Ball Earth conundrums

[GaryA]

Funny how "circleisnotaglobe" can hit the dislike button but can't disprove what I have said.

Guess the poor baby can't handle the truth.

No one needs to "disprove" what you have said - it is not significant enough to stand as 'proof' one way or another - there are too many factors to consider (today).

We have transmitted broadcasts between the U.S. and Europe (and other places) - back when 'tower' radio was all there was in existence. Look it up.

(If/Since you are an RF TECH and know how radio works - you should really take a serious look into the idea that radio waves interfere with the inner-working of the cells in our bodies. Read the book 'The Invisible Rainbow' by Arthur Firstenberg.)

 

[Moses_Young]

I don't think you're crazy. I do think that you misunderstand some aspects of physics. Because of that, some of your ideas seem crazy.

If he misunderstands, show the equation. You won't, because it will prove you wrong. Magic gravity can only be explained by magic. Using the very equations by which gravity is said to be described will show that your explanations make no sense but for invoking magic.

 

[Dino246]

If he misunderstands, show the equation. You won't, because it will prove you wrong. Magic gravity can only be explained by magic. Using the very equations by which gravity is said to be described will show that your explanations make no sense but for invoking magic.

If all you can offer is inane rhetoric, your comments aren't worth considering.

 

[Moses_Young]

If all you can offer is inane rhetoric, your comments aren't worth considering.

I note you never provided an equation to justify your position. So your arguments are as valid as mine or anyone else's. And if you do, I will use the equation to disprove your position. Check mate.

 

[Gideon300]

If you assume outright that tides occur because of the gravitational "pull" of the moon ( the conclusion of modern science ) -- and then, you go gather the data that modern science has provided -- and, you look at all of the tide cycle patterns everywhere on Earth compared to the position and path of the moon at every precise moment in the tide cycles ----- what will you discover and determine?

Do the patterns match the position and path of the moon?

If they do not match, what does that tell you?

It tells you that modern science is claiming something false.

If they do match, what does that tell you?

It tells you that modern science has built a theory that matches the observation.

And, if so -- does this automatically mean that the theory is true?

No - it does not.

Yet - this has become the 'core' of modern science -- a collection of theories that are specifically designed to match observation -- while not necessarily having any actual resemblance to the true nature of reality.

( Now - just keep that in mind... )

Does the "pull" of the moon affect the Great Lakes? the Dead Sea? other large bodies of water?

How about smaller bodies of water? How about that favorite lake you like to fish on?

How about the water in that cup you are holding at the picnic out by the lake?

We have all heard that "they say" the "pull" of the moon will [ even ] affect the water in our body / brain.

Really?

( Just think for a moment about the different amounts of water in the bodies of humans, animals, plants -- and other things and places where water is concentrated. How should the gravitational "pull" of the moon affect each of them, according to the amount of water and the particular nature of the manner in which it is 'concentrated'? )

Should 'gravity' have a greater "pull" on a larger amount of water or a smaller amount of water?

Modern science will tell you that the gravitational pull of everything is the same on everything else. ( i.e. - the gravitational pull of a bowling ball on everything else around it will be the same - modified by inverse-of-the-square-of-the-distance, etc. )

Why does the "pull" of the moon [ really ] only [ actually ] affect the oceans?

Why is it that -- while standing on the beach of an ocean watching the tide go 'in' and 'out' -- while also watching the water in a glass on a table on that beach remain perfectly still in the glass --- why is it that a force so enormous - enough to 'overcome' the gravitational "pull" of the Earth directly below the ocean from so great a distance out in space - that can move many Gazillions of gallons of water in the ocean - and "hold it up" ( "ocean tide swell", for lack of a better term ) continually ( Do you really understand just how much force would be required to do this? ) --- why is it that it has no effect on the water in the glass? or, the clouds that are between the moon and the ocean? or, the water droplets that are falling from those clouds?

