2 minutes - I can't see too much but I suppose it's possible
The earth is flat and we never went to the moon
- Thread starter DFT_Dave
- Start date
- Status
WatchmanOnTheWall
Well-known member
PJ - How do you explain gravity on the flat earth? What pulls everything down?
Those videos are ten times worse than mine. Nothing new but the same old lame "proof" of a flying spinning globe.
So address them (one at a time, please), if they've been refuted before then they should be easy to refute again.
Gravity is needed force to keep everything from flying off a spinning ball and keep the moon and planets in their orbit. If the sun, moon, and stars are not spinning orbiting planets and the earth is not a spinning ball then we don't need that kind of force. You presume that we would all float around in space if not for gravity but there is no science that says that is so under a dome filled with the atmosphere that we have. That's why the mass and density of an object determines it's weight and simply keeps it on the ground and not a force coming from the center of the earth pulling everything down.
--Dave
Here is my first response to the Testing Flattards - Part 1
The first point is that all the oldest maps are flat maps and the globe map is a revision or altered creation of the flat map. One might say that's obvious because the ancient world did not know they were on a globe. Yet all past and present mapping is actually "local" and all local mapping is flat and squared. All local cross section maps are level and not curved. Mapping will be a category I will often refer to. The map that is being criticized is the Gleason Azimuthal Equidistant Projection Map. But clearly it has it's good points.
For those of you who have watched the Flattard part 1 video I invite you to watch this video that I think best responds to it from the flat earth perspective. I don't expect you to agree with it, I only want you to understand the basics of flat map.
Flat Earth Smarts 10 - Mapping 101 by Adam Carter
The first point is that all the oldest maps are flat maps and the globe map is a revision or altered creation of the flat map. One might say that's obvious because the ancient world did not know they were on a globe. Yet all past and present mapping is actually "local" and all local mapping is flat and squared. All local cross section maps are level and not curved. Mapping will be a category I will often refer to. The map that is being criticized is the Gleason Azimuthal Equidistant Projection Map. But clearly it has it's good points.
For those of you who have watched the Flattard part 1 video I invite you to watch this video that I think best responds to it from the flat earth perspective. I don't expect you to agree with it, I only want you to understand the basics of flat map.
Flat Earth Smarts 10 - Mapping 101 by Adam Carter
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
No one here really needs your mindless commentary that has only one point you make over and over. If you have anything intelligent to add to this thread then fine, but if all you want to do is "ridicule" this thread then once is enough.
--Dave
WatchmanOnTheWall
Well-known member
This is your reason for what pulls everything down?
No, you need to explain why everything is pulled down rather than in any other direction?
I've made the arguments and you know it. And calling a lie a lie works when its true.
You are wrong - period.
I've been interested in science my entire life, astronomy and physics in particular. I'm not a professional scientists nor am I even an expert in any scientific field but I know enough about the Michelson-Morley experiment to state without reservation and without qualification that you are flatly wrong on this point. Whoever told you this is a liar - period. Now, you have a choice, you can repeat the lie or not.
Michelson and Morley were not attempting to demonstrate the motion of the Earth around the Sun, the Sun does not every day. The experiment was intended to detect an ether. THIS IS WHAT THE EXPERIMENT WAS INTENDED TO MEASURE! That isn't an opinion a strongly held belief, that is a statement of historical fact. The exact set up of their experiment and their results are all a matter of public record and can be readily recreated and repeated by as many flat-earthers as have the gumption to do it.
If you propose another conspiracy theory I'll just put you on ignore and write you off as the idiot you're making yourself appear to be. You can be stupid on your own time. I will not subject myself to one idiotic conspiracy theory after another after another after another. You can explain away every fact of history by piling as many conspiracies on top of one another you want by you'll do it without my participation.
And if you bring up how ancient people thought the Earth was flat again, I'll do the same.
You say something that I think you KNOW is fallacious, I point out the fallacy, you effectively acknowledge that it is a fallacy and then repeat it. I point out that you've repeated it and so now you repeat it again (Hoping perhaps that I wouldn't notice?). I'm tired of it David and I'm not putting up with it any more. If you want to end the discussion with me, imply that the fact the old dead guys believed the Earth was flat and therefore we ought to take the idea seriously again. Just imply it. Even a breath of a hint of it is all it will take. Decide right now whether you want to be intellectually honest or whether you want to be stubborn.
Are you conceding that the flat-earther's map is false?
Clete
Debate drives me to do research from both sides of opposing propositions.
--Dave[/QUOTE]
Great! Another permanent artifact in this thread because no one seems willing to allow editing on this thread.
I'm going to give it one more week. If the problem hasn't been rectified, I'll start a new thread on the topic and just stop posting in this thread altogether.
I'm going to give it one more week. If the problem hasn't been rectified, I'll start a new thread on the topic and just stop posting in this thread altogether.
Then make the agument Patrick. If the arguments he makes are so lame you ought to be able to refute them. Do it.
You won't even try.
It would help if you would mention a mod or admin...
[MENTION=12969]Sherman[/MENTION] [MENTION=595]Knight[/MENTION]
As I said, the aether was already understood to exist since Newton and you ignored it. I have quotes that say that the movement of the earth was not detected and the aether that is the medium for the transmission of light, etc., was sacrificed by heliocentrics to save heliocentrism.
Mapping is problematic for flat earth, but I have not said all there is to say on the subject.
Really? Where does all your emotion come from?
--Dave
He's a little high strung. How are you liking the new TOL format Dave. Pretty neat.As I said, the aether was already understood to exist since Newton and you ignored it. I have quotes that say that the movement of the earth was not detected and the aether that is the medium for the transmission of light, etc., was sacrificed by heliocentrics to save heliocentrism.
Mapping is problematic for flat earth, but I have not said all there is to say on the subject.
Really? Where does all your emotion come from?
--Dave
- Status