Moon Landing/Flat Earth Discussion

[cmichael]

I mean, an ice wall nobody can climb or traverse because the military is guarding it?? And the plain it represents could go on for ever?? A dome over the flat earth?? What constitutes the makeup of the dome, pray tell?? And if the flat earth goes on forever, you could then say that the dome projects outward forever.

Such incoherence! Etc., etc. etc.

Not sure why you think that is not the case. You are aware of the treaty, are you not?
And you've heard about the firmament, maybe?
And as any school child knows, a finite dome doesn't need to cover an infinite plane.

If you find that incoherent, that's your decision and choice.

And you could say that if the ice plane goes on forever, then how could you have a dome come down to meet it on it's edges. Completely incoherent.

Who said the dome meets the earth at its edges? Not me.

Can you imagine anything on the other side of the dome? I can. I'm not speaking from experience of course, but I have heard stories told in which - get this - there is a dome, and there is a surface upon which it rests, and there is actually something both INSIDE the dome, and OUTSIDE the dome.

You can see this on TV. Since it's on TV and that's what proves we landed on the moon, it's also what proves the domes can take up PART of the length of a plane.
Since this is all imaginary, YOUR MILEAGE MAY VARY.

I know it's very very difficult to imagine, so the cartoonists and producers of this show have done a mockery you can use as a starting point, right here:

https://www.imdb.com/title/tt1553656/

Oh, I can why you might be having trouble with this concept. You're a level 34 "Illuminated".

[SempiternalHarbinger]

Flat Earther's interpretation of the ancient mythological archetype/motif of "the dome of heaven" is 100% wrong. If they knew and understood the origins their interpretation would be vastly different. No flat earth needed to explain the "dome of heaven". The myths explain the symbols and the symbols illuminate the myths. For those interested in the origins, I would highly recommend Hugh Nibley's works on ancient mythology ("mythology is cosmology" -Nibley). Nibley covers "the dome of heaven" extensively in most of his ancient history books. The Holy of Holies room in the Salt Lake Temple use to be under a dome but I assume with the gutting of our former pioneer temples that has changed. So sad to witness this atrocity.

If you are interested in Nibley, also consider the late Mircea Eliade and David Talbott of the Electric Universe and the Thunderbolts Project. Eliade is considered (by Nibley, Talbott, etc.) the leading authority on ancient religion and the origins of myth, ritual, and symbolism. Nibley quotes heavily from him.

[larsenb]

. . . . And you could say that if the ice plane goes on forever, then how could you have a dome come down to meet it on it's edges. Completely incoherent.

Who said the dome meets the earth at its edges? Not me.

Can you imagine anything on the other side of the dome? I can. I'm not speaking from experience of course, but I have heard stories told in which - get this - there is a dome, and there is a surface upon which it rests, and there is actually something both INSIDE the dome, and OUTSIDE the dome.

You can see this on TV. Since it's on TV and that's what proves we landed on the moon, it's also what proves the domes can take up PART of the length of a plane.
Since this is all imaginary, YOUR MILEAGE MAY VARY.

I know it's very very difficult to imagine, so the cartoonists and producers of this show have done a mockery you can use as a starting point, right here:

https://www.imdb.com/title/tt1553656/

Oh, I can why you might be having trouble with this concept. You're a level 34 "Illuminated".

But you did speculate that this could be the case (i.e., infinite extent of the plane of the earth).

I'm interested in what evidence there is for the "dome": what does it consists of, what is its extent and what is the actual, measurable evidence for these things. You can imagine anything you want about it, and about what is on the other side, but I'm interested in the tangible; which begs the question: what do you imagine being on the other side??

And I'm not sure what you are saying can be seen on TV.

And what's with your odd innuendo that I'm "a level 34 "Illuminated"?? I don't get it.

Speculating and imagining about such things is fine, but you simply aren't going to get very far with this 'hypothesizing' process, unless is is grounded in something measurable/observable . . . . even if only w/instrumentation.

[Allison]

. . . . And you could say that if the ice plane goes on forever, then how could you have a dome come down to meet it on it's edges. Completely incoherent.

Who said the dome meets the earth at its edges? Not me.

Can you imagine anything on the other side of the dome? I can. I'm not speaking from experience of course, but I have heard stories told in which - get this - there is a dome, and there is a surface upon which it rests, and there is actually something both INSIDE the dome, and OUTSIDE the dome.

You can see this on TV. Since it's on TV and that's what proves we landed on the moon, it's also what proves the domes can take up PART of the length of a plane.
Since this is all imaginary, YOUR MILEAGE MAY VARY.

I know it's very very difficult to imagine, so the cartoonists and producers of this show have done a mockery you can use as a starting point, right here:

https://www.imdb.com/title/tt1553656/

Oh, I can why you might be having trouble with this concept. You're a level 34 "Illuminated".

But you did speculate that this could be the case (i.e., infinite extent of the plane of the earth).

I'm interested in what evidence there is for the "dome": what does it consists of, what is its extent and what is the actual, measurable evidence for these things. You can imagine anything you want about it, and about what is on the other side, but I'm interested in the tangible; which begs the question: what do you imagine being on the other side??

And I'm not sure what you are saying can be seen on TV.

And what's with your odd innuendo that I'm "a level 34 "Illuminated"?? I don't get it.

Speculating and imagining about such things is fine, but you simply aren't going to get very far with this 'hypothesizing' process, unless is is grounded in something measurable/observable . . . . even if only w/instrumentation.

Wait a sec, brother. You needle and needle us for possible models out there (some of which were delivered to you on a silver platter in the form of interviews or videos which you could have listened to on your way to work or sitting on the lawnmower without any further effort on your part), but no, you insist that it be explained to you. We’ve said many times that there is no flat earth model yet, only speculation and whatever initial testing might be possible, yet you still want something, anything at all really, spelled out to you. And then you act uppity about requiring hard evidence. Amazing.