You mean to tell me that the gravitational "pull" of the moon can "hold up" many Gazillions of gallons of water in an ocean while having no effect whatsoever on a raindrop that is falling from a cloud - that is between the moon and the ocean - down to that ocean surface...??????????

"You are kidding --- right???"

( Think in terms of a Gazillions-of-gallons-of-water 'drop' versus a single rain 'drop'. The supposed effect of the "pull" of the moon is that it is able to "lift up and hold up" - [ the weight of ] that G-drop - several feet - as / in a continual action... But, has no effect whatsoever on a single rain drop??? Are you with me so far? Now - just think about that for a while... )

Why doesn't the "pull" of the moon affect the water content of the atmosphere between it and the Earth?

You mean to tell me that the gravitational "pull" of the moon can "hold up" many Gazillions of gallons of water in an ocean while having no effect whatsoever on water vapor in the atmosphere...??????????

"You are kidding --- right???"

Any water vapor - in the atmosphere or anywhere else - that is not specifically being driven downward by the wind - should be rising upwards continually ( even slowly ) - right?

If we place water vapor in a bell jar - completely isolated - no wind currents at all - with the moon directly overhead -- will the water vapor rise upward until it reaches the 'hard' physical limit of the glass at the top of the bell jar?

Don't give me any crap about air pressure, blah blah blah, etc. ----- if the "pull" of the moon can "break" all of those physical laws out in the open ( where so many more / other physical laws come into play ) with the exceedingly-more-heavy oceans - then - it would absolutely have no problem whatsoever "sucking" the water vapor in the bell jar to the top of the bell jar.

The "fluid dynamics" of the liquid water in the oceans would be a much greater "foe" for the "pull" of the moon to overcome than would be the "fluid dynamics" of the water vapor in the bell jar.

These are the kinds of things you need to think about. Expand your awareness to the "bigger picture" of things.

And -- if you study this "opinion" of modern science carefully enough - utilizing the actual 'physics' that is behind the claim -- I believe that you will discover that the gravitational "pull" of the moon ( or the Earth or anything else ) will be much greater on water vapor than it will be on many Gazillions of gallons of water.

In other words, there would be a much greater 'resistance' to the "pull" of the moon from the localized physical properties of a larger amount of water than of a smaller amount of water.

Why does the "pull" of the moon affect the huge amounts of water so massively while having no effect whatsoever on the smaller amounts of water?

Here is another question to consider:

Does the "pull" of the moon affect anything other than water?

If not, then -- why not?

If it does, then -- what effects would there be from it?

If the "pull" of the moon has such a great effect on the oceans --- why does it have no effect whatsoever on a butterfly or a soap bubble floating in air?

What makes you so sure that the moon's gravitational attraction has no effect on any other object? The problem is measuring the effect, given that there are so many other forces at work at the same time. The sun also has a gravitational pull, which is observed when the sun and moon line up. Tides are much higher at that time.

I am happy to believe science when it is based on empirical evidence and demonstrable observations. I don't believe science when it is not. So I accept that the earth is a globe but I reject evolution.

Flat earthers have it back to front. Prove that the earth is flat. If you could, you would. You do not, because you cannot, because it is NOT flat.

 

[Gideon300]

Earth is round. I proved that in the other thread you totally ignored so let me post it again.

As former RF/microwave tech I could not agree more with you.

 

[Moses_Young]

Flat earthers have it back to front. Prove that the earth is flat. If you could, you would. You do not, because you cannot, because it is NOT flat.

We don't have to. Flat Earth is an observation, as is like-begets-like (Creation). The burden of proof is on the one postulating the theory (i.e. Earth is a giant ball, or like-begets-unlike).

 

[posthuman]

We don't have to. Flat Earth is an observation, as is like-begets-like (Creation). The burden of proof is on the one postulating the theory (i.e. Earth is a giant ball, or like-begets-unlike).

watch the sun or moon rise or set.
100% impossible and inexplicable if the earth is flat; fully explained by a globe planet orbiting a sun with a globe moon orbiting the earth.

done.

