That is why they pay me the big bucks...
Looks like Ward was "home early" from "the office," again.
The earth is flat and we never went to the moon
- Thread starter DFT_Dave
- Start date
- Status
That is why they pay me the big bucks...
Looks like Ward was "home early" from "the office," again.
musterion
Well-known member
If the earth is flat, what generates the atmospheric air currents which, at least in this hemisphere, tend from west to east? Where do they start?
On a globe, the atmosphere circulates endlessly. On a finite plane/disc/bowl/whatever, the wind would eventually run to the literal end of the earth in whichever direction it blows. Then what?
If the earth is some kind of flat plane, what's on the backside from wherever we live? Is China or the Indian Ocean on the back, as it is on a globe? If not, then what is?
On a globe, the atmosphere circulates endlessly. On a finite plane/disc/bowl/whatever, the wind would eventually run to the literal end of the earth in whichever direction it blows. Then what?
If the earth is some kind of flat plane, what's on the backside from wherever we live? Is China or the Indian Ocean on the back, as it is on a globe? If not, then what is?
From this silly video (Sorry Dave! I cannot keep from ridiculing it. It's is mind-numbing stupidity.)
1. The horizon always looks perfectly flat, 360 degrees around an observer, regardless of altitude.
FALSE: An observer above 35000 ft with a near cloudless field of view of 60 degrees or greater would be able to detect the curvature of the Earth. Further, since a sphere curves in all directions, the curvature of the earth can be detected even at sea level.
View attachment 25134
Distance of visibility d (vertical axis, in km), as a function of the elevation h of the observer above the sea level (horizontal axis, in m).
From just 3 m above the surface, you can see the horizon 6.2 km apart. If you are 30 m high, then you can see up to 20 km far away. This is one of the reasons why the ancient cultures knew that the Earth was curved, not flat. They just needed good eyes.
For further info go HERE.
2. The horizon always rises to the eye level of the observer as altitude is gained. If the Earth was a globe, the horizon would remain fixed and the observer would have to look down to see the horizon.
FALSE: Again from the site linked too above...
View attachment 25135
Angle of the horizon below the flat-Earth horizon (gamma, in degrees, on the vertical axis of this plot) as a function of the observer's elevation h above the surface (meters). Note that the apparent angular size of the Sun or the Moon is around 0.5 degrees.
So, at an altitude of only 290 m above the sea level you can already see 60 km far and the horizon will be lower than normal by the same angular size of the sun (half a degree). While normally we are no capable of feeling this small lowering of the horizon, there is a cheap telescopic device called levelmeter that allows you to point in the direction perpendicular to gravity, revealing how lowered is the horizon when you are only a few meters high.
3. (Paraphrasing) Since water seeks and finds consistently flat and level surface conditions, the Earth cannot be a globe that is spinning and wobbling around in space.
FALSE: This one has been answered at some length already in my previous posts. It's frankly too stupid to warrant my time but suffice it to say that liquids conform to the shape of their container with it's unbound surface, absent other forces acting upon it, will be perpendicular to the center of mass acting upon it. The surface of the oceans, therefore, are not "perfectly" flat (neglecting the waves which are caused primarily by wind and tidal forces), instead, the surface, at any point is tangentially perpendicular to the center of Earth's gravity. Carry on a tangential plane in three dimensions far enough and you get a sphere. See the above answers for proof that such curvature exists.
Ordinarily three strikes and your out but this fool, Eric Dubay has 200 swings at the bat in this video and they are all false. 200 strikes in a row.
Don't believe me?! Let's continue!....
4. (Paraphrasing) If the Earth was a sphere, water would have to ascend in order to flow toward the equator. The Mississippi River, for example, would have to ascend 11 miles on its journey towards the Gulf of Mexico.
:bang:
FALSE:
When acted upon, water flows in the direction of least resistance - period.
In this case we are talking about gravity acting on water. Water only flows down hill because the center of gravity is below the hill. On a sphere, the center of gravity is always below the surface regardless of which latitude the water is located at or which latitude the water is flowing toward.
