Ball Earth conundrums

[Dino246]

Another Ball Earth conundrum...

If it is true that the northern hemisphere is hotter than the southern hemisphere when the north pole is pointed toward the sun (northern summer; north gets more sun than south) - and, the southern hemisphere is hotter than the northern hemisphere when the south pole is pointed toward the sun (southern summer; south gets more sun than north) - then, it really should be equally as hot at the two half-way-in-between points of 'spring' and 'fall' - and, even more hot than the other two positions - because, the light of the sun is constantly and consistantly hitting the globe from-north-pole-to-south-pole.

During the 'spring' and 'fall' seasons, it should be the hottest everywhere - and, evenly - all at the same time.

"Think about it..."

Wow... once again, reality, simple geometry, and simple physics have eluded you.

The light (and, by extension, heat) impacting the surface of a sphere from a single source are dependent upon the angle at which that light impacts the surface. At the equator, the light hits at roughly 90 degrees, which means the maximum possible heat is imparted to that area of the globe. Nearer the poles, the same amount of light (and heat) is distributed over a much larger surface area, resulting in less rise in temperature.

Here is a very simple diagram (source light rays hitting sphere - Bing images ). Note the difference in size of the two "impact zones":



Larger "impact zones" mean the same amount of energy is spread over a larger area, resulting in a smaller effect at any point within that area. This is perfectly consistent with the warm equator and cool polar regions, and perfectly consistent with a globe Earth.

"Think about it..."

 

[Gideon300]

Would you say that this is because the light has to travel [virtually or moreso] "sideways" through the atmosphere in that scenario?

How much further would you say the light has to travel through the atmosphere?

I don't know, it's never occurred to me to find out. This subject is a bit like evolution to me. Evolutionists often want me to study that theory, as if I could be persuaded by that mumbo jumbo. It's too late, nothing can convince me that God is a liar. Likewise, nothing can convince me that the earth is flat.

 

[Avery]

 

[Timtofly]

I don't know, it's never occurred to me to find out. This subject is a bit like evolution to me. Evolutionists often want me to study that theory, as if I could be persuaded by that mumbo jumbo. It's too late, nothing can convince me that God is a liar. Likewise, nothing can convince me that the earth is flat.

From the deception or truth perspective, it took Satan 5500 years to convince humanity the earth was a sphere in a 14 billion year old universe. Once the deception stuck, of course the decieved are not going to go back to the truth. What is the need? All have been convinced, except for a couple of diehard Bible thumpers, or those whose education does not include modern science. Whose only concern is surviving for 24 more hours.

Once the ball was out of the box, no putting the ball back in. You do realize that Satan had to start with the earth as a sphere, before he could push evolution? Kind of hard to convince people those two lights in the sky, that just orbit earth like every other object up there, have been there for billions of years, since they are closer than scientist imagine.

Once people were convinced the earth was a sphere, then that "bigger" light could be further away and way bigger than the earth, and not just a light placed in the firmament above the earth. It took math and imagination, but eventually the deception worked out.

 

[Gideon300]

From the deception or truth perspective, it took Satan 5500 years to convince humanity the earth was a sphere in a 14 billion year old universe. Once the deception stuck, of course the decieved are not going to go back to the truth. What is the need? All have been convinced, except for a couple of diehard Bible thumpers, or those whose education does not include modern science. Whose only concern is surviving for 24 more hours.

Once the ball was out of the box, no putting the ball back in. You do realize that Satan had to start with the earth as a sphere, before he could push evolution? Kind of hard to convince people those two lights in the sky, that just orbit earth like every other object up there, have been there for billions of years, since they are closer than scientist imagine.

Once people were convinced the earth was a sphere, then that "bigger" light could be further away and way bigger than the earth, and not just a light placed in the firmament above the earth. It took math and imagination, but eventually the deception worked out.

The reason people believe in the ball earth is simple. It is a ball. At least as far back as ancient Greece, people worked it out. Mariners can see the curvature of the earth. I spent 3-1/2 years on a warship. I traveled much of SE Asia. I've covered a great deal of the earth by air. The evidence for a ball earth is overwhelming. And it has nothing to do with evolution. Eyewitnesses have seen the ball earth from space. The ISS goes around the earth every 90 minutes. People have stood on the moon and looked at the ball earth. At least 6 of them were born again Christians.

Around 600 people have been into space. Not one has returned and said the ball earth is wrong and it is really flat. Those 600 are from at least 37 different countries. Why would all 600 lie? You believe eyewitness accounts about Jesus from 2,000 years ago. Yet you reject eyewitness accounts in your own lifetime. Why FE believers refuse to accept the evidence is beyond me. You call ball earth believers deceived. You have it back to front.

