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.
So - anything that questions the 'Ball Earth' model is automatically 'ridiculous'? Is that what you are saying?
Not the point...
If all of your posts in this thread would have been made in a 'Flat Earth' thread, I would have little if anything to say against it. It would have simply been your opinion on the thread topic.
You could have even started your own [new] thread - to express your trepidation over the fact that the view points of [some] others do not match your own.
Instead, you chose to litter/trash my thread with
that was totally outside of the context of the thread topic - which happens to be 100% 'Ball Earth'.
If you are so intimidated by the conundrums presented that you are afraid to actually address them - then, perhaps it would be better for you to stay out of the thread.
You have completely-and-totally destroyed any-and-all 'respect' that I may have had for you up until now.
My suggestion (if you EVER wish to regain ANY of what has been lost):
Don't be a coward - man up!
You need to 'own' your posts as being what they really are - attempts at intentional distraction from the perfectly valid realistic questioning of the 'Ball Earth' model.
Be willing to admit that you do not have any "answers" to [one/more/all] of the 'Ball Earth' conundrums.
(If you actually had any "answers", I suspect that you would have posted that instead of the that you did post.)
And then - just be an on-looker - because you have nothing edifying to say - and, are unwilling to have a civil conversation on the thread topic.
Okay - now I have made "harsh criticism" (if you want to call it that) concerning your 'ridiculous' behavior.
Can you withstand it?
Are you willing to correct it?
Are you man-enough to admit you made a mistake by posting totally unrelated in a thread that is supposed to be 100% about 'Ball Earth'?
Are you willing to stay on topic (and, in a civil manner) in any further posts that you might make to this thread?
We shall see...
~
I can appreciate the 'civil' kind of conversation that actually occurred "for several posts while in an early part of the thread" (if I correctly remember) - where folks actually discussed their thoughts, ideas, and views on the 'conundrums' being presented.
I have no problem with that (as long as it [reasonably] stays on topic) - it is what this thread is about.
If you have a 'Ball Earth' conundrum you wish to present - post it.
If you have an explanation for a 'Ball Earth' conundrum that has been presented - post it.
But - in any case - please - let us discuss them on topic and in a civil manner.
Every thread deserves the same.
Remember the Golden Rule.
Not the point...
If all of your posts in this thread would have been made in a 'Flat Earth' thread, I would have little if anything to say against it. It would have simply been your opinion on the thread topic.
You could have even started your own [new] thread - to express your trepidation over the fact that the view points of [some] others do not match your own.
Instead, you chose to litter/trash my thread with
that was totally outside of the context of the thread topic - which happens to be 100% 'Ball Earth'.If you are so intimidated by the conundrums presented that you are afraid to actually address them - then, perhaps it would be better for you to stay out of the thread.
You have completely-and-totally destroyed any-and-all 'respect' that I may have had for you up until now.
My suggestion (if you EVER wish to regain ANY of what has been lost):
Don't be a coward - man up!
You need to 'own' your posts as being what they really are - attempts at intentional distraction from the perfectly valid realistic questioning of the 'Ball Earth' model.
Be willing to admit that you do not have any "answers" to [one/more/all] of the 'Ball Earth' conundrums.
(If you actually had any "answers", I suspect that you would have posted that instead of the
that you did post.)And then - just be an on-looker - because you have nothing edifying to say - and, are unwilling to have a civil conversation on the thread topic.
Okay - now I have made "harsh criticism" (if you want to call it that) concerning your 'ridiculous' behavior.
Can you withstand it?
Are you willing to correct it?
Are you man-enough to admit you made a mistake by posting totally unrelated
in a thread that is supposed to be 100% about 'Ball Earth'?Are you willing to stay on topic (and, in a civil manner) in any further posts that you might make to this thread?
We shall see...
~
I can appreciate the 'civil' kind of conversation that actually occurred "for several posts while in an early part of the thread" (if I correctly remember) - where folks actually discussed their thoughts, ideas, and views on the 'conundrums' being presented.
I have no problem with that (as long as it [reasonably] stays on topic) - it is what this thread is about.
If you have a 'Ball Earth' conundrum you wish to present - post it.