 

[Dino246]

I note you never provided an equation to justify your position. So your arguments are as valid as mine or anyone else's. And if you do, I will use the equation to disprove your position. Check mate.

Your checkmate is laughable and your self-righteousness and impatience are just stupid. I'll provide calculations when I have the time, not that I am under any obligation to do so.

 

[Dino246]

The burden of proof is on the one postulating the theory.

Well then, since this thread was started by a flat-earther, it is on the flat-earther to prove his theory.

 

[GaryA]

Well then, since this thread was started by a flat-earther, it is on the flat-earther to prove his theory.

You are always "real big" on showing others the fallacy of their posts. Well - boy, did you fall into it this time!

This thread is not about Flat Earth.

There is no theory to prove.

It is about Ball Earth.

And, only Ball Earth.

It is intended only to question Ball Earth.

It is not intended to be about anything else.

It is you and others who have brought Flat Earth into it.

I have said nothing about Flat Earth.

I have not gone anywhere near Flat Earth except-and-unless someone else brought it up first.

I have only questioned Ball Earth.

It is a very sad illustration indeed that Ball Earth folks cannot even remain in a Ball Earth model discussion without trying to disparage Flat Earth because they cannot stand strictly upon the Ball Earth model alone.

If you cannot expain and defend Ball Earth strictly from a Ball Earth POV, then - in this thread - your comments and opinions are worthless.

Anyone who cannot make a good pure-science ('real' science) explanation in answer to the questions raised in this thread concerning the Ball Earth model - don't bother - it will be meaningless - because - this thread is about questioning the Ball Earth model.

So - if anyone has a good answer to the questions concerning the Ball Earth model that are raised in this thread - then, let's hear it!

Otherwise, anything else that is said by Ball Earth folks will surely be taken to be proof that they are incapable of putting forth anything to validate what they believe in blindly but do not even understand themselves.

This thread is not about answering what folks don't understand about the Flat Earth model.

This thread is about answering what does not make sense in the Ball Earth model.

And, that is ALL that it is about.

I don't want to discuss the Flat Earth model in this thread.

I don't want to turn it into a Flat Earth thread.

I want this thread to be about raising questions - and getting answers - to "Ball Earth conundrums" (read the title).

So --- you are wrong.

In this thread, I don't have to prove anything. I am asking questions about what makes no sense about the Ball Earth model.

If anyone has anything to offer that will actually answer the questions, then I welcome their comments, opinions, observations, etc.

Otherwise, I will assume-by-default that no one on CC has any good answers to those questions.

And, that is okay.

But, there is no good reason for Ball Earth folks to "trash" the thread - it only goes to show that they are perturbed by their own inability to answer the questions - and can only respond by "striking out" at things (like FE) that are not even intended to be in the conversation.

So - do all of you folks think we can actually have a conversation about the Ball Earth model without all of the extraneous other things to detract from what I would think you would very much like - a discussion [strictly] about the Ball Earth model.

Can you handle it?

Can you do it?

Let's find out...

 

[posthuman]

I note you never provided an equation to justify your position. So your arguments are as valid as mine or anyone else's. And if you do, I will use the equation to disprove your position. Check mate.

i previously pointed out that atmospheric/cloud tidal motion is real, verified and well-studied, and that observation of it matches Newtonian physics' prediction for the globe earth and globe moon being of their respective sizes and at their respective distance from each other. i also posted links to sites explaining this phenomena, giving evidence that yeah, we know about this and it's real - using this in a flat-earth argument is not making a person some super clever person finding obvious holes in science exposing some kind of wool being pulled over everyone's eyes; instead it makes them an ignorant person not studying out the facts, oblivious to the truth in which these are very well-understood aspects of the natural creation that are not impossible or inexplicable if you actually do the physics.
apparently posting facts doesn't actually move conversations like this along, however. so here's your equation.






