Moon Landing/Flat Earth Discussion

[cmichael]

. . . . . the point is, the globe model DOESN'T work. And what does work, is the fact that the earth is immobile.

Only in your mind and those of your fellow flat earthers. But obviously, neither I, nor anybody else, is going to talk you out of this strange position.

I can assert the same thing with regard to your blind faith in your model. But mine rests on proof, yours is on ASSUMPTIONS. Which you provide no proof for.

Explain please where the ENERGY comes from to move the earth 660 million miles per year. You cannot do it. Therefore your model is completely broken . . . . . .

Problem with your "blind-faith" comment, is that it isn't blind faith. My belief in the global earth/heliocentric model is based on very good direct observation and is bolstered by physics and other science.

Just how our solar system came to be is up for grabs to a degree, and can certainly be questioned by religionists who want to know God's part of the process. The natural explanation has to do w/the gravitational attraction that different masses have for one another. At least this explanation makes quite a bit of sense, incomplete though it may be.

"My belief in the global earth/heliocentric model is based on very good direct observation and is bolstered by physics and other science."

It may be, but your physics and other science just ain't true.
There ain't no free lunch.
You have not, and neither has anyone else, explained where the force came from that moves the earth, or is even consciously aware of the amount of force required. So, no wonder you believe it, you are like the bankrupt spendthrift who thinks he has a million bucks in the bank and keeps writing checks he cannot cash.

F = m times a and Momentum equals mass times velocity. Newton's words, not mine, but he doesn't even live up to them.

Because there just ain't no force that big in existence anywhere.

And further more, what keeps the earth stably spinning on this non-existent axis without wobbling and crashing into other solid bodies? What provides the directional control, which keeps it on course? It's not attached to anything solid, or stable, so like the wheels that are not attached to an axle, how can they possibly complete a circular circuit with regularity? They simply cannot possibly work like watchsprings when they are unattached to anything.
It's unimaginable that you could keep all these perfectly smooth round marbles spinning for a second without them all crashing into one another. Your cosmology is completely and inescapably broken.

[cmichael]

Just how our solar system came to be is up for grabs to a degree, and can certainly be questioned by religionists who want to know God's part of the process. The natural explanation has to do w/the gravitational attraction that different masses have for one another. At least this explanation makes quite a bit of sense, incomplete though it may be.

It does not make sense at all. Gravity cannot possibly explain the celestial phenomena we witness, the Electric Universe folks have written extensively on this topic. Again, you believe it because you have no grasp of the quantities involved. Neither did the newtonians when they first made up this immeasurable entity called gravity, and it's why they also invented black holes in space in a fruitless attempt to shore up their shaky 'theory'. By the way, there ain't no black holes either, they are just stringing you along like a girl on a blind date who was told her date was a billionaire and eventually would propose to her. But he's pretty cheap for a billionaire. And he has yet to make good on any vows.

[cmichael]

. . . . . the point is, the globe model DOESN'T work. And what does work, is the fact that the earth is immobile.

Only in your mind and those of your fellow flat earthers. But obviously, neither I, nor anybody else, is going to talk you out of this strange position.

This juggler explanation holds a lot more water than your "physics and science". At least this guy provide sufficient force to keep the spheres a rotating. Your model doesn't even consider it.

jugglergif.gif (1.52 MiB) Viewed 1041 times

[larsenb]

"My belief in the global earth/heliocentric model is based on very good direct observation and is bolstered by physics and other science."

It may be, but your physics and other science just ain't true. . . . . .

Oh, migosh. Where to even start on this farrago of nonsense . . . . . I'm content to leave you to your conclusions. Such an uphill battle you've carved out for yourself . . . . But, you know, as long as you're having fun.

[cmichael]

"My belief in the global earth/heliocentric model is based on very good direct observation and is bolstered by physics and other science."

It may be, but your physics and other science just ain't true. . . . . .

Oh, migosh. Where to even start on this farrago of nonsense . . . . . I'm content to leave you to your conclusions. Such an uphill battle you've carved out for yourself . . . . But, you know, as long as you're having fun.

