The earth is flat and we never went to the moon

[DFT_Dave]

Deuteronomy 19:15
"15*“One witness shall not rise against a man concerning any iniquity or any sin that he commits; by the mouth of two or three witnesses the matter shall be established."

I'm going to trust a group of people more than any one person. The only thing you have to rest on with this argument is that there's a conspiracy, so then we're back to square one, what would be the purpose of such a conspiracy? What benefit is there to covering things up?

Sent from my Pixel XL using TheologyOnline mobile app

This analysis is shared by many.

--Dave

 

[JudgeRightly]

My analysis is absolutely correct.

The speed of bullets do vary but that does not alter the argument.

--Dave

Well, duh, Daft Dave. Of course the speed of bullets vary... You wouldn't expect a Mauser C96 bullet to travel as far as an artillery shell (just a really large bullet), would you?

Sent from my Pixel XL using TheologyOnline mobile app

 

[fool]

Visiting a station is not the same as leading a naval task force with an air craft carrier to explore the vast region of the antarctic.

Do some research on Admiral Byrd a see what he had to say about his exploration.

--Dave

WOW! It all makes sense now.

 

[JudgeRightly]

Dave, can we set aside the bullet/plane argument for a moment and see if we can learn anything from your flat earth universe? The link I just provided should answer many of your trajectory questions. I want to get on to something that has a bit more value.

So you're saying that if we have a strong enough telescope, we would see someone across the ocean, but we can't see, because of distance and angle, the sun or moon, let alone the North Star, when it's not above us?

Dave, how high up off the ground are:
1. The sun?
2. The moon?
3. The North Star?
4. The Southern Cross? (See my above post.)



Sent from my Pixel XL using TheologyOnline mobile app

Sent from my Pixel XL using TheologyOnline mobile app

 

[DFT_Dave]

Well, duh, Daft Dave. Of course the speed of bullets vary... You wouldn't expect a Mauser C96 bullet to travel as far as an artillery shell (just a really large bullet), would you?

Sent from my Pixel XL using TheologyOnline mobile app

You know, and so does every one else who reads this that what I have said is absolutely correct. "Can you handle the truth"?

I won't call you a moron if you don't call me daft.

--Dave

 

[DFT_Dave]

Dave, can we set aside the bullet/plane argument for a moment and see if we can learn anything from your flat earth universe? The link I just provided should answer many of your trajectory questions. I want to get on to something that has a bit more value.

Sent from my Pixel XL using TheologyOnline mobile app

I'm not heading for the stars just yet.

I'm preparing an evaluation of the Michelson–Morley experiment.

--Dave

 

[gcthomas]

I'm glad you made this argument.

I'll do my best to explain the "false equivalence" of this argument.

There are two opposing presuppositions being used to make this case.

1. A bullet and it's equivalent, a plane, "do not" rotate with the earth.

2. A bullet and the plane "do" rotate with the earth.

All propositions properly begin with an "if".

If a bullet and a plane rotate with the earth then it is true that the speed of both are actually moving at their own speed plus the speed of the rotating planet. Thus it would be correct to say that a plane is moving at 600 mph plus 1000 mph which equals 1600 mph. A bullet moving at 1000 mph would actually be moving at 2000 mph.

It would follow that "no" correction or adjustments would be necessary for a plane moving at the same speed of the rotating earth in flight or in landing accept for wind.

It would follow that "no" correction or adjustments would be necessary for the flight of a bullet also accept for wind.

But the coriolis effect presupposes that a bullet must be adjusted for the rotation of the earth because it "does not" rotate with it.

If it is true that a speeding bullet does not rotate with the earth then it would be "equivalent" that a moving plane would also "not" be moving with a rotating earth.

If this is the case then a plane moving at 600 mph must be adjusted for a globe that is moving at 1000 mph. Which would be impossible.

--Dave

You have mixed up some different ideas. The atmosphere generally rotates with the Earth due to friction and gravity effects, but there are complications which caused you to reject the whole idea, whereas you only need a more nuanced understanding.

For an aircraft in the air, to the first order the plane and air are both moving with the surface of the Earth at no relative speed. But the direction of motion is changing all the time since the path of a point on the surface is circular (once round per day). SO as the plane approaches the runway, the runway is rotating at the same rate as the Earth, at 360 degrees per day or one degree every 4 minutes. The plane and runway are both moving at the same speed due to the Earth's rotation, but as the plane is not fixed to the solid surface the air must supply the forces to change the heading of the plane. In amongst all the air buffeting that a plane must correct for, the slow rotation will not be noticed.

