your visual abilities in order to see it, not to mention the fact that it shouldn't disappear over the horizon in the first place if the Earth is flat!

Ships disappear on flat earth because of distance, not curvature.

--Dave
 

themuzicman

Well-known member
Here is a short list of observable proofs for a flat earth:

1. There is no visible curvature.

2. All bodies of water are absolutely level.

3. All aircraft move over a stationary flat plain.

Arguments against these facts contradict sensory perception.

--Dave

iu


Why are only the tops of the tall buildings in Chicago visible from Michigan City, Indiana?

How can we fly from Chile to Australia in 14 hours, but flying from Chicago to Australia takes 18 hours? On a flat earth map, one must fly fairly close to Chicago to get to Australia.

In fact, on a flat earth map, Chile and Australia are about 16,000 miles apart. A plane would have to fly at about 1140 MPH continuously for 14 hours to achieve this. No such plane exists. Even the Concord can only fly 4500 miles before it has to stop.

In short, air travel proves that the world cannot be flat.
 

Clete

Truth Smacker
Silver Subscriber
I don't see GPS or satellites as a proof of any thing. The fact remains that you and I and 99.9% of the rest of the world don't "see" satellites circling a globed earth.

NASA controls space regardless of who owns whatever goes there.

--Dave

That isn't the point! The point is that if the Earth is flat, there are THOUSANDS of things in orbit that are not physically possible and that hundreds of thousands of people make their living in an industry that is entirely fraudulent, many tens of thousands of whom would have to be in on the deceit. It is a conspiracy that CANNOT be maintained, Dave! And to maintain that it can renders the entire position unfalsifiable because you discard the ability to use multiple, independent sources to verify truth claims that are not possible to verify through your own personal investigation. In effect, you create a catch-all category into which all counter arguments can be thrown. That's the reason the special pleading fallacy is a just that, a fallacy.


Doing this conspiracy nonsense has ramifications throughout your entire worldview. Everything you think you know about the world around you is not information that you discovered or that you have personally verified but rather is it information that you have been taught. Nearly everything that makes the modern world modern has come from science. Even the industrial revolution itself has its roots in the practice of scientific thought processes and the application of what was learned in order to make a better widget and ultimately to make a profit. Everything from the internal combustion engine to airplanes to the plastic that is used to make everything from disposable cups to surgical instruments was all made by people who knew what they knew primarily because they were taught it, not because they independently verified the veracity of every claim someone made about the way the world works.

Clete
 

Clete

Truth Smacker
Silver Subscriber
Ships disappear on flat earth because of distance, not curvature.

--Dave
This is a claim that has already be repeatedly refuted. Distance does not cause something to vanish from the bottom up. If it was distance, it would just keep getting smaller and smaller and smaller. If that were the case, it would simply be a matter of our eyes limited resolution that created the horizon and that telescopes would allow us to see things as far into the distance as the resolution of the telescope would permit. But that is NOT the case. No telescope, no matter how big, can see Europe from New York or even half that distance.

Your counter arguments to that all have specifically to do with atmospheric lensing, which was used to explain, in no uncertain terms, that it is THE reason why things disappear "over" the horizon. This counter argument is REFUTED by the fact that no such atmospheric lensing as described in those counter arguments, exists in every, or even most circumsctances and yet things still disapear over the horizon in spite of the fact that there is no mirroring or significant refraction effects present.

We can continue to repeat arguments that have been refuted and I can repeat the refutation if you want. But I'm going to get bored with it pretty fast.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top