Ball Earth conundrums

[kinda]

You apparently forgot to account for the sun's height above the Earth, which must be added to the Earth's diameter.

We had this exact same conversation 6 months ago.

3rd times a charm?

 

[kinda]

You can't "prove" that you exist.

Gravity is simply the name given to the phenomenon observed that objects fall when dropped from height. It is also observed that tides correspond with the position of the moon relative to the earth. That is also called gravity. I won't go into the mutual attraction of objects in space.

I do not believe that science is infallible or has the answers to everything. However, there is much that is obvious. If you lie in the hot sun, you will get burned. I don't need to study that in a lab. If you jump off a cliff, you will find that gravity is real enough.

"You can't prove that you exist"? o.k., I'll take your word for that.

Gravity defined by wiki.

"Newton's law of universal gravitation is usually stated as that every particle attracts every other particle in the universe with a force that is proportional to the product of their masses and inversely proportional to the square of the distance between their centers.[note 1] The publication of the law has become known as the "first great unification", as it marked the unification of the previously described phenomena of gravity on Earth with known astronomical behaviors.[1][2][3] "

Science or man's wisdom has changed over time many, many times. The problem I have with some science by NASA or other scientific bodies, is that they tend to jump to conclusions to get their biased agenda, then present it as the only logical conclusion.

Did you know science says, the sun is about 93 million miles away from earth?

Did they get a really long ruler and measure it, or did they draw conclusions?

You can believe the Heliocentric model, but I think it's a conspiracy, that will be proven wrong for the world to see....One day.

 

[Gideon300]

"You can't prove that you exist"? o.k., I'll take your word for that.

Gravity defined by wiki.

"Newton's law of universal gravitation is usually stated as that every particle attracts every other particle in the universe with a force that is proportional to the product of their masses and inversely proportional to the square of the distance between their centers.[note 1] The publication of the law has become known as the "first great unification", as it marked the unification of the previously described phenomena of gravity on Earth with known astronomical behaviors.[1][2][3] "

Science or man's wisdom has changed over time many, many times. The problem I have with some science by NASA or other scientific bodies, is that they tend to jump to conclusions to get their biased agenda, then present it as the only logical conclusion.

Did you know science says, the sun is about 93 million miles away from earth?

Did they get a really long ruler and measure it, or did they draw conclusions?

You can believe the Heliocentric model, but I think it's a conspiracy, that will be proven wrong for the world to see....One day.

It is very simple to measure distances without a ruler. You use trigonometry. I learned that 60 years ago in high school. That's when students were taught useful things like maths, English, history, geography and yes, even science.

Sure, science changes. However, 2 + 2 always equals 4. So yes, the sun is 93 million miles away. It's a fact, not a conspiracy. Of course, facts mean little in this modern world. That's why conspiracy theories are so popular. A complete moron can come up with an idea. If it's outlandish enough and unproveable, he will become an internet sensation overnight.

There is nothing new about this. People are unutterably gullible. The internet has just made it far easier to deceive and delude.

 

[Gideon300]

"You can't prove that you exist"? o.k., I'll take your word for that.

Gravity defined by wiki.

"Newton's law of universal gravitation is usually stated as that every particle attracts every other particle in the universe with a force that is proportional to the product of their masses and inversely proportional to the square of the distance between their centers.[note 1] The publication of the law has become known as the "first great unification", as it marked the unification of the previously described phenomena of gravity on Earth with known astronomical behaviors.[1][2][3] "

Science or man's wisdom has changed over time many, many times. The problem I have with some science by NASA or other scientific bodies, is that they tend to jump to conclusions to get their biased agenda, then present it as the only logical conclusion.

Did you know science says, the sun is about 93 million miles away from earth?

Did they get a really long ruler and measure it, or did they draw conclusions?

You can believe the Heliocentric model, but I think it's a conspiracy, that will be proven wrong for the world to see....One day.

It is very simple to measure distances without a ruler. You use trigonometry. I learned that 60 years ago in high school. That's when students were taught useful things like maths, English, history, geography and yes, even science.