5. "Proof" five is nothing at all but a repeat of "proof" 4, albeit slightly more detailed.
FALSE: River's flow up hill for short distances all the time. It isn't weird or even a mystery. Water only flows down hill as a rule of thumb. Water flows in the direction of least resistance. This is why you can point your garden hose up into the air and when the water comes out it doesn't just instantly fall straight down to the ground. The path of least resistance is up for a short while until its momentum in that direction is overcome by other forces such as gravity and friction.
6. This proof claims that large bodies of standing water do not have the 8 inch per mile curvature that one would expect on a globe that is 25000 miles in circumference.
FALSE: Once again, from the site linked too above...
View attachment 25136
A distant boat seen from 6 m (left) and from 22 m (right) above the sea surface. This boat was about 30 km apart. My pictures, taken with a 30x optical zoom camera.
The missing part of the boat in the left is just hidden by the quasi-spherical shape of the Earth. In fact, if you would know the size of the boat and its distance, we could infer the radius of the Earth.
Okay, that now six strikes in a row. That's two outs. Let's go ahead and finish out the inning....
7. (Paraphrasing) Survayers, engineers and architects are never required to factor the curvature of the Earth into their projects. Bridges, canals, etc are run for miles without any allowance for curvature.
FALSE: The Verrazano–Narrows Bridge in New York, for example, has two towers which are 1 5⁄8 inches farther apart at their tops than at their bases. The Humber Bridge in England the difference is 1.3 inches. This is engineered into the bridge specifically because of the curvature of the Earth and for no other reason. (This information took me about 45 seconds to find, by the way.)
Up to this point, I've been writing all these rebuttals myself but, while looking into number eight, I found a site that has already done the work for me. I'll allow "rubixwolfwright" to pitch the last two strikes...
The following is from Rebuttals and Refutations...
8. The Suez Canal connecting the Mediterranean with the Red Sea is 100 miles long without any locks making the water an uninterrupted continuation of the two seas. When constructed, the Earth’s supposed curvature was not taken into account, it was dug along a horizontal datum line 26 feet below sea-level, passing through several lakes from one sea to the other, with the datum line and water’s surface running perfectly parallel over the 100 miles.
FALSE: In surveying, the datum isn’t an actual “line” and there is nothing physically marking it. In this case, the datum is 26 feet below sea level and sea level is in the shape of the geoid. So, if you know the elevation of all points along your path, all you have to do is dig down however high above sea level it is and then dig 26 feet further so the water will always be 26 feet deep. This would work whether the Earth is flat or round.
9. Engineer, W. Winckler was published in the Earth Review regarding the Earth’s supposed curvature, stating, “As an engineer of many years standing, I saw that this absurd allowance is only permitted in school books. No engineer would dream of allowing anything of the kind. I have projected many miles of railways and many more of canals and the allowance has not even been thought of, much less allowed for. This allowance for curvature means this - that it is 8” for the first mile of a canal, and increasing at the ratio by the square of the distance in miles; thus a small navigable canal for boats, say 30 miles long, will have, by the above rule an allowance for curvature of 600 feet. Think of that and then please credit engineers as not being quite such fools. Nothing of the sort is allowed. We no more think of allowing 600 feet for a line of 30 miles of railway or canal, than of wasting our time trying to square the circle”
False:Firstly, I can neither find W. Winckler (I found a G.W. Winckler who worked as a railway engineer, but I only found him briefly in a court case in Canada regarding the employment of aliens which I assume refers to foreigners) nor any publication called the Earth Review anywhere and I only find it mentioned in flat Earth posts which never seem to include a works cited or reference section so there is no date of publication either. Another important piece of information that is missing is under what context he was published. Was the quote from a larger article? Did he write in in some sort of letter to the editor? The tone of his writing leads me to believe it is the latter in which case the actual validity of the statement is not supported by the fact that it was published. That is just speculation on my part so take it with a grain of salt, but it is a distinct possibility which should be considered if in fact the Earth Review is even a legitimate publication.
