Ball Earth conundrums

[posthuman]

gravity' cannot push anything (high above the earth) 'sideways'

You're the one with an imaginary tangential force.

get in a car, go 100mph, drop an object in the front seat and see if it flies backwards at 100mph into the rear window.

report back what you discover.

 

[posthuman]

But, why is the air spinning?

actually just get in your car with a glass of diet Pepsi in your cup holder.

accelerate to 65mph and then put your cruise control on.

while you are accelerating, watch your diet Pepsi slosh backwards.

while you are cruising at 65mph, observe your diet Pepsi and see if it is pressed toward the rear of the car at 65mph? nope. it's still.

what force is pushing the liquid forward at 65mph?
Why isn't your diet Pepsi all bunched up at the back of the glass the whole time?

 

[posthuman]

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.

What force do you imagine should push me tangentially as soon as I hop into the air?

You seem to be operating under the principle that an object in motion tends to stay at rest.

 

[Moses_Young]

Yeah - too bad they are all folks who do not believe 'Ball Earth'. (Hmmm - maybe there is an association here...)

It would be nice if there were some 'Ball Earth' folks on here who where not afraid to consider the conundrums...

No doubt you have heard that saying about the sign of intelligence being the ability to consider a thing without necessarily believing it...?

Not many 'Ball Earth' folks on here that seem willing to even consider the possibility that they just might be wrong in their belief in 'Ball Earth'.

I love reading your posts, Gary. Although I'm by no means an unbiased adjudicator, debate-wise, you've got 'em beat in this thread. Numerous ball-Earthers keep avoiding the topic, as they cannot scientifically explain the valid ball-Earth conundrums you raise. (And then they get angry and make up intelligent-sounding ad hominem! Lol.)

 

[posthuman]

Numerous ball-Earthers keep avoiding the topic,

interesting.

Do you think you and Gary avoiding actual physics forums is similar to members of a theological website not bothering to waste their time trying to teach elementary principles of inertia to an obstinate man in an obscure thread about thoroughly debunked sarcastic conspiracy theories started by freemasons a few hundred years ago as an inside joke?

Or is that actually very different?

 

[Gideon300]

Your 'evidence' may be irrefutable to you - but, it is not to me.

The millennial disease. Never allow facts to hinder your conspiracy theories.

 

[ButterflyJones]

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?

Earth isn't actually round. It is more ellipsoidal.

Flat earth theory is Satire.

 

[Cameron143]

Earth isn't actually round. It is more ellipsoidal.

Flat earth theory is Satire.

Does that make them Flatterists?

 

[Handyman62]

Does that make them Flatterists?

Flattery will get them everywhere.

 

[posthuman]

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

um... as opposed to models which in no way whatsoever match observation??

What use would that be?

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. )

no.
The force of gravity involves both masses, not just one.

It's pretty hard to take flat arguments seriously, when they clearly don't grasp fundamental things like this - and there is sooooo much misinformation in their posts that it's ultimately too exhausting to try to reply because of the many things to be corrected and a general sense that all that effort would be wasted anyway.

 

[Moses_Young]

interesting.

Do you think you and Gary avoiding actual physics forums is similar to members of a theological website not bothering to waste their time trying to teach elementary principles of inertia to an obstinate man in an obscure thread about thoroughly debunked sarcastic conspiracy theories started by freemasons a few hundred years ago as an inside joke?

Or is that actually very different?

This thread is titled Ball-Earth conundrums. And so far, I haven't seen you successfully explain any. You just keep trying to change the subject, or ad hominem. As your post I'm responding to now is an example of.

 

[TheLearner]

Good discussion all

 

[kinda]

Alright, who popped the ball?

 

[posthuman]

This thread is titled Ball-Earth conundrums. And so far, I haven't seen you successfully explain any. You just keep trying to change the subject, or ad hominem. As your post I'm responding to now is an example of.

pointing out a false premise behind a so-called inexplicable assertion counts as explaining the objection.

but pick your favorite 'conundrum' then.
i will answer it.

Or, if you like, let's you and me both go make accounts at a physics forum, and we'll ask actual experts together.

 

[posthuman]

Numerous ball-Earthers keep avoiding the topic, as they cannot scientifically explain the valid ball-Earth conundrums you raise

But you didn't answer my question.

Do you think that the fact a thoroughly debunked satirical physics conspiracy doesn't get much serious attention in a religious theological website is really any kind of indication that the satirical physics conspiracy is actually true?

I mean if you post JW propaganda in a knitting forum, and hardly any people engage and oppose it, is that evidence that JW beliefs are true?

which leads me to my question: is what you call "avoidance" of a beat-to-death-and-previously-discredited topic by people who by and large have no real expertise or interest in the subject matter anyway, similar to 'avoiding' posting threads like this in websites devoted to something actually related to the thread topic & populated by people who actually are likely to be experts in the subject matter?

Or do you think that's not similar at all?

 

[posthuman]

which leads me to my question: is what you call "avoidance" of a beat-to-death-and-previously-discredited topic by people who by and large have no real expertise or interest in the subject matter anyway, similar to 'avoiding' posting threads like this in websites devoted to something actually related to the thread topic & populated by people who actually are likely to be experts in the subject matter?

I mean, hey @GaryA have you made any threads like this in actual science forums?

If so, please give us a link.

If not, why not? don't you actually want answers to your questions?

 

[GaryA]

I love reading your posts, Gary. Although I'm by no means an unbiased adjudicator, debate-wise, you've got 'em beat in this thread. Numerous ball-Earthers keep avoiding the topic, as they cannot scientifically explain the valid ball-Earth conundrums you raise. (And then they get angry and make up intelligent-sounding ad hominem! Lol.)

And, they think we are the ones who are deceived. (Albeit, by the wonderful grace of God our eyes have been opened.)

Because of fear and pride they refuse to open their eyes to see.

They can 'ad hominem' all-they-want and it will only hurt them.

It will "totally blow their mind" when God shows them the truth.

 

[GaryA]

I love reading your posts, Gary. Although I'm by no means an unbiased adjudicator, debate-wise, you've got 'em beat in this thread. Numerous ball-Earthers keep avoiding the topic, as they cannot scientifically explain the valid ball-Earth conundrums you raise. (And then they get angry and make up intelligent-sounding ad hominem! Lol.)

Thank you, brother - I appreciate the encouragement.

I like reading your posts as well...

 

[posthuman]

Because of fear and pride they refuse to open their eyes to see.

They can 'ad hominem' all-they-want and it will only hurt them.

You do realize you are ad-hominem-ing with this very post, right?

 

[posthuman]

I mean, hey @GaryA have you made any threads like this in actual science forums?

If so, please give us a link.

If not, why not? don't you actually want answers to your questions?

bump @GaryA