Ball Earth conundrums
- Thread starter GaryA
- Start date
-
Christian Chat is a moderated online Christian community allowing Christians around the world to fellowship with each other in real time chat via webcam, voice, and text, with the Christian Chat app. You can also start or participate in a Bible-based discussion here in the Christian Chat Forums, where members can also share with each other their own videos, pictures, or favorite Christian music.
If you are a Christian and need encouragement and fellowship, we're here for you! If you are not a Christian but interested in knowing more about Jesus our Lord, you're also welcome! Want to know what the Bible says, and how you can apply it to your life? Join us!
To make new Christian friends now around the world, click here to join Christian Chat.
Sorry... what?
Exploring the ring of ice that surrounds the ENTIRE WORLD (as you claim) is off limits? However would they enforce that? You could just pick a direction and go. Simple math should tell you the inhabitants of a circle can't defend the entire circumference of said circle, because the outside edge is longer than the inside can cover and you can fly outside the range of their guns.
Now if Antarctica was a specific place, a continent on a globe... they could easily enforce that.
Exploring the ring of ice that surrounds the ENTIRE WORLD (as you claim) is off limits? However would they enforce that? You could just pick a direction and go. Simple math should tell you the inhabitants of a circle can't defend the entire circumference of said circle, because the outside edge is longer than the inside can cover and you can fly outside the range of their guns.
Now if Antarctica was a specific place, a continent on a globe... they could easily enforce that.
-
1
- Show all
I read about Jarle Andh0y. An explorer from some years ago who simply wanted to explore Antarctica, who ran into all sorts of troubles, legal and otherwise. There are not many people who have the wealth and ambition to explore Antartica. Many of those who do are easily dissuaded by legal means. For those which are left, more extreme measures may be required, such as the sinking of their vessels (and/or murder of their crew).
@Lynx - the 'ice ring' and the "edge" of the earth are two different things. No one will ever reach the "edge" of the earth (not in this life) - it is somewhere beyond the dome.
The phrase "edge of the world" can be confusing - for simplicity in/of understanding, I suggest that you just use 'ice ring' when referring to the "edge" of the habitable part of the earth.
The phrase "edge of the world" can be confusing - for simplicity in/of understanding, I suggest that you just use 'ice ring' when referring to the "edge" of the habitable part of the earth.
-
1
- Show all
What will happen if you try to fly past it? Will you hit an invisible wall? Is the wall made of glass? Or are there tiny, bright lights sprinkled on the wall?
We could be sending out unmanned jets and testing this. Why are we not?
If it's too far away, why do you fe people say the world is so much smaller than ball Earth people claim it is? Either it's much larger or much smaller, not both at the same time.
We could be sending out unmanned jets and testing this. Why are we not?
If it's too far away, why do you fe people say the world is so much smaller than ball Earth people claim it is? Either it's much larger or much smaller, not both at the same time.
@Moses_Young @GaryA
I think you'll find this documentary very interesting. Made in 2014 it covers evidence that the earth, or our solar system, is the center of the universe. It also discusses Tycho Brahe system, which he built from very accurate observation over a long period of time, which functions with the planets revolving around the sun and the sun revolving around the earth. As far as I know, there are no current observations that disprove it. What revolves around what is a matter of perspective and observation.
The video goes on to discuss the evolution of thought and observation. Covers the Michelson-Morley experiment that failed to prove the earth moves and that there was a moving ether stream. Goes on into relativity, distribution of stars and onto how background radiation suggests a geocentric universe and a matching earth's Equinox and Elliptical planes.
Of course, I recommend watching all of it, but here I've put the start 15:49 of the video starting with Tycho Brahe's geocentric system for a quick peek:
I think you'll find this documentary very interesting. Made in 2014 it covers evidence that the earth, or our solar system, is the center of the universe. It also discusses Tycho Brahe system, which he built from very accurate observation over a long period of time, which functions with the planets revolving around the sun and the sun revolving around the earth. As far as I know, there are no current observations that disprove it. What revolves around what is a matter of perspective and observation.
The video goes on to discuss the evolution of thought and observation. Covers the Michelson-Morley experiment that failed to prove the earth moves and that there was a moving ether stream. Goes on into relativity, distribution of stars and onto how background radiation suggests a geocentric universe and a matching earth's Equinox and Elliptical planes.
Of course, I recommend watching all of it, but here I've put the start 15:49 of the video starting with Tycho Brahe's geocentric system for a quick peek:
-
1
- Show all
I'm not the thread moderator, but the thread was designed to question the Heliocentric Model/Convex Earth, so Gary you owe me one, or something. lol
O.k., so I'm also a skeptic of the Heliocentric Model/Convex Earth, so was curious to what the science guys think of Malcolm Bowden's video on proving that the earth is stationary. I believe the earth is stationary and the earth is concave, so once again, I would be interested in hearing the official view, or what people think of this evidence of a stationary earth.