Sure, science changes. However, 2 + 2 always equals 4. So yes, the sun is 93 million miles away. It's a fact, not a conspiracy. Of course, facts mean little in this modern world. That's why conspiracy theories are so popular. A complete moron can come up with an idea. If it's outlandish enough and unproveable, he will become an internet sensation over

 

[kinda]

It is very simple to measure distances without a ruler. You use trigonometry. I learned that 60 years ago in high school. That's when students were taught useful things like maths, English, history, geography and yes, even science.

Sure, science changes. However, 2 + 2 always equals 4. So yes, the sun is 93 million miles away. It's a fact, not a conspiracy. Of course, facts mean little in this modern world. That's why conspiracy theories are so popular. A complete moron can come up with an idea. If it's outlandish enough and unproveable, he will become an internet sensation over

To me it starts with an assumption and ends with bad data. It's very possible to miscalculate, when you are just guessing. To say, you know the sun is 93 million miles away, you have faith, not hard evidence.

Prove me wrong.

Historically the distance of the sun was believed to be 1 million miles away now, it's 93 million miles away. Measurements are based on assumption of a heliocentric model, than making guess on an angle. It's scientific guess work at best.

Do you know the difference between 93 million miles and 1 million miles, if so, than maybe you will understand scientist having been guessing wrong for centuries. It's not 2 + 2, more like imagination plus trig = imaginary numbers.

The reason scientist want the sun to be far away is to show a very old world, this goes along with big bang, and evolution. Billions and Billions a years ago dinosaurs.......You know the story, they teach evolution in school, which isn't based on the Bible.


I will help the flat earthers prove the Heliocentric model wrong, there are concave earthers that been studying this way longer. Will post their proof of why heliocentric model doesn't work.

 

[Gideon300]

To me it starts with an assumption and ends with bad data. It's very possible to miscalculate, when you are just guessing. To say, you know the sun is 93 million miles away, you have faith, not hard evidence.

Prove me wrong.

Historically the distance of the sun was believed to be 1 million miles away now, it's 93 million miles away. Measurements are based on assumption of a heliocentric model, than making guess on an angle. It's scientific guess work at best.

Do you know the difference between 93 million miles and 1 million miles, if so, than maybe you will understand scientist having been guessing wrong for centuries. It's not 2 + 2, more like imagination plus trig = imaginary numbers.

The reason scientist want the sun to be far away is to show a very old world, this goes along with big bang, and evolution. Billions and Billions a years ago dinosaurs.......You know the story, they teach evolution in school, which isn't based on the Bible.


I will help the flat earthers prove the Heliocentric model wrong, there are concave earthers that been studying this way longer. Will post their proof of why heliocentric model doesn't work.

It's not guesswork. It was thousands of years before men were able to calculate, yes, calculate the distance to the sun.

https://phys.org/news/2015-01-distance-sun.html

The distance between celestial objects and the earth is irrelevant to evolution. If anything, the fact that the moon is moving away from the earth is evidence for a younger earth, not an older earth. The Bible does not say how old the earth is. Many, including me, believe in an ancient earth but that Genesis describes restoration of a destroyed earth, not the initial creation.

Evolution is garbage, no matter how old the earth might be.

 

[GaryA]

It is also observed that tides correspond with the position of the moon relative to the earth.

Do they really?

Does the actual data show:

~ At any particular moment, there is a singular point on the earth - the closest point to the moon at that moment - experiencing the highest-of-high-tides level (water swell 'up') - while the opposite point on the other side of the earth is experiencing the lowest-of-low-tides level (water swell 'down' - or, no swell).

~ For any particular day-and-night cycle, that singular point on the earth "follows" whatever latitude is then-present closest-to-the-moon.

~ That singular point on the earth "shifts" continuously - moving [basically/essentially] from tropic to tropic over the moon cycle time.

(In saying 'singular point', I am referring to the 'center-high-point' of the much-wider water swell area.)

Do you realize that - if there is any place on earth between the tropic lines that experiences the same high-tide water level daily for 4 consecutive weeks - it fully-and-completely invalidates your statement entirely?

