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.
sunrise and sunset, moonrise and moonset 100% completely refute 'flat planet'
every eye on earth can see this 4 times a day.
what @Moses_Young thinks sunset looks like:
what everyone knows sunset actually looks like:
¡hemos terminado!
every eye on earth can see this 4 times a day.
what @Moses_Young thinks sunset looks like:
what everyone knows sunset actually looks like:
¡hemos terminado!
open your eyes, little child.
the sunrise is not a tiny dot 30º above the horizon slowly getting bigger.
how much of a fool do you want to make of yourself?
the sunrise is not a tiny dot 30º above the horizon slowly getting bigger.
how much of a fool do you want to make of yourself?
Maybe it is you who needs to get out more... preferably in a relatively flat part of the planet, where you can plainly see the sun rising and setting, not merely getting brighter and dimmer in place.
Compassion has won... 
I will answer your question - in this thread - because - after thinking about it - it is, after all, intrinsically tied to Ball Earth. I can still make my point - which I will do in a later post.
The reason is - to hide God.
Satan has introduced Ball Earth, Evolution, and other things into the world to divert people's attention away from God.
The Ball Earth model places us in meaningless obscurity in a vast universe.
The Flat Earth model unmistakably and vividly shows that there is a Creator.
No one in their right mind can look at the Flat Earth model and determine that there is no God.
I will answer your question - in this thread - because - after thinking about it - it is, after all, intrinsically tied to Ball Earth. I can still make my point - which I will do in a later post.
The reason is - to hide God.
Satan has introduced Ball Earth, Evolution, and other things into the world to divert people's attention away from God.
The Ball Earth model places us in meaningless obscurity in a vast universe.
The Flat Earth model unmistakably and vividly shows that there is a Creator.
No one in their right mind can look at the Flat Earth model and determine that there is no God.
-
1
- Show all
The calculation for gravitational pull is the same for everything, but the resultant gravitational force is not "the same on everything else". It is entirely dependent on the masses of the objects, and the gravitational force of the earth must be accounted.
It does, but the effects would be trumped by air currents.
Yes, but not to a degree that you would be able to observe it or measure it without extremely sensitive instruments.
Here is your error, Gary. Your statement is diametrically opposite to the truth.
The mass of the oceans is many orders of magnitude greater than that of water vapour, so the total effect of the moon's gravity is many orders of magnitude greater.
Clouds are one form of water vapour, dense enough to be visible; they have an approximate density of 0.5 grams per cubic metre (source: https://www.usgs.gov/special-topic/...ce_center_objects=0#qt-science_center_objects). Ocean water at the surface has an average density of 1.025 Kg per litre (source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seawater).
That's 1025 Kg per cubic metre, or over two million times as dense as clouds. That means that for every unit of volume, there is more than two million times as much force upon the liquid water as there is upon the vapour (cloud).
Actually, water vapour not condensed into clouds is of course even less dense, meaning that the force of the moon's gravitational pull will be even smaller on water vapour than on clouds.
In summary, the force of gravity is directly dependent upon mass, so the greater the mass, the greater the force. Therefore, the effect of gravity upon an enormous fluid mass (the ocean) is much more noticeable than on the small amount of water in a glass, a pond, or even a lake.
It does, but the effects would be trumped by air currents.
Yes, but not to a degree that you would be able to observe it or measure it without extremely sensitive instruments.
Here is your error, Gary. Your statement is diametrically opposite to the truth.
The mass of the oceans is many orders of magnitude greater than that of water vapour, so the total effect of the moon's gravity is many orders of magnitude greater.
Clouds are one form of water vapour, dense enough to be visible; they have an approximate density of 0.5 grams per cubic metre (source: https://www.usgs.gov/special-topic/...ce_center_objects=0#qt-science_center_objects). Ocean water at the surface has an average density of 1.025 Kg per litre (source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seawater).
That's 1025 Kg per cubic metre, or over two million times as dense as clouds. That means that for every unit of volume, there is more than two million times as much force upon the liquid water as there is upon the vapour (cloud).
Actually, water vapour not condensed into clouds is of course even less dense, meaning that the force of the moon's gravitational pull will be even smaller on water vapour than on clouds.
In summary, the force of gravity is directly dependent upon mass, so the greater the mass, the greater the force. Therefore, the effect of gravity upon an enormous fluid mass (the ocean) is much more noticeable than on the small amount of water in a glass, a pond, or even a lake.
-
3
- Show all
you have no argument whatsoever.
See how even in your own video, the sun's shape is not circular? This is because the Earth is not turning around to shield the sun, but the increasing distance of the sun from the observer means more and more of the atmosphere is shielding the sun's rays, and these are no longer able to penetrate through to the observer.