gravitational constant G = 6.67408 × 10^-11 m^3 / kg•s^2
typical cloud droplet has mass ~ 0.0000000000042kg
mass of earth ~ 5.97219 × 10^24 kg
mass of moon ~ 7.346 × 10^22 kg
distance of typical cloud droplet to center of earth ~ 6,378km
distance of typical cloud droplet to center of moon ~384,400km

gravitational force on cloud droplet from earth: 4.1 × 10^-4 N
gravitational force on cloud droplet from moon: 1.4 × 10^-9 N

the earth's gravity is like 300,000 times stronger on a cloud droplet than the moon's is. no, the standard model does not predict that clouds should be sucked out to the moon. for goodness sakes the flathead-model thinks the moon is causing tides and also located practically inside cloud layers. think about how that's supposed to work??

now when you write your equation for tidal forces on the seas, don't forget to add a component for elasticity of liquid water. remember, pulling on something and moving it a little is not the same as tearing it loose and running away with it.

 

[posthuman]

without all of the extraneous other things

by which you mean, proven, well-studied and verified properties of physics?

no, i am not going to have a conversation with you in which you make up imaginary properties of the universe in order to explain away your impossibilities with the wave of a hand.

 

[DeanM]

Why would science falsify data and pictures from space to disprove the earth is flat? What would be gained?

 

[Dino246]

You are always "real big" on showing others the fallacy of their posts. Well - boy, did you fall into it this time!

This thread is not about Flat Earth.

There is no theory to prove.

It is about Ball Earth.

And, only Ball Earth.

It is intended only to question Ball Earth.

It is not intended to be about anything else.

It is you and others who have brought Flat Earth into it.

I have said nothing about Flat Earth.

I have not gone anywhere near Flat Earth except-and-unless someone else brought it up first.

I have only questioned Ball Earth.

It is a very sad illustration indeed that Ball Earth folks cannot even remain in a Ball Earth model discussion without trying to disparage Flat Earth because they cannot stand strictly upon the Ball Earth model alone.

If you cannot expain and defend Ball Earth strictly from a Ball Earth POV, then - in this thread - your comments and opinions are worthless.

Anyone who cannot make a good pure-science ('real' science) explanation in answer to the questions raised in this thread concerning the Ball Earth model - don't bother - it will be meaningless - because - this thread is about questioning the Ball Earth model.

So - if anyone has a good answer to the questions concerning the Ball Earth model that are raised in this thread - then, let's hear it!

Otherwise, anything else that is said by Ball Earth folks will surely be taken to be proof that they are incapable of putting forth anything to validate what they believe in blindly but do not even understand themselves.

This thread is not about answering what folks don't understand about the Flat Earth model.

This thread is about answering what does not make sense in the Ball Earth model.

And, that is ALL that it is about.

I don't want to discuss the Flat Earth model in this thread.

I don't want to turn it into a Flat Earth thread.

I want this thread to be about raising questions - and getting answers - to "Ball Earth conundrums" (read the title).

So --- you are wrong.

In this thread, I don't have to prove anything. I am asking questions about what makes no sense about the Ball Earth model.

If anyone has anything to offer that will actually answer the questions, then I welcome their comments, opinions, observations, etc.

Otherwise, I will assume-by-default that no one on CC has any good answers to those questions.

And, that is okay.

But, there is no good reason for Ball Earth folks to "trash" the thread - it only goes to show that they are perturbed by their own inability to answer the questions - and can only respond by "striking out" at things (like FE) that are not even intended to be in the conversation.

So - do all of you folks think we can actually have a conversation about the Ball Earth model without all of the extraneous other things to detract from what I would think you would very much like - a discussion [strictly] about the Ball Earth model.

Can you handle it?

Can you do it?

Let's find out...

Feel better now that you’ve vented your spleen?