 

[gb9]

The reason people believe in the ball earth is simple. It is a ball. At least as far back as ancient Greece, people worked it out. Mariners can see the curvature of the earth. I spent 3-1/2 years on a warship. I traveled much of SE Asia. I've covered a great deal of the earth by air. The evidence for a ball earth is overwhelming. And it has nothing to do with evolution. Eyewitnesses have seen the ball earth from space. The ISS goes around the earth every 90 minutes. People have stood on the moon and looked at the ball earth. At least 6 of them were born again Christians.

Around 600 people have been into space. Not one has returned and said the ball earth is wrong and it is really flat. Those 600 are from at least 37 different countries. Why would all 600 lie? You believe eyewitness accounts about Jesus from 2,000 years ago. Yet you reject eyewitness accounts in your own lifetime. Why FE believers refuse to accept the evidence is beyond me. You call ball earth believers deceived. You have it back to front.

flat earthers think that n a s a is in charge of a massive worldwide coverup to keep us round earthers in the dark.

 

[Timtofly]

The reason people believe in the ball earth is simple. It is a ball. At least as far back as ancient Greece, people worked it out. Mariners can see the curvature of the earth. I spent 3-1/2 years on a warship. I traveled much of SE Asia. I've covered a great deal of the earth by air. The evidence for a ball earth is overwhelming. And it has nothing to do with evolution. Eyewitnesses have seen the ball earth from space. The ISS goes around the earth every 90 minutes. People have stood on the moon and looked at the ball earth. At least 6 of them were born again Christians.

Around 600 people have been into space. Not one has returned and said the ball earth is wrong and it is really flat. Those 600 are from at least 37 different countries. Why would all 600 lie? You believe eyewitness accounts about Jesus from 2,000 years ago. Yet you reject eyewitness accounts in your own lifetime. Why FE believers refuse to accept the evidence is beyond me. You call ball earth believers deceived. You have it back to front.

The eye is a ball, no? The human body has no means of correcting one's view to totally see anything of size without having some "curve" to it. Your perspective is always one huge circle, in which your body is the central point.

Has any one, even on the moon ever questioned why they can only see a limited amount of the earth's surface? If they did, the conditioned response would be because it is round, duh. One can explain away the thought the moon is not a light. But since the Bible says it is a light, from the moon or using any light source it is still a limited field of vision and still a circle. The simple reason is that the light source itself is round. One is only going to see what is revealed by the light source doing the revealing.

Without the light from the moon, if one was even looking at the earth from the moon, how could they see anything? If it is still light from the sun, they would still see a round view of the earth from the sun light.

Some will say, because the sun is so big you can see the whole "round" earth. Since that contradicts Genesis 1, then it would be considered circular reasoning, no pun intended. You are basing the earth as a ball, because of the reasoning the sun is so big. When the simple point is, that the sun only lights up a round circle on the earth either way. We are just conditioned to think the sun is way bigger than God claimed in Genesis 1.

At this point people interpret Genesis 1 according to modern science logic. So no one will ever get humanity as a whole to go back and interpret science according to Genesis 1 logic. That would only be proven when a person lands on the sun. LakeOfFire?

Peter said at the Second Coming all this will be dissolved. All human works including modern science will be burned up. Then the truth will be revealed, whatever that happens to be.

 

[dlw]

I really dont try to figure out the Lords creation on how it all works, but it does and its amazing.

 

[Dino246]

One is only going to see what is revealed by the light source doing the revealing.

At any particular moment, one may only see what is illuminated, but that doesn't limit the observer from determining an item's shape from a combination of observations from many such moments.

Without the light from the moon, if one was even looking at the earth from the moon, how could they see anything? If it is still light from the sun, they would still see a round view of the earth from the sun light.

Dude, you're in the dark. On observer on the moon does not need light from the moon to see the earth; it is illuminated by the sun. Further, light from the sun does not distort the shape of the earth.

Some will say, because the sun is so big you can see the whole "round" earth. Since that contradicts Genesis 1, then it would be considered circular reasoning, no pun intended.

That doesn't contradict anything in Genesis 1.

You are basing the earth as a ball, because of the reasoning the sun is so big. When the simple point is, that the sun only lights up a round circle on the earth either way.

Um, no. The sun lights the entire side of the earth at any moment, not just a circle on the surface.

We are just conditioned to think the sun is way bigger than God claimed in Genesis 1.

God didn't tell us in Genesis 1 how big the sun is, so it is impossible to think the sun is "way bigger than God claimed in Genesis 1".

At this point people interpret Genesis 1 according to modern science logic. So no one will ever get humanity as a whole to go back and interpret science according to Genesis 1 logic.

