Ball Earth conundrums

[SavedByGrace00]

Or - maybe-just-maybe - I have an all-too-well understanding - and consider these kinds of things with a deeper and more detailed approach than most folks...

Have you really thought deep-or-long about what I have written in this thread so far?

Can you see the point that I am trying to make?

Do you see just how ridiculous it is to think that the gravitational pull of the moon - a much less massive body at such a great distance - could possibly overcome the gravitational pull of the point-blank more massive earth - and/but only for the single largest most massive 'target' - having no effect whatsoever on so many other much less massive 'targets'...???

I sincerely hope you will give this some serious thought and attention.

Actually you don’t even need gravity, it’s all just Buoyancy and density. Gravity is needed to make you believe in space. 😂
All kidding aside, a submarine is basically a metal tube with all the important stuff on the inside because the ocean is a harsh environment ( water pressure ). Space is also a harsh environment ( vacuum ) yet for some reason all the Important stuff is on the outside of the space station. It’s only there so you can watch them do these silly space walks to make you believe there is something beyond the firmament.

 

[SavedByGrace00]

@Mawake

since you 'thumbs-downed' this comment, it is incumbent on you to provide a thorough and predictable model for the universal observation of sundown/sunrise moonset/moonrise that withstands 100% criticism, using only flat-earth-consistent geometry & optical physics.

otherwise you're just being an idiot.

** heliocentric, oblate-spherical planet model physics 100% completely explains observation, btw.

give me a workable alternative that withstands all scrutiny & can 100% accurately predict observation, go:

You just need a good lesson in watch the vanishing point is, your eyes tell you the ocean is flat as you look out at i

it's not ad hominem.
not in the least.
so you look even dumber.
i am asking for hard scientific evidence.
you have zero thus far.
so it is 100% logical that you're either an idiot or too stubborn to provide an answer, which is also idiotic.

i'm saying all this based on unassailable logic. not ad-hominem, but observational, objective fact.

give me a physical pancake-earth model that 100% explains universal observation of sunrise/sunset, moonrise/moonset & withstands all legitimate scrutiny, go:

If you can explain to me how a SR71 blackbird goes only Mach 3 and somehow they get a giant school bus to go Mach 24 I would take the heliocentric model more seriously. Mach 24 😂

https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1582366315863769088

 

[SavedByGrace00]

sunrise and sunset are absolutely impossible if the earth is flat.

yet every day, every eye that cares to look up, sees it.

sunrise and sunset are absolutely impossible if the earth is flat.

yet every day, every eye that cares to look up, sees it.

sunrise and sunset are absolutely impossible if the earth is flat.

yet every day, every eye that cares to look up, sees it.

Sun doesn’t set or rise on your globe model it simple disappears because apparently the globe goes around the sun or maybe just maybe it’s much simpler. The sun simple moves out of sight giving you the impression of setting and rising on the flat earth.

 

[posthuman]

Sun doesn’t set or rise on your globe model it simple disappears because apparently the globe goes around the sun or maybe just maybe it’s much simpler. The sun simple moves out of sight giving you the impression of setting and rising on the flat earth.



View attachment 244996

from a perspective outside of the earth yes the sun doesn't "set" it disappears from the view of any observer from the surface of the earth.
in particular the horizon obscures the sun incrementally ((100% consistent with observation of all living souls)) such that there are distinct moments of time when the observed 'disc' of the sun is half below the horizon, half above. same for the moon.


this is absolutely incompatible with all 'flat-earth' models.
100% incompatible.
i repeat, no flat earth model can explain sunrise/sunset, moonrise moonset -- things which the eyes God created of every living being God created sees 4 times a day, every day.
that is common knowledge to all living beings.
all living beings. all eyes that see.
absolute basic fact. very simple. observed by all living beings, 4 times a day.
why 4?
nvmind
the fact that the accepted oblate-spheroid, heliocentric cosmological model 100% explains this and in no other model is consistent with these facts must at all costs never be spoken of in these conspiracy threads. it is taboo. speaking the truth makes me a "troll"

so i'm sorry that i have been a "jerk" because i pointed out the truth.
i guess i should let liars go on proliferating lies, like a 'good christian' and just be nice.
after all this is a narrowly-defined-thread in which nothing that challenges those lies is acceptable to make mention of.

my apologies.
sincerely.

i am supposed to let children remain children, i guess?
the ignorant must be sheltered from knowledge, i am told - so that they may be further deceived, and made even more ignorant.

 

[posthuman]

please forgive me for telling the truth, @Moses_Young, @GaryA

i'm really sorry. i was rude to speak so honestly & factually.
i have been so ashamed that i haven't even shown my face here for a week.

forgive my love for the truth, please - my hatred for lies is unbecoming.

 

[posthuman]

Sun doesn’t set or rise on your globe model it simple disappears because apparently the globe goes around the sun or maybe just maybe it’s much simpler. The sun simple moves out of sight giving you the impression of setting and rising on the flat earth.