The second effect is the Coriolis effect, which is real and observed to cause cyclonic winds. If you are in the UK (say, N 53 deg), the air is moving East with the Earth at about 1000 km/h. If the air moves North a little, the Earth there is moving at the same rate of angular rotation, but because it is closer to the axis it has a lower speed (until the N Pole where the speed is zero). For a 1 degree latitude change North to Scotland, the rotation speed of the Earth is now 980 km/h, but the air still has its 1000 km/h Eastwards momentum, a difference of 20 km/h to the East compared to the ground. It has sped up relative to the ground simply by moving north, as if a force had acted on it. This is the Coriolis effect, and it applies to anything moving that changes latitude, from air movements to naval shelling.

You ought to take a look at the Foucault Pendulum experiments that directly measure the rotation of the Earth to match that seen by observing the stars.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foucault_pendulum

 

[DFT_Dave]

You ought to take a look at the Foucault Pendulum experiments that directly measure the rotation of the Earth to match that seen by observing the stars.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foucault_pendulum

The Michelson–Morley experiment addresses the rotation of the earth. That's my next stop. I will look at the pendulum argument as well this week end.

--Dave

 

[DFT_Dave]

You have mixed up some different ideas. The atmosphere generally rotates with the Earth due to friction and gravity effects, but there are complications which caused you to reject the whole idea, whereas you only need a more nuanced understanding.

For an aircraft in the air, to the first order the plane and air are both moving with the surface of the Earth at no relative speed. But the direction of motion is changing all the time since the path of a point on the surface is circular (once round per day). SO as the plane approaches the runway, the runway is rotating at the same rate as the Earth, at 360 degrees per day or one degree every 4 minutes. The plane and runway are both moving at the same speed due to the Earth's rotation, but as the plane is not fixed to the solid surface the air must supply the forces to change the heading of the plane. In amongst all the air buffeting that a plane must correct for, the slow rotation will not be noticed.

The second effect is the Coriolis effect, which is real and observed to cause cyclonic winds. If you are in the UK (say, N 53 deg), the air is moving East with the Earth at about 1000 km/h. If the air moves North a little, the Earth there is moving at the same rate of angular rotation, but because it is closer to the axis it has a lower speed (until the N Pole where the speed is zero). For a 1 degree latitude change North to Scotland, the rotation speed of the Earth is now 980 km/h, but the air still has its 1000 km/h Eastwards momentum, a difference of 20 km/h to the East compared to the ground. It has sped up relative to the ground simply by moving north, as if a force had acted on it. This is the Coriolis effect, and it applies to anything moving that changes latitude, from air movements to naval shelling.

You ought to take a look at the Foucault Pendulum experiments that directly measure the rotation of the Earth to match that seen by observing the stars.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foucault_pendulum

My analysis/argument is correct. Your argument fails for the same reasons I've given, rewording and convoluting the same fallacy changes nothing.

--Dave

 

[1Mind1Spirit]

You have mixed up some different ideas. The atmosphere generally rotates with the Earth due to friction and gravity effects, but there are complications which caused you to reject the whole idea, whereas you only need a more nuanced understanding.

Generally? Okay...... Except when it's not?

:rotfl:

 

[1Mind1Spirit]

My analysis/argument is correct. Your argument fails for the same reasons I've given, rewording and convoluting the same fallacy changes nothing.

--Dave

Not only that his attempt at bolstering his argument with the foe-cult pendulum is debunked by the Michelson-Morley experiments.

 

[gcthomas]

Generally? Okay...... Except when it's not?

:rotfl:

Yes, when it is windy the air moves at a slightly different speed.

 

[Nathon Detroit]

I have already said that the one and original conspirator is Satan and he has motive, he wants to "blind the minds of those who believe not", that would be, in my understanding, those who don't believe in the Word of God, he also wants to deceive even the "elect" as much as possible, in order to take full control of this world.

Dave have you ever considered that Satan is trying to blind your eyes with the flat earth theory??

After all... if the earth is actually flat and not round everyone is equally fooled except for a few thousand atheists and a couple dozen Christians. Big whoop.

However.... if the earth is a sphere then Satan is making a fool of those that believe it's flat and he is ruining your testimony regarding just about any other topic including your faith. Satan is making you look silly.

This gets to the heart of my point. If the earth is flat and not sphere the grand conspiracy has little to no payoff (after all no one would blame any rational person for seeing what is obviously apparent). Conversely if the earth is a sphere and is consistent with science, reality, and common sense, then the payoff is a few thousand folks look ridiculous for denying what is obviously true. Either way, it's all a bit trivial but less trivial if the earth is in reality a sphere.

When I worked for a large telecommunications company I used to have this friend who play the most trivial pranks on me. Like he would say... "I left that folder on your chair". I would say... "Okay cool thank you". Then I would see there was no folder on my chair. And he would get all excited an say... "I didn't leave it on your chair I left on top of the file cabinet." And he would have this smirk as if he really pulled one over on me. And my reaction was like... Uh.... okay... you really got me that time :idunno: all while asking myself what the point was.

