Round Earthers - explain this? (plus, hello!)

Quote from: daftpunk on May 27, 2016, 04:07:58 PM

Firstly, hello! I'm Joe, and I'm new to this site. I've been researching FE in depth for a while now, and I'm looking forward to some intelligent discussion on this forum.

One thing that round earth theory relies on, but I've never seen justified, is the unending spin of the earth. Spin anything, anywhere, and you'll see that it eventually slows down. The same would be true for a globe earth - even if it starts off spinning at a gazillion miles per hour, it won't be spinning that fast for very long, and it certainly won't keep spinning for millions of years! Because everything observed slows down when spun, and round earth theory is a claim that opposes this, the burden of proof is on the round earth theory believers to justify why earth keeps spinning so fast.

So basically, how does your theory explain the spinning of the earth after all this time? 

All spinning objects eventually run out of spin. The earth being in a vacuum doesn't encounter much resistance but what little resistance there is will eventually slow down the earth. As a young earth creationist this doesn't really cause a problem for me. But it does cause a problem for those believing in an old earth somewhere along the line.

The earth isn't running out of spin because of wind resistance.  It's running out of spin because of tidal locking with the moon.  No problem at all for someone believing in an old earth.

Quote from: Blue_Moon on May 27, 2016, 04:37:58 PM

Tidal forces, due to gravity.  Same thing that causes ocean tides.

gravity doesnt exist

Just check "the Wiki"! It states the "Celestial Gravitation" causes "TIDAL EFFECTS" on earth!  (see below)


So just what did Henry Cavendish and the numerous others who performed similar experiments actually measure?

You can see a lot more detail in What did Henry Cavendish Measure? « on: March 14, 2016, 04:53:13 PM ».

Yes, the fact of gravitation has been verified many times bu actual measurement - it's not easy, but it can be done.

No, you can't simply say "gravity doesnt exist", without some very solid evidence.

The only "evidence" for the non-existence of gravity is that it doesn't fit with your idea that the earth is flat, and the only real basis for that is "it looks flat". From what I can see all other evidence points to it's being a globe.

Even that "the Wiki" admits to "Celestial Gravitation"!

TIDAL EFFECTS
In the FE universe, gravitation (not gravity) exists in other celestial bodies. The gravitational pull of the stars, for example, causes observable tidal effects on Earth.
Q: Why does gravity vary with altitude?
A: The moon and stars have a slight gravitational pull.

Oh really, so the "miniscule" (compared to earth) Celestial objects (many of which are claimed by some to be "just lights") have a "gravitational pull" of earth and objects on it but the much more massive earth has does not!

Quote from: daftpunk on May 27, 2016, 04:39:08 PM

Quote from: Blue_Moon on May 27, 2016, 04:37:58 PM

Tidal forces, due to gravity.  Same thing that causes ocean tides.

gravity doesnt exist

Just check "the Wiki"! It states the "Celestial Gravitation" causes "TIDAL EFFECTS" on earth!  (see below)

Just as an FYI, sometimes they like to argue the pedantic difference between gravity and gravitation.

The Earth has been spinning since its formation, and here's why:

Material closer to the sun moved faster than material farther away in the proto-disk. When it clumped together under gravity, this motion made it spin. Due to a lack of friction (apart from a few tidal forces, which by the way, ARE slowly slowing the Earth's rotation) the Earth continues to rotate.

Quote from: Lowezar on May 27, 2016, 04:49:02 PM

Quote from: markjo on May 27, 2016, 04:42:35 PM

Actually, the spinning of the globe earth has slowed down quite considerably over the eons.

Quote from: http://spaceplace.nasa.gov/review/dr-marc-earth/earth-rotation.html

Scientists think that a large object, perhaps the size of Mars, impacted our young planet, knocking out a chunk of material that eventually became our Moon. This collision set Earth spinning at a faster rate. Scientists estimate that a day in the life of early Earth was only about 6 hours long.

It's pure speculation though. Nobody knows exactly how fast the Earth was spinning and how changes in climate affected strength of tidal forces over billions of years.