Now on to the quote itself, I’m not sure exactly what he means when he says they don’t allow for 600 feet in 30 miles. Particularly with railways, you have a certain landscape that you are working with and you build according to it, the radius of the Earth is large enough that on the surface, we can basically treat the ground as flat. I mean, just think about that number that always seems to come up: 8 inches in the first mile. That means that the ground drops by about the size of my hand over a whole mile which equals 63,360 inches! That is absolutely insignificant and that curvature stays relatively the same along the whole track if you disregard the landscape and the imperfect shape of the Earth. It wouldn’t affect the necessary length of track either since that is measured along the desired path so if the distance between 2 cities is 20 miles and you go straight along the surface without changing altitude, you will need 20 miles of track whether you are on a flat or round Earth since the 20 miles is measured relative to the surface. So I honestly do not know what he is talking about.
To bring this to a close, these first nine strikes continue for 200 straight strikes in a row. That would be enough strikes to have 66 consecutive perfectly pitched innings in baseball (with two extra strikes left over for good measure).
HOW DO YOU WRITE A BOOK WITH TWO HUNDRED REASONS FOR ANYTHING AND GET ALL TWO HUNDRED REASONS WRONG!
There are two ways this can happen.
1. Stupidity.
2. Intentional deception.
Dave, you're right about one thing. You definitely should be worried about being deceived.
Resting in Him,
Clete
1. The horizon always looks perfectly flat, 360 degrees around an observer, regardless of altitude.
FALSE: An observer above 35000 ft with a near cloudless field of view of 60 degrees or greater would be able to detect the curvature of the Earth. Further, since a sphere curves in all directions, the curvature of the earth can be detected even at sea level.
View attachment 25134
Distance of visibility d (vertical axis, in km), as a function of the elevation h of the observer above the sea level (horizontal axis, in m).
From just 3 m above the surface, you can see the horizon 6.2 km apart. If you are 30 m high, then you can see up to 20 km far away. This is one of the reasons why the ancient cultures knew that the Earth was curved, not flat. They just needed good eyes.
For further info go HERE.
2. The horizon always rises to the eye level of the observer as altitude is gained. If the Earth was a globe, the horizon would remain fixed and the observer would have to look down to see the horizon.
FALSE: Again from the site linked too above...
View attachment 25135
Angle of the horizon below the flat-Earth horizon (gamma, in degrees, on the vertical axis of this plot) as a function of the observer's elevation h above the surface (meters). Note that the apparent angular size of the Sun or the Moon is around 0.5 degrees.
So, at an altitude of only 290 m above the sea level you can already see 60 km far and the horizon will be lower than normal by the same angular size of the sun (half a degree). While normally we are no capable of feeling this small lowering of the horizon, there is a cheap telescopic device called levelmeter that allows you to point in the direction perpendicular to gravity, revealing how lowered is the horizon when you are only a few meters high.
3. (Paraphrasing) Since water seeks and finds consistently flat and level surface conditions, the Earth cannot be a globe that is spinning and wobbling around in space.
FALSE: This one has been answered at some length already in my previous posts. It's frankly too stupid to warrant my time but suffice it to say that liquids conform to the shape of their container with it's unbound surface, absent other forces acting upon it, will be perpendicular to the center of mass acting upon it. The surface of the oceans, therefore, are not "perfectly" flat (neglecting the waves which are caused primarily by wind and tidal forces), instead, the surface, at any point is tangentially perpendicular to the center of Earth's gravity. Carry on a tangential plane in three dimensions far enough and you get a sphere. See the above answers for proof that such curvature exists.
Ordinarily three strikes and your out but this fool, Eric Dubay has 200 swings at the bat in this video and they are all false. 200 strikes in a row.
Don't believe me?! Let's continue!....
4. (Paraphrasing) If the Earth was a sphere, water would have to ascend in order to flow toward the equator. The Mississippi River, for example, would have to ascend 11 miles on its journey towards the Gulf of Mexico.