But I will tell you a couple of schools of thought that I have seen. One is like a puddle with islands which would be the continents, with the North Pole in the center and of course, Antarctica would be the outer perimeter. But what if Antarctica is just a ring of land and the puddles are in larger and larger concentric circles each with their own “islands,” and their inhabitants. Another illustration I’ve seen shows a large plane with many puddles, each with their own snow globe “firmament” domes.

No point asking what is above the dome or under the plane. Mankind has never gone deeper than 7 miles into the earth, so (literally) Heaven only knows what is under the plane of the earth (or inside the ball, for that matter).

These are just two of very many possibilities that people consider. But the frisbee in the solar system, with water spilling off the edge, is a fiction made up by globe excusers, to make flat earth look ridiculous.

I’ve seen a concave earth depiction, as well as one that looks something like a Möbius strip! And there is much, much more out there.

Some models can be quickly discounted, in my opinion, but that is why we cannot give you a model to take potshots at. There is no one model yet, as we have been saying. I tried to get you to look at a Dave Weiss interview where he shared some of his ideas. But if you think it’s ALL incoherent, it’s because you have not yet looked into it, which approach is without objectivity.

[Allison]

...
It does seem that the only place the angular velocity of the atmosphere would be the same as the earth would be at sea level, and the higher we go the faster we would have to be moving in order to keep up with a spinning earth.
...

Yes air at higher elevation has to turn slightly faster, but
1)according to my calculations, the linear speed of air at 400km only has to be 65mph faster than air at the ground in order to match the angular velocity of the earth and the air beneath it
2)in our model there is nothing impeding it from doing so
3)if that motion exists (trying not to presuppose for your sake) it's momentum would encourage it to keep that little extra speed.

But I don't want to get too dogmatic here. I have to reiterate that I don't know how high the atmosphere matches the angular velocity of the earth "in the model". I also don't think it matters much. by 400 km it's already way too thin to do very much to you. According to science it only blows the space station out of it's orbit by tiny percentages which they've chosen to adjust for roughly monthly.

....
And that leads into my questions about re-entering the atmosphere while moving at the same angular velocity as the atmosphere would have catapulted you in the first place—what happens if you re-enter at a very slow-moving location, such as at one of the poles? Shouldn’t that alone cause huge problems? If not, why not?
....

I don't think this needs deep analysis and it's beyond me right now. What I can tell you for certain (in the model) is the following:

the momentum earth rotation imparts is very small compared to the amount of momentum a rocket builds up to obtain orbit. Still it's worth it to use it, so rockets tend to launch east to use the eastward momentum. If they want a westward orbit sad news you need a little extra fuel to burn off that momentum. They would rather not.

similar on reentry, the orbital momentum is a mountain to compared to a molehill of airspeed difference. I'm willing to shrug it off because I imagine a little manuevering will do the trick if needed, and I'm not a rocket scientist and I honestly don't think it's a major problem. Still if you want I can try to tease it out a little.

The other part was a question about our alleged revolution around the sun and if it is an elliptical orbit. If that is true, we would have some serious velocity changes which seemingly ought to create some notable sloshing in that moving “pool,” the oceans. Does the globe have an explanation for why we don’t observe that?

All motions besides day/night rotation are in a class called "freefall". a falling object can change speeds without disturbing any relationships between objects.

sun speeds up earth. sun speeds up water exactly the same. earth and water don't see any difference
sun slows down earth. sun slows down water exactly the same. They see no difference.
If they saw any difference then yes you could expect the water to slosh.

Will share this with OE tomorrow, hopefully. Busy day for both of us.

Off the top of my head, though: Would launching westerly make it easier (if you didn’t try to make up for the difference by burning more fuel) make it easier to get to that stand still position I was wondering about? And if a rocket could ever get still, how would we know if it was actually not in motion at all? Just trying to envision all of this.

p.s. No need to look for more info just yet. Will share with OE first.

[cmichael]

Flat Earther's interpretation of the ancient mythological archetype/motif of "the dome of heaven" is 100% wrong. If they knew and understood the origins their interpretation would be vastly different. No flat earth needed to explain the "dome of heaven". The myths explain the symbols and the symbols illuminate the myths. For those interested in the origins, I would highly recommend Hugh Nibley's works on ancient mythology ("mythology is cosmology" -Nibley). Nibley covers "the dome of heaven" extensively in most of his ancient history books. The Holy of Holies room in the Salt Lake Temple use to be under a dome but I assume with the gutting of our former pioneer temples that has changed. So sad to witness this atrocity.

If you are interested in Nibley, also consider the late Mircea Eliade and David Talbott of the Electric Universe and the Thunderbolts Project. Eliade is considered (by Nibley, Talbott, etc.) the leading authority on ancient religion and the origins of myth, ritual, and symbolism. Nibley quotes heavily from him.

Which Flat Earther are you referring to, and who is "they"? And how are they wrong? And how do you know ? I've quoted Electric Universe and Thunderbolts earlier on this thread.

[cmichael]

. . . . And you could say that if the ice plane goes on forever, then how could you have a dome come down to meet it on it's edges. Completely incoherent.

Who said the dome meets the earth at its edges? Not me.

Can you imagine anything on the other side of the dome? I can. I'm not speaking from experience of course, but I have heard stories told in which - get this - there is a dome, and there is a surface upon which it rests, and there is actually something both INSIDE the dome, and OUTSIDE the dome.

