The earth is flat and we never went to the moon

[Clete]

I talk about oceans and rivers and you all answer with capillaries, siphons, and toilets as if that disproves that oceans are flat and level and water does not travel uphill. And you think that flat earth people are crazy.

--Dave

Well, a lot of them really are crazy but that certainly isn't the point I was trying to make.

Everyone knows that, generally speaking, rivers flow downhill. Everyone also knows that rivers occasionally encounter a section along their path that is somewhat uphill and that it flows over it anyway because, even though it is uphill, it is the path of least resistance. This can happen when the river bank is high and the flow has sufficient energy. The river's own kinetic energy forces the water up and over rather than around.

Further, Earth's gravity isn't the only force involved. There are tidal forces as well (i.e. the gravity of the Sun and Moon). Tidal forces cause large bodies of water to flow uphill every single day, twice a day. Anyone who lives near the coast of any large body of water will tell you that tributaries flow in one direction and then in the opposite direction, twice a day, every single day, day in and day out. Water very simply does not always flow downhill. It flows in the direction of least resistance - period.

 

[Clete]

Remember we are talking about what keeps oceans from being "level" not what keeps boats from sinking.

I brought up why boats float because you brought up density and buoyancy.

A buoy float, not because of the density of the stuff it's made of but because it displaces a sufficient weight of water. There is NO buoyancy without gravity. You were accepting the concept of buoyancy while rejecting the concept of gravity upon which it is rational predicated. That's a classic example of a stolen concept fallacy.

Water seeks it's own level and never runs uphill, in any and every testable visual way. Tidal waves, toilets, siphons, and capillaries are not oceans or rivers, etc. they do not negate the law of nature and visual confirmation.

Well, Dave all I can say to this is that if you get to summarily dismiss every counter example that exists in opposition to your thesis then there's no way to disprove it.

Water flows in the direction of least resistance. That's why the tide comes in and then goes back out again. It's also why you can flush your toilet and drink from a straw. The scale is irrelevant.

All movement is in contrast to things that don't move. 60 miles an hour is in relation to a stationary earth. The earth does not move as seen from earth and plane.

--Dave

60 miles per hour generally refers to something moving "in relation to" (i.e. relative to) the ground but it certainly doesn't have to mean that. If traffic on a highway is flowing in both directions then a car going north at 60mph relative to the ground is going at 120mph relative to another car that is going south at 60mph relative to the ground. In fact, the only way either car has of knowing that the other isn't stationary is because of the larger frame of reference (i.e. the ground).

 

[DFT_Dave]

Well, a lot of them really are crazy but that certainly isn't the point I was trying to make.

Everyone knows that, generally speaking, rivers flow downhill. Everyone also knows that rivers occasionally encounter a section along their path that is somewhat uphill and that it flows over it anyway because, even though it is uphill, it is the path of least resistance. This can happen when the river bank is high and the flow has sufficient energy. The river's own kinetic energy forces the water up and over rather than around.

Further, Earth's gravity isn't the only force involved. There are tidal forces as well (i.e. the gravity of the Sun and Moon). Tidal forces cause large bodies of water to flow uphill every single day, twice a day. Anyone who lives near the coast of any large body of water will tell you that tributaries flow in one direction and then in the opposite direction, twice a day, every single day, day in and day out. Water very simply does not always flow downhill. It flows in the direction of least resistance - period.

If you know of any river that flows uphill give me the name of it.

If you can't then I suggest you stop looking foolish by saying, "Water very simply does not always flow downhill" as if that counters my argument.

But, just as oceans are curved and not level, there is no up or down on a globed earth anyway!

Another relativity absurdity.

--Dave

 

[JudgeRightly]

If you know of any river that flows uphill give me the name of it.

If you can't then I suggest you stop looking foolish by saying, "Water very simply does not always flow downhill" as if that counters my argument.

Just as oceans are curved and not level, there is no up or down on a globed earth!

Another relativity absurdity.