View attachment 244996

no flat-earth model has the sun 'go out of sight' -- it can't dip below the surface of the plane because then night would be universal.
this lie was acceptable before global communication was possible, but now we know that while it is night here, it is day on far away from here.
but we know that light doesn't 'tire' and fall to the ground. we know light bends through atmosphere, and we can measure how far atmosphere can bend it. we know it does not 'bend' so far as to create night simply by distance. the angle of atmospheric refraction is much too small; light is much too powerful.

flat earth proliferates on the obvious lie of a supposed weakness of light. of the easily disproven false insufficiency of light. it depends on you being utterly ignorant of the readily observed and experimentally proven properties of light. flat earth depends on you being ((1)) utterly ignorant and ((2)) willing to believe that light is powerless.

Christ said, I AM the light.
fun fact.

flat earth needs you to know nothing of light, so it can lie to you about light without you recognizing that it is lying.


i've said too much.
Gary tells me i am not allowed to expose the lies of this falsehood in this thread; it is purposefully designed to shelter you from the truth. i'm not supposed to say anything other than repeating easily disproven false accusations about actually factually true facts. this thread is about telling carefully crafted lies, and i'm not supposed to expose them.
it is "christian" to allow lies to be openly preached, unopposed, apparently, because we're supposed to be nice above all things, even if it means letting people be deceived by ridiculously obvious lies.
i'm having an hard time coming to grips with this, so please forgive me when i keep accidentally telling the truth.

my apologies again.
i am so terrible! i cannot help but speak the truth, even when it is disallowed.
please forgive me.
remain in darkness, as is the purpose of this thread. pretend i never told you the truth.
pretend you have never known the facts.

 

[posthuman]

i guess i should just delete my account huh
that would be the right thing to do?

i don't seem to be able to help myself being such a jerk.

i recommend all of you put me on ignore.

 

[posthuman]

It is verified each day and night (around) the world.

i watch it every morning and evening

it has a great effect on me

 

[posthuman]

Please would you explain how the effect of atmosphere and frequency allows radar to work beyond the maximum distance of the curvature of the Earth, according to ball-Earth theory? I'm talking about directed radar (not the technique whereby radar is bounced off the firmament).

this is factually incorrect.
radar does not travel further than possible, and the reason you think it can't travel as far as it does is because you are rejecting the very thing that allows it to travel as far as it does - the **fact** that it reflects off the atmosphere/firmament.
radar, AM & HAM radio travel much further than FM because their wavelengths are long, so they can be reflected off the firmament/atmosphere. these are readily, repeatedly proven facts. don't ask me to set aside the truth in order to show that lies are lies!

you're depending on lies to make your arguments, and arguing that truth cannot be taken into account to refute your arguments.
this is like claiming there is no such thing as air, and asking how can we breathe? but you're not allowed to say because air exists!!

as Christians we fall into a similar trap with atheists or adherents of other religions, who refuse to acknowledge the Bible. sometimes we put ourselves into the position where we try to prove our faith without the Bible -- why?? the Bible is the truth; why would we for the sake of argument presume the Bible isn't true? to prove the Bible?
why would you talk to a JW on the premises that their abhorrent mistranslation is correct?
why would you talk to LDS taking their BOM to be true?
would you try to talk to an atheist as though there really is no God, in order to show him that God really is?

you're asking us to pretend the truth isn't true so we can prove to you the truth is true.
that's untenable. it's ridiculous.
the truth is the truth. if the earth were flat radar would travel across the entire earth unimpeded.
as would light.
as would line-of-sight.
it doesn't.
deal with it.
if what you're preaching is true, there would be no such thing as darkness. no such thing as morning.
but there is.

i have a model that perfectly explains all of this.
do you have a model that can explain any of it?
no?
no?
no?

oh yeah
i'm not supposed to mention that.
i'm just supposed to tell the same lies.
this thread is only for lies. no truth allowed.
so you can feel good.
like a nice person.

my bad.
again, please put me on ignore, so you are no longer offended by the facts.

 

[posthuman]

i am so ashamed!

i keep telling the truth.

i won't come back to the forum for another week; maybe by then i will learn to respect my brother's right to believe lies.
forgive me!!

 

[posthuman]

This thread is not about Flat Earth. It is about Ball Earth.

is it reasonable to make a thread about predestination where it is not allowed to mention free will?

your preaching is not unknown to us here.
we know what this thread is really about.

 

[posthuman]

here's an interesting article on doppler-radar calculations for a flat-earth model.
of note is that for "real earth" ((sic)) refraction is taken into account, but for "flat earth" it must be ignored, because otherwise the model cannot be computed.
in particular, note in the summary, explaining why radar waves would have to apparently inexplicably bend upward:
"the geometrical transformation to a flat earth distorts space."

https://journals.ametsoc.org/view/journals/mwre/147/3/mwr-d-18-0356.1.xml

IOW in order to accept or even entertain a non-spherical ((or approximately spherical as the actual case is)) model of the earth, one must ignore all known, proven & accepted physics. one must pretend that reality is incorrect.

it is a similar case for sunrise. one must pretend Light does not behave as Light actually behaves. one must ignore what is readily seen by every eye on earth 4 times a day
((why 4? smh))

the real conundrum here is that "ball earth" is the only model that actually makes sense.
did God design the universe to lie to us?

