The earth is flat and we never went to the moon

[The Berean]

You're telling me that these guys are doing this without government grants and/or tax subsidies or some other form of socialistic/fascist interference from the United States government!?

If it's true, I totally love it! I love free market capitalism. Great minds, thinking really big thoughts and working really hard to pull off really big things that benefit lots and lots of people for really big profits. Everyone wins.


Clete

Yes, as far as I know they have zero government funding. They did have to acquire government approval to use the appropriate orbital slots and the appropriate frequency range for these satellites. They were granted this approval about two weeks ago, the first company ever granted such an approval.

http://spacenews.com/fcc-approves-oneweb-for-us-market-as-it-considers-other-constellations/


This venture has huge financial backing. They received a $1.7 billion investment from Soft Bank. Richard Branson is also involved.

As an engineer what they are trying to is amazing and really cool. If they are successful in bringing automation and economies of scale to satellite production this will be a game changer for the space industry. Their plan to build the 600+ satellites is only the beginning. They also have tentative plans to build and launch an additional 2,000 satellites!

Sent from my SM-G920V using TOL mobile app

 

[DFT_Dave]

Dave, Dave, Dave. Misplace your meds again?

Did you misplace your argument?

This debate is not about me.

Make an argument that defeats the claim on the video. Which means you have to watch it first.

--Dave

 

[DFT_Dave]

If you want to know what planet actually look like through a telescope, watch the following video....

https://youtu.be/QB7iGe04eAA

A few minutes in, the camera shooting the video had the telescope in the foreground and both Jupiter and Venus in the back ground. At 4:25 look at what Venus looks like when the camera is focused on the telescope and not on the sky. It looks just like the flat earth video (only smaller)!

Later in the video about 17 minutes in, if you want to skip to it, there's a great image of both Jupiter and Venus through the telescope at the same time. Jupiter is up top and the aproximately half phase Venus is the lower planet in the image.


And, it appears I made a wrong guess about the concentric circles in my last post. It seems he was using a simple telephoto camera lens rather than an actual telescope. I say that because this video shows you precisely what Venus looks like and his image looks exactly the same as in the flat earth video until he focused it and set the exposure setting properly. The following video directly and forever refutes the Venus videos David has posted...

Now this is an argument against another argument from a video.

Thanks Clete, this is what I want this thread to be about.

I have watched both videos and will analyze and compare them.

Then I would like my comparison to be critiqued.

--Dave

 

[Clete]

Now this is an argument against another argument from a video.

Thanks Clete, this is what I want this thread to be about.

I have watched both videos and will analyze and compare them.

Then I would like my comparison to be critiqued.

--Dave

Okay. I'd prefer you be convinced but I'll take what I can get.

 

[DFT_Dave]

If you want to know what planet actually look like through a telescope, watch the following video....

https://youtu.be/QB7iGe04eAA

A few minutes in, the camera shooting the video had the telescope in the foreground and both Jupiter and Venus in the back ground. At 4:25 look at what Venus looks like when the camera is focused on the telescope and not on the sky. It looks just like the flat earth video (only smaller)!

Later in the video about 17 minutes in, if you want to skip to it, there's a great image of both Jupiter and Venus through the telescope at the same time. Jupiter is up top and the aproximately half phase Venus is the lower planet in the image.


And, it appears I made a wrong guess about the concentric circles in my last post. It seems he was using a simple telephoto camera lens rather than an actual telescope. I say that because this video shows you precisely what Venus looks like and his image looks exactly the same as in the flat earth video until he focused it and set the exposure setting properly. The following video directly and forever refutes the Venus videos David has posted...

To begin my analysis I want a clear understanding about Venus.

If Venus is a planet it's reflecting the sun in exactly the same way that the moon is reflecting the light from the sun.

Is this correct?

--Dave

 

[JudgeRightly]

To begin my analysis I want a clear understanding about Venus.

If Venus is a planet it's reflecting the sun in exactly the same way that the moon is reflecting the light from the sun.

Is this correct?

--Dave

Actually, since Venus has an atmosphere (though it's much hotter than Earth's), and the moon only has an exosphere, it would be more appropriate to say Venus is reflecting light in a similar manner to the way Earth is reflecting light.

 

[DFT_Dave]

Actually, since Venus has an atmosphere (though it's much hotter than Earth's), and the moon only has an exosphere, it would be more appropriate to say Venus is reflecting light in a similar manner to the way Earth is reflecting light.

From the moon (if we went there) we see the earth, continents and oceans. We do not "see" the atmosphere.