If you have an explanation for a 'Ball Earth' conundrum that has been presented - post it.
But - in any case - please - let us discuss them on topic and in a civil manner.
Every thread deserves the same.
Remember the Golden Rule.
-
1
-
1
- Show all
Despite the proclivity of most/some people to believe that 'gravity' holds everything in a structured spatial pattern relative to the earth, Ball Earth model physics itself does not support the idea.
According to Ball Earth model physics, the force of gravity only pulls objects (in the context of this discussion) toward the [center of the] earth. It cannot apply a force of any kind to an object other than to pull it toward the [center of the] earth. It cannot move an object in any direction other than toward the [center of the] earth.
According to Ball Earth model physics, an object leaving the ground has a certain amount of momentum - in a particular direction. It is a limited amount of momentum - it is not infinite-amount-of-energy-and-force 'forever' momentum. And, to whatever degree that the motion of the object changes direction, the initial momentum - in the initial/original direction - is lost (in terms of driving the object in the initial/orginal direction). Whatever has caused it to change direction has 'overcome' the initial momentum - in the initial/original direction.
According to Ball Earth model physics, the momentum of the object comes from the movement of the object (mass x velocity) - not the force of gravity!
The force of gravity has nothing whatsoever to do with the momentum of the object.
It can be said that the turning of the surface of the earth - in contact with the object - "imparts" to it a certain velocity - which is "retained" at the moment the object is no longer in contact with the earth. However, at/after that moment, no other 'earthbound' force is acting upon it. Whatever momentum it has when it "leaves" the earth (amount and direction) - that is it.
Whatever momentum it has will 'drive' the object in the initial/orginal direction; however, if another force overcomes it (driving it in a different direction), the momentum in the initial/original direction is 'lost'.
The force of gravity cannot do anything but pull the object toward the [center of the] earth.
No other 'earthbound' force is acting upon it for as long as it is not in contact with the earth.
There is no 'earthbound' force - of any kind - acting upon it in a horizontal/'sideways' direction.
And, gravity can only pull it 'downward'.
According to Ball Earth model physics, the only possibility of an off-ground object 'following' (staying with) the rotation of the earth - "at best" - is until the initial/original momentum is 'lost'/'changed'/'converted'/etc.
If a airplane takes off - makes a circle (as they often do) - and heads for its destination - the momentum from the 1000 MPH (classic example) velocity in the initial/original direction is 'lost'/'changed'/'converted'/etc.
In such a case - in the Ball Earth model - the earth should "spin away from" the airplane after it took off - because, there is no force acting upon the airplane that would drive it in the same direction as the rotation of the earth.
The momentum of an object is an aggregate vector. There is no such thing as the momentum of an object in one direction (i.e. - an airplane) "riding on top of" a separate momentum in a different direction (i.e. - from the rotation of the earth).
According to Ball Earth model physics, the force of gravity only pulls objects (in the context of this discussion) toward the [center of the] earth. It cannot apply a force of any kind to an object other than to pull it toward the [center of the] earth. It cannot move an object in any direction other than toward the [center of the] earth.
According to Ball Earth model physics, an object leaving the ground has a certain amount of momentum - in a particular direction. It is a limited amount of momentum - it is not infinite-amount-of-energy-and-force 'forever' momentum. And, to whatever degree that the motion of the object changes direction, the initial momentum - in the initial/original direction - is lost (in terms of driving the object in the initial/orginal direction). Whatever has caused it to change direction has 'overcome' the initial momentum - in the initial/original direction.
According to Ball Earth model physics, the momentum of the object comes from the movement of the object (mass x velocity) - not the force of gravity!
The force of gravity has nothing whatsoever to do with the momentum of the object.
It can be said that the turning of the surface of the earth - in contact with the object - "imparts" to it a certain velocity - which is "retained" at the moment the object is no longer in contact with the earth. However, at/after that moment, no other 'earthbound' force is acting upon it. Whatever momentum it has when it "leaves" the earth (amount and direction) - that is it.
Whatever momentum it has will 'drive' the object in the initial/orginal direction; however, if another force overcomes it (driving it in a different direction), the momentum in the initial/original direction is 'lost'.
The force of gravity cannot do anything but pull the object toward the [center of the] earth.