:bang:
FALSE:
When acted upon, water flows in the direction of least resistance - period.
In this case we are talking about gravity acting on water. Water only flows down hill because the center of gravity is below the hill. On a sphere, the center of gravity is always below the surface regardless of which latitude the water is located at or which latitude the water is flowing toward.
5. "Proof" five is nothing at all but a repeat of "proof" 4, albeit slightly more detailed.
FALSE: River's flow up hill for short distances all the time. It isn't weird or even a mystery. Water only flows down hill as a rule of thumb. Water flows in the direction of least resistance. This is why you can point your garden hose up into the air and when the water comes out it doesn't just instantly fall straight down to the ground. The path of least resistance is up for a short while until its momentum in that direction is overcome by other forces such as gravity and friction.
6. This proof claims that large bodies of standing water do not have the 8 inch per mile curvature that one would expect on a globe that is 25000 miles in circumference.
FALSE: Once again, from the site linked too above...
View attachment 25136
A distant boat seen from 6 m (left) and from 22 m (right) above the sea surface. This boat was about 30 km apart. My pictures, taken with a 30x optical zoom camera.
The missing part of the boat in the left is just hidden by the quasi-spherical shape of the Earth. In fact, if you would know the size of the boat and its distance, we could infer the radius of the Earth.
Okay, that now six strikes in a row. That's two outs. Let's go ahead and finish out the inning....
7. (Paraphrasing) Survayers, engineers and architects are never required to factor the curvature of the Earth into their projects. Bridges, canals, etc are run for miles without any allowance for curvature.
FALSE: The Verrazano–Narrows Bridge in New York, for example, has two towers which are 1 5⁄8 inches farther apart at their tops than at their bases. The Humber Bridge in England the difference is 1.3 inches. This is engineered into the bridge specifically because of the curvature of the Earth and for no other reason. (This information took me about 45 seconds to find, by the way.)
Up to this point, I've been writing all these rebuttals myself but, while looking into number eight, I found a site that has already done the work for me. I'll allow "rubixwolfwright" to pitch the last two strikes...
The following is from Rebuttals and Refutations...
8. The Suez Canal connecting the Mediterranean with the Red Sea is 100 miles long without any locks making the water an uninterrupted continuation of the two seas. When constructed, the Earth’s supposed curvature was not taken into account, it was dug along a horizontal datum line 26 feet below sea-level, passing through several lakes from one sea to the other, with the datum line and water’s surface running perfectly parallel over the 100 miles.
FALSE: In surveying, the datum isn’t an actual “line” and there is nothing physically marking it. In this case, the datum is 26 feet below sea level and sea level is in the shape of the geoid. So, if you know the elevation of all points along your path, all you have to do is dig down however high above sea level it is and then dig 26 feet further so the water will always be 26 feet deep. This would work whether the Earth is flat or round.
9. Engineer, W. Winckler was published in the Earth Review regarding the Earth’s supposed curvature, stating, “As an engineer of many years standing, I saw that this absurd allowance is only permitted in school books. No engineer would dream of allowing anything of the kind. I have projected many miles of railways and many more of canals and the allowance has not even been thought of, much less allowed for. This allowance for curvature means this - that it is 8” for the first mile of a canal, and increasing at the ratio by the square of the distance in miles; thus a small navigable canal for boats, say 30 miles long, will have, by the above rule an allowance for curvature of 600 feet. Think of that and then please credit engineers as not being quite such fools. Nothing of the sort is allowed. We no more think of allowing 600 feet for a line of 30 miles of railway or canal, than of wasting our time trying to square the circle”
False:Firstly, I can neither find W. Winckler (I found a G.W. Winckler who worked as a railway engineer, but I only found him briefly in a court case in Canada regarding the employment of aliens which I assume refers to foreigners) nor any publication called the Earth Review anywhere and I only find it mentioned in flat Earth posts which never seem to include a works cited or reference section so there is no date of publication either. Another important piece of information that is missing is under what context he was published. Was the quote from a larger article? Did he write in in some sort of letter to the editor? The tone of his writing leads me to believe it is the latter in which case the actual validity of the statement is not supported by the fact that it was published. That is just speculation on my part so take it with a grain of salt, but it is a distinct possibility which should be considered if in fact the Earth Review is even a legitimate publication.