Form earth we see the land mass, the surface of the moon. From the moon we see the surface of the earth. It should follow that from earth we see the surface of Venus reflected, not the atmosphere.

Does this make sense?

--Dave

 

[Potter's Clay]

The Bible claims that the Earth is a sphere. It amazes me that people claim that science and the Bible contradict one another.


Sent from my iPhone using TOL

 

[DFT_Dave]

The Bible claims that the Earth is a sphere. It amazes me that people claim that science and the Bible contradict one another.

Sent from my iPhone using TOL

"So the sun stood still, and the moon stopped, Until the nation avenged themselves of their enemies. Is it not written in the book of Jashar? And the sun stopped in the middle of the sky and did not hasten to go down for about a whole day."

Why doesn't the Bible say the earth stood still?

--Dave

 

[JudgeRightly]

"So the sun stood still, and the moon stopped, Until the nation avenged themselves of their enemies. Is it not written in the book of Jashar? And the sun stopped in the middle of the sky and did not hasten to go down for about a whole day."

Why doesn't the Bible say the earth stood still?

--Dave

Perspective.

 

[DFT_Dave]

Perspective.

The Biblical perspective is the earth is not moved and the sun does.

--Dave

P.S. Did you see my last post to you?

 

[JudgeRightly]

The Biblical perspective is the earth is not moved and the sun does.

--Dave

And the Biblical perspective, while inspired by God, was written from the perspective of an observer on Earth.

 

[Clete]

To begin my analysis I want a clear understanding about Venus.

If Venus is a planet it's reflecting the sun in exactly the same way that the moon is reflecting the light from the sun.

Is this correct?

--Dave

I think the answer is, "Yes" but it depends on just what you mean by "exactly the same way".

The reason we see Venus is because sunlight is bouncing off of it and into our eyes. The Moon is essentially the same but it is also partial illuminated by what is referred to as "Earthshine" which is light that comes from the Sun, hits the Earth then bounces off the Earth and hits the Moon and then bounced off the Moon and back to Earth and into our eyes. This "Earthshine" is obviously far less prominent and in fact is really only noticeable when the visible side of the Moon is in a 30% or less crescent phase.

There is another difference has to do with the "full" and "new" phases of Venus. Because Venus is in an orbit closer to the Sun than the Earth and because its orbital plane is tilted by about 3.4° relative to the Earth's orbit, Venus is rarely in a fully "new" or "full" phase. A truly "new" phase would cause what is called a solar transit where the black disc of the planet moves across the face of the Sun and a truly full phase would cause the planet to go behind the Sun and not be visible at all from the Earth. The frequency of such occurrences is measured in decades. The last transit happened in 2012 and the next one won't happen until 2117. As a result, Venus appears to pass above or below the Sun and the closest we get to a "new" or "full" Venus phase is a thin sliver of a crescent or a not quite full gibbous Venus.

Clete

 

[Clete]

"So the sun stood still, and the moon stopped, Until the nation avenged themselves of their enemies. Is it not written in the book of Jashar? And the sun stopped in the middle of the sky and did not hasten to go down for about a whole day."

Why doesn't the Bible say the earth stood still?

--Dave

Because God is smart enough to write a book that will make sense to His intended audience.

The Bible states that the Sun stood still because that's precisely what it would have looked like was happening. And in fact, relative to the ground-based observer, that is what was happening.

Motion is relative, David. To speak of motion is to presuppose both the existence of that which is moving and a point of reference away from or toward which the thing is moving. Remove either concept and suddenly the concept of motion is meaningless. Thus it is not at all inaccurate to state that Sun stood still, either as a figure of speech that perfectly communicates that which appears to be happening or as a simple statement of fact which holds true relative to those observing the event.

Clete

 

[JudgeRightly]

I'm sure that this was posted here, but I'll post it again, for those who are just joining us.

https://youtu.be/VNqNnUJVcVs

From the moon (if we went there) we see the earth, continents and oceans. We do not "see" the atmosphere.

Actually, it is possible to see the atmosphere from the moon. You just need a telescope or other long-range viewing item.

It looks like this:

[Source: https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipe...f_Earth's_Atmosphere_and_the_Setting_Sun.jpg]

From earth we see the land mass, the surface of the moon. From the moon we see the surface of the earth. It should follow that from earth we see the surface of Venus reflected, not the atmosphere.

Does this make sense?

--Dave

That would be true if it weren't for the dense cloud layer surrounding Venus.