No other 'earthbound' force is acting upon it for as long as it is not in contact with the earth.
There is no 'earthbound' force - of any kind - acting upon it in a horizontal/'sideways' direction.
And, gravity can only pull it 'downward'.
According to Ball Earth model physics, the only possibility of an off-ground object 'following' (staying with) the rotation of the earth - "at best" - is until the initial/original momentum is 'lost'/'changed'/'converted'/etc.
If a airplane takes off - makes a circle (as they often do) - and heads for its destination - the momentum from the 1000 MPH (classic example) velocity in the initial/original direction is 'lost'/'changed'/'converted'/etc.
In such a case - in the Ball Earth model - the earth should "spin away from" the airplane after it took off - because, there is no force acting upon the airplane that would drive it in the same direction as the rotation of the earth.
The momentum of an object is an aggregate vector. There is no such thing as the momentum of an object in one direction (i.e. - an airplane) "riding on top of" a separate momentum in a different direction (i.e. - from the rotation of the earth).
-
1
- Show all
*POPSCI
10 easy ways you can tell for yourself that the Earth is not flat
The evidence is right in front of you.
*SCIENTIFIC AMERICAN
Flat Earthers Are Flat Wrong
10 easy ways you can tell for yourself that the Earth is not flat
The evidence is right in front of you.
*SCIENTIFIC AMERICAN
Flat Earthers Are Flat Wrong
I'm not sure I agree with everything said, because I'm not gonna read this post again, but I think what it's saying, is that there is no way the earth is spinning.....No way! lol
I posted the same thing in the Concave Hollow Earth thread, and someone mentioned swimming airplanes, and that's when I really gave up on the conversation. Then, I was confused by a couple posters who said, that I said, I was an astronaut. After all that, now I'm thinking in order to believe in a Heliocentric model, everyone has to be an astronaut, because the model encourages people to believe we are all flying through space, and it won't be long, before we all take the Space Ship to the moon. It's fairy tales...
I think it should be natural to question things, especially if it's common knowledge. Just because most people believe it's true, doesn't mean it is true. When Jesus came to earth and taught, the religious order didn't appreciate it very much, and Jesus was killed, because HE wouldn't bow down to the system.
Don't expect the system to encourage you, when you challenge it. Expect the opposite.
We are just talking "ball earth", so yeah I think it's false, but that's just how I see it. Most believe it, but everyone has the right to decide for themselves. Forcing people to believe a certain way, is not what a free society stands for, but maybe we don't live in a free society?!?!
I posted the same thing in the Concave Hollow Earth thread, and someone mentioned swimming airplanes, and that's when I really gave up on the conversation. Then, I was confused by a couple posters who said, that I said, I was an astronaut. After all that, now I'm thinking in order to believe in a Heliocentric model, everyone has to be an astronaut, because the model encourages people to believe we are all flying through space, and it won't be long, before we all take the Space Ship to the moon. It's fairy tales...
I think it should be natural to question things, especially if it's common knowledge. Just because most people believe it's true, doesn't mean it is true. When Jesus came to earth and taught, the religious order didn't appreciate it very much, and Jesus was killed, because HE wouldn't bow down to the system.
Don't expect the system to encourage you, when you challenge it. Expect the opposite.
We are just talking "ball earth", so yeah I think it's false, but that's just how I see it. Most believe it, but everyone has the right to decide for themselves. Forcing people to believe a certain way, is not what a free society stands for, but maybe we don't live in a free society?!?!
The "Golden Rule" usually refers to the biblical maxim, "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you."
So is this vvv how you want others to treat you?
Then you end with this:
Perhaps it is indeed.
Either that, or you need to rethink your attitude.
So is this vvv how you want others to treat you?
Instead, you chose to litter/trash my thread with
...
(If you actually had any "answers", I suspect that you would have posted that instead of the that you did post.)
...
Are you man-enough to admit you made a mistake by posting totally unrelated
...
(If you actually had any "answers", I suspect that you would have posted that instead of the
that you did post.)...
Are you man-enough to admit you made a mistake by posting totally unrelated
Perhaps it is indeed.
Either that, or you need to rethink your attitude.