 

[GaryA]

Why would science falsify data and pictures from space to disprove the earth is flat? What would be gained?

If this were a Flat Earth thread, I would answer your question; however, I do not wish to derail my own thread.

Please ask in a more appropriate thread and I will be more than happy to answer your question.

I am only doing this (holding fast and firm to the thread topic) - in part - to make a point.

I am not trying to be "ugly" to you.

 

[Gideon300]

We don't have to. Flat Earth is an observation, as is like-begets-like (Creation). The burden of proof is on the one postulating the theory (i.e. Earth is a giant ball, or like-begets-unlike).

Absolute rubbish. The vast majority of humanity knows that the earth is a globe. No one can observe a flat earth because it is not flat. It's a simple matter of going as far as you can in one direction. You will end up where you started. Countless people have done that, from different directions as well. You cannot observe something that does not exist. So flat earthers have two problems. First, there is no evidence at all that the earth is flat. Second, there is overwhelming evidence that the earth is roughly a globe.

 

[Gideon300]

No one needs to "disprove" what you have said - it is not significant enough to stand as 'proof' one way or another - there are too many factors to consider (today).

We have transmitted broadcasts between the U.S. and Europe (and other places) - back when 'tower' radio was all there was in existence. Look it up.

(If/Since you are an RF TECH and know how radio works - you should really take a serious look into the idea that radio waves interfere with the inner-working of the cells in our bodies. Read the book 'The Invisible Rainbow' by Arthur Firstenberg.)

I was a radio tech working on high power microwave devices, including a jammer (X-band and S-band to be exact). Sure, safety needs to be assured. The jammer could have burned my skin or boiled my eye fluid. But the amount of radiation from human sources is vastly less than cosmic radiation that bombards us constantly. I'm 70 and in good health. I've worked in high HF and LF environments where the power was enough to make a fluroescent tube light up just from the aerial radiation. Thats one way that we tested the transmitters. Ill effects? Zero. I would happily live near power transmission lines or cell phone towers. There is one about a minute's walk from my home. Fear and worry kill many more people.

 

[Moses_Young]

Your checkmate is laughable and your self-righteousness and impatience are just stupid. I'll provide calculations when I have the time, not that I am under any obligation to do so.

Well, I'm glad I made you happy, although I don't think my being right has anything to do with self-righteousness, impatience or stupidity - at least on my account. You are actually under obligation to provide proof of the ball-Earth theory, if you are here to defend it. If you chose not to, I wouldn't blame you. Ball-Earth is quite a childish theory to be defending.

Well then, since this thread was started by a flat-earther, it is on the flat-earther to prove his theory.

Nope. Flat-Earth is an observation. One doesn't need to prove an observation. One only needs to open one's eyes to... observe it! ;-)

watch the sun or moon rise or set.
100% impossible and inexplicable if the earth is flat; fully explained by a globe planet orbiting a sun with a globe moon orbiting the earth.done.

Not so. Other theories (such as Flat Earth), explain the sun or moon rising and setting, the same way as parallel railway tracks appear to converge in the distance. Not proof of ball-Earth at all.

Feel better now that you’ve vented your spleen?

He might not, but I certainly do!

Absolute rubbish. The vast majority of humanity knows that the earth is a globe.

And your logical fallacy is known as the bandwagon fallacy. Just because many people have been fooled by the same lie does not it a truth make.

No one can observe a flat earth because it is not flat. It's a simple matter of going as far as you can in one direction. You will end up where you started. Countless people have done that, from different directions as well. You cannot observe something that does not exist. So flat earthers have two problems. First, there is no evidence at all that the earth is flat. Second, there is overwhelming evidence that the earth is roughly a globe.