If you think the earth is spinning on its own, you also thing the juggler in the above picture is completely unecessary. Good luck with that!!!!!

[cmichael]

"My belief in the global earth/heliocentric model is based on very good direct observation and is bolstered by physics and other science."

It may be, but your physics and other science just ain't true. . . . . .

Oh, migosh. Where to even start on this farrago of nonsense . . . . . I'm content to leave you to your conclusions. Such an uphill battle you've carved out for yourself . . . . But, you know, as long as you're having fun.

It's downhill for me, uphill for you. Who or what pushes the earth along its path? What propels it, suspened in space with no foundation, along its journey?

If “gravity” magically dragged the atmosphere along with the spinning ball Earth, that would mean the atmosphere near the equator would be spinning around at over 1000mph, the atmosphere over the mid-latitudes would be spinning around 500mph, and gradually slower down to the poles where the atmosphere would be unaffected at 0mph. In reality, however, the atmosphere at every point on Earth is equally unaffected by this alleged force, as it has never been measured or calculated and proven non-existent by the ability of airplanes to fly unabated in any direction without experiencing any such atmospheric changes.

grav-atm.JPG (26.58 KiB) Viewed 1009 times

[cmichael]

Ball-believers often claim “gravity” magically and inexplicably drags the entire lower-atmosphere of the Earth in perfect synchronization up to some undetermined height where this progressively faster spinning atmosphere gives way to the non-spinning, non-gravitized, non-atmosphere of infinite vacuum space. Such non-sensical theories are debunked, however, by rain, fireworks, birds, bugs, clouds, smoke, planes and projectiles all of which would behave very differently if both the ball-Earth and its atmosphere were constantly spinning Eastwards at 1000mph.

atmospher.JPG (22.26 KiB) Viewed 1003 times

If there were progressively faster and faster spinning atmosphere the higher the altitude that would mean it would have to abruptly end at some key altitude where the fastest layer of gravitized spinning atmosphere meets the supposed non-gravitized non-spinning non-atmosphere of infinite vacuum space! NASA has never mentioned what altitude this impossible feat allegedly happens, but it is easily philosophically refuted by the simple fact that vacuums cannot exist connected to non-vacuums while maintaining the properties of a vacuum – not to mention, the effect such a transition would have on a rocket “space ship” would be disastrous.

[cmichael]

startrails.jpg (36.91 KiB) Viewed 997 times

Throughout thousands of years the same constellations have remained fixed in their same patterns without moving out of position whatsoever. If the Earth were a big ball spinning around a bigger Sun spinning around a bigger galaxy shooting off from the Biggest Bang as NASA claims, it is impossible that the constellations would remain so fixed. Based on their model, we should, in fact, have an entirely different night sky every single night and never repeat exactly the same star pattern twice. We should be seeing a completely different set of constellations every six months. Instead, we always see Polaris at exactly the same location. IMPOSSIBLE if the earth were moving around the SUN.



NASA and modern astronomy say Polaris, the North Pole star, is somewhere between 323-434 light years, or about 2 quadrillion miles, away from us! Firstly, note that is between 1,938,000,000,000,000 - 2,604,000,000,000,000 miles making a difference of 666,000,000,000,000 (over six hundred trillion) miles! If modern astronomy cannot even agree on the distance to stars within hundreds of trillions of miles, perhaps their “science” is flawed and their theory needs re-examining. However, even granting them their obscurely distant stars, it is impossible for heliocentrists to explain how Polaris manages to always remain perfectly aligned straight above the North Pole throughout Earth’s various alleged tilting, wobbling, rotating and revolving motions.
NASA and modern astronomy say the Earth is a giant ball tilted back, wobbling and spinning 1,000 mph around its central axis, traveling 67,000 mph circles around the Sun, spiraling 500,000 mph around the Milky Way, while the entire galaxy rockets a ridiculous 670,000,000 mph through the Universe, with all of these motions originating from an alleged “Big Bang” cosmogenic explosion 14 billion years ago. That’s a grand total of 670,568,000 mph in several different directions we’re all supposedly speeding along at simultaneously, yet no one has ever seen, felt, heard, measured or proven a single one of these motions to exist whatsoever.