--Dave

The Mississippi Flows uphill. It's source is closer to the center of the earth than it's mouth. The only way it flows uphill is from centrifugal force.
http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/209805/rivers-that-flow-uphill-due-to-earths-rotation

Sent from my Pixel XL using TheologyOnline mobile app

 

[DFT_Dave]

The Mississippi Flows uphill. It's source is closer to the center of the earth than it's mouth. The only way it flows uphill is from centrifugal force.
http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/209805/rivers-that-flow-uphill-due-to-earths-rotation

Sent from my Pixel XL using TheologyOnline mobile app

The Mississippi runs one way only, from a higher to a lower elevation and down to sea level.

"The Mississippi River is the second-longest river in the United States; the longest is the Missouri River, which flows into the Mississippi. Taken together, they form the largest river system in North America. If measured from the head of the Missouri, the length of the Missouri/Mississippi combination is approximately 3,895 miles (6,270 km) long."

"With its source Lake Itasca at 1475 feet (450 m) above sea level in Itasca State Park in northern Minnesota, the river falls to 725 feet (220 m) just below Saint Anthony Falls in Minneapolis. The Mississippi is joined by the Illinois River and the Missouri River at Saint Louis, and by the Ohio at Cairo, Illinois. The Arkansas River joins the Mississippi in the state of Arkansas. The Atchafalaya River in Louisiana is a major distributary of the Mississippi." --Link

View attachment 25330 View attachment 25331

But if you consider a curvature of the earth then you have to say absurd things like, "The Mississippi Flows uphill". But then again there is no actual uphill or downhill on a globe earth.

--Dave

 

[JudgeRightly]

The Mississippi runs one way only, from a higher to a lower elevation and down to sea level.

Wrong. While it does run (in relation to sea level ONLY) 'downhill,' from an elevation of 450m to 0m above sea level, it does actually go uphill, in relation to the entire earth. I give the reason why below.

"The Mississippi River is the second-longest river in the United States; the longest is the Missouri River, which flows into the Mississippi. Taken together, they form the largest river system in North America. If measured from the head of the Missouri, the length of the Missouri/Mississippi combination is approximately 3,895 miles (6,270 km) long."

"With its source Lake Itasca at 1475 feet (450 m) above sea level in Itasca State Park in northern Minnesota, the river falls to 725 feet (220 m) just below Saint Anthony Falls in Minneapolis. The Mississippi is joined by the Illinois River and the Missouri River at Saint Louis, and by the Ohio at Cairo, Illinois. The Arkansas River joins the Mississippi in the state of Arkansas. The Atchafalaya River in Louisiana is a major distributary of the Mississippi." --Link

View attachment 25330 View attachment 25331

Notice how they only say "above sea level"? Well, here's the shocker:

Dave, sea level at the Equator is 21.36 km (yes, kilometers, my fingers didn't slip when typing this) above sea level at the poles. This is why we say it flows "uphill," not because of it's change in elevation in relation to sea level.

But if you consider a curvature of the earth then you have to say absurd things like, "The Mississippi Flows uphill". But then again there is no actual uphill or downhill on a globe earth.

--Dave

So small hills and mountains don't exist on a globe earth? I'm literally parked on one right now. What, do my eyes have fisheye lenses? :deadhorse:

Your statement, apart from being completely wrong and ridiculous, does not reflect reality (for the reason given above). Tell me dave, does a difference in elevation from the center (which is basically the radius) of the earth of 21.36km make very much difference on a sphere of which the diameter of the earth is 12,742km, and circumference at the equator is 40,075km? If you answer yes, you're dumber

Dave, your arguments fall flat when looking at empirical data of our earth, which clearly shows that the earth is a sphere, not a flat plane.

Sent from my Pixel XL using TheologyOnline mobile app

 

[DFT_Dave]

Wrong. While it does run (in relation to sea level ONLY) 'downhill,' from an elevation of 450m to 0m above sea level, it does actually go uphill, in relation to the entire earth. I give the reason why below.

