The earth is flat and we never went to the moon

[DFT_Dave]

They absolutely do make such corrections.

In the case of fighters or other high-tech aircraft, the corrections are made by the plane itself. The altitude (in almost all cases) is controlled by the altimeter which does not measure the distance from the ground but rather, is based on atmospheric pressure or GPS. It is measuring the elevation of the aircraft above mean sea level. Depending on the plane, the pilot either has to manually dial in the elevation of ground level above sea level before he takes off or the electronics do this for him based on GPS data. After that, it's just a matter of keeping the right number showing on the altimeter. It's an adjustment that is CONSTANTLY being corrected for. Not only is the Earth curving away from you but the wind is blowing and shifting directions and intensity. It's a very dynamic thing. If you've ever flown in a plane that felt very stable, it was being flown by computer and probably at very high altitude where there's a lot less turbulence and a lot less air for that matter.

Clete

Planes can fly with out computer control, you did know that right?

There is instrument flying and visual flying. Pilots control airplanes and they determine adjustments. Auto pilot can be turned on and off. This is not debatable.

--Dave

 

[Nick M]

Planes can fly with out computer control, you did know that right?

There is instrument flying and visual flying. Pilots control airplanes and they determine adjustments. Auto pilot can be turned on and off. This is not debatable.

--Dave

And you know a bunch of those small planes crash, right?

Not really relevant, just saying....And cars can have altimeters too.

 

[DFT_Dave]

This is actually a somewhat of a critical point that should be addressed.

Your claim here isn't true. The flat Earth and Earth-centered models do not come anywhere close to accounting for everything that the Helio Centric model does. NOT EVEN REMOTELY CLOSE!


In fact, it was precisely the inconsistencies inherent in the Earth-Centered model that Kepler kept poking at until he finally cracked it and figured out the Law of Orbits. And to a large degree, it was some imperfections in Newton's ideas about gravity that lead Einstein to his theory of General Relativity, which we know is at least mostly correct because it not only explains but actually predicts such oddities as the orbit of the planet Mercury, for example.

Note the importance of that last point, Dave. If the orbit of Mercury AROUND THE SUN were different than it is, Einstein's math wouldn't work and his theory would be falsified! How much independent and even unexpected confirmation of something do you have to have before you accept it?

You would do well by simply reading a simple, straight forward (i.e. non-mathematical) history of modern science. The progression of one idea to another, from one great thinker to another (mostly all Christians - by the way), is quite logical and easy to follow.

Clete

The three historic cosmologies accurately account for the same calendar, the same location in the sky of sun, moon, and stars/planets from earth.

The difference is what is, or is not, moving and how far away everything is from each other.

The three cosmological views arrange the parts differently but come up with the same effect from earth's view.

Other than a possible faked moon landing and fake ISS video, no one has ever been outside of earths atmosphere and actually viewed earth from outer space, the moon, or another planet.

--Dave

 

[DFT_Dave]

Don't bother with astronomy. It makes no sense to Dave and he's not interested in learning anything about it for fear of shattering the glass sphere (irony?) he has constructed to protect his flat Earth fantasy.

If you fail to understand my concerns than it's obvious that you are the one who fears that your view is being shattered.

I have have no bias or worry over what cosmology is true.

All of us every day experience a flat stationary world around us.

That we are lead to believe that the earth, in contradiction to what we personally experience, is round and spins and rotates around the sun is, ironically, irrelevant to our daily existence.

--Dave

 

[DFT_Dave]

On further reflection, since you claim to not be "weak minded", you must consider yourself to be "intelligent".

This got me to thinking. If Dave is as intelligent as he claims/thinks himself to be, how could he be swayed by "flat Earth" videos?

Intelligent people shouldn't fall for such sophomoric hogwash.

Enter The Dunning-Kruger Effect.

The*Dunning–Kruger effect*is a*cognitive bias*in which low-ability individuals suffer from*illusory superiority, mistakenly assessing their ability as much higher than it really is. Psychologists*David Dunning*and*Justin Kruger*attributed this bias to a*metacognitive*incapacity, on the part of those with low ability, to recognize their ineptitude and evaluate their competence accurately (wiki).

Theories like this cut both ways. These gentile men could well be under the influence of their own theory.

Also, I'm sure that the Church leaders of the geocentric time would have had this same opinion of those who were advocating a heliocentric universe.

Arguments in themselves are not biased, they are coherent or they are not. The premise of an argument maybe accurate or not. Bias may be accurate or not as well.

Claiming that an opposing cosmological view is incorrect because it's adherents suffer from the "Dunning Kruger" effect is an appeal to authority fallacy based in speculative subjective psychology.

But even having low self esteem does not make a person wrong.

--Dave

 

[DFT_Dave]

I also understand the underlying reason for the doctrine it puts forward and the reason for the proposition it presents. It becomes inevitable and runs parallel with many other theories on numerous proposals I've read or heard. They all have one thing in common.

And what would that be?

--Dave

 

[DFT_Dave]

And you know a bunch of those small planes crash, right?

Not really relevant, just saying....And cars can have altimeters too.

And that planes can crash proves my point.

--Dave

 

[Nick M]

And that planes can crash proves my point.

--Dave

It does no such thing. A giant sphere with the force we call gravity pulls objects to it.

 

[DFT_Dave]

It does no such thing. A giant sphere with the force we call gravity pulls objects to it.

Planes fall and crash on flat earth as well.

That planes can fly with out instruments or computer controls is my point. Which means they can fly straight and do not have to follow the curved earth.