 

[Right Divider]

That would be true if it weren't for the dense cloud layer surrounding Venus.

Why do you suppose that it's so hard for Dave to understand simple things?

 

[DFT_Dave]

Comparing the two videos

The good news is we have an agreement as to what Venus looks like when we zoom to the full magnification of the Nikon P900.

View attachment 25851

The argument is made that the image is out of focus.

But my argument is the most interesting thing about all P900 videos of Venus is that the light is not constant. The light from Venus is fluctuating or vibrating.

One would not expect the light to be doing this if it were a solid orb that is reflecting the light of the sun in the same way that the moon and earth does and therefore Venus is not a solid orb reflecting the light from the sun. Venus, as all stars are, is a vibrating self illuminating light.

Venus from Nikon P900
I think one needs to see as many videos from different sources in order to validate any argument, go to link.

I would would also argue that it's this very fact of movement of light that is the reason for the lack of a sharp clear image that seems a bit out of focus.

Next I would argue that the video that attempts to demonstrate that the image of a vibrating Venus is merely an illusion of an out of focused image merely zooms back to a small magnification and is not really focusing at all.

With this clear logic I'm sure you will all humbly submit to the truth of flat earth cosmology, or maybe not.

--Dave

 

[JudgeRightly]

Comparing the two videos

The good news is we have an agreement as to what Venus looks like when we zoom to the full magnification of the Nikon P900.

View attachment 25851

The argument is made that the image is out of focus.

But my argument is the most interesting thing about all P900 videos of Venus is that the light is not constant. The light from Venus is fluctuating or vibrating.

One would not expect the light to be doing this if it were a solid orb that is reflecting the light of the sun in the same way that the moon and earth does and therefore Venus is not a solid orb reflecting the light from the sun. Venus, as all stars are, is a vibrating self illuminating light.

Venus from Nikon P900
I think one needs to see as many videos from different sources in order to validate any argument, go to link.

I would would also argue that it's this very fact of movement of light that is the reason for the lack of a sharp clear image that seems a bit out of focus.

Next I would argue that the video that attempts to demonstrate that the image of a vibrating Venus is merely an illusion of an out of focused image merely zooms back to a small magnification and is not really focusing at all.

With this clear logic I'm sure you will all humbly submit to the truth of flat earth cosmology, or maybe not.

--Dave

Or perhaps it can be explained with something we interact with every day.

The earth's atmosphere.

The "shimmering" is caused by the movement of the air in the sky, bending the light slightly as it passes through to our eyes or image capturing devices, but in order for it to be noticeable, it takes a lot of air to refract the light. It's the same phenomenon that causes the heat-waves above hot pavement.

Taking that into consideration, perhaps you might understand why we have telescopes in space, to see deep into space without any distortion.

 

[DFT_Dave]

Or perhaps it can be explained with something we interact with every day.

The earth's atmosphere.

The "shimmering" is caused by the movement of the air in the sky, bending the light slightly as it passes through to our eyes or image capturing devices, but in order for it to be noticeable, it takes a lot of air to refract the light. It's the same phenomenon that causes the heat-waves above hot pavement.

Taking that into consideration, perhaps you might understand why we have telescopes in space, to see deep into space without any distortion.

That's why we examine as many videos as possible to see if what ever explanation we have can be tested. Neither sun light nor moon light do what Venus does. There are different filters used in some of the videos that show just how intricate this movement of light is.

Examine them and Judge for your self, no pun intended.

One can put there faith in Hubble computer enhanced imaging, but some of us would rather not.

--Dave

 

[DFT_Dave]

Because God is smart enough to write a book that will make sense to His intended audience.

The Bible states that the Sun stood still because that's precisely what it would have looked like was happening. And in fact, relative to the ground-based observer, that is what was happening.

Motion is relative, David. To speak of motion is to presuppose both the existence of that which is moving and a point of reference away from or toward which the thing is moving. Remove either concept and suddenly the concept of motion is meaningless. Thus it is not at all inaccurate to state that Sun stood still, either as a figure of speech that perfectly communicates that which appears to be happening or as a simple statement of fact which holds true relative to those observing the event.

Clete

Motion is the antithesis of no motion, without "that which does not move" there is no understanding of that which does move.

Saying everything is moving, which is what it seems you are inferring, is no different than saying everything is God.

Cosmological relativism is no different than and is as irrational as moral or reality relativism.

The Word of God says the sun stood still, the word of God is true or it's not. Seems you've become liberal in your theology in order to accommodate globe cosmology.

--Dave