Notice how they only say "above sea level"? Well, here's the shocker:

Dave, sea level at the Equator is 21.36 km (yes, kilometers, my fingers didn't slip when typing this) above sea level at the poles. This is why we say it flows "uphill," not because of it's change in elevation in relation to sea level.

So small hills and mountains don't exist on a globe earth? I'm literally parked on one right now. What, do my eyes have fisheye lenses? :deadhorse:

Your statement, apart from being completely wrong and ridiculous, does not reflect reality (for the reason given above). Tell me dave, does a difference in elevation from the center (which is basically the radius) of the earth of 21.36km make very much difference on a sphere of which the diameter of the earth is 12,742km, and circumference at the equator is 40,075km? If you answer yes, you're dumber

Dave, your arguments fall flat when looking at empirical data of our earth, which clearly shows that the earth is a sphere, not a flat plane.

Sent from my Pixel XL using TheologyOnline mobile app

There's no uphill or downhill in terms of distance.

There is no sea "level" on a globe. All land--continents, and oceans are curved on a ball.

Empirical evidence is sense perception which includes visual observation. We experience an earth that is flat and stationary with flat/straight horizons and oceans that are at the same level.

A globe is a theoretical construct that contradicts our sense perception.

What truck do you drive?

--Dave

 

[jamie]

Dave, your truck looks like a Freightliner.

 

[JudgeRightly]

Dave, your truck looks like a Freightliner.

It's my truck, not Dave's lol.

It's an International Navistar (or Prostar+)

Sent from my Pixel XL using TheologyOnline mobile app

 

[DFT_Dave]

It's my truck, not Dave's lol.

It's an International Navistar (or Prostar+)

Sent from my Pixel XL using TheologyOnline mobile app

What do you go by on your CB? Give shout-out for me to all Flat Earthers on road.

View attachment 25334

--Dave

 

[JudgeRightly]

There's no uphill or downhill in terms of distance.

Not sure what you're saying here.... could you clarify?

There is no sea "level" on a globe. All land--continents, and oceans are curved on a ball.

Wrong yet again.

Distance from the center of the earth to the surface of the oceans/seas is sea level. "A horizontal plane (the ocean surface) or line with respect to the distance above or below a given point (the center of the earth)."

Empirical evidence is sense perception which includes visual observation.

Again, wrong.

We experience an earth that is flat and stationary with flat/straight horizons and oceans that are at the same level.

Did you not read what I posted? I said that the equator is 21.36km higher than both poles.

If that were shown accurately on a flat earth model, that means there would be a slight bulge in a circle around the equator, and there wouldn't be any water there, as the deepest point in the ocean is in the mariana trench, which is nearly 11km. So there would be a hill forming a ring going around the earth at least 10km tall and there would be no water on it.

A globe is a theoretical construct that contradicts our sense perception.

Except it isn't, and it doesn't, a flat earth is, and does.

Saying it doesn't make it true, Dave.

What truck do you drive?

--Dave

See above.

Sent from my Pixel XL using TheologyOnline mobile app

 

[JudgeRightly]

What do you go by on your CB? Give shout-out for me to all Flat Earthers on road.

How about no.

View attachment 25334

--Dave

I actually don't like this truck. Give me a Kenworth any day.

Sent from my Pixel XL using TheologyOnline mobile app

 

[DFT_Dave]

Not sure what you're saying here.... could you clarify?

Wrong yet again.

Distance from the center of the earth to the surface of the oceans/seas is sea level. "A horizontal plane (the ocean surface) or line with respect to the distance above or below a given point (the center of the earth)."

Again, wrong.

Did you not read what I posted? I said that the equator is 21.36km higher than both poles.

If that were shown accurately on a flat earth model, that means there would be a slight bulge in a circle around the equator, and there wouldn't be any water there, as the deepest point in the ocean is in the mariana trench, which is nearly 11km. So there would be a hill forming a ring going around the earth at least 10km tall and there would be no water on it.

Except it isn't, and it doesn't, a flat earth is, and does.

Saying it doesn't make it true, Dave.

See above.