That's where the detective work comes in:

Quote from: http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/earth-rotation-summer-solstice/

Forces from afar conspire to put the brakes on our spinning world—ocean tides generated by both the moon and sun's gravity add 1.7 milliseconds to the length of a day each century, although that figure changes on geologic timescales. The moon is slowly spiraling away from Earth as it drives day-stretching tides, a phenomenon recorded in rocks and fossils that provides clues to the satellite's origin and ultimate fate. "You're putting energy into the moon's orbit and taking it out of the Earth's spin," says James Williams, a senior research scientist at NASA's Jet Propulsion Laboratory in Pasadena, Calif.

Yes, I could see you did not read beyond that one article the first time, no need to repeat it. That's why I wrote it to you. This force is affected by ocean volume which is periodically changing, but in addition to that it may have varied greatly due to many different events: asteroid collisions, earthquakes/volcano eruptions... Not to mention those events themselves change angular velocity directly.

Edit: okay, two articles.

Quote from: Blue_Moon on May 27, 2016, 05:18:26 PM

Don't use terms you don't understand to try to disprove a model you don't understand.  For our purposes, we consider gravity to be a force.

Isn't this basically self-fulfilling? You can only comment on the round earth theory if you already 'understand' (read: believe in) the round earth theory, therefore the round earth theory is correct...

Understanding does not equal believing. But if you do not understand a model, how do you expect yourself to be able to find flaws or errors in it?
You can either say that you choose not to believe certain aspects of the model and therefore disband it. In this case it becomes your personal belief and has no scientific value.
Or you understand the model and find an error in it. Then we can discuss scientifically.

Quote from: rabinoz on May 27, 2016, 07:51:19 PM

Quote from: daftpunk on May 27, 2016, 04:39:08 PM

Quote from: Blue_Moon on May 27, 2016, 04:37:58 PM

Tidal forces, due to gravity.  Same thing that causes ocean tides.

gravity doesnt exist

Just check "the Wiki"! It states the "Celestial Gravitation" causes "TIDAL EFFECTS" on earth!  (see below)

Just as an FYI, sometimes they like to argue the pedantic difference between gravity and gravitation.

And I think I was "pedantic" enough to keep them in their correct pigeon holes!

Quote from: daftpunk on May 27, 2016, 04:07:58 PM

Firstly, hello! I'm Joe, and I'm new to this site. I've been researching FE in depth for a while now, and I'm looking forward to some intelligent discussion on this forum.

One thing that round earth theory relies on, but I've never seen justified, is the unending spin of the earth. Spin anything, anywhere, and you'll see that it eventually slows down. The same would be true for a globe earth - even if it starts off spinning at a gazillion miles per hour, it won't be spinning that fast for very long, and it certainly won't keep spinning for millions of years! Because everything observed slows down when spun, and round earth theory is a claim that opposes this, the burden of proof is on the round earth theory believers to justify why earth keeps spinning so fast.

So basically, how does your theory explain the spinning of the earth after all this time? 

All spinning objects eventually run out of spin. The earth being in a vacuum doesn't encounter much resistance but what little resistance there is will eventually slow down the earth. As a young earth creationist this doesn't really cause a problem for me. But it does cause a problem for those believing in an old earth somewhere along the line.

So you're telling me you want ignore all the evidence that the Earth is billions of years old? Stupidity, stupidity everywhere.

Quote from: Blue_Moon on May 27, 2016, 05:18:26 PM

Don't use terms you don't understand to try to disprove a model you don't understand.  For our purposes, we consider gravity to be a force.

Isn't this basically self-fulfilling? You can only comment on the round earth theory if you already 'understand' (read: believe in) the round earth theory, therefore the round earth theory is correct...

Gravity was never needed to prove that the Earth is round. It doesn't belong to the round Earth theory like you claim, it's completely separated. You can refuse the gravitational model all you want, it doesn't change the shape of the Earth.

I know this forum clumps together all scientific knowledge to dismiss everything and anything in one blow, in order to support alternative claims. But in reality those ideas are completely separated.


The Earth has been known to be round since Antiquity. Eratosthenes in 200 BC was the first to calculate its circumference, with a mind blowing precision for the time.

Gravity was first described by Newton in 1687. It was largely improved by Einstein and others, but not before the 20th century.