You can see this on TV. Since it's on TV and that's what proves we landed on the moon, it's also what proves the domes can take up PART of the length of a plane.
Since this is all imaginary, YOUR MILEAGE MAY VARY.

I know it's very very difficult to imagine, so the cartoonists and producers of this show have done a mockery you can use as a starting point, right here:

https://www.imdb.com/title/tt1553656/

Oh, I can why you might be having trouble with this concept. You're a level 34 "Illuminated".

But you did speculate that this could be the case (i.e., infinite extent of the plane of the earth).

I'm interested in what evidence there is for the "dome": what does it consists of, what is its extent and what is the actual, measurable evidence for these things. You can imagine anything you want about it, and about what is on the other side, but I'm interested in the tangible; which begs the question: what do you imagine being on the other side??

And I'm not sure what you are saying can be seen on TV.

And what's with your odd innuendo that I'm "a level 34 "Illuminated"?? I don't get it.

Speculating and imagining about such things is fine, but you simply aren't going to get very far with this 'hypothesizing' process, unless is is grounded in something measurable/observable . . . . even if only w/instrumentation.

I did not speculate that the dome meets the earth at its edge.
And the evidence for the vault of the heavens has already been discussed on this thread.
The scriptures tells us what is on the other side. Water. Enoch said so as well in the Book of Enoch. We already discussed this.

The 'level 34 illuminated' is near your name, when you post, directly underneath, some people have "captain of 100" and other descriptions, your description says "level 34, Illuminated".

[braingrunt]

Do an experiment for me. Set up an experiment to transfer the earths' momentum, over the atmosphere, to a physical object. Let me know how that goes. The air as a 'momentum transfer device' with the earth providing the energy in the form of tapping into its momentum. That would be ground breaking if you could demonstrate that and show your degree of mastery. We could write it up in Popular Mechanics and such.

I think you are asking for something which we don't claim.
The ground doesn't have to do anything to the atmosphere. They are both already rotating. Both continue and don't want to stop.

Also think in steps.

For a person:
you're on the ground and matching it.
you jump. your momentum still matches the ground because you didn't do anything sufficient to overcome it.
The air is right there with you and has no tendency to knock you back.

For a plane:
it's on the ground and matching it.
it modifies that motion enough to get lift from the air.
But unless it puts in the effort to travel 1000 mph westward it will never cancel the momentum the ground gave it at the start.
Planes are designed to control in the air. (I think swim is fair analogy) The air, already rotating to match the earth, will continue to make things easiest for the plane to stay with earth. The only effort the plane puts in is to move relative to the air/ground and that's not harder or easier eastward or westward.

[cmichael]

Flat Earther's interpretation of the ancient mythological archetype/motif of "the dome of heaven" is 100% wrong. If they knew and understood the origins their interpretation would be vastly different. No flat earth needed to explain the "dome of heaven". The myths explain the symbols and the symbols illuminate the myths. For those interested in the origins, I would highly recommend Hugh Nibley's works on ancient mythology ("mythology is cosmology" -Nibley). Nibley covers "the dome of heaven" extensively in most of his ancient history books. The Holy of Holies room in the Salt Lake Temple use to be under a dome but I assume with the gutting of our former pioneer temples that has changed. So sad to witness this atrocity.

If you are interested in Nibley, also consider the late Mircea Eliade and David Talbott of the Electric Universe and the Thunderbolts Project. Eliade is considered (by Nibley, Talbott, etc.) the leading authority on ancient religion and the origins of myth, ritual, and symbolism. Nibley quotes heavily from him.

"No flat earth needed to explain the "dome of heaven". "


So what? I don't know anyone who ever claimed that because there was a dome, the shape of the earth was therefore flat. It's not like one causes the other. I don't know what Nibley said about it, but what would he possibly say that would add to this particular discussion? Earlier I explained that I don't care what the shape of the earth is, but I do know it is not in motion. It's stationary.

There are folks on this thread who claim that the earth is in motion, that it imparts its momentum by means of the atmosphere, thus enabling planes to fly fast in one direction than the other. That's what I am disputing. Air is a GAS and has limited ability, if any, to impart momentum from one solid to another. I would say ZERO because the air is independent of the earth, one is a gas and one is a solid.

" If they knew and understood the origins their interpretation would be vastly different."

Actually, the origin of the word firmament has been discussed already on this thread. And the vault of heaven is depicted in the Pearl of Great Price is that what you are referring to?

[cmichael]

Do an experiment for me. Set up an experiment to transfer the earths' momentum, over the atmosphere, to a physical object. Let me know how that goes. The air as a 'momentum transfer device' with the earth providing the energy in the form of tapping into its momentum. That would be ground breaking if you could demonstrate that and show your degree of mastery. We could write it up in Popular Mechanics and such.

I think you are asking for something which we don't claim.
The ground doesn't have to do anything to the atmosphere. They are both already rotating. Both continue and don't want to stop.

Also think in steps.

For a person:
you're on the ground and matching it.
you jump. your momentum still matches the ground because you didn't do anything sufficient to overcome it.
The air is right there with you and has no tendency to knock you back.

For a plane:
it's on the ground and matching it.
it modifies that motion enough to get lift from the air.
But unless it puts in the effort to travel 1000 mph westward it will never cancel the momentum the ground gave it at the start.
Planes are designed to control in the air. (I think swim is fair analogy) The air, already rotating to match the earth, will continue to make things easiest for the plane to stay with earth. The only effort the plane puts in is to move relative to the air/ground and that's not harder or easier eastward or westward.

This is an assertion with no foundation. You claim motion where none can be measured, and you don't account for the energy required to set those things in motion and keep them there. You are still where you were yesterday, you believe in a fictional motion and have nothing to demonstrate that it actually exists, or is even theoretically possible.