It may surprise you to learn, but you actually do observe a flat Earth. As this is something that clearly can be observed, I don't think we can argue any further on this point. It would be akin to you arguing that the sky is green and grass is blue. You may truly believe it, but I have no desire to try to convince someone so thoroughly propagandised.

i previously pointed out that atmospheric/cloud tidal motion is real, verified and well-studied, and that observation of it matches Newtonian physics' prediction for the globe earth and globe moon being of their respective sizes and at their respective distance from each other. i also posted links to sites explaining this phenomena, giving evidence that yeah, we know about this and it's real - using this in a flat-earth argument is not making a person some super clever person finding obvious holes in science exposing some kind of wool being pulled over everyone's eyes; instead it makes them an ignorant person not studying out the facts, oblivious to the truth in which these are very well-understood aspects of the natural creation that are not impossible or inexplicable if you actually do the physics.
apparently posting facts doesn't actually move conversations like this along, however. so here's your equation.




View attachment 228246

gravitational constant G = 6.67408 × 10^-11 m^3 / kg•s^2
typical cloud droplet has mass ~ 0.0000000000042kg
mass of earth ~ 5.97219 × 10^24 kg
mass of moon ~ 7.346 × 10^22 kg
distance of typical cloud droplet to center of earth ~ 6,378km
distance of typical cloud droplet to center of moon ~384,400km

gravitational force on cloud droplet from earth: 4.1 × 10^-4 N
gravitational force on cloud droplet from moon: 1.4 × 10^-9 N

the earth's gravity is like 300,000 times stronger on a cloud droplet than the moon's is. no, the standard model does not predict that clouds should be sucked out to the moon. for goodness sakes the flathead-model thinks the moon is causing tides and also located practically inside cloud layers. think about how that's supposed to work??

now when you write your equation for tidal forces on the seas, don't forget to add a component for elasticity of liquid water. remember, pulling on something and moving it a little is not the same as tearing it loose and running away with it.

So riddle me this. Why doesn't an object's weight change between midnight (sun underneath) and mid-day (sun overhead), if the equation is true? Say, with a scale capable of measuring a heavier object to the gram. Simple answer is because the equation is false.

And if the universal gravitation equation describes the tidal forces on the seas, explain how the seas still remain in place and are not sucked into the sky. I'm happy for you to introduce your "elasticity of liquid water" component. Indeed, I demand it, as without it, the equation doesn't explain why water remains on one side of the alleged globe at all.

 

[Dino246]

Well, I'm glad I made you happy, although I don't think my being right has anything to do with self-righteousness, impatience or stupidity - at least on my account. You are actually under obligation to provide proof of the ball-Earth theory, if you are here to defend it. If you chose not to, I wouldn't blame you. Ball-Earth is quite a childish theory to be defending.

Nope. Flat-Earth is an observation. One doesn't need to prove an observation. One only needs to open one's eyes to... observe it! ;-)

Not so. Other theories (such as Flat Earth), explain the sun or moon rising and setting, the same way as parallel railway tracks appear to converge in the distance. Not proof of ball-Earth at all.

He might not, but I certainly do!

And your logical fallacy is known as the bandwagon fallacy. Just because many people have been fooled by the same lie does not it a truth make.

It may surprise you to learn, but you actually do observe a flat Earth. As this is something that clearly can be observed, I don't think we can argue any further on this point. It would be akin to you arguing that the sky is green and grass is blue. You may truly believe it, but I have no desire to try to convince someone so thoroughly propagandised.

So riddle me this. Why doesn't an object's weight change between midnight (sun underneath) and mid-day (sun overhead), if the equation is true? Say, with a scale capable of measuring a heavier object to the gram. Simple answer is because the equation is false.

And if the universal gravitation equation describes the tidal forces on the seas, explain how the seas still remain in place and are not sucked into the sky. I'm happy for you to introduce your "elasticity of liquid water" component. Indeed, I demand it, as without it, the equation doesn't explain why water remains on one side of the alleged globe at all.

I'll respond more fully later, but for now, I consider your claim that flat earth is an observation quite laughable, if you think it is evidentiary. I consider flat earth to be contrary to observations, and ball earth consistent with them.