As you can see, there's a gap of at least 1900 years during which Humanity knew perfectly that the Earth was round, and nobody needed gravity to understand it.

That's why treating them together as a single theory is a fallacy in itself. Flat Earthers really are the ones lying when they imagine that those scientific facts could have been orchestrated as a deception by the same people. Their discoveries are literally centuries apart.

Quote from: Luke 22:35-38 on May 27, 2016, 05:50:03 PM

Quote from: daftpunk on May 27, 2016, 04:07:58 PM

Firstly, hello! I'm Joe, and I'm new to this site. I've been researching FE in depth for a while now, and I'm looking forward to some intelligent discussion on this forum.

One thing that round earth theory relies on, but I've never seen justified, is the unending spin of the earth. Spin anything, anywhere, and you'll see that it eventually slows down. The same would be true for a globe earth - even if it starts off spinning at a gazillion miles per hour, it won't be spinning that fast for very long, and it certainly won't keep spinning for millions of years! Because everything observed slows down when spun, and round earth theory is a claim that opposes this, the burden of proof is on the round earth theory believers to justify why earth keeps spinning so fast.

So basically, how does your theory explain the spinning of the earth after all this time? 

All spinning objects eventually run out of spin. The earth being in a vacuum doesn't encounter much resistance but what little resistance there is will eventually slow down the earth. As a young earth creationist this doesn't really cause a problem for me. But it does cause a problem for those believing in an old earth somewhere along the line.

So you're telling me you want ignore all the evidence that the Earth is billions of years old? Stupidity, stupidity everywhere.

For me, the only evidence that the Earth is older than ~7000 years is from astronomy - galaxies being millions of light-years away (but this can be explained). Nothing else in biology or geology supports it (BTW, how did the geological column get dated? How do you know the age of a rock (I will get you some stones that you can tell me how old they are)? How do you know a trilobite was around ~300 million years ago?)

radiocarbon dating, for starters.

For me, the only evidence that the Earth is older than ~7000 years is from astronomy - galaxies being millions of light-years away (but this can be explained). Nothing else in biology or geology supports it (BTW, how did the geological column get dated? How do you know the age of a rock (I will get you some stones that you can tell me how old they are)? How do you know a trilobite was around ~300 million years ago?)

Earth is the same age as everything else in the Solar system, it all formed at once. So this gives us the opportunity to date any material we encounter (from Earth, the Moon, meteorites, and recently on Mars), even with different methods. Every time we get a pretty consistent answer of 4.6 billion years old.

More about radiometric dating and the age of the Earth : http://geomaps.wr.usgs.gov/parks/gtime/ageofearth.html

In short, your question seems to rely on the earth's spin remaining a constant.  It is not.  Due to a transfer of Earth's rotational momentum to the Moon's orbital momentum as tidal friction the Earth's rotation does, and is, slowing.  Roughly by 4 cm per year, which is why every 18 months the GPS grid has whats referred to as a leap second added to their atomic clocks, to keep them in sync.  Otherwise, the GPS system would crash.

radiocarbon dating, for starters.

Only problem is how do you calibrate it? What do you have that is millions or billions of years old for sure. Remember the Eratsothenes Experiment. He ASSUMED the Earth was round and got his "correct" answers.

Mt. St. Helens (MSH) explosion. I have a video where the is a wall of strata (100+ ft) that was created within 3 YEARS on 3 separate dates that we know precisely - fine and coarse strata (so tell me the Grand Canyon couldn't have formed rapidly if there was a world-wide flood). One geologist said if he didn't know it was MSH, he would say that wall formed over millions of years. Furthermore, there is a mini-Grand Canyon with a stream running in the middle of it (gravity puts it there). Again, without knowing the MSH explosion, geologists would say the water eroded the canyon over millions of years. There are also trees on Spirit Lake that got deposited on the bottom, some standing upright. They don't have roots, just the lower part of the trees was heavier than the top. There are other areas around the world where geologists and botanists claim forests existed for millions of years. After this event, the roots were checked. Sure enough something similar. So it doesn't take millions of years for things to happen. These are measured/observed FACTS in our lifetimes - proof that these events do NOT take millions of years against THEORIES that these events take a long time.