Newton's first lie requires that it conform with the laws of mechanical energy transfer. The transmission of force needs a medium in which to be transferred. A loose gas doesn't transfer mechanical force unless it is pressurized, and can you calculate how much pressure would be needed? And you have not addressed why there is no force difference between aircraft flying west contrasted with aircraft flying east.

[cmichael]

I think you are asking for something which we don't claim.
The ground doesn't have to do anything to the atmosphere. They are both already rotating. Both continue and don't want to stop.

Also think in steps.

For a person:
you're on the ground and matching it.
you jump. your momentum still matches the ground because you didn't do anything sufficient to overcome it.
The air is right there with you and has no tendency to knock you back.

For a plane:
it's on the ground and matching it.
it modifies that motion enough to get lift from the air.
But unless it puts in the effort to travel 1000 mph westward it will never cancel the momentum the ground gave it at the start.
Planes are designed to control in the air. (I think swim is fair analogy) The air, already rotating to match the earth, will continue to make things easiest for the plane to stay with earth. The only effort the plane puts in is to move relative to the air/ground and that's not harder or easier eastward or westward.

You said that the momentum generated by the earth was imparted to the sky. But whatever. If they revolve separately, what keeps them in sync?

This step-wise thinking you recommended, yes, lets' take it in steps. You say there is some momentum when jumping in the air, which keeps you and the earth in sync. This is nuts when you think about it. You are telling me that I moved 9 miles in the 1 second that I took to jump up and down. But there ZERO proof of this. It's a complete nonsensical mystical assertion. There is no indication that I moved 9 miles, 19 miles, or a 150 million miles. It is a complete lie and there is no way to prove this actually happened. You can't do it and the reason is because it just isn't so.

[captainfearnot]

Sorry to butt in, I just had a quick question for cmichael.

You freely admit that Flat Earth theory contradicts Newtonian physics, correct? It seems to me that most people would consider that contradiction as pretty strong evidence against Flat Earth being true.

But you consider that contradiction as evidence against Newtonian physics being true. Do I have that right?

I'll take my answer off the air.

[cmichael]

Sorry to butt in, I just had a quick question for cmichael.

You freely admit that Flat Earth theory contradicts Newtonian physics, correct? It seems to me that most people would consider that contradiction as pretty strong evidence against Flat Earth being true.

But you consider that contradiction as evidence against Newtonian physics being true. Do I have that right?

I'll take my answer off the air.

Newton was an alchemist, and occult researcher. He was wrong. He was a deceiver, and a Freemason. He and his compatriot, Kepler, differed in opinion from Tycho Brahe. I think Kepler was responsible for the death of Brahe.
And the only reason we believe Newton is because we are conditioned to believe him from a young age, when we are unable to discern what BS his theories amount to.
We are taught to believe that bodies in motion tend to stay in motion, which goes directly against our own experience. You have to apply energy in order to keep bodies in motion.

I've often wondered how Isaac Newton became "SIR" Isaac Newton. I think it is because occultists share power with one another according to their desires to get gain and rule over others.

[braingrunt]

Instead of replying to all your posts, I'm going to try to reorient and summarize like so, but of course feel free to disagree with my summary.

You think if the earth is moving and we jump, we ought to land quite a distance away from our jump point.
You think if a plane lifts off it ought to be suddenly go westward even though the air is going with us in our model.
You think if a plane lifts off and tries to go east it will have to work much harder even though the air is going with us in our model.

You seem to reject momentum?
But do you entirely? Maybe partly yes partly no? This is what I'd like to figure out from you now.

I believe in momentum because it matches my experience. I don't think it's because someone told me to believe it.
So I'm gonna talk about biking. It's something I did a lot of on my mission and have done a fair bit of since.
It is my experience that if I get going and want to stop in a timely manner, I have to apply a force to make it happen. Is this your experience also? Are you opposed to calling this "momentum"?
It is also my experience if I get going and stop my bike I can feel that my body would like to keep going if I let it.
It is also my experience if I get going and my bike suddenly stops I might not be strong enough to resist continuing onward. I'm referring to an epic wreck where at night I didn't see a hole dug about 2ft down into the road. Front wheel went in, bike stopped instantly (but didn't want to stop so badly that it bent) I continued in the air another 35 feet or so until I met the ground. I felt it applying friction forces to stop me in another 15 feet or so.

Of course I accept that on level ground, my bike will eventually stop if I don't maintain some effort. I believe that's because it's acted on by an outside force "friction". Do you believe friction is the main reason you slow down as you bike on level ground? If not do you have some other reason?

I believe friction is the main impediment because it matches my experience. I've been on a crappy bike and then upgraded to a better bike with better bearings with less friction. My tendency to stop on level ground dropped dramatically. I then tried skinner smoother street tires. My tendency to stop on level ground dropped dramatically again.

I also learned about air friction while biking. If I got going fast compared to the air I could feel it trying to stop me. A nice tail wind was always nice so I wasn't fighting air as much.

I also learned that if I could minimize air friction my tendency to stop on level ground would be reduced. Flatten body, tighten legs and it made a big difference.

My experience is fully consistent with the belief that if NOTHING was fighting me, I would not stop.

Other relevant experience: I have never thrown a ball which showed any indication that it would stop until impeded by the ground or some other resistance.

So again I ask if you disbelieve in momentum. If so how do you reconcile these things.

Do you think if you drop a penny on a plane it should suddenly fly back and hit the back of the plane at 400 mph? If not, why not? Why should a person jumping off moving ground get thrown westward, but the penny not thrown backward as well. I really think if you can answer this you'll be close to explaining why your belief about a jumper getting thrown westward if the earther moved, is a cogent argument.