Logic is not dependent on science, and the logic that would be applicable in Genesis 1 is exactly the same logic that is applicable to every other area of discussion. Logic and science are not the same thing.

 

[GaryA]

Wow... once again, reality, simple geometry, and simple physics have eluded you.

The light (and, by extension, heat) impacting the surface of a sphere from a single source are dependent upon the angle at which that light impacts the surface. At the equator, the light hits at roughly 90 degrees, which means the maximum possible heat is imparted to that area of the globe. Nearer the poles, the same amount of light (and heat) is distributed over a much larger surface area, resulting in less rise in temperature.

Here is a very simple diagram (source light rays hitting sphere - Bing images ). Note the difference in size of the two "impact zones":

View attachment 239126

Larger "impact zones" mean the same amount of energy is spread over a larger area, resulting in a smaller effect at any point within that area. This is perfectly consistent with the warm equator and cool polar regions, and perfectly consistent with a globe Earth.

"Think about it..."

This becomes moot in the context of the principle statement in my post #73 - which you totally missed and/or ignored - go read it again.

And - please - really actually spend some serious time thinking about it before you respond. Because, the above quoted response does not even begin to come close to the complexity of things involved...

 

[Dino246]

This becomes moot in the context of the principle statement in my post #73 - which you totally missed and/or ignored - go read it again.

And - please - really actually spend some serious time thinking about it before you respond. Because, the above quoted response does not even begin to come close to the complexity of things involved...

Here is your post #73:

"If it is true that the northern hemisphere is hotter than the southern hemisphere when the north pole is pointed toward the sun (northern summer; north gets more sun than south) - and, the southern hemisphere is hotter than the northern hemisphere when the south pole is pointed toward the sun (southern summer; south gets more sun than north) - then, it really should be equally as hot at the two half-way-in-between points of 'spring' and 'fall' - and, even more hot than the other two positions - because, the light of the sun is constantly and consistantly hitting the globe from-north-pole-to-south-pole.

During the 'spring' and 'fall' seasons, it should be the hottest everywhere - and, evenly - all at the same time. "

I assure you that I have read your entire post, more than once. My post certainly responds adequately to your closing sentence, and completely debunks it. So, I encourage you to rethink your wording, because there are only two options here: either you have worded your position poorly such that it is not understandable, or your position is appropriately worded and is simply very wrong.

 

[Gideon300]

flat earthers think that n a s a is in charge of a massive worldwide coverup to keep us round earthers in the dark.

Flat earthers have to find a way to deny reality. Why they care so much amazes me.

 

[gb9]

that is my point- what does it matter??

 

[Gideon300]

that is my point- what does it matter??

I've never seen an OP that is devoted to promoting the globe earth. I've seen several that promote FE. I've been told I'm an unbeliever because I declare that the earth is a globe.

Some people are susceptible to almost any suggestion. I've had a discussion with someone who was questioning the globe earth because of an FE post. My concern is with truth. FE people can believe what they like, but they are the ones who take it overly seriously.

 

[Jocund]

I don't know, it's never occurred to me to find out. This subject is a bit like evolution to me. Evolutionists often want me to study that theory, as if I could be persuaded by that mumbo jumbo. It's too late, nothing can convince me that God is a liar. Likewise, nothing can convince me that the earth is flat.

Suppose for a moment that from the time of your birth someone plugged you into the Matrix (or put your brain in a vat, or chained you into Platos cave, or any other simulated world)

Let's suppose that in objective reality, you actually lived on a flat earth but inside the simulation the earth you experience is round. You could argue that the earth is flat, and it could be the case that your statement is objectively true despite clashing with subjective simulated reality that you experience.

Are you suggesting there is no value in exploring and testing the nature of the simulation? Should we automatically assume that the possibility of Descartes' demon may render everything you experience to be illusory? Is there no value in exploring the nuances of something that is suspect of being simulated?

We can still speak of truths within the simulated world that would not necessarily speak to an objective world. With that in mind, how can you so readily reject evolution and round earth?

 

[TheLearner]

And, that same force acting on lower-volume less-density objects will produce a greater effect on those objects.

The fluid dynamics of the water in the ocean would cause it to be an orders-of-magnitude greater resistance to that force than that of atmospheric water vapor (not to mention, the air itself).

The gravitational "pull" of the moon would suck the atmosphere out into space.

According to the inverse-square law, the clouds would "feel" a greater 'effect' than the oceans; albeit, not by a major factor - based on distance alone. However, the difference in 'effect' due to density and other factors would be hugely significant.

And, if you are trying to tell me that the gravitational force of the earth overrides the moon on [much] lower-density matter - while, at the same time - the gravitational force of the moon - a much smaller less-dense body - at a great distance - will override the point-blank-distance gravitational force of the earth on [much] greater-density matter...