One of the requirements for your statement to be true is that every place must experience a regular monthly pattern of change along with a regular daily pattern of change.

Is it true that - during every moon cycle - the highest high-tides are predominate in the north for a week - predominate in the south for a week - and, predominate at the equator for the other two weeks in between those weeks (every other week) ?

Is it true that every place along the tropic lines experiences its highest high-tides during only one week out of any consecutive 4 weeks?

(The effect would actually reach beyond the tropic lines - I am just trying to keep this simple to make my point.)

 

[kinda]

It's not guesswork. It was thousands of years before men were able to calculate, yes, calculate the distance to the sun.

https://phys.org/news/2015-01-distance-sun.html

The distance between celestial objects and the earth is irrelevant to evolution. If anything, the fact that the moon is moving away from the earth is evidence for a younger earth, not an older earth. The Bible does not say how old the earth is. Many, including me, believe in an ancient earth but that Genesis describes restoration of a destroyed earth, not the initial creation.

Evolution is garbage, no matter how old the earth might be.

Well, we will have to agree to disagree on the guess work of the heliocentric view point, but agree that evolution is a fable. I honestly believe you don't know what your talking about when it comes to evolutionary theory and big bang, but maybe posthuman can chime in, he probably knows science better than anyone on here.

I'm pretty sure evolution/ big bang allows for a huge amount of time for an expanding universe, which would need the universe to be quite large. Having the sun 93 million miles away allows for enormous time and space, which is science fiction. It teaches that the world started off as a dot, or something really small, than nothing exploded, and gradually grew larger. They also teach that it will shrink or something over time.

Many Bible scholars teach, that the earth is about 6,000 years, so in my opinion, you don't have your facts straight.

This guy wild herectic is one of the leaders of concave hollow earth, here are his findings that show the heliocentric model in error.


O.k. flat earthers, use these points when debating the Heliocentric model. You can thank the concave earthers for this, as well as geocentric believers.

His points....

Exhibit A – Where is the constant wind?
Exhibit B – Hovering, flying and falling
Exhibit C – Hardly any stellar parallax
Exhibit D – Scientific experiments
Conclusion

https://www.wildheretic.com/heliocentric-theory-is-wrong-pt1/

More details can be viewed by clicking on link above, but here are quick snapshots per point above.

Exhibit A

"Heliocentric theory states that the Earth rotates at 1675km/h at the equator, 1049km/h in London, and 231km/h in Alert, northern Canada. This rotation would cause winds of almost equal speeds on the Earth’s surface… constantly."

Exhibit B

"Even more obvious is the fact that the Earth does not rotate under hovering objects. A helicopter which hovers above the ground at ANY height from 1 meter all the way to its upper limit of around 8000 meters NEVER experiences the ground traveling 231km/h to 1675km/h West to East, or in any direction in fact."

Exhibit C

"The stars revolve 360° in 24 hours in an anti-clockwise fashion around the north polar star in the northern hemisphere, and clockwise around the southern star in the southern hemisphere. Photographers take photos with very long shutter speeds to show this effect.

This, you may think, is a good case for a rotating Earth; but on it’s own it is also a good case for a geocentric one, as it demonstrates that either the Earth is moving or the heavens.

However, after 6 months, those EXACT same stars are at the EXACT same location, as can be seen with the naked eye, at which they had been 6 months previously. The annual change in the position of stars in the sky is called stellar parallax. You can demonstrate this lack of parallax by following this experiment devised by Samuel Rowbotham of Zetetic Astronomy.

There are an estimated 100 to 200 billion galaxies in the universe (which is bunk, as there are no galaxies) each with up to 100 trillion stars! So being able to detect movement in 1% of the stars of our own galaxy is a miniscule amount. We also know about our space agencies’ weird and wonderful orbiting machines, so even this 1% is unlikely to be true.

This is a big problem for heliocentric theory which states that every 24 hours the Earth rotates on its axis at 1675km/h, revolving around the Sun at 107,000km/h, which in turn moves around the center of the galaxy at 900,000km/h, which moves in the universe at 2,160,000km/h!