It is worth noting at this moment I am not trying to prove the earth moves. Only that's it's not a problem based on science and also personal experience of momentum. You have said it's a problem. So we are working out a disagreement.

[braingrunt]

You said that the momentum generated by the earth was imparted to the sky. But whatever. If they revolve separately, what keeps them in sync?

In our model there is nothing significant to take them out of sync. If any microscopic encouragement is needed to keep them in sync, trees mountains etc could provide some pushing encouragement at low elevation and friction in the atmosphere carry it upward. But don't get hung up on this. 99.999% of the answer is that nothing is needed to keep them in sync. It's like asking "what keeps these two balls dropped in sync as they fall?" Nothing. Nothing is needed. Both are falling exactly how they want to and both are exactly the same.

This step-wise thinking you recommended, yes, lets' take it in steps. You say there is some momentum when jumping in the air, which keeps you and the earth in sync. This is nuts when you think about it. You are telling me that I moved 9 miles in the 1 second that I took to jump up and down. But there ZERO proof of this. It's a complete nonsensical mystical assertion. There is no indication that I moved 9 miles, 19 miles, or a 150 million miles. It is a complete lie and there is no way to prove this actually happened. You can't do it and the reason is because it just isn't so.

This is called "argument from incredulity" and it boils down to a personal attack because it ridicules the believer instead of providing evidence. I know perfectly well I'm willing to criticize you so I'm not being a hypocrite. It's just that you told me I misbehave to shut down conversation, so I'm trying to behave for a while and would ask you do the same.

[larsenb]

. . . . . .Wait a sec, brother. You needle and needle us for possible models out there (some of which were delivered to you on a silver platter in the form of interviews or videos which you could have listened to on your way to work or sitting on the lawnmower without any further effort on your part), but no, you insist that it be explained to you. We’ve said many times that there is no flat earth model yet, only speculation and whatever initial testing might be possible, yet you still want something, anything at all really, spelled out to you. And then you act uppity about requiring hard evidence. Amazing.

But I will tell you a couple of schools of thought that I have seen. One is like a puddle with islands which would be the continents, with the North Pole in the center and of course, Antarctica would be the outer perimeter. But what if Antarctica is just a ring of land and the puddles are in larger and larger concentric circles each with their own “islands,” and their inhabitants. Another illustration I’ve seen shows a large plane with many puddles, each with their own snow globe “firmament” domes.

No point asking what is above the dome or under the plane. Mankind has never gone deeper than 7 miles into the earth, so (literally) Heaven only knows what is under the plane of the earth (or inside the ball, for that matter).

These are just two of very many possibilities that people consider. But the frisbee in the solar system, with water spilling off the edge, is a fiction made up by globe excusers, to make flat earth look ridiculous.

I’ve seen a concave earth depiction, as well as one that looks something like a Möbius strip! And there is much, much more out there.

Some models can be quickly discounted, in my opinion, but that is why we cannot give you a model to take potshots at. There is no one model yet, as we have been saying. I tried to get you to look at a Dave Weiss interview where he shared some of his ideas. But if you think it’s ALL incoherent, it’s because you have not yet looked into it, which approach is without objectivity.

OK, Allison, that was a very, very telling statement (your first paragraph). However, my questions to cmichael were perfectly rational. Not needling at all. I was simply trying to ‘pin’ down cmichael’s understanding of some of his assertions . . . trying to get clarification. That is what discussion is all about, after all.

Once again, I’m trying to get you folks to express your own understanding of FE ideas; I’m not in the habit of accepting links to videos, etc., as answers to anything; nor do I throw out links to do this.

Now, if as you say: “there is no flat=earth model yet, only speculation”, that is a big step. Though you could say that by just saying the earth is flat, you are describing, at least, a proto-model.

My real problem is that I’m simply not interested in such ungrounded speculation and I guess you could call it hypothesizing, when a perfectly good predictive model exists which is easily visualized, rational, and is supported by solid evidence, physics, mathematics, and science in general. Life is too short.

If FEers were to ever come up with something equal to the one that already works, and even surpasses it . . . . that would get my attention. And yes, I’m willing to wait for that.

[cmichael]

You said that the momentum generated by the earth was imparted to the sky. But whatever. If they revolve separately, what keeps them in sync?

In our model there is nothing significant to take them out of sync. If any microscopic encouragement is needed to keep them in sync, trees mountains etc could provide some pushing encouragement at low elevation and friction in the atmosphere carry it upward. But don't get hung up on this. 99.999% of the answer is that nothing is needed to keep them in sync. It's like asking "what keeps these two balls dropped in sync as they fall?" Nothing. Nothing is needed. Both are falling exactly how they want to and both are exactly the same.

This step-wise thinking you recommended, yes, lets' take it in steps. You say there is some momentum when jumping in the air, which keeps you and the earth in sync. This is nuts when you think about it. You are telling me that I moved 9 miles in the 1 second that I took to jump up and down. But there ZERO proof of this. It's a complete nonsensical mystical assertion. There is no indication that I moved 9 miles, 19 miles, or a 150 million miles. It is a complete lie and there is no way to prove this actually happened. You can't do it and the reason is because it just isn't so.

This is called "argument from incredulity" and it boils down to a personal attack because it ridicules the believer instead of providing evidence. I know perfectly well I'm willing to criticize you so I'm not being a hypocrite. It's just that you told me I misbehave to shut down conversation, so I'm trying to behave for a while and would ask you do the same.

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.

[cmichael]

. . . . . .Wait a sec, brother. You needle and needle us for possible models out there (some of which were delivered to you on a silver platter in the form of interviews or videos which you could have listened to on your way to work or sitting on the lawnmower without any further effort on your part), but no, you insist that it be explained to you. We’ve said many times that there is no flat earth model yet, only speculation and whatever initial testing might be possible, yet you still want something, anything at all really, spelled out to you. And then you act uppity about requiring hard evidence. Amazing.