"And, you think I am crazy???"

in·verse square law
/ˈinvərs ˌskwe(ə)r ˈlô,ənˈvərs ˌskwe(ə)r ˈlô/
nounPHYSICS
a law stating that the intensity of an effect such as illumination or gravitational force changes in inverse proportion to the square of the distance from the source.

The fable of the butter gun
Suppose a restaurant has the problem of buttering toast. They want to be very modern and do toast buttering with a machine. The restaurant owner invents a Butter Gun, with melted butter in the handle, which can be squirted out in straight lines of butter.
Here is a piece of toast, and the lines of butter go out and hit it all over.

Now instead of one toast, the butter lines might go on, and you can put the toast farther back, at twice the distance. Two pieces of toast wide, and two toasts high.

All together, four pieces of toast to intercept the butter. The butter will be a quarter as thick. This is the inverse square law (of buttering).
Extending the idea: At triple the distance, you can arrange 333 toasts by 333 toasts to fit within the spray lines, for 999 total toasts, and you get \dfrac{1}{9}
9
1

start fraction, 1, divided by, 9, end fraction the thickness of butter, for "economy" treatment.

https://www.khanacademy.org/science...ce-and-electric-field/a/ee-inverse-square-law

https://www.sciencedirect.com/topics/engineering/inverse-square-law

 

[TheLearner]

Oh this thread is 500 pages, I am not keeping up

 

[soberxp]

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?

I found it interesting. Why did I find it?

We should all have learned that when two objects of different masses fall from the Leaning Tower of Pisa, the two objects will reach the ground at the same time.

Therefore, the influence of gravity on objects of different masses is the same.

But scientists seem to have overlooked a key issue,The tidal locking phenomenon is not entirely caused by the moon,Scientists seem to ignore inertia force.


The earth rotates at a high speed, but the ocean will also change on the basis of this inertial force. This change is produced after the gravity between the earth and the moon reaches equilibrium.In other words, this phenomenon can only be observed in a huge water environment like the ocean.

So you can't observe this phenomenon in a glass of water,Because in addition to inertial force, there is also reaction force.Or the surface tension prevents you from observing inertial forces.

 

[soberxp]

Wow... once again, reality, simple geometry, and simple physics have eluded you.

The light (and, by extension, heat) impacting the surface of a sphere from a single source are dependent upon the angle at which that light impacts the surface. At the equator, the light hits at roughly 90 degrees, which means the maximum possible heat is imparted to that area of the globe. Nearer the poles, the same amount of light (and heat) is distributed over a much larger surface area, resulting in less rise in temperature.

Here is a very simple diagram (source light rays hitting sphere - Bing images ). Note the difference in size of the two "impact zones":

View attachment 239126

Larger "impact zones" mean the same amount of energy is spread over a larger area, resulting in a smaller effect at any point within that area. This is perfectly consistent with the warm equator and cool polar regions, and perfectly consistent with a globe Earth.

"Think about it..."

Therefore, according to this picture, the ocean of Thermal expansion and cold contraction may also be considered

 

[Gideon300]

Suppose for a moment that from the time of your birth someone plugged you into the Matrix (or put your brain in a vat, or chained you into Platos cave, or any other simulated world)

Let's suppose that in objective reality, you actually lived on a flat earth but inside the simulation the earth you experience is round. You could argue that the earth is flat, and it could be the case that your statement is objectively true despite clashing with subjective simulated reality that you experience.

Are you suggesting there is no value in exploring and testing the nature of the simulation? Should we automatically assume that the possibility of Descartes' demon may render everything you experience to be illusory? Is there no value in exploring the nuances of something that is suspect of being simulated?

We can still speak of truths within the simulated world that would not necessarily speak to an objective world. With that in mind, how can you so readily reject evolution and round earth?

I live in the real world, not a fantasy/simulated world. Truth is objective. This life is what it is and not a simulation. Either the world is a globe or it is not. I used to read a lot of science fiction. However, I was well aware that it was fiction, not science. Now that I'm born again, I've lost interest in SciFi and fantasy.

I readily reject evolution and I readily accept the globe earth because evolution is false and the globe earth true. How do I know? In the first case, evolution, I went to the Creator and discovered what He had to say about it. I'd already rejected evolution as a concept. However, that then begs the question as to how the creation came about.

It never occurred to me to doubt that the earth was a globe. I'd never come across FE believers until I came on this forum. I thought it must have been April Fool's day until I realised that they were serious. The evidence for a globe earth is overwhelming. The evidence for a flat earth is zero.

Yeah, I watched The Matrix. That's a couple of hours of my life I won't get back. Not as bad as Titanic............. I haven't watched a movie for years. I have other interests.