[braingrunt]

No, just because you are credulous doesn't mean I am attacking you. Do you SEE the point? You have no reason to conclude that there is motion when you cannot detect it. That's the point.

It's not ATTACKING you, its just pointing out that you have failed to meet any burden of proof. You provide no source of the energy for the gargantuan movement you postulate.

Like I said before, I'm not trying to prove it now, just that movement is not a problem according to science and personal experience of momentum. So I'm trying to understand why you think a jump ought to displace me if earth is moving, since I feel surprised if you don't have similar experience as me on trains planes and with momentum in general.

IS there proof of motion. I think so. But it would just distract me from understanding you, and you will just reject it as long as you think that motion is impossible.

But I do think it a personal attack: to quote:

.... This is nuts when you think about it ...

[cmichael]

No, just because you are credulous doesn't mean I am attacking you. Do you SEE the point? You have no reason to conclude that there is motion when you cannot detect it. That's the point.

It's not ATTACKING you, its just pointing out that you have failed to meet any burden of proof. You provide no source of the energy for the gargantuan movement you postulate.

Like I said before, I'm not trying to prove it now, just that movement is not a problem according to science and personal experience of momentum. So I'm trying to understand why you think a jump ought to displace me if earth is moving, since I feel surprised if you don't have similar experience as me on trains planes and with momentum in general.

IS there proof of motion. I think so. But it would just distract me from understanding you, and you will just reject it as long as you think that motion is impossible.

But I do think it a personal attack: to quote:

.... This is nuts when you think about it ...

You think movement is not a problem according to science? You have not thought this through at all, I can tell you unequivocally. All the evidences I have thus far given, dictate that exatly the opposite is true. We have proofs of immobility. We have proofs of being stationary.

Tell me, braingrunt, if the atmosphere rotates along with the earth, how fast is it moving at ground level, and how fast is it moving at the upper layer of the atmosphere? Then tell me how this would impact air travel. Hint: (the air speed would increase as you go upwards, to the point where you could not fly at all, let alone safely. Just this one fact alone should give you grounds to carefully re-read all the evidences I have given and let them sink in.

And no, its' not an attack to recognize that your belief is nuts, because it IS nuts when you realize the implications of your beliefs.
And you guys have the nerve to ridicule flat earth, when you cannot even reason it out why your belief is wrong, according to scientific fact. You worship science with your lips, but you are unable to put it into practice. When you REALLY consider the truth of them, you will inevitably come to the correct perspective, that your current belief system is completely, thoroughly and totally untenable. You will drop those beliefs like a hot coal and you will recognize the absurdity of such notions.
Regardless of how "far out" you think the FE theory is, that's only a measure of how far afield your science and physics have taken you, not how left field FE theory is.

[cmichael]

No, just because you are credulous doesn't mean I am attacking you. Do you SEE the point? You have no reason to conclude that there is motion when you cannot detect it. That's the point.

It's not ATTACKING you, its just pointing out that you have failed to meet any burden of proof. You provide no source of the energy for the gargantuan movement you postulate.

IS there proof of motion. I think so. But it would just distract me from understanding you, and you will just reject it as long as you think that motion is impossible.

.... This is nuts when you think about it ...

No, there is no proof of motion. You should know this by know, if you have a scientific mind as you claim. And you would reject it too, regardless of what I think or don't think, IF - you had subjected it to the cold, hard analytics you claim you are capable of.

I have provided AMPLE resources for you to know, without a shadow of doubt, that what I am saying is true, and that your imaginations are simply that. I'm sorry if you cannot face up to the facts of this. But it's really not my problem - it's yours. Your mind and your intelligence is entirely on YOUR shoulders. The Lord will judge you according to what you have done with what you know, and it's not for me to say.

I'm happy with that arrangement.

[braingrunt]

cmichael, I looked for any further reply about momentum and didn't find one. Are you unwilling to continue with this topic?

