The earth is flat and we never went to the moon

[Clete]

Patrick,

Do these little capsules of stupidity actually hold water with you or are you just posting them for fun or what?

That one about being able to see Mercury and Venus literally made me laugh out loud! Especially since it's refutation was posted directly below it! Did you even notice that you had posted its refutation?

I'm asking because I cannot reconcile some of the things I've seen you post on other threads with the abject, slobber-mouthed stupidity it would require to be convinced by any of these things you've been deluging the thread with.

Clete

 

[JudgeRightly]

https://r.tapatalk.com/shareLink?ur...&share_tid=128827&share_fid=4230&share_type=t

PART 2: The earth is flat and we never went to the moon

 

[Sherman]

https://r.tapatalk.com/shareLink?ur...&share_tid=128827&share_fid=4230&share_type=t

PART 2: The earth is flat and we never went to the moon

Please let DFT_Dave start the new one. This is his thread series.

 

[patrick jane]

[FONT=&quot]

Originally Posted by patrick jane

[/FONT]

@JudgeRightly - [FONT=&quot]The Bible also references a few pagan works. Should they be called scripture as well? Here's a list of all the non-canonical works referenced in the Bible. Should they all be included as scripture? NO.[/FONT]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non-ca...d_in_the_Bible

Did the pagans in mentioned in the Bible walk with God? Were they taken by God and not taste death? Were they mentioned several times as being close to God? Were they 7th in line from Adam? Were any of the pagan teachings mention AND accepted by the apostles and Bible authors as knowing God personally? I think that answers your question of whether Enoch is acceptable to Christians. I realize the books destroy your favorite "planet and "universe" delusion but other than that . . . It's hard for a book or books to be canonized when they only found some 1,500 years after the Bible was agreed upon.

 

[JudgeRightly]

[FONT=&quot]

Originally Posted by patrick jane

[/FONT]


Did the pagans in mentioned in the Bible walk with God? Were they taken by God and not taste death? Were they mentioned several times as being close to God? Were they 7th in line from Adam? Were any of the pagan teachings mention AND accepted by the apostles and Bible authors as knowing God personally? I think that answers your question of whether Enoch is acceptable to Christians. I realize the books destroy your favorite "planet and "universe" delusion but other than that . . . It's hard for a book or books to be canonized when they only found some 1,500 years after the Bible was agreed upon.

https://www.gotquestions.org/book-of-Enoch.html

 

[JudgeRightly]

[FONT=&quot]

Originally Posted by patrick jane

[/FONT]


Did the pagans in mentioned in the Bible walk with God? Were they taken by God and not taste death? Were they mentioned several times as being close to God? Were they 7th in line from Adam? Were any of the pagan teachings mention AND accepted by the apostles and Bible authors as knowing God personally? I think that answers your question of whether Enoch is acceptable to Christians. I realize the books destroy your favorite "planet and "universe" delusion but other than that . . . It's hard for a book or books to be canonized when they only found some 1,500 years after the Bible was agreed upon.

https://www.gotquestions.org/book-of-Enoch.html

https://www.compellingtruth.org/book-of-Enoch.html

 

[patrick jane]

https://www.compellingtruth.org/book-of-Enoch.html

I think the true parts are about flat earth and the cosmos. :chuckle:

 

[JudgeRightly]

I think the true parts are about flat earth and the cosmos. :chuckle:

See, there's your problem. Thinking something and knowing something are two different concepts entirely.

Thinking the earth is round (or flat, for that matter) is one thing. Knowing it is round is quite another. You think the earth is flat because there are arguments that suggest such, whereas I know the earth is round because the evidence (such as the pictures and explanation I provided in my thread (linked above), the mathematical calculations, point to point distances, heck just looking at the moon) prove a round earth.

 

[patrick jane]

See, there's your problem. Thinking something and knowing something are two different concepts entirely.

Thinking the earth is round (or flat, for that matter) is one thing. Knowing it is round is quite another. You think the earth is flat because there are arguments that suggest such, whereas I know the earth is round because the evidence (such as the pictures and explanation I provided in my thread (linked above), the mathematical calculations, point to point distances, heck just looking at the moon) prove a round earth.

 

[patrick jane]

 

[JudgeRightly]

Saying something doesn't make it so. Show how they do not work on a globe.