(http://www.mandley.com/advdemo/mod05/adv5430.htm)

In Australia they were digging a shaft. They found a forest sandwiched between rock. When they used radiometric dating, the forests came back ~45 THOUSAND years +/- a few and the rocks ~45 MILLION years +/- a few. Notice the +/- ACCURACY of these measurements. So how can forests that are thousands of years old be sandwiched between rocks millions of years old? (https://answersingenesis.org/geology/radiometric-dating/radioactive-dating-in-conflict/)

Another strata failure is the recovery of a WWII squadron of aircraft from Greenland. They took off from Greenland to Britain but had to return because of weather. They landed on a glacier. People BELIEVING the radiocarbon dating (core samples tell us what the weather was like THOUSANDS of years ago) decided to go out there, shake off 50 years of snow and have pristine WWII aircraft. That didn't happen because the dating isn't true.
(http://creation.com/the-lost-squadron)

Also, in the past, stalagmite and stalactite creation was thought to be a VERY slow process. Depending on several variables, it can be VERY rapid. Man has left "artifacts" recently in caves that these grow on/over quite rapidly. So it doesn't take millions of years, just the right conditions.


So, are there variables and conditions that change radiometric assumed values? The current values are based on a certain set of conditions (laboratory not environment). Did these same (laboratory) conditions exist unchanging for thousands, millions or billions of years (like the amount of carbon for the dating)?

From math, interpolation is usually accurate. Extrapolation is notoriously inaccurate (inaccuracy grows VERY rapidly - confidence limits), especially the farther out you go. At some point, statistical confidence is zero. So to estimate HUNDREDS or THOUSANDS of years, it might be good, but MILLIONS and BILLIONS - totally NOT scientific (statistically speaking).

These are some ACTUAL events that we KNOW happened and have actual dates or locations. Against this, how DO you know something is ACTUALLY millions or billions of years old?

Alright, well, there are a lot of points in this post to address.  But before I do, and please, be brutally honest here, if I can explain how these things can be explained in a context that includes millions of years of time, are you capable of accepting it?  Don't get me wrong, if you are not that's perfectly fine, there is absolutely nothing wrong with holding onto your beliefs.  But if you are not willing to augment those beliefs then please let me know that, I stress no judgement here, so that I don't waste time trying to push a boulder up a hill.

I really almost forgot how dumb some people are. Then I came here and remembered! !

Alright, well, there are a lot of points in this post to address.  But before I do, and please, be brutally honest here, if I can explain how these things can be explained in a context that includes millions of years of time, are you capable of accepting it?  Don't get me wrong, if you are not that's perfectly fine, there is absolutely nothing wrong with holding onto your beliefs.  But if you are not willing to augment those beliefs then please let me know that, I stress no judgement here, so that I don't waste time trying to push a boulder up a hill.

Personally for me, I definitely do not believe the Earth/universe being billions of years old. I believe, from the things I have read, seen and logically deduced came to ~6000 yrs. Like I said, the only possible evidence of an old Earth/universe that I have seen is astronomical (and there are problems there also) - biological, most definitely not.

Quote from: Katdoral on May 29, 2016, 11:35:04 AM

Alright, well, there are a lot of points in this post to address.  But before I do, and please, be brutally honest here, if I can explain how these things can be explained in a context that includes millions of years of time, are you capable of accepting it?  Don't get me wrong, if you are not that's perfectly fine, there is absolutely nothing wrong with holding onto your beliefs.  But if you are not willing to augment those beliefs then please let me know that, I stress no judgement here, so that I don't waste time trying to push a boulder up a hill.

Personally for me, I definitely do not believe the Earth/universe being billions of years old. I believe, from the things I have read, seen and logically deduced came to ~6000 yrs. Like I said, the only possible evidence of an old Earth/universe that I have seen is astronomical (and there are problems there also) - biological, most definitely not.

I used to be a young earth creationist myself, but there's a lot of things that would have to be stretched for it to make sense.  For instance, we can see stars explode that are more than 6000 light years away. 