--Dave

 

[Nick M]

That planes can fly with out instruments or computer controls is my point. Which means they can fly straight and do not have to follow the curved earth.

--Dave

Do you think a plane can fly straight and leave the earth's atmosphere if it were curved?

 

[chair]

I am doing home work, almost every night.

--Dave

Dave, take a break from watching flat earth videos, and learn some physics.

 

[DFT_Dave]

Do you think a plane can fly straight and leave the earth's atmosphere if it were curved?

A fighter jet can easily travel 1 mile in 10 seconds. In 100 seconds, 10 miles, a jet would be 66 feet above the curvature of earth if flying straight. In another 100 seconds, 20 miles, the drop would be 266 feet. We don't have to leave earths atmosphere in order to clearly see the curvature of the earth if it existed. So your question is irrelevant.

View attachment 25619

--Dave

 

[DFT_Dave]

Dave, take a break from watching flat earth videos, and learn some physics.

Chair, watch some good flat earth videos that I have recommended.

If you don't then you're ignoring what you should be refuting, if you can.

The earth is not flat, and here's the evidence, is not a good argument for why people are believing it is because they have evidence that contradicts globe earth evidence. Both sides claim the other side is fake evidence or a false conclusion from what is observed.

I am looking at physics anyway.

--Dave

 

[chair]

Chair, watch some good flat earth videos that I have recommended.

If you don't then you're ignoring what you should be refuting, if you can.

The earth is not flat, and here's the evidence, is not a good argument for why people are believing it is because they have evidence that contradicts globe earth evidence. Both sides claim the other side is fake evidence or a false conclusion from what is observed.

I am looking at physics anyway.

--Dave

I have watched some of those videos. You have not spent much time trying to understand physics. That much is clear from your posts.

 

[Nick M]

In 100 seconds, 10 miles, a jet would be 66 feet above the curvature of earth if flying straight.

So why do we need rockets?

We don't have to leave earths atmosphere in order to clearly see the curvature of the earth if it existed.

Really? From this thread, what is the distance needed to not see something as tall as a man, at a man's height?

 

[DFT_Dave]

I have watched some of those videos. You have not spent much time trying to understand physics. That much is clear from your posts.

My part here is to present and defend flat earth, if no one did there would be no debate.

You have chosen to present and defend globe earth from the flat stationary earth claims that there is no curvature or movement etc.

What's clear to me is flat earth has a reasonable claim and valid arguments that warrant investigation.

--Dave

 

[DFT_Dave]

So why do we need rockets?

Really? From this thread, what is the distance needed to not see something as tall as a man, at a man's height?

This is pointless and does not address my argument.

--Dave

 

[chair]

My part here is to present and defend flat earth, if no one did there would be no debate.

You have chosen to present and defend globe earth from the flat stationary earth claims that there is no curvature or movement etc.

What's clear to me is flat earth has a reasonable claim and valid arguments that warrant investigation.

--Dave

Dave,

I am not part of your "debate". I am done with it.
I am just pointing out that your ignorance of basic physics is making you look bad.

 

[Clete]

Gravity

The idea that there is a force that keeps everything, not literally attached to the earth, from flying off a spinning globe, is inherent (part of) it's own cosmology.

That there is a force that keeps things on a flat stationary earth from floating in space is also inherent (part of) it's own cosmology.

You're implying here that there is some sort of question begging going on here and that is flatly not the case.

Unless your cosmology denies that apples don't fall from trees then what we refer to as gravity is in your cosmology as much as it is in everyone else's.

And whether one is talking about it in the context of a flat earth cosmology or otherwise, you still come to F = G*((m sub 1*m sub 2)/r^2).

In other words, the burden is on you (or whomever holds to the flat-earth fantacy) to explain how the flat earth acts exactly like a round one.

That things have mass, density, and buoyancy, is enough of an explanation for flat stationary earth, but not enough for a spinning globe.

This has already been directly and utterly debunked. The fact that you bring it up as though it hasn't, I count as a lie.

I still contend, although I am reading up on Newton's laws and how he discovered and confirmed them, that his theories are based on "thought experiment"--imagination, just as Einstein's relativity is.

You'd better keep reading because it's laughably idiotic thing to even say, never mind actually believe. All of Newton's work is fully documented and still exists for anyone to study and repeat. He took very detailed notes ON HIS OBSERVATIONS and measurements all of which have been tested a confirmed and retested and reconfirmed more than nearly anything any scienctist has ever done in the whole of history. To reject Newton's work is to reject science itself.

Gravity is an invisible, unverifiable, concept.

Stupidity!

It is, of course, invisible, but unverifiable? It's only one of the most verified things in all of HISTORY! Not just the history of science but of the whole history of history!!!

By that I mean we cannot handle, feel, or see it. We believe in it because science demands a cause for an effect. Gravity is the cause and a seemingly stationary earth in which things don't fly off into space is the effect, which is a contradiction in empirical terms. Gravity is a non physical part of physics, which is also a contradiction.

Not that contradictions can't be resolved, as you know the theorists of evolution of the universe and life are constantly resolving contradictions they themselves create. An irrational dialectic thought process has prevailed over science just as is has theology.

--Dave

Contradiction?

View attachment 25622


Clete

 

[DFT_Dave]

Dave,

I am not part of your "debate". I am done with it.
I am just pointing out that your ignorance of basic physics is making you look bad.

Maybe basic physics about gravity, is wrong.

--Dave