But I will tell you a couple of schools of thought that I have seen. One is like a puddle with islands which would be the continents, with the North Pole in the center and of course, Antarctica would be the outer perimeter. But what if Antarctica is just a ring of land and the puddles are in larger and larger concentric circles each with their own “islands,” and their inhabitants. Another illustration I’ve seen shows a large plane with many puddles, each with their own snow globe “firmament” domes.

No point asking what is above the dome or under the plane. Mankind has never gone deeper than 7 miles into the earth, so (literally) Heaven only knows what is under the plane of the earth (or inside the ball, for that matter).

These are just two of very many possibilities that people consider. But the frisbee in the solar system, with water spilling off the edge, is a fiction made up by globe excusers, to make flat earth look ridiculous.

I’ve seen a concave earth depiction, as well as one that looks something like a Möbius strip! And there is much, much more out there.

Some models can be quickly discounted, in my opinion, but that is why we cannot give you a model to take potshots at. There is no one model yet, as we have been saying. I tried to get you to look at a Dave Weiss interview where he shared some of his ideas. But if you think it’s ALL incoherent, it’s because you have not yet looked into it, which approach is without objectivity.

OK, Allison, that was a very, very telling statement (your first paragraph). However, my questions to cmichael were perfectly rational. Not needling at all. I was simply trying to ‘pin’ down cmichael’s understanding of some of his assertions . . . trying to get clarification. That is what discussion is all about, after all.

Once again, I’m trying to get you folks to express your own understanding of FE ideas; I’m not in the habit of accepting links to videos, etc., as answers to anything; nor do I throw out links to do this.

Now, if as you say: “there is no flat=earth model yet, only speculation”, that is a big step. Though you could say that by just saying the earth is flat, you are describing, at least, a proto-model.

My real problem is that I’m simply not interested in such ungrounded speculation and I guess you could call it hypothesizing, when a perfectly good predictive model exists which is easily visualized, rational, and is supported by solid evidence, physics, mathematics, and science in general. Life is too short.

If FEers were to ever come up with something equal to the one that already works, and even surpasses it . . . . that would get my attention. And yes, I’m willing to wait for that.

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

[cmichael]

Instead of replying to all your posts, I'm going to try to reorient and summarize like so, but of course feel free to disagree with my summary.

You think if the earth is moving and we jump, we ought to land quite a distance away from our jump point.
You think if a plane lifts off it ought to be suddenly go westward even though the air is going with us in our model.
You think if a plane lifts off and tries to go east it will have to work much harder even though the air is going with us in our model.

You seem to reject momentum?
But do you entirely? Maybe partly yes partly no? This is what I'd like to figure out from you now.

I believe in momentum because it matches my experience. I don't think it's because someone told me to believe it.
So I'm gonna talk about biking. It's something I did a lot of on my mission and have done a fair bit of since.
It is my experience that if I get going and want to stop in a timely manner, I have to apply a force to make it happen. Is this your experience also? Are you opposed to calling this "momentum"?
It is also my experience if I get going and stop my bike I can feel that my body would like to keep going if I let it.
It is also my experience if I get going and my bike suddenly stops I might not be strong enough to resist continuing onward. I'm referring to an epic wreck where at night I didn't see a hole dug about 2ft down into the road. Front wheel went in, bike stopped instantly (but didn't want to stop so badly that it bent) I continued in the air another 35 feet or so until I met the ground. I felt it applying friction forces to stop me in another 15 feet or so.

Of course I accept that on level ground, my bike will eventually stop if I don't maintain some effort. I believe that's because it's acted on by an outside force "friction". Do you believe friction is the main reason you slow down as you bike on level ground? If not do you have some other reason?

I believe friction is the main impediment because it matches my experience. I've been on a crappy bike and then upgraded to a better bike with better bearings with less friction. My tendency to stop on level ground dropped dramatically. I then tried skinner smoother street tires. My tendency to stop on level ground dropped dramatically again.

I also learned about air friction while biking. If I got going fast compared to the air I could feel it trying to stop me. A nice tail wind was always nice so I wasn't fighting air as much.

I also learned that if I could minimize air friction my tendency to stop on level ground would be reduced. Flatten body, tighten legs and it made a big difference.

My experience is fully consistent with the belief that if NOTHING was fighting me, I would not stop.

Other relevant experience: I have never thrown a ball which showed any indication that it would stop until impeded by the ground or some other resistance.

So again I ask if you disbelieve in momentum. If so how do you reconcile these things.

Do you think if you drop a penny on a plane it should suddenly fly back and hit the back of the plane at 400 mph? If not, why not? Why should a person jumping off moving ground get thrown westward, but the penny not thrown backward as well. I really think if you can answer this you'll be close to explaining why your belief about a jumper getting thrown westward if the earther moved, is a cogent argument.

It is worth noting at this moment I am not trying to prove the earth moves. Only that's it's not a problem based on science and also personal experience of momentum. You have said it's a problem. So we are working out a disagreement.

Pretending you don't have a problem doesn't make the problem go away. You claim that everything is moving at the same speed but that argument is INDISTINGUISHABLE from the statement that there is no movement.
it takes energy to move matter. You don't provide a source of the motion. You simply claim it is there. That's not science, that's blind faith. You know it takes force to move matter. But there is no force or source of force in your model.
Airplanes can transport you places because they have engines, a source of energy, and can transform it into motion. What does the earth have for an engine and what type of energy does it transform while it is in motion?
So if you cannot distinguish movement from lack of movement, you have no basis for the claim that there IS in fact movement.