The Earth has been spinning since its formation, and here's why:

Material closer to the sun moved faster than material farther away in the proto-disk. When it clumped together under gravity, this motion made it spin. Due to a lack of friction (apart from a few tidal forces, which by the way, ARE slowly slowing the Earth's rotation) the Earth continues to rotate.

Incorrect.

Quote from: daftpunk on May 27, 2016, 04:07:58 PM

Firstly, hello! I'm Joe, and I'm new to this site. I've been researching FE in depth for a while now, and I'm looking forward to some intelligent discussion on this forum.

One thing that round earth theory relies on, but I've never seen justified, is the unending spin of the earth. Spin anything, anywhere, and you'll see that it eventually slows down. The same would be true for a globe earth - even if it starts off spinning at a gazillion miles per hour, it won't be spinning that fast for very long, and it certainly won't keep spinning for millions of years! Because everything observed slows down when spun, and round earth theory is a claim that opposes this, the burden of proof is on the round earth theory believers to justify why earth keeps spinning so fast.

So basically, how does your theory explain the spinning of the earth after all this time? 

God keeps it in motion with his power and its only been spinning in a complete vacuum for 6000 years.

LMAO!!!

You are fucking kidding right?

Citation please!

Quote from: Space Cowgirl on May 27, 2016, 05:04:57 PM

Quote from: Kami on May 27, 2016, 04:47:49 PM

Quote from: daftpunk on May 27, 2016, 04:46:46 PM

But why is the conditional important, when i already said that gravity doesn't exist? Sorry if I took you out of context.

Okay, if you say so, then it must be true.
Oxygen does not exist. Too bad, you are dead. As we all are.

If you say gravity does not exist, the continued spinning is the least problem of the round earth model.
But if you want to disprove round earth, you have to find an inconsistency within the model, and the model includes gravity.

Gravity is a fictitious force.

Don't use terms you don't understand to try to disprove a model you don't understand.  For our purposes, we consider gravity to be a force.

Greater than the other "g."

Beware!

Can't explain it, but trust us...its there...

Quote from: Jadyyn on May 29, 2016, 02:44:28 PM

Quote from: Katdoral on May 29, 2016, 11:35:04 AM

Alright, well, there are a lot of points in this post to address.  But before I do, and please, be brutally honest here, if I can explain how these things can be explained in a context that includes millions of years of time, are you capable of accepting it?  Don't get me wrong, if you are not that's perfectly fine, there is absolutely nothing wrong with holding onto your beliefs.  But if you are not willing to augment those beliefs then please let me know that, I stress no judgement here, so that I don't waste time trying to push a boulder up a hill.

Personally for me, I definitely do not believe the Earth/universe being billions of years old. I believe, from the things I have read, seen and logically deduced came to ~6000 yrs. Like I said, the only possible evidence of an old Earth/universe that I have seen is astronomical (and there are problems there also) - biological, most definitely not.

I used to be a young earth creationist myself, but there's a lot of things that would have to be stretched for it to make sense.  For instance, we can see stars explode that are more than 6000 light years away.

For me, 2 things...

1) Astronomy is the only field of science that more or less directly measures these extreme lengths of time (millions or billions of years) because of light travel. Other than gravitational lensing or light passing or not passing through gasses, light travel should be relatively straight forward.

No other field can do this directly without making very important assumptions - everything from abiogenesis to same conditions today as there was millions or billions of years ago. All the other fields rely very heavily on extrapolation - extreme extrapolation - of things happening today or over the course of thousands of years of recorded history at most. Everything beyond that is theoretical. Even things like the world-wide flood, as documented by various cultures around the world (people actually either witnessing it or hearing about it soon after), is disputed by scientists (not because they were there, but because it doesn't fit theories??). How does that change things?

2) For me, if God was smart enough and powerful enough to create the universe, HUGE galaxies, nebulas, stars, etc., he would be awfully stupid to make them when no one would ever see them. So I would say that God created them and made the light from them hit the Earth NOW. Gen 14-19:

14 And God said, “Let there be lights in the vault of the sky to separate the day from the night, and let them serve as signs to mark sacred times, and days and years, 15 and let them be lights in the vault of the sky to give light on the earth.” And it was so. 16 God made two great lights—the greater light to govern the day and the lesser light to govern the night. He also made the stars. 17 God set them in the vault of the sky to give light on the earth, 18 to govern the day and the night, and to separate light from darkness. And God saw that it was good. 19 And there was evening, and there was morning—the fourth day.

