The earth is flat and we never went to the moon

Status
Not open for further replies.
User Name

User Name

Greatest poster ever
Banned
themuzicman said:
How did the plane travel 16,000 miles without stopping for fuel at 1100 MPH? It can't be done. There isn't a plane in existence than can do that.
Click to expand...

Right. This is just one of the countless reasons why the idea of a flat earth is nonsense and DFT Dave is a troll:

 
Last edited:
Clete

Clete

Truth Smacker
Silver Subscriber
gcthomas said:
Here is how the book presents itself:
It is the most complete reference work I have encountered on the scientific aspects of the multifaceted subject of origins. At the same time it presents a comprehensive theoretical framework (his hydroplate theory) for reconciling the many seemingly unrelated, and sometimes apparently contradictory, facts that bear on these questions.



It isn't underselling itself - it claims to be a scientific theoretical framework to match and better the actual science.
Click to expand...
I've read the entire book more than once. I know what it says and what it claims to be and you have no basis whatsoever for calling it "incompitent".

In previous threads I have tackled misrepresentations on the distribution of radioactivity in the Earth, the hopelessly naïve treatment of the recession of the Moon's orbit, the thermodynamic nonsense that is his explanation of the acceleration of the fountains of the deep to escape velocities, Brown's misunderstanding of nuclear physics regarding radioactivity, and the fact that Brown has claimed that his prediction of pooled water under mountain ranges has been confirmed (either a lie or a humorously incompetent misunderstanding of the actual science), as well as others that I cannot currently recall.

I don't feel the need to start a new thread specifically for the purpose when I am happy to tackle such scientific illiteracy as and when it arises. Walt Brown is a charlatan or a self-infatuated fool. My guess is the former.
Click to expand...

I couldn't care less what you've done on other threads. I will not permit you to highjack this thread. Start a new thread or drop it. In either case, you've found a home on my ignore list. It took you all of two posts! Way to go! :dunce:

Clete
 
DFT_Dave

DFT_Dave

LIFETIME MEMBER
LIFETIME MEMBER
JudgeRightly said:
http://biblehub.com/hebrew/7549.htm

Relevant passage of Genesis:

*Thus God made the firmament, and divided the waters which were under the firmament from the waters which were above the firmament; and it was so. *And God called the firmament Heaven. So the evening and the morning were the second day.*Then God said, “Let the waters under the heavens be gathered together into one place, and let the dry land appear”; and it was so. . . . Then God said, “Let there be lights in the firmament of the heavens to divide the day from the night; and let them be for signs and seasons, and for days and years; *and let them be for lights in the firmament of the heavens to give light on the earth”; and it was so. *Then God made two great lights: the greater light to rule the day, and the lesser light to rule the night. He made the stars also. *God set them in the firmament of the heavens to give light on the earth, - Genesis 1:7-9,14-17 http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Genesis1:7-9,14-17&version=NKJV

"Thus God made the firmament, and divided the waters which were under the firmament with the waters which were above the firmament; and it was so."

This verse is not talking about the atmosphere. it's talking about the oceans we see every day (the waters above the firmament) and the subterranean chambers of water that were created by God in case He needed to start over with humanity.

"And God called the firmament Heaven."

Once again, the verse is not talking about the sky. "Heaven" was the entire earth. God created a perfect world, so there was no need for another Heaven elsewhere, like we imagine heaven would be today. No, the word "Heaven" here is a specific place, it does not mean the sky.

"“Let the waters under the heavens be gathered together into one place, and let the dry land appear”; and it was so."

God is pulling the waters to one section of the planet, and in doing so, creating a supercontinent. Pangea is what both scular and Christian scientists call it, however, the Christian scientists have a more accurate model of it, as explained in Dr. Walt Brown's Hydroplate Theory.

"Then God said, “Let there be lights in the firmament of the heavens to divide the day from the night; and let them be for signs and seasons, and for days and years; *and let them be for lights in the firmament of the heavens to give light on the earth”; and it was so."

This verse IS talking about the sky. "Firmament of the heavens" is not "firmament" or "Heaven" God placed the stars in the night sky, and did it in such a way as to tell a story, where each "season" is a different part of the story, each constellation a sign.

"Then God made two great lights: the greater light to rule the day, and the lesser light to rule the night. He made the stars also. *God set them in the firmament of the heavens to give light on the earth,"

God created the sun and the moon on this day, the sun being brighter than the moon, the sun to rule the day, and the moon to rule the night. And again, we see "firmament of the heavens." The fact that there's a differentiation between "firmament" and "firmament of the heavens" should tell you that they are not talking about the same thing.

Sent from my Pixel XL using TheologyOnline mobile app
Click to expand...

I find this very interesting. It will require some exegetical work for me to understand this better. Words can have more than one meaning so how it is used in a sentence is syntax and how it is used within the context must be consistent.

I can't comment at the moment but I like your post and I want to explore this.