[braingrunt]

You think movement is not a problem according to science? You have not thought this through at all, I can tell you unequivocally.

Tell me, braingrunt, if the atmosphere rotates along with the earth, how fast is it moving at ground level, and how fast is it moving at the upper layer of the atmosphere? ...

I gave mathematical results to Allison here: viewtopic.php?p=1124737#p1124737
Just two days ago in this thread.
To recap at about 250 miles up the (linear) airspeed would have to be about 65mph faster than at ground level in order to match the angular velocity of an earth which rotates once per day. According to laws of momentum there is nothing to prevent it from continuing to do so without any force input.

Airplanes fly about 6.8 miles up. So lets figure this out and this time show our work:

formula for angular to linear velocity conversion is

1)
linear velocity = angular velocity * radius
note 1: this formula requires angular velocity is in radians per time unit rather than degrees
note 2: if we want our linear velocity speed answer in miles per hour then a) our angular velocity needs to be in radians per hour and b) our radius needs to be in miles (not km)

2) lets get the angular velocity we need to put in the formula
The earth rotates ~361 degrees per day in our model. (look up sidereal day if you want to know why it's not 360 degrees)

361 deg/day x pi/180 rad/deg (this gets the answer into radians per day) x 1/24 days/hour (this gets the answer into radians per hour)
answer: our angular velocity is 0.2625 rad/hr

3) the radius of the earth in our model is given as 3,958.8 mi

4) lets plug into the linear velocity forumla at ground level:
linear velocity = 0.2625 rad/hr x 3958.8 mi
answer: 1,039.19 mph (at equator)

5) lets plug into the linear velocity formula at plane level
linear velocity = 0.2625 rad/hr x (3958.8 mi + 6.8 mi)
answer: 1040.97 mph (at equator)

6) the difference
the difference between 1040.97 mph and 1039.19 mph is
1.78 mph

7) analyze
mathematically the change in linear velocity changes linearly with radius. So we can divide it up however small we want. lets go per mile
difference per mile raised in elevation:
1.78 mph / 6.8 miles
0.26 mph gain per mile elevation

.....
Then tell me how this would impact air travel.

My detailed mathematical and common sense analysis is that this would not disrupt air travel. I look forward to your analysis as well.
Since unlike me, you have already thought this through at all.

PS, does this question you posed mean that you are prepared to accept that air affects airplanes, because before it sounded like you were denying it would have any significant effect, when I asked if moving air would carry a plane, and you replied in essence "no". I will go find and link to our original actual exchange if my paraphrase of it does not sit well with you.

PPS, I'm a LITTLE sorry for making this reply a little personal. You've been quite personal for many pages even though I've been trying hard not to be.

[cmichael]

You think movement is not a problem according to science? You have not thought this through at all, I can tell you unequivocally.

Tell me, braingrunt, if the atmosphere rotates along with the earth, how fast is it moving at ground level, and how fast is it moving at the upper layer of the atmosphere? ...

I gave mathematical results to Allison here: viewtopic.php?p=1124737#p1124737
Just two days ago in this thread.
To recap at about 250 miles up the (linear) airspeed would have to be about 65mph faster than at ground level in order to match the angular velocity of an earth which rotates once per day. According to laws of momentum there is nothing to prevent it from continuing to do so without any force input.

Airplanes fly about 6.8 miles up. So lets figure this out and this time show our work:

formula for angular to linear velocity conversion is

1)
linear velocity = angular velocity * radius
note 1: this formula requires angular velocity is in radians per time unit rather than degrees
note 2: if we want our linear velocity speed answer in miles per hour then a) our angular velocity needs to be in radians per hour and b) our radius needs to be in miles (not km)

2) lets get the angular velocity we need to put in the formula
The earth rotates ~361 degrees per day in our model. (look up sidereal day if you want to know why it's not 360 degrees)

361 deg/day x pi/180 rad/deg (this gets the answer into radians per day) x 1/24 days/hour (this gets the answer into radians per hour)
answer: our angular velocity is 0.2625 rad/hr