But, the actual objects - stars - have properties like turning into supernovas. Things such as this also support the universe being only ~6000 yrs old: (http://creation.com/exploding-stars-point-to-a-young-universe)

Quote from: daftpunk on May 27, 2016, 04:39:08 PM

Quote from: Blue_Moon on May 27, 2016, 04:37:58 PM

Tidal forces, due to gravity.  Same thing that causes ocean tides.

gravity doesnt exist

Newton's apple fell, what evidence do you have that it wasn't gravity?...No, you can't simply say "gravity doesnt exist", without some very solid evidence.

The only "evidence" for the non-existence of gravity is that it doesn't fit with your idea that the earth is flat, and the only real basis for that is "it looks flat". From what I can see all other evidence points to it's being a globe.

One: Yes, one can state gravity does not exist, as gravity has yet to be proven to exist, despite your protestations and puffery and outright buffoonery and tantrums claiming otherwise...
Two: The fact the Earth, "looks flat," is the most convincing evidence that one could ask for and would require an extreme amount of counter evidence to be demonstrated LIVE AND IN LIVING COLOR to be performed, despite your protestations and puffery and outright buffoonery and tantrums claiming otherwise...

The Earth has been spinning since its formation, and here's why:

Material closer to the sun moved faster than material farther away in the proto-disk. When it clumped together under gravity, this motion made it spin. Due to a lack of friction (apart from a few tidal forces, which by the way, ARE slowly slowing the Earth's rotation) the Earth continues to rotate.

Trust him...he was fucking there!

radiocarbon dating, for starters.

ROCKET SURGEON!!! LMAO!!!

Want to try again, sparky?

Radio carbon dating? Do you pull this shit out of your arse before it goes to your head?

is that you, papa legba?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radiocarbon_dating
if you are interested

radiocarbon dating, for starters.

No, but fortunately there are other radiometric methods, that divbe deeper into the past.

Quote from: rabinoz on May 27, 2016, 07:51:19 PM

Quote from: daftpunk on May 27, 2016, 04:39:08 PM

Quote from: Blue_Moon on May 27, 2016, 04:37:58 PM

Tidal forces, due to gravity.  Same thing that causes ocean tides.

gravity doesnt exist

Newton's apple fell, what evidence do you have that it wasn't gravity?...No, you can't simply say "gravity doesnt exist", without some very solid evidence.

The only "evidence" for the non-existence of gravity is that it doesn't fit with your idea that the earth is flat, and the only real basis for that is "it looks flat". From what I can see all other evidence points to it's being a globe.

One: Yes, one can state gravity does not exist, as gravity has yet to be proven to exist, despite your protestations and puffery and outright buffoonery and tantrums claiming otherwise...
Two: The fact the Earth, "looks flat," is the most convincing evidence that one could ask for and would require an extreme amount of counter evidence to be demonstrated LIVE AND IN LIVING COLOR to be performed, despite your protestations and puffery and outright buffoonery and tantrums claiming otherwise...

Gravity is just another word for "Gravitation due to the Earth", and gravitation has been measured here on earth numerous times. Henry Cavendish was the first to do it.

So just what did Henry Cavendish and the numerous others who performed similar experiments actually measure?

You can see a lot more detail in What did Henry Cavendish Measure? « on: March 14, 2016, 04:53:13 PM ».

Yes, the fact of gravitation has been verified many times by actual measurement - it's not easy, but it can be done.

No, you can't simply say "gravity doesnt exist", without some very solid evidence.

The only "evidence" for the non-existence of gravity is that it doesn't fit with your idea that the earth is flat, and the only real basis for that is "it looks flat". Then you simply deny all evidence to the contrary. There are so many things that the Flat Earth simply cannot explain!


All the "protestations and puffery and outright buffoonery and tantrums" has been coming from YOU.

is that you, papa legba?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radiocarbon_dating
if you are interested

And it is relevant in dating materials to what age?

I think the wiki page will tell you