-
2
-
1
-
1
- Show all
I agree 100% with the full statement quoted above; however, you need to "scale this up" until you realize that Ball Earth is one of the things Satan has duped everyone with... (and, don't be too proud to include yourself in that group - we have all been taught lies since birth)
(and, don't be too proud to include yourself in that group - we have all been taught lies since birth)
-
1
- Show all
I think you are misled by obsolete rubbish theories that belong in the wastebasket. Junk science.
1) gravity so-called is actually non-point source dielectric acceleration. Exactly the same phenomenon as magnetism.
2) this acceleration is NOT "toward the center of the earth" but to a plane BETWEEN the earth and the other object. At a "null pressure point", which is the plane of inertia.
3) this plane of inertia resides in COUNTERSPACE. A realm (so far) beyond our observation by any means.
1) gravity so-called is actually non-point source dielectric acceleration. Exactly the same phenomenon as magnetism.
2) this acceleration is NOT "toward the center of the earth" but to a plane BETWEEN the earth and the other object. At a "null pressure point", which is the plane of inertia.
3) this plane of inertia resides in COUNTERSPACE. A realm (so far) beyond our observation by any means.
A couple of necessary remarks:
-waves are what something does, not what something is.
-what most people think of as "light" is actually the posterior attribute of the field perturbation which is "illumination" ie the effect of the field perturbation upon varying permittivity and permeability.
-photon "particles" per se do not exist.
-waves are what something does, not what something is.
-what most people think of as "light" is actually the posterior attribute of the field perturbation which is "illumination" ie the effect of the field perturbation upon varying permittivity and permeability.
-photon "particles" per se do not exist.
Talk about "rubbish theories"... SMH
Oh, how convenient - when modern science has a problem explaining the effects of reality with the 'old' definition of 'gravity' - just invent something new!
You can talk all day about exactly what you think 'gravity' is - but, you still have not said one word that explains how 'gravity' can apply a 'sideways' force against something at 10,000 feet (for example) above the earth!
I am 'led' by common sense. (Oh, I'm sorry - that would be rare sense today.)
You seem to be 'led' by "scientific" propaganda.
SMHOh, how convenient - when modern science has a problem explaining the effects of reality with the 'old' definition of 'gravity' - just invent something new!
You can talk all day about exactly what you think 'gravity' is - but, you still have not said one word that explains how 'gravity' can apply a 'sideways' force against something at 10,000 feet (for example) above the earth!
I am 'led' by common sense. (Oh, I'm sorry - that would be rare sense today.)
You seem to be 'led' by "scientific" propaganda.
-
1
-
1
- Show all
Talk about "rubbish theories"... SMH
Oh, how convenient - when modern science has a problem explaining the effects of reality with the 'old' definition of 'gravity' - just invent something new!
You can talk all day about exactly what you think 'gravity' is - but, you still have not said one word that explains how 'gravity' can apply a 'sideways' force against something at 10,000 feet (for example) above the earth!
I am 'led' by common sense. (Oh, I'm sorry - that would be rare sense today.)
You seem to be 'led' by "scientific" propaganda.
SMHOh, how convenient - when modern science has a problem explaining the effects of reality with the 'old' definition of 'gravity' - just invent something new!
You can talk all day about exactly what you think 'gravity' is - but, you still have not said one word that explains how 'gravity' can apply a 'sideways' force against something at 10,000 feet (for example) above the earth!
I am 'led' by common sense. (Oh, I'm sorry - that would be rare sense today.)
You seem to be 'led' by "scientific" propaganda.
-
1
- Show all
I agree 100% with the full statement quoted above; however, you need to "scale this up" until you realize that Ball Earth is one of the things Satan has duped everyone with... (and, don't be too proud to include yourself in that group - we have all been taught lies since birth)
(and, don't be too proud to include yourself in that group - we have all been taught lies since birth)
However, it is perfectly feasible to observe and measure the "drop" of the horizon from as little as a couple of thousand meters in altitude, depending on your field of view. From a decent sized mountain by the sea, with some decent equipment, you couldn't miss it. Dead easy. You can then determine the diameter of the earth to a rough approximation.
So easy a caveman can do it. Or you even.
-
1
- Show all