 

[Dude653]

Examples of gravity

Yeah but flat earthers just say gravity isn't real so it's a moot point for them. Actually on a flat earth, gravity would pull everything sideways instead of down

 

[Dude653]

On a flat earth, there would be daylight 24/7, also how do you get seasons on a flat Earth
The sun would have to have a built-in thermostat to know how to turn itself up and down. Or to turn itself off and on
Maybe there's a magical sun fairy that does it.

 

[posthuman]

Yeah but flat earthers just say gravity isn't real so it's a moot point for them. Actually on a flat earth, gravity would pull everything sideways instead of down

Yes, if the world was actually flat, gravity would be a very small effect pulling everything northward.
There is zero evidence this effect exists and tons and tons of evidence to the contrary.

 

[posthuman]

On a flat earth, there would be daylight 24/7, also how do you get seasons on a flat Earth
The sun would have to have a built-in thermostat to know how to turn itself up and down. Or to turn itself off and on
Maybe there's a magical sun fairy that does it.

There is zero explanation from the flat-people to explain how observational reality as it pertains to temperature and seasons can possibly be explained in their ridiculous model.

In keeping with the spirit of the OP please refrain from speaking anything true or communicating any factual information.
This thread is specifically designated for spreading lies and disinformation.

 

[Dude653]

There is zero explanation from the flat-people to explain how observational reality as it pertains to temperature and seasons can possibly be explained in their ridiculous model.

In keeping with the spirit of the OP please refrain from speaking anything true or communicating any factual information.
This thread is specifically designated for spreading lies and disinformation.

Gravity is what keeps us orbiting the Sun so without gravity we would have all frozen to death by now

 

[GaryA]

Guess again - if there are any answers to be given in this thread, they need to be good-and-proper "real science" answers to one or more of the Ball Earth conundrums presented - period. Otherwise, general discussion with regard to Ball Earth conundrums is acceptable.

This thread is not about Flat Earth. It is about Ball Earth.

STOP being a troll. STOP trashing my thread.

Go read post #31 in this thread.

Post #31 in this thread:

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...

Well, I guess we found out - didn't we?

You cannot handle it. You cannot do it. SMH

It certainly appears that the most 'prominent' Ball Earth proponents on this site are absolutely and totally incapable of:

~ maintaining a 'Ball Earth only' discussion in a 'Ball Earth only' thread.

~ giving valid answers and solutions to the 'conundrums' presented.

~ respecting a 'Ball Earth only' thread/topic - by staying on topic.

Let me say again:

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?

I say you cannot.

Would you like to prove me wrong?

If so, then:

~ Start giving intelligent on-topic answers to the 'Ball Earth conundrums' presented in this thread.

~ Stop "trashing" the thread - filling it up with so much off-topic distraction in the hopes that no one will bother to read it.

(Yes - I know what you are up to.)

To do otherwise will prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that you are 100% happy with swallowing whatever you are told without ever questioning it.

And, that is okay - if that is what you want to do - just "own" it...

 

[Dude653]

Actually without gravity, we wouldn't be here having this conversation because you don't even get planets in the first place without gravity

 

[posthuman]

Post #31 in this thread:


Well, I guess we found out - didn't we?

You cannot handle it. You cannot do it. SMH

It certainly appears that the most 'prominent' Ball Earth proponents on this site are absolutely and totally incapable of:

~ maintaining a 'Ball Earth only' discussion in a 'Ball Earth only' thread.

~ giving valid answers and solutions to the 'conundrums' presented.

~ respecting a 'Ball Earth only' thread/topic - by staying on topic.

Let me say again:

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?

I say you cannot.

Would you like to prove me wrong?

If so, then:

~ Start giving intelligent on-topic answers to the 'Ball Earth conundrums' presented in this thread.

~ Stop "trashing" the thread - filling it up with so much off-topic distraction in the hopes that no one will bother to read it.

(Yes - I know what you are up to.)

To do otherwise will prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that you are 100% happy with swallowing whatever you are told without ever questioning it.

And, that is okay - if that is what you want to do - just "own" it...

pretty sure that the guy who desperately wants no one to expose his private disinformation to be revealed as disniformation is the guy who "can't handle it"
why seek to restrict the conversation so that truth is not allowed to be spoken? so that only false accusations can be printed?
we are not idiots. we know what your preaching is.
we know what this thread is really about, and why you have sought to pretend it's something else and keep certain informations and knowlege from being openly spoken of in this thread.
you're trying to make a 'clean room' in which your false preaching appears almost viable, by way of removing all opposition voices. that's fascism, Gary.

HOW SUNRISE WORKS

there.

now show me your alternative model.
oh, don't have one that works even remotely at all without pretending all of known physics doesn't exist?

hmm.

well then.
i guess you'll just have to put me on ignore, so you don't have to listen to the truth.