-
1
- Show all
Frankly, the only thing dense here is your argument. The sun's shape is distorted due to refraction and atmospheric turbulence. It is not merely becoming dimmer. It clearly drops behind the horizon of the Earth.
How you can watch such a video and come up with such codswollop boggles the mind. I can only conclude that you are truly brainwashed, and the bright light of reality cannot penetrate through to you.
How you can watch such a video and come up with such codswollop boggles the mind. I can only conclude that you are truly brainwashed, and the bright light of reality cannot penetrate through to you.
-
1
- Show all
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.
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 don't like to say this to a believer, but you are deluded, which means
"An idiosyncratic belief or impression maintained despite being contradicted by reality or rational argument, typically as a symptom of mental disorder."
I'm not saying that you have a mental disorder - I'm not qualified for that. As the the rest of the definition, it fits perfectly.
-
1
-
1
-
1
- Show all
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.
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.
-
1
- Show all
Your "simple answer" might satisfy a simpleton, but the rest of us see the folly of it. You are assuming that an object's weight (gravitation effect, not mass) doesn't change. Where is your evidence that it doesn't?
The effect of the Earth's gravity is roughly 296,000 times that of the moon. However, there is more going on than just gravity. Here's a link to a one-page article, which I encourage you to read.
https://oceanservice.noaa.gov/education/tutorial_tides/tides03_gravity.html
The effect of the Earth's gravity is roughly 296,000 times that of the moon. However, there is more going on than just gravity. Here's a link to a one-page article, which I encourage you to read.
https://oceanservice.noaa.gov/education/tutorial_tides/tides03_gravity.html
No - sorry - you are in error...
You are allowing the math to interfere with your understanding of the actual physics.
In BE physics...
The equation given represents the total "pull" that is between two objects - where the mass of both objects affect the outcome. However, the actual "pull" of each object on the other is dependent only upon its own mass.
The "pull" of a drop of water falling from a cloud above the ocean against the earth, the ocean, a ship on the water, etc is not the same as the "pull" of [each of] those things against the drop of water.
The greater mass has the greater "pull" on the other object.
The "pull" of the earth on that drop of water is greater than the "pull" of the moon on that drop of water.
And, the overall "net" force on the drop will govern - it falls to earth - it does not "fall" to the moon.
The same is true for every drop of water that is in the ocean. The "point-blank" distance plus the mass of the earth does not allow for the moon - with much lower mass and at such a distance - to "overtake" the earth and "lift" so much mass/weight several feet.
If the earth has such greater "pull" on the drop of water than does the moon - how can the moon possibly "lift" so many more "drops" - all in molecular cohesion from the 'local' forces that are in-effect - against the point-blank effects of the earth and the ocean? (Not to mention the other forces present - the ocean surface is very rarely glass-smooth, no water currents, etc.)
The "net" force is always too great in the earth's favor - the moon "doesn't have a chance" to produce that great of an effect on such a large mass of ocean.
And - the "excuses" for the 'bulge' on the side opposite the moon --- that is purely preposterous...
If the moon were causing the tides, then 'high tide' would only exist in one 'region' on the face of the earth at any moment in time - the mid-point of which would be the point closest to the moon at that point in time.
You are allowing the math to interfere with your understanding of the actual physics.
In BE physics...
The equation given represents the total "pull" that is between two objects - where the mass of both objects affect the outcome. However, the actual "pull" of each object on the other is dependent only upon its own mass.
The "pull" of a drop of water falling from a cloud above the ocean against the earth, the ocean, a ship on the water, etc is not the same as the "pull" of [each of] those things against the drop of water.
The greater mass has the greater "pull" on the other object.
The "pull" of the earth on that drop of water is greater than the "pull" of the moon on that drop of water.
And, the overall "net" force on the drop will govern - it falls to earth - it does not "fall" to the moon.
The same is true for every drop of water that is in the ocean. The "point-blank" distance plus the mass of the earth does not allow for the moon - with much lower mass and at such a distance - to "overtake" the earth and "lift" so much mass/weight several feet.
If the earth has such greater "pull" on the drop of water than does the moon - how can the moon possibly "lift" so many more "drops" - all in molecular cohesion from the 'local' forces that are in-effect - against the point-blank effects of the earth and the ocean? (Not to mention the other forces present - the ocean surface is very rarely glass-smooth, no water currents, etc.)
The "net" force is always too great in the earth's favor - the moon "doesn't have a chance" to produce that great of an effect on such a large mass of ocean.
And - the "excuses" for the 'bulge' on the side opposite the moon --- that is purely preposterous...
If the moon were causing the tides, then 'high tide' would only exist in one 'region' on the face of the earth at any moment in time - the mid-point of which would be the point closest to the moon at that point in time.