Ignorance sure is bliss, especially when it's willful ignorance.

Magnetic fields don't work like this image is implying, making this image a straw-man.

First half of this image:

Translation for the flat earther:

Earth is rotating once per day, around the sun once per year, moving around the center of the galaxy once every 230 million years (and no, I'm NOT saying that the earth is as old as big-bangers say, just that it is calculated that the solar system will take 230 million years to orbit the center of the galaxy). And no, they wouldn't be.

Second half of this image:

The moon is much more massive, moving a lot slower, whereas a satellite is (relatively speaking compared to the moon) much less massive and is moving a speed which keeps it in orbit, or in other words, it's moving around the earth (just like the moon is, much further away) in a way that it is continuously falling around the earth.

https://www.metabunk.org/debunked-gyro-experiment-proves-motionless-earth.t7413/

 

[JudgeRightly]

https://www.metabunk.org/flat-earth...7-qf28-from-australia-to-south-america.t6483/

 

[JudgeRightly]

Oh, by the way, if you pulled out a compass while standing on the north pole, your compass would point south towards Ellesmere Island in Northern Canada, because that's where the magnetic north pole is.

But you wouldn't know that, because you apparently don't know how basic magnetism and magnetic fields work.

 

[patrick jane]

Oh, by the way, if you pulled out a compass while standing on the north pole, your compass would point south towards Ellesmere Island in Northern Canada, because that's where the magnetic north pole is.

But you wouldn't know that, because you apparently don't know how basic magnetism and magnetic fields work.

I wouldn't know. :chuckle: I know there is a true magnetic north pole. Not so much in the south though.

 

[JudgeRightly]

I wouldn't know. :chuckle: I know there is a true magnetic north pole. Not so much in the south though.

I think, no, I know, you need to stop making arguments about topics you don't understand.

Go learn about magnets and then come back and try to make that argument.

 

[Clete]

Magnetic compasses do not "point" anywhere. We are the ones who put the pointers on the magnets. The magnets just do what they do. Magnets have no idea where the magnetic north pole is and they don't care because they have no mind. They are inanimate objects that do what physics requires them to do. They sit there doing nothing at all until a force sufficient to move them is applied just like every other inanimate object. Magnetism is a force however and so all other things being equal, the magnet will find a place of force equilibrium, which in the case of a compass happens to be when the needle that we put on it is lined up, NOT WITH THE NORTH POLE, but with the local magnetic lines of force. That happens to be generally toward the north pole in most locations but not all places and not at all times. The magnetic north pole also is not usually in the same place as the geographic north pole (a.k.a. "True north"), which adds to the effect. In my location a magnetic compass points about 2° east of true north. This is why I advice people to always change the setting on their iPhone to have the built in compass point to true north rather than magnetic north. Pretty much no one needs to know where magnetic north is. Its true north that most people care about.

The map below show how far east or west from true north your magnetic compass will point (red for east and blue for west). The data is approximate due to the fact that the magnetic field of the Earth is dynamic and always moving and changing as well as the fact that the map is generated by a computer model. So don't take the map as gospel, I simply present it to demonstrate that the magnetic field of the Earth is much more complex than the imbecile who create Patrick's image seems to think it is and that the entire premise of the "argument" shows that he hasn't the faintest idea what he's talking about or else he's just lying. Chances are its the later.

It's too large a file to post here. Click the link...

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/1/11/World_Magnetic_Declination_2015.pdf


Clete

 

[Clete]

I wouldn't know. :chuckle: I know there is a true magnetic north pole. Not so much in the south though.

There is no such thing as "true magnetic north". That would be a contradiction in terms.

North magnetic poles are attracted to south magnetic poles. The Earth is a giant magnet. It's SOUTH magnetic pole is near the geographic north pole. That's why the north poles of magnets in compasses "point" toward what we refer to as the north.

True north, on the other hand, has nothing at all to do with magnets. True north is the point on the globe directly below the celestial pole. The celestial pole is the point in the sky that all the start seems to rotate around due the the Earth's rotation. When that point is directly overhead, you are standing on the geographic north pole (i.e. true north).

The difference between magnetic north and true north is called "magnetic declination", a map of which is presented in my last post.