Now on to the quote itself, I’m not sure exactly what he means when he says they don’t allow for 600 feet in 30 miles. Particularly with railways, you have a certain landscape that you are working with and you build according to it, the radius of the Earth is large enough that on the surface, we can basically treat the ground as flat. I mean, just think about that number that always seems to come up: 8 inches in the first mile. That means that the ground drops by about the size of my hand over a whole mile which equals 63,360 inches! That is absolutely insignificant and that curvature stays relatively the same along the whole track if you disregard the landscape and the imperfect shape of the Earth. It wouldn’t affect the necessary length of track either since that is measured along the desired path so if the distance between 2 cities is 20 miles and you go straight along the surface without changing altitude, you will need 20 miles of track whether you are on a flat or round Earth since the 20 miles is measured relative to the surface. So I honestly do not know what he is talking about.
To bring this to a close, these first nine strikes continue for 200 straight strikes in a row. That would be enough strikes to have 66 consecutive perfectly pitched innings in baseball (with two extra strikes left over for good measure).
HOW DO YOU WRITE A BOOK WITH TWO HUNDRED REASONS FOR ANYTHING AND GET ALL TWO HUNDRED REASONS WRONG!
There are two ways this can happen.
1. Stupidity.
2. Intentional deception.
Dave, you're right about one thing. You definitely should be worried about being deceived.
Resting in Him,
Clete
You "can" see and feel the movement of a river.
You "cannot" see or feel the movement of the atmosphere.
Does gravity "hold" the atmosphere or does gravity "move" the atmosphere?
Does gravity "hold" the clouds, birds, planes, etc. or does gravity "move" everything that is contained in the atmosphere?
You can't have gravity hold and move the atmosphere with out it also holding and moving every thing in the atmosphere as well.
If gravity merely "holds" the atmosphere and does not move it then we would see the earth moving with in it. If gravity "moves" the atmosphere with it then gravity also "moves" everything in it. The idea that gravity moves us and everything around us is absurd.
You can see things; clouds, birds, planes, sun, moon, stars, etc. move across the sky, but you never see or experience the earth or atmosphere moving below or around you.
All empirical evidence supports a stationary earth. In order to believe in a spinning ball flying through space we have to set aside our senses, close our eyes and use our imagination.
--Dave
Monkey business!! 
K: Dave begging Clete to watch the video turned out to be like Gary Hart begging the press to follow him around to prove he wasn't fooling around with Donna Rice.
K: Dave begging Clete to watch the video turned out to be like Gary Hart begging the press to follow him around to prove he wasn't fooling around with Donna Rice.
Like Helen Keller with rainbows?
lain:
Why do you always bite off more than I can chew?
I am making the case for the flat stationary earth I am not committing my eternal destiny to it. I'm making this a genuine debate. The only person who cannot truly be deceived is one who knows "both" sides of an argument. I appreciate your concern for my reputation, but Lighten up!!!
We can only proceed one step at a time. You, and every one else, wanted me to make an argument instead of asking you to watch videos, so now I'm doing that. The video you watched raises a number of issues that I think are good for any one interested in the subject of cosmology to consider. I never said that all the arguments for flat earth were right and all the arguments for spinning globe were wrong. I said I will advocate for the former not the later. I'm enjoying this. I hope everyone else will as well.
--Dave
Monkey business!!
How times have changed, what destroys your reputation one day makes you a celebrity the next. :cheers:
--Dave
Of course, you can!
It's called wind and weather and atmospheric pressure. You live in an ocean of air.
The former.
It holds it, Dave!