And skipping over all my questions as if they don't matter? Being evasive? You don't address anything and then you accuse me of attacking you when I point it out. Completely ridiculous.

[larsenb]

. . . . . 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.

[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.

You might as well claim some mystical guy named Atlas is carrying the ball globe on his shoulders and spinning it as he goes. Because you have nothing.

That's the huge flaw in the spinning ball theory. It's a free lunch. They get to claim the earth is spinning and circling a star. But that takes energy vastly larger than anything we know. What is the source of that energy ? Did you (or Newton, or anyone in fact), find the energy, understand its operation and impact, and then observe the earth is spinning around and not going out of its boundaries? or did you, or they, come to the conclusion first and to heck with finding a cause, a mover, or any source that would lead you to believe that conclusion was correct? Did they or you have enough curiousity and critical thinking skills to question those conclusions, and ask fundamental questions like this, like how much energy is involved in rotating a mass this large, and where IS this energy located, and how is it transferred.

We know for a fact that it takes energy to power a turbine. Yet the earth is a large turbine with no source of propulsion or a rudder to steer, it's all held in a path, (so we are told) by MAGIC GLUE called GRAVITY and apparently it is frictionless, ( I guess our oceans and seas serve as lubricant and cooling, large heat sinks,) and CONVENIENTLY enough, the air we desperately need to survive in the vacuum of space, SPINS with us. Yeah, right. This is baloney of the highest order.

Newton got off easy. He got a free lunch. All of you are eating it and thinking you don't have to think any more deeply than that. If you like your free lunch you can keep it. But's it got no foundation and it doesn't nourish anything.
No one is asking the right questions, the ones that lead to fruitful answers. We all just blindly worship at the Newtonian throne of grace and don't hold him to account.
The same with Einstein by the way. I heard a great lecture by the Electric Universe people which essentially tore the Einsteinian theory of relativity to shreds. It was invented to cover up for the deficiencies of Newton's theories. Just as the notion that there are black holes in space was invented to cover the deficiencies in his theory of gravity and his "laws" of motion which are just inventions to convince you that you could possibly be weightless one day if you found yourself in the right location in the galaxy.

I never thought when I was attending school that I would someday come to understand exactly how hugely deficient Einstein and Newton were in their supposed fields of endeavor, but those deficiencies are real. We were taught to worship false gods. There is no such thing as "space-time". Those are two distinctly different units of measurement measuring two distinctly different quantities. They are not and cannot be combined.

[larsenb]

. . . . . 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.

[Allison]

. . . . . .Wait a sec, brother. You needle and needle us for possible models out there (some of which were delivered to you on a silver platter in the form of interviews or videos which you could have listened to on your way to work or sitting on the lawnmower without any further effort on your part), but no, you insist that it be explained to you. We’ve said many times that there is no flat earth model yet, only speculation and whatever initial testing might be possible, yet you still want something, anything at all really, spelled out to you. And then you act uppity about requiring hard evidence. Amazing.

But I will tell you a couple of schools of thought that I have seen. One is like a puddle with islands which would be the continents, with the North Pole in the center and of course, Antarctica would be the outer perimeter. But what if Antarctica is just a ring of land and the puddles are in larger and larger concentric circles each with their own “islands,” and their inhabitants. Another illustration I’ve seen shows a large plane with many puddles, each with their own snow globe “firmament” domes.

No point asking what is above the dome or under the plane. Mankind has never gone deeper than 7 miles into the earth, so (literally) Heaven only knows what is under the plane of the earth (or inside the ball, for that matter).

These are just two of very many possibilities that people consider. But the frisbee in the solar system, with water spilling off the edge, is a fiction made up by globe excusers, to make flat earth look ridiculous.

I’ve seen a concave earth depiction, as well as one that looks something like a Möbius strip! And there is much, much more out there.

Some models can be quickly discounted, in my opinion, but that is why we cannot give you a model to take potshots at. There is no one model yet, as we have been saying. I tried to get you to look at a Dave Weiss interview where he shared some of his ideas. But if you think it’s ALL incoherent, it’s because you have not yet looked into it, which approach is without objectivity.

OK, Allison, that was a very, very telling statement (your first paragraph). However, my questions to cmichael were perfectly rational. Not needling at all. I was simply trying to ‘pin’ down cmichael’s understanding of some of his assertions . . . trying to get clarification. That is what discussion is all about, after all.

Once again, I’m trying to get you folks to express your own understanding of FE ideas; I’m not in the habit of accepting links to videos, etc., as answers to anything; nor do I throw out links to do this.

Now, if as you say: “there is no flat=earth model yet, only speculation”, that is a big step. Though you could say that by just saying the earth is flat, you are describing, at least, a proto-model.

My real problem is that I’m simply not interested in such ungrounded speculation and I guess you could call it hypothesizing, when a perfectly good predictive model exists which is easily visualized, rational, and is supported by solid evidence, physics, mathematics, and science in general. Life is too short.

If FEers were to ever come up with something equal to the one that already works, and even surpasses it . . . . that would get my attention. And yes, I’m willing to wait for that.

Can we agree that I have been saying for a long time that we don’t have an agreed upon model and are not in a position to create one without a lot more research (conducted by far more knowledgeable people than myself or OE)?

Also, can we agree that not having all of the answers does not create the requisite curvature to support your model?

[larsenb]

. . . . . .Wait a sec, brother. You needle and needle us for possible models out there (some of which were delivered to you on a silver platter in the form of interviews or videos which you could have listened to on your way to work or sitting on the lawnmower without any further effort on your part), but no, you insist that it be explained to you. We’ve said many times that there is no flat earth model yet, only speculation and whatever initial testing might be possible, yet you still want something, anything at all really, spelled out to you. And then you act uppity about requiring hard evidence. Amazing.