"Airy's "Failure" was that to observe a particular star he did NOT have to increase the tilt of his telescope when he filled it with water. This animation demonstrates what happens, proves that the Earth is stationary and therefore at the centre of the universe - as the Bible maintains." -Malcolm Bowden (stationary convex earth believer)
O.k., so I'm also a skeptic of the Heliocentric Model/Convex Earth, so was curious to what the science guys think of Malcolm Bowden's video on proving that the earth is stationary. I believe the earth is stationary and the earth is concave, so once again, I would be interested in hearing the official view, or what people think of this evidence of a stationary earth.
"Airy's "Failure" was that to observe a particular star he did NOT have to increase the tilt of his telescope when he filled it with water. This animation demonstrates what happens, proves that the Earth is stationary and therefore at the centre of the universe - as the Bible maintains." -Malcolm Bowden (stationary convex earth believer)
-
1
-
1
- Show all
Answering your in-bold-text question: No, I don't. Just like I said in the post you're quoting. Um, what's going here? I wrote this is one of two (actually three) reasons why the lower southern hemisphere latitudes are cooler than their northern corresponding counterparts. That's what this discussion is all about.
Is your current post reply the first of a multi-post reply, or are you blatantly strawmaning this? If it's the former, you didn't mention that's what you're doing.
You wrote, "The video in post #630 has such strong Flat Earth 'proof' in it that nothing else really compares to it or can stand up against it." and "It is irrefutable that - if the Ball Earth model were true - the climate would in fact be identical-or-very-similar in each of these comparisons. There are no two ways about it."
I took what you said very seriously. Is he right? Can it be reasonably refuted?
My post's 'Part 2' layouts: in-your-house experimentation demonstrates soil heats much more than water. In this one specific video, with soil and water under heatlamp, over 20 mins the soil heated to 2.8 times the temperature of the water. The northern hemisphere has 2.4 times the land area that the southern hemisphere does. (Land Mass: Northern 78%, Southern 32%.)
Do you really think this will have no measurable effect on the temperatures and climate between the corresponding 45-90 degree latitude hemispheres? If you don't, I really have to doubt your sincerity, cause I don't doubt your capacity.
My honest opinion is one doesn't need to add to this very significant 'soil heating' and 'total land mass' differences portion. But we also have that while the earth is 5 million km farther away from the sun, aprx 3% more than the avg, the southern hemisphere is in its winter tilt-away season. The total amount of extra heat to northern hemisphere is not zero. But you can erase this part if you want as I agree it's surely much less significant than the soil-heat/land mass differences reason.
Adding a third thing that is 'not zero', we've seen that Antartica is cooler than the Arctic due to much higher elevation (the highest avg elevation of all continents), mostly a 1-to-3-miles-thick layer of ice on top and the most arid continent. Antarctica is: summer 50*F/winter 36*F cooler than the Arctic. The Artic accumulates more heat than Antartica and that's less heat to distribute around the southern hemisphere. Again, surely not as much as the soil-heat/land mass differences reason.
The conclusion is very simple. There are significant and testable reasons why the temperature and climate are cooler at the 45-90 latitudes. You wouldn't want to stand on that for irrefutable proof of FE.
Is your current post reply the first of a multi-post reply, or are you blatantly strawmaning this? If it's the former, you didn't mention that's what you're doing.
You wrote, "The video in post #630 has such strong Flat Earth 'proof' in it that nothing else really compares to it or can stand up against it." and "It is irrefutable that - if the Ball Earth model were true - the climate would in fact be identical-or-very-similar in each of these comparisons. There are no two ways about it."
I took what you said very seriously. Is he right? Can it be reasonably refuted?
My post's 'Part 2' layouts: in-your-house experimentation demonstrates soil heats much more than water. In this one specific video, with soil and water under heatlamp, over 20 mins the soil heated to 2.8 times the temperature of the water. The northern hemisphere has 2.4 times the land area that the southern hemisphere does. (Land Mass: Northern 78%, Southern 32%.)
Do you really think this will have no measurable effect on the temperatures and climate between the corresponding 45-90 degree latitude hemispheres? If you don't, I really have to doubt your sincerity, cause I don't doubt your capacity.
My honest opinion is one doesn't need to add to this very significant 'soil heating' and 'total land mass' differences portion. But we also have that while the earth is 5 million km farther away from the sun, aprx 3% more than the avg, the southern hemisphere is in its winter tilt-away season. The total amount of extra heat to northern hemisphere is not zero. But you can erase this part if you want as I agree it's surely much less significant than the soil-heat/land mass differences reason.
Adding a third thing that is 'not zero', we've seen that Antartica is cooler than the Arctic due to much higher elevation (the highest avg elevation of all continents), mostly a 1-to-3-miles-thick layer of ice on top and the most arid continent. Antarctica is: summer 50*F/winter 36*F cooler than the Arctic. The Artic accumulates more heat than Antartica and that's less heat to distribute around the southern hemisphere. Again, surely not as much as the soil-heat/land mass differences reason.
The conclusion is very simple. There are significant and testable reasons why the temperature and climate are cooler at the 45-90 latitudes. You wouldn't want to stand on that for irrefutable proof of FE.
Real quick, the video on youtube is called The Principle (2014 - Full Movie), and here's the link: The Principle (2014 - Full Movie) - YouTube