3) the radius of the earth in our model is given as 3,958.8 mi

4) lets plug into the linear velocity forumla at ground level:
linear velocity = 0.2625 rad/hr x 3958.8 mi
answer: 1,039.19 mph (at equator)

5) lets plug into the linear velocity formula at plane level
linear velocity = 0.2625 rad/hr x (3958.8 mi + 6.8 mi)
answer: 1040.97 mph (at equator)

6) the difference
the difference between 1040.97 mph and 1039.19 mph is
1.78 mph

7) analyze
mathematically the change in linear velocity changes linearly with radius. So we can divide it up however small we want. lets go per mile
difference per mile raised in elevation:
1.78 mph / 6.8 miles
0.26 mph gain per mile elevation

.....
Then tell me how this would impact air travel.

My detailed mathematical and common sense analysis is that this would not disrupt air travel. I look forward to your analysis as well.
Since unlike me, you have already thought this through at all.

PS, does this question you posed mean that you are prepared to accept that air affects airplanes, because before it sounded like you were denying it would have any significant effect, when I asked if moving air would carry a plane, and you replied in essence "no". I will go find and link to our original actual exchange if my paraphrase of it does not sit well with you.

PPS, I'm a LITTLE sorry for making this reply a little personal. You've been quite personal for many pages even though I've been trying hard not to be.

LOOK here. You claim all this momentum exists. It doesn't. Your formulas don't match reality.

Why? Becuase you don't account for the LOSS OF MOMENTUM. Unless you believe the earth is powered by some huge engine, you have NOTHING TO GO WITH.
You have no firestarter. You have no fuel.

Roll a bowling ball down the street. Does it go forever and ever? Does it have a tiny atmosphere attached? Does it ever stop?

In your world, you have unlimited motion with NO SOURCE for it. You have NO CAUSE, therefore, NO EFFECT.

ITS PRETTY SIMPLE. It ain't complicated in any degree.

"My detailed mathematical and common sense analysis is that this would not disrupt air travel. I look forward to your analysis as well."

Your detailed math is not representative of reality. For example I could say 2 and 2 = 4 and therefore the momentum actually exists.

Well, there IS momentum but it doesn't operate at the efficiency you claim. It dissipates quickly, and the structure of a GAS cannot transfer it to a solid.

CAPICHE? Or do you STILL want to believe in GHOST STORIES? It really isn't this hard.

[cmichael]

cmichael, I looked for any further reply about momentum and didn't find one. Are you unwilling to continue with this topic?

ROFL. Incredible. You can't see what's right in front of your nose? Are you actually comprehending what I'm saying?

I don't think you are duplicating on your end what I am sending on mine. It's as though you are on a journey to Alpha Centauri with enough gas to get to Dogpatch Kentucky and you have no sense of magnitude, volume, or any other dimension. Your gas tank is running on fumes and you think you're prepared for a multi-year journey.

"To recap at about 250 miles up the (linear) airspeed would have to be about 65mph faster than at ground level in order to match the angular velocity of an earth which rotates once per day. According to laws of momentum there is nothing to prevent it from continuing to do so without any force input.
"

Even if that WERE So, which is utterly and completely impossible, a fiction of imagination, it would wreak incredible havoc on the airspace. And it makes no sense since if SPACE IS A VACUUM, then at the BOUNDARY between the ATMOSPHERE and "DEEP SPACE" the velocity differences would be unimaginable. Don't you SEE THAT?

How far out does this go? What happens when you reach the boundary at the "250 mile" mark? Does it stop abruptly? Does it taper off nicely? You see what a dilemma you are in as far as any space travel is concerned?

No, apparently you don't. Talk about overthinking something.

I'm trying not to be personal either, but its pretty horrific some of the depictions of flat earthers as mental troglodytes on this forum and so I react a little bit. I don't think people realize how they come across, in either direction. But I try to focus on the objective truth even when I am accused of having a low IQ and being mentally slow and borderline insane, when what I see is the objective, demonstrable truth that anyone should be able to comprehend were it not for the brainwashing they have been subjected to their entire lives.