Clete

 

[Clete]

Patrick really ought not be permitted to deluge the thread in this manner. I can't even find one of the images that I want to respond to. He makes basically one sentence arguments but takes up 1000 times the bandwidth and almost entirely to no avail. He clearly isn't even expecting anyone to respond to them! Eventually, I suppose, his source for them will dry up.


As for the Moon pulling satellites out of orbit...

The Moon does indeed have an effect on the orbit of satellites but there is nowhere near the energy needed to pull them out of orbit. The argument is, just as are nearly all of these little pictorial nuggets of stupidity, based on a complete misunderstanding of how gravity works. To have the sort of effect on a satellite that the Moon has on the ocean, the satellite would have to have the mass of the ocean! Satellites are tinsy winsy little things in comparison to either the Moon or the ocean.

Here's the formula that gives you the gravitational force between any two objects...

F = G*((m1 * m2)/r^2)

F is the force of attraction between the two bodies, G is the universal gravitational constant, m1 is the mass of the first object, m2 is the mass of the second object and r is the distance between the centers of mass of each object.

The Moon (m1) is 7.34767309 × 10^22 kilograms
The standardized value for the mass of the ocean (m2) is 1.4 × 10^21 kg
A large geostationary (very high orbiting (i.e. closer to the Moon)) satellite (m2) is about 3500 kilograms

The moon is only about 52 times the mass of the ocean while it is 2.0993351685714 x 10^19 times as big as even the biggest of high earth orbiting satellites.
The ocean is 400000000000000000 times as massive as a large geostationary satellite.

In other words, the gravitational force between an Earth orbiting satellite and the Moon is very nearly (but not quite) zero and nowhere remotely close to that between the Moon and something as massive as the ocean.

Clete

 

[Tambora]

As for the Moon pulling satellites out of orbit...

The Moon does indeed have an effect on the orbit of satellites but there is nowhere near the energy needed to pull them out of orbit. The argument is, just as are nearly all of these little pictorial nuggets of stupidity, based on a complete misunderstanding of how gravity works. To have the sort of effect on a satellite that the Moon has on the ocean, the satellite would have to have the mass of the ocean! Satellites are tinsy winsy little things in comparison to either the Moon or the ocean.

Here's the formula that gives you the gravitational force between any two objects...

F = G*((m1 * m2)/r^2)

F is the force of attraction between the two bodies, G is the universal gravitational constant, m1 is the mass of the first object, m2 is the mass of the second object and r is the distance between the centers of mass of each object.

The Moon (m1) is 7.34767309 × 10^22 kilograms
The standardized value for the mass of the ocean (m2) is 1.4 × 10^21 kg
A large geostationary (very high orbiting (i.e. closer to the Moon)) satellite (m2) is about 3500 kilograms

The moon is only about 52 times the mass of the ocean while it is 2.0993351685714 x 10^19 times as big as even the biggest of high earth orbiting satellites.
The ocean is 400000000000000000 times as massive as a large geostationary satellite.

In other words, the gravitational force between an Earth orbiting satellite and the Moon is very nearly (but not quite) zero and nowhere remotely close to that between the Moon and something as massive as the ocean.

Clete

I can grasp that size matters.

But are we supposed to count the oceans as a single mass unit being pulled by gravity, or does gravity pull each drop of water in the oceans individually?

 

[patrick jane]

There is no such thing as "true magnetic north". That would be a contradiction in terms.

North magnetic poles are attracted to south magnetic poles. The Earth is a giant magnet. It's SOUTH magnetic pole is near the geographic north pole. That's why the north poles of magnets in compasses "point" toward what we refer to as the north.

True north, on the other hand, has nothing at all to do with magnets. True north is the point on the globe directly below the celestial pole. The celestial pole is the point in the sky that all the start seems to rotate around due the the Earth's rotation. When that point is directly overhead, you are standing on the geographic north pole (i.e. true north).

The difference between magnetic north and true north is called "magnetic declination", a map of which is presented in my last post.


Clete

The bottom line is this, no matter where you start on the "globe" - if you go in a STRAIGHT LINE in ANY direction, you will hit the ice wall. Thee is no such thing as "going around the world" it doesn't exist and it's impossible. With or without a compass or "magnets"