Clouds are floating on more dense air beneath them. Bird and planes move through the atmosphere in such a way as to create lift which opposes the pull of gravity and allows flight.
Gravity only moves it in that the more dense things sink relative to the less dense things but these movements affect everything within the system. Planes fly around strong storms for a reason. Water vapor is forced up into storm clouds by the wind and creates rain or hail or snow or whatever. So when the wind blows it pushes things around. I'm from Moore, Oklahoma, I know all about it.
Gravity is holding everything on the Earth, on the Earth. It's no more absurd than the is the fact that your car doesn't leave it's paint behind when you drive down the street. The mechanism that holds the paint to your car is different but the principle is identical.
That's because you are moving with it.
When you drive your car, do you have to do something special to keep the steering wheel within reach?
If you were in a vehicle that was moving at a nearly perfectly constant speed you couldn't detect the motion unless you looked outside the vehicle.
Guess what? When you look outside the Earth (i.e. at the Solar System) and you do so very carefully, as Copernicus did, you can figure out that we are traveling in an elliptical orbit around the Sun and that the Sun is traveling in an elliptical orbit around the center of the Milky Way Galaxy and that the Milky Way Galaxy is traveling through intergalactic space and that it all adds up to be somewhere in the neighborhood of 1.3 million mph. Any changes of direction (i.e. around the orbit of the Sun, for example) are so gradual and slight in comparison to the overall speed and direction of the system that they are undetectable by our human senses. Which only makes sense since God created us to live in that system.
This is simply not true, David! What are we using when we use telescopes if not our sense of sight?
The observations made by people like Newton, Copernicus and Galileo are not secret. You can go get even the cheapest piece of crap telescope you can find at Walmart and have a finer instrument to work with than any of these men had in their day. You can see the rings of Saturn with your own eyes. You can study the moons of Jupiter with your own eyes. You can study the motions of the Sun with your own camera and take down your own data and do all the math yourself. This is a fundamental aspect of science. If it isn't repeatable, it isn't science. If you don't believe the science do it yourself! It isn't excessively complicated to do and can be rather fun actually. There are clubs all over the place that do this sort of work.
Resting in Him,
Clete
It is said, the atmosphere in your car is not moving, the car is and the atmosphere moves with it.
It is believed, the atmosphere of the earth is not moving, the earth is moving and the atmosphere moves with it like being in a car, which is why we don't see or experience the earth moving.
But, wind is not evidence of an atmosphere that is moving with the spinning earth, wind is movement of air over a stationary earth. It is evidence of an earth that is not moving. I feel the wind because it moves over an earth that is not moving.
I'm really enjoying this. :banana:
--Dave
Last edited:
Motion is only meaningful relative to other objects. The air is NOT moving relative to the car. The air IS moving with the car relative to the road.
No, that isn't it. It doesn't matter whether the air even exists. If we happened to be creatures that lived on a planet with no atmosphere or if we travel to a planet OR MOON with no atmosphere, we'd enjoy the same lack of appearant motion that we experience now.
So if you're in the back seat of a car with your little brother and you blow in his face, does the fact that his hair moves prove that the car is stationary?
You're freaking me out a little but otherwise, it's as good a discussion as I've had on TOL in months! :up:
Resting in Him,
Clete
Okay.
I keep forgeting about the "Devil's advocate" aspect of your position.
Okay, I can live with that. Except that I wasn't kidding, he's got 200 reasons that are all wrong. What I posted with just the first nine reasons I literally could do with every single reason he gives. If you can think of a specific one or two that you feel are a lot less flimsy than the rest, by all means, point them out and I'll address them directly.
Resting in Him,
Clete
If I blow in his face it means my breath is moving and he is stationary in relation/relative to it.
If the the wind moves over the face of the earth it means the air/atmosphere is moving and the earth is stationary in relation/relative to it.
Which contradicts that the atmosphere/air moves with the moving earth.
"You're freaking me out a little but otherwise, it's as good a discussion as I've had on TOL in months!" :cheers:
--Dave
- Status