[braingrunt]

....
Becuase you don't account for the LOSS OF MOMENTUM.
...
Unless you believe the earth is powered by some huge engine, you have NOTHING TO GO WITH.
You have no firestarter. You have no fuel.
...

Our model states that you don't need fuel or fire to leave momentum unchanged, only fuel or fire to change it. It is very willing to account for loss or change of momentum due to friction or other outside force, but space is said to be nearly frictionless so it makes sense in our model that if earth is moving in space, that motion would continue unopposed and unimpeded indefinitely.

So let's talk about loss of momentum, how it occurs. I tried to share my experience in bike riding that I think friction accounts for it. Do you think loss of momentum happens for a reason or for no reason?

Well, there IS momentum but it doesn't operate at the efficiency you claim. It dissipates quickly, and the structure of a GAS cannot transfer it to a solid.

CAPICHE? Or do you STILL want to believe in GHOST STORIES? It really isn't this hard.

I'm having a hard time getting a good read on what you believe about gas/the atmosphere, because your statements seem contradictory to me. You've said differences in air motion at ground vs cruinsing altitude ought to disrupt air travel, but you also say a gas can't do work on a solid as far as momentum/motion. Would you mind clarifying?

I believe that air can do work on a solid, I think that sailing is a prime example of this, and so is air friction slowing me while biking.

[braingrunt]

...
How far out does this go? What happens when you reach the boundary at the "250 mile" mark? Does it stop abruptly? Does it taper off nicely? You see what a dilemma you are in as far as any space travel is concerned?

No, apparently you don't. Talk about overthinking something.
...

I'm trying to stay focused on any motion/momentum issues you bring up while cutting out any psychology. If I have dropped anything please bring it back up.

I feel like I already talked about this though. The answer is I don't know in detail how far atmosphere continues with the earth. But I am sure in the model, the air is thin enough around and above 65 miles to not cause major problems.
I assume any transitions would not be abrupt.
Are you sure this is a problem? Please expound. Are you specifically thinking that the air would do too much work on the rocket?

[cmichael]

I'm not wasting any more of breath on you. You'll just have to fend for yourself on this good earth the Father gave us.

SpeedOfSound.JPG (72.52 KiB) Viewed 1320 times

[braingrunt]

I'm not wasting any more of breath on you. You'll just have to fend for yourself on this good earth the Father gave us.

SpeedOfSound.JPG

if you think this is a problem I think you should work it out with a challenger. If not me then someone.

If this is really the end of our discussion here's some advice.

You have departed far from the widely accepted model of our world. You come across as not having done so carefully. If you will take the trouble to go deeper into challenges to your worldview, you have a chance to appear more careful and cogent to the outside world.
This can only help you in your cause as you try to convert the world. You will be better prepared to get other people to challenge their worldviews.

As it is, your worldview appears to be more emotional than logical, as we try to dig deeper. When you can't or don't want to go deep I think that your decision to view the world so differently, is more about psychology than science. You went down the funnel that was prepared for you.

I know that I look bad to you too. But frankly, for now, image is more your problem than mine.

[larsenb]

...
How far out does this go? What happens when you reach the boundary at the "250 mile" mark? Does it stop abruptly? Does it taper off nicely? You see what a dilemma you are in as far as any space travel is concerned?

No, apparently you don't. Talk about overthinking something.
...

I'm trying to stay focused on any motion/momentum issues you bring up while cutting out any psychology. If I have dropped anything please bring it back up.

I feel like I already talked about this though. The answer is I don't know in detail how far atmosphere continues with the earth. But I am sure in the model, the air is thin enough around and above 65 miles to not cause major problems.
I assume any transitions would not be abrupt.
Are you sure this is a problem? Please expound. Are you specifically thinking that the air would do too much work on the rocket?

Your 65 mile 'boundary' is confirmed by the measured data (~100 km), above which layering of the air according to atomic/molecular weights starts manifesting in a clear fashion.