Sent from my Pixel XL using TheologyOnline mobile app

You certainly don't understand the flat earth model nor do you comprehend the logical implications of a globe.

You cannot have a river that flows up and down at the same time in the same place, it's what we call a contradiction and that's what a globe gives you.

--Dave

 

[DFT_Dave]

From your picture we can see the ground, though flat, rises to your eye level just about where the yellow truck is in front of you. How far away would you say it is from you?

Now see the white car just in front of the yellow truck but further away. How far away do you think it is?

How far into the distance can you see? Does a car that seems to be on level ground disappear from you view because of the curvature of the earth or because it just gets to far away and too small for you to see it?

Do you have a telephoto lens on your camera? Test flat vs globe for yourself. Show us the results.

--Dave

 

[patrick jane]

The earth and moons and planets are round - shown by eclipses. However, we did not send men to the moon, only probes and unmanned vehicles. The Van Ryan Belt is all the proof needed. Nobody else has sent "people" to the moon either. This will be proven further by seeing somebody figure out how to get through the radiation belt and all that it entails. Keep dreaming if you think we went

 

[JudgeRightly]

You certainly don't understand the flat earth model nor do you comprehend the logical implications of a globe.

You cannot have a river that flows up and down at the same time in the same place, it's what we call a contradiction and that's what a globe gives you.

--Dave

You're not comprehending what I'm saying. I'm saying that while, relative to "sea level", the river is indeed flowing downhill, but relative to the center of the earth (the earth's core), the river is flowing uphill, as the equator is "higher" (read "farther away from the center of the earth") than the poles are.

There's no contradiction.

Diameter at the poles is less than diameter at the equator.

Direction of flow is from right to left, north to south, yet still uphill.

Sent from my Pixel XL using TheologyOnline mobile app

 

[jamie]

It's my truck, not Dave's lol.

It's an International Navistar (or Prostar+)

Yeah, I didn't mean Dave, I just had his name on my mind.

 

[JudgeRightly]

From your picture we can see the ground, though flat, rises to your eye level just about where the yellow truck is in front of you. How far away would you say it is from you?

My truck was parked on a hill, with the nose pointing towards the sky. The parking lot dips towards the back. The only reason the horizon rises up to "eye level" is because I'm in a small valley. The terrain is nowhere near flat.

Now see the white car just in front of the yellow truck but further away. How far away do you think it is?

How far into the distance can you see? Does a car that seems to be on level ground disappear from you view because of the curvature of the earth or because it just gets to far away and too small for you to see it?

Completely irrelevant, as I'm in a valley and the terrain is not flat enough. One cannot see the horizon in my photo because it is blocked by a hill. You cannot use my photo to argue a flat earth. My photo was intended to show you that hills do indeed exist.

Do you have a telephoto lens on your camera? Test flat vs globe for yourself. Show us the results.

--Dave

I took that photo with my phone (Google Pixel XL) camera.

Sent from my Pixel XL using TheologyOnline mobile app

 

[JudgeRightly]

The earth and moons and planets are round - shown by eclipses. However, we did not send men to the moon, only probes and unmanned vehicles. The Van Ryan Belt is all the proof needed. Nobody else has sent "people" to the moon either. This will be proven further by seeing somebody figure out how to get through the radiation belt and all that it entails. Keep dreaming if you think we went

*facepalm* I'll respond to you in a bit.

Sent from my Pixel XL using TheologyOnline mobile app

 

[JudgeRightly]

You're not comprehending what I'm saying. I'm saying that while, relative to "sea level", the river is indeed flowing downhill, but relative to the center of the earth (the earth's core), the river is flowing uphill, as the equator is "higher" (read "farther away from the center of the earth") than the poles are.

There's no contradiction.

Diameter at the poles is less than diameter at the equator.

Direction of flow is from right to left, north to south, yet still uphill.

Sent from my Pixel XL using TheologyOnline mobile app

By the way, Dave, the circle I drew? It's not a perfect circle. Its slightly flattened

Sent from my Pixel XL using TheologyOnline mobile app