A good prank or a good conspiracy needs to have some sort of purpose or payoff so that it makes sense in the end. The lie that the earth is actually flat and not spherical has nothing. It would be just a hollow, trivial, prank.

 

[Grosnick Marowbe]

Dave have you ever considered that Satan is trying to blind your eyes with the flat earth theory??

After all... if the earth is actually flat and not round everyone is equally fooled except for a few thousand atheists and a couple dozen Christians. Big whoop.

However.... if the earth is a sphere then Satan is making a fool of those that believe it's flat and he is ruining your testimony regarding just about any other topic including your faith. Satan is making you look silly.

This gets to the heart of my point. If the earth is flat and not sphere the grand conspiracy has little to no payoff (after all no one would blame any rational person for seeing what is obviously apparent). Conversely if the earth is a sphere and is consistent with science, reality, and common sense, then the payoff is a few thousand folks look ridiculous for denying what is obviously true. Either way, it's all a bit trivial but less trivial if the earth is in reality a sphere.

When I worked for a large telecommunications company I used to have this friend who play the most trivial pranks on me. Like he would say... "I left that folder on your chair". I would say... "Okay cool thank you". Then I would see there was no folder on my chair. And he would get all excited an say... "I didn't leave it on your chair I left on top of the file cabinet." And he would have this smirk as if he really pulled one over on me. And my reaction was like... Uh.... okay... you really got me that time :idunno: all while asking myself what the point was.

A good prank or a good conspiracy needs to have some sort of purpose or payoff so that it makes sense in the end. The lie that the earth is actually flat and not spherical has nothing. It would be just a hollow, trivial, prank.

Good post.

 

[DFT_Dave]

"Bingo"

Thank you Knight.

The thing that amazes me is how so many people do not really read what others are really saying.

I have done this myself from time to time, to error is human, I am human.

There is enough evidence that has been presented for flat earth and fake moon landings that has my interest and requires "me" to investigate this topic.

I'm am taking the position of the "devil's advocate" to the status quo. I am taking the side of, the earth is flat and we never went to the moon. If I did not do this a debate would not be possible. I can hardly believe that so many of you did not get this.

This is like a trial, both sides make their case and the jury contemplates "both sides" of the argument and considers the evidence for "both sides".

Since globalism is well known I thought it important for the other side to be presented. But no! You all say there is no other side. And you will not even look at the evidence from the other side.

This tread is not a debate about there can be no debate. Lets enjoy the debate and see where it goes and where it ends up.

--Dave

Knight, did you miss this?

--Dave

 

[gcthomas]

Not only that his attempt at bolstering his argument with the foe-cult pendulum is debunked by the Michelson-Morley experiments.

Can you explain to me how the MM experiments tell us the earth isn't rotating, please? My guess is that I understand the details of these two experiments better than either of you.

 

[JudgeRightly]

Knight, did you miss this?

--Dave

You need to reread Proverbs 4:23-27

Sent from my Pixel XL using TheologyOnline mobile app

 

[chair]

If you did not look at the video I provided you are not honoring the purpose of this thread.

--Dave

Dave!
That video clearly showed that you can't see the bottom part of the hull. You explained that away by claiming waves hid it. The video, if it proves anything at all, proves that you are wrong.

 

[DFT_Dave]

Dave have you ever considered that Satan is trying to blind your eyes with the flat earth theory??

No, I don't think Satan is trying to blind me since my faith is not based in either a global or flat theory of earth or if we went to the moon or not. As I have been saying, I have an interest in this subject, I don't have a life or death stake in it. But I am getting hungry so I would like to have a good steak right now. In my world, my reputation was lost a long time ago with my commitment to open theism, I have nothing to lose at this point. I do like a good debate, my advocacy for flat immovable earth and fake moon landings may or may not succeed, we will see. I don't think any one will face eternal damnation for this, do you?

--Dave

 

[JudgeRightly]

No, I don't think Satan is trying to blind me since my faith is not based in either a global or flat theory of earth or if we went to the moon or not. As I have been saying, I have an interest in this subject, I don't have a life or death stake in it. But I am getting hungry so I would like to have a good steak right now. In my world, my reputation was lost a long time ago with my commitment to open theism, I have nothing to lose at this point. I do like a good debate, my advocacy for flat immovable earth and fake moon landings may or may not succeed, we will see. I don't think any one will face eternal damnation for this, do you?

--Dave

Dave, when was the last time you were on a plane? Or better yet, when was the last time you were on a plane where your flight started during the day and ended at night?

Sent from my Pixel XL using TheologyOnline mobile app