[larsenb]

I'm not wasting any more of breath on you. You'll just have to fend for yourself on this good earth the Father gave us.

SpeedOfSound.JPG

if you think this is a problem I think you should work it out with a challenger. If not me then someone.

If this is really the end of our discussion here's some advice.

You have departed far from the widely accepted model of our world. You come across as not having done so carefully. If you will take the trouble to go deeper into challenges to your worldview, you have a chance to appear more careful and cogent to the outside world.
This can only help you in your cause as you try to convert the world. You will be better prepared to get other people to challenge their worldviews.

As it is, your worldview appears to be more emotional than logical, as we try to dig deeper. When you can't or don't want to go deep I think that your decision to view the world so differently, is more about psychology than science. You went down the funnel that was prepared for you.

I know that I look bad to you too. But frankly, for now, image is more your problem than mine.

It's a fairly well established truism, that those who make breakthroughs in science, or any other endeavor for that matter, almost always have to thoroughly master the existing pertinent science.

[cmichael]

I'm not wasting any more of breath on you. You'll just have to fend for yourself on this good earth the Father gave us.

SpeedOfSound.JPG

if you think this is a problem I think you should work it out with a challenger. If not me then someone.

If this is really the end of our discussion here's some advice.

You have departed far from the widely accepted model of our world. You come across as not having done so carefully. If you will take the trouble to go deeper into challenges to your worldview, you have a chance to appear more careful and cogent to the outside world.
This can only help you in your cause as you try to convert the world. You will be better prepared to get other people to challenge their worldviews.

As it is, your worldview appears to be more emotional than logical, as we try to dig deeper. When you can't or don't want to go deep I think that your decision to view the world so differently, is more about psychology than science. You went down the funnel that was prepared for you.

I know that I look bad to you too. But frankly, for now, image is more your problem than mine.

It's a fairly well established truism, that those who make breakthroughs in science, or any other endeavor for that matter, almost always have to thoroughly master the existing pertinent science.

"You have departed far from the widely accepted model of our world. " - oh, horrors. What will people think?

"You come across as not having done so carefully. If you will take the trouble to go deeper into challenges to your worldview, you have a chance to appear more careful and cogent to the outside world."
O the irony! In other words, your belief in your worldview is so implicit you can't challenge it even iff you wanted to, which you don't. If i'm not careful enough for you, that's only because of your cognitive dissonance, not my cognitive negligence.

"As it is, your worldview appears to be more emotional than logical, as we try to dig deeper. When you can't or don't want to go deep I think that your decision to view the world so differently, is more about psychology than science. "

I feel the same way about you, which is why this discussion is fruitless. You think it's a psychological problem, and not scientific. I think you are unscientific and incapable (right now, but that will of necessity change once you realize how mistaken you are about me) of coming to a careful, balanced, well reasoned conclusion.

Completely off-base. When your diagnosis is wrong, your advice will be wrong as well. If you think it's about 'image' then that's part of the problem. You're both completely clueless and your advice is uninmformed. I don't care about my worldly image, when I know the field at least as well if not better than both of you combined. I was not born yesterday, and I did not fall off a turnip truck. For the record I was born in the 50's and I have been around the block a number of times. I've taken the math and the science, I know the physics and calculus from my pre-engineering days. I've been a computer science professional for 30 years. We'll see you in the millennium when you both can actually LEARN the truth instead of missjudging people and the situation. .

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZsnmX0XRNTk

Here's another proof for your blind eyes. And here's proof that Mr. Sensible proved the earth is stationary:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l7RYaRPxTF8

uselesseyes.jpg (208.86 KiB) Viewed 1251 times

[cmichael]

And here's a quote from Taboo Conspiracy which encapsulates this conversation quite well:


I'm going to list the arguments raised by the globe faithful and address them. First, I was correct that Mr. Sensible proved the earth is stationary as the balloon should have landed a 1,000+ miles to the west. Before I hear the typical "conservation of momentum" or "you don't understand physics" and other ball earther nonsense, please show me how many times after a drone takes off from a spinning merry-go-round that the drone continues to spin with the merry-go-round even when the drone is airborne. How about ZERO times? Spin a ball in water and you'll quickly discover that it's difficult to transfer motion of the ball to the water and that's water which has more friction than air. You cannot communicate ground motion to air effectively and any motion that is transferred is quickly lost and what little is transferred actually swirls - air certainly cannot move uniformly with the ground. Prove it otherwise! Enclosed automobiles, trains, and jets have no application to the globe claim of a ground spinning at 1,000 mph adjacent to an atmosphere. An atmosphere simply cannot rotate with the ground at 1,000 mph like spokes on a bicycle wheel, it's absurd! Second, I used the lower angle of the footage because (i) that was the final angle of the horizon at the higher altitudes, and (ii) that was the same still used by globe propagandist Walter Bislin and his deceptive claims were the primary target of my video. Only by comparing the higher altitude stills to the lower altitude stills could we then determine how much barrel distortion there actually was, if any at that angle. As I easily proved, there was little to no distortion at the lower altitudes that would justify Bislin's fraudulent distortion of the high altitude still to claim curvature. For those of you who still don't understand, no barrel distortion at lower elevations means no distortion at higher elevations regardless of any strings attached by Sensible. Third, I've been told that I cherry picked the stills. Of course, I did. I needed stills at nearly the same angle as the final still with 5 seconds until popping - it was the same image used by Bislin. But if you're claiming that I just happened to pick images that didn't get distorted by the camera lens, then you have a problem as you're claiming the distortions are inconsistent. If you claim that the distortions were inconsistent and I somehow managed to avoid the barrel distortion at those lower elevations, then you cannot claim that Mr. Sensible filmed the curvature of the earth - what's good for the goose is good for the gander. I doubt the hired ball earth propagandists are going to understand any of what I just wrote but I certainly hope the objective-thinking person gets it.

[braingrunt]

Are you prepared to go deeper on what taboo said? Or will you refuse to talk about it?

Here goes, lets try to tease this out slowly so we can think instead of feel:
can you see any difference between the globe model and a spinning merry-go-round? I think there are several which make his argument fail to be cogent. I'm very interested to see if your mind can see it too.

I also wonder if taboo can see it?

[larsenb]

. . . . . . "You have departed far from the widely accepted model of our world. " - oh, horrors. What will people think?

"You come across as not having done so carefully. If you will take the trouble to go deeper into challenges to your worldview, you have a chance to appear more careful and cogent to the outside world."
O the irony! In other words, your belief in your worldview is so implicit you can't challenge it even iff you wanted to, which you don't. If i'm not careful enough for you, that's only because of your cognitive dissonance, not my cognitive negligence.

"As it is, your worldview appears to be more emotional than logical, as we try to dig deeper. When you can't or don't want to go deep I think that your decision to view the world so differently, is more about psychology than science. "

I feel the same way about you, which is why this discussion is fruitless. You think it's a psychological problem, and not scientific. I think you are unscientific and incapable (right now, but that will of necessity change once you realize how mistaken you are about me) of coming to a careful, balanced, well reasoned conclusion.

Completely off-base. When your diagnosis is wrong, your advice will be wrong as well. If you think it's about 'image' then that's part of the problem. You're both completely clueless and your advice is uninmformed. I don't care about my worldly image, when I know the field at least as well if not better than both of you combined. I was not born yesterday, and I did not fall off a turnip truck. For the record I was born in the 50's and I have been around the block a number of times. I've taken the math and the science, I know the physics and calculus from my pre-engineering days. I've been a computer science professional for 30 years. We'll see you in the millennium when you both can actually LEARN the truth instead of missjudging people and the situation. .

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZsnmX0XRNTk

Here's another proof for your blind eyes. And here's proof that Mr. Sensible proved the earth is stationary:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l7RYaRPxTF8

uselesseyes.jpg

And who are you quoting? Not me. Nor is your surmise of where I'm coming from the least bit accurate. You are entirely welcome to your flat-earth world view. Such a defensive fellow you are. Astonishing, really.