But I will tell you a couple of schools of thought that I have seen. One is like a puddle with islands which would be the continents, with the North Pole in the center and of course, Antarctica would be the outer perimeter. But what if Antarctica is just a ring of land and the puddles are in larger and larger concentric circles each with their own “islands,” and their inhabitants. Another illustration I’ve seen shows a large plane with many puddles, each with their own snow globe “firmament” domes.

No point asking what is above the dome or under the plane. Mankind has never gone deeper than 7 miles into the earth, so (literally) Heaven only knows what is under the plane of the earth (or inside the ball, for that matter).

These are just two of very many possibilities that people consider. But the frisbee in the solar system, with water spilling off the edge, is a fiction made up by globe excusers, to make flat earth look ridiculous.

I’ve seen a concave earth depiction, as well as one that looks something like a Möbius strip! And there is much, much more out there.

Some models can be quickly discounted, in my opinion, but that is why we cannot give you a model to take potshots at. There is no one model yet, as we have been saying. I tried to get you to look at a Dave Weiss interview where he shared some of his ideas. But if you think it’s ALL incoherent, it’s because you have not yet looked into it, which approach is without objectivity.

OK, Allison, that was a very, very telling statement (your first paragraph). However, my questions to cmichael were perfectly rational. Not needling at all. I was simply trying to ‘pin’ down cmichael’s understanding of some of his assertions . . . trying to get clarification. That is what discussion is all about, after all.

Once again, I’m trying to get you folks to express your own understanding of FE ideas; I’m not in the habit of accepting links to videos, etc., as answers to anything; nor do I throw out links to do this.

Now, if as you say: “there is no flat=earth model yet, only speculation”, that is a big step. Though you could say that by just saying the earth is flat, you are describing, at least, a proto-model.

My real problem is that I’m simply not interested in such ungrounded speculation and I guess you could call it hypothesizing, when a perfectly good predictive model exists which is easily visualized, rational, and is supported by solid evidence, physics, mathematics, and science in general. Life is too short.

If FEers were to ever come up with something equal to the one that already works, and even surpasses it . . . . that would get my attention. And yes, I’m willing to wait for that.

Can we agree that I have been saying for a long time that we don’t have an agreed upon model and are not in a position to create one without a lot more research (conducted by far more knowledgeable people than myself or OE)?

Also, can we agree that not having all of the answers does not create the requisite curvature to support your model?

OK. by me. However, I'm not sure what your last comment means.

[Allison]

. . . . . .Wait a sec, brother. You needle and needle us for possible models out there (some of which were delivered to you on a silver platter in the form of interviews or videos which you could have listened to on your way to work or sitting on the lawnmower without any further effort on your part), but no, you insist that it be explained to you. We’ve said many times that there is no flat earth model yet, only speculation and whatever initial testing might be possible, yet you still want something, anything at all really, spelled out to you. And then you act uppity about requiring hard evidence. Amazing.

But I will tell you a couple of schools of thought that I have seen. One is like a puddle with islands which would be the continents, with the North Pole in the center and of course, Antarctica would be the outer perimeter. But what if Antarctica is just a ring of land and the puddles are in larger and larger concentric circles each with their own “islands,” and their inhabitants. Another illustration I’ve seen shows a large plane with many puddles, each with their own snow globe “firmament” domes.

No point asking what is above the dome or under the plane. Mankind has never gone deeper than 7 miles into the earth, so (literally) Heaven only knows what is under the plane of the earth (or inside the ball, for that matter).

These are just two of very many possibilities that people consider. But the frisbee in the solar system, with water spilling off the edge, is a fiction made up by globe excusers, to make flat earth look ridiculous.

I’ve seen a concave earth depiction, as well as one that looks something like a Möbius strip! And there is much, much more out there.

Some models can be quickly discounted, in my opinion, but that is why we cannot give you a model to take potshots at. There is no one model yet, as we have been saying. I tried to get you to look at a Dave Weiss interview where he shared some of his ideas. But if you think it’s ALL incoherent, it’s because you have not yet looked into it, which approach is without objectivity.

OK, Allison, that was a very, very telling statement (your first paragraph). However, my questions to cmichael were perfectly rational. Not needling at all. I was simply trying to ‘pin’ down cmichael’s understanding of some of his assertions . . . trying to get clarification. That is what discussion is all about, after all.

Once again, I’m trying to get you folks to express your own understanding of FE ideas; I’m not in the habit of accepting links to videos, etc., as answers to anything; nor do I throw out links to do this.

Now, if as you say: “there is no flat=earth model yet, only speculation”, that is a big step. Though you could say that by just saying the earth is flat, you are describing, at least, a proto-model.

My real problem is that I’m simply not interested in such ungrounded speculation and I guess you could call it hypothesizing, when a perfectly good predictive model exists which is easily visualized, rational, and is supported by solid evidence, physics, mathematics, and science in general. Life is too short.

If FEers were to ever come up with something equal to the one that already works, and even surpasses it . . . . that would get my attention. And yes, I’m willing to wait for that.

Can we agree that I have been saying for a long time that we don’t have an agreed upon model and are not in a position to create one without a lot more research (conducted by far more knowledgeable people than myself or OE)?

Also, can we agree that not having all of the answers does not create the requisite curvature to support your model?

OK. by me. However, I'm not sure what your last comment means.

It’s okay. It just means that our lack of an agreed upon model does not curve the earth! Besides who knows? It may just be tremendously larger than we are told, which could make it appear to be flat when it isn’t. Knowing what isn’t true doesn’t make us know what is true, through and through. Make sense?