--Dave
 
DFT_Dave

DFT_Dave

LIFETIME MEMBER
LIFETIME MEMBER
gcthomas said:
Falling star is a synonym for shooting star. And the photo would look less suspect to you if you had any interest in actually going out and observing the world as it is. The meteoroids appear to radiate from a point due to perspective effects, like what you see as you drive in snow. The photo looks just like what I saw in August last year ~I saw fifty meteors radiating away from a point just as shown (but one at a time - the photo is a time exposure of several minutes). Go out in the nights of August 11-13 and see for yourself. http://earthsky.org/?p=165416#when
Click to expand...

Falling or shooting, in what ever direction, stars is a weak argument for me that lacks support for either flat or globe earth.

--Dave
 
DFT_Dave

DFT_Dave

LIFETIME MEMBER
LIFETIME MEMBER
Clete said:
The guy is trying to convince of something, Dave! You don't have to take anyone's word for it. Listen to it!

If he had just stuck with that first video, it would be a harder case to make because that's the one that would be the most convincing. But then he'd have a problem because there are all kinds of reasons one video might sound a particular way. He understood this intuitively and so offered example after example of space shuttles making jet engine noises.
But he puts those well into the video. And I think he does so on purpose. First of all, lots of people won't make it that far into the video and they've already seen his best evidence video. Secondly, he's spent that last several minutes building the notion into your mind and relies on confirmation bias to do the rest of the argument for him.
But for those of us who understand how to think critically, it doesn't work - or shouldn't. Just as we all know the Joseph A. Bank doesn't actually give away two shirts for every one you pay full price for, we should all be able to tell that this guy is a flim-flam artist.

Look, just listen to the video again. Skip to the part where he shows one shuttle landing after another and simply try to match up what is shown in the video with what you'd expect to hear if the jet engine was on that shuttle. It doesn't even work on the last one, which is a reshowing of the one he shows at the beginning of the video. If the jet engines were on that shuttle, it ought to be loud as hell and back again when those engines are directly facing the camera but they're no louder at all!
Click to expand...

This is one example that, I agree, may be faked, I don't know for sure. It's not a reason, in itself, to believe NASA is a fake space agency. But it is possible that he is exactly right. The shuttle "looks" like a jet, more than a glider and that it always lands with jets along side of it, that can't do anything to help it land, is suspect.

--Dave
 
DFT_Dave

DFT_Dave

LIFETIME MEMBER
LIFETIME MEMBER
Clete said:
I've taken similar photos with my own camera. It was years ago and the photos are on film (slides actually) and I don't even know where they are now so I can't post them here or else I would.

Remember, multiple independent source confirmation. Look it up. Look it up in several places. Look on the internet. Find ANY astronomy textbook. Call ANY local astronomy club. Ask anyone anywhere that has studied astronomy for longer than one week and you'll get the exact same information. Then take your own camera and look up the date of the next meteor shower and do the long exposure photo on your own equipment. If you stick around while the exposure is being made, you'll see for yourself that they go in all directions, just exactly as the lady in that video stated should happen if the Earth was a globe moving through space.
Click to expand...

As I said, this is not a good argument for either view, in my opinion.

--Dave
 
DFT_Dave

DFT_Dave

LIFETIME MEMBER
LIFETIME MEMBER
gcthomas said:
The guy in the video has obviously never seen a hang-glider if he thinks that the Shuttle's wings are too short for gliding flight. Hasn't he ever made a paper dart and thrown it across the room? What shape are those wings?
Click to expand...

As I have said, this is not proof of NASA faking space exploration in itself. It's one of many examples of something that could easily be faked.

--Dave
 
DFT_Dave

DFT_Dave

LIFETIME MEMBER
LIFETIME MEMBER
CabinetMaker said:
The engines are the main engines used only during lift off. That big brown tank on the belly of the shuttle is the fuel tank for those engines, once that tank is jettisoned, there is no more fuel for those engines and they do not operate again for the remainder of the mission.

The reentry speed of the shuttle is considerably greater than that of a glider. It is traveling at several times the speed of sound. Typical cal glider style wings would be ripped off at those speeds. The shuttle wings are designed to withstand the heat and forces of reentry, not sustained flight. Which means the shuttle gets one chance to land, it does not have the ability (i.e. the fuel and engines) to pull up and go around again.

Here is a nice article about the space shuttle that describes how it functions as a glider during landing. Have a look.
https://www.grc.nasa.gov/www/k-12/airplane/glidshuttle.html
Click to expand...

As I said, this could easily be faked.

--Dave
 
DFT_Dave

DFT_Dave

LIFETIME MEMBER
LIFETIME MEMBER
themuzicman said:
How did the plane travel 16,000 miles without stopping for fuel at 1100 MPH? It can't be done. There isn't a plane in existence than can do that.

So, you have yet to explain this simple problem, which this video demonstrates, BTW, as they accomplished half the flight or so in about 5 hours/

And you have to consider that compass works by magnetic poles. If a compass is close to a magnetic source (like, say, the electrical system in the plane itself), it will produce a false reading.
Click to expand...

This interview is not the whole story about his flight, just one aspect of it. There are other videos about distance and direction of flights that I have posted and will do so again.

--Dave
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top