Apart from the atmosphere disappearing at these speeds, how is there no stellar parallax, especially considering that all the other stars and galaxies are revolving around each other and the Earth as well. The sky must be a right mess! Each new day must bring a brand new unique constellation in the sky at night with some new stars getting nearer so they can be seen with the naked eye and some traveling further away and disappearing never to return for thousands or millions of years.

Before we move on, this lack of stellar parallax is the reason why advocates of heliocentric theory give the unbelievably enormous distances the heavenly bodies must be from Earth. They can’t measure it! The stars must be thousands and millions of light years away (with the Milky Way 100,000 light years across, 1 light year being 9.46 trillion kilometers!) because there is no (or little) detectable stellar parallax; otherwise heliocentric theory would be definitely wrong."


Exhibit D

"How do we know it is not the heavens or “space” which moves above us, instead of the Earth, which causes both the rotation of the stars and any of their hard-to-detect parallax. We now know it is the former, thanks to an experiment in 1871 by Astronomer Royal, George Airy; which is this:

If stellar parallax is too small to see with the naked eye, then why not artificially increase it. If the Earth rotates at the same speed constantly, then by slowing the light down (by filling the telescope with water), the angle of star movement would increase. If stellar parallax increased then the telescope would have to be tilted more to see the same star and prove a rotating Earth once and for all.

And guess what? As confirmed by others, the most careful measurements gave the same angle for a telescope with water as for one filled with air. This is called “Airy’s failure”. It proved the rotation of the heavens, not Earth, which moves stars.


The angle stayed the same, proving that the Earth does not rotate"


Conclusion:

"Conclusion
So far we have proved that:

• The Earth does not tilt.
• The Earth does not rotate.
• The Sun moves, not the Earth.
• The heavens move, not the Earth, which means that:
• “Space” or the ether moves and not the Earth.
• “Space” moves in a circular motion (and is probably a vortex)."

 

[Gideon300]

Do they really?

Does the actual data show:

~ At any particular moment, there is a singular point on the earth - the closest point to the moon at that moment - experiencing the highest-of-high-tides level (water swell 'up') - while the opposite point on the other side of the earth is experiencing the lowest-of-low-tides level (water swell 'down' - or, no swell).

~ For any particular day-and-night cycle, that singular point on the earth "follows" whatever latitude is then-present closest-to-the-moon.

~ That singular point on the earth "shifts" continuously - moving [basically/essentially] from tropic to tropic over the moon cycle time.

(In saying 'singular point', I am referring to the 'center-high-point' of the much-wider water swell area.)

Do you realize that - if there is any place on earth between the tropic lines that experiences the same high-tide water level daily for 4 consecutive weeks - it fully-and-completely invalidates your statement entirely?

One of the requirements for your statement to be true is that every place must experience a regular monthly pattern of change along with a regular daily pattern of change.

Is it true that - during every moon cycle - the highest high-tides are predominate in the north for a week - predominate in the south for a week - and, predominate at the equator for the other two weeks in between those weeks (every other week) ?

Is it true that every place along the tropic lines experiences its highest high-tides during only one week out of any consecutive 4 weeks?

(The effect would actually reach beyond the tropic lines - I am just trying to keep this simple to make my point.)

OK, so you explain the tides. This is what the National Oceanographic Centre has to say:

"Tides can be predicted far in advance and with a high degree of accuracy. Tides are forced by the orbital relationships between the Earth, the moon and the Sun. These relationships are very well understood and the position of the celestial bodies can be forecast very accurately into the future.

However, as sea levels rise, the periodicity and range of the tide will be altered due to different bathymetry (underwater depth) and topography (the physical features of an area). Therefore predicting tides a long way into the future could be less accurate. Storm surges are short term sea level changes caused by the weather (winds and atmospheric pressure) that also affect tidal predictability. Storm surges can only be forecast with the same time horizon as weather forecasting (about two to five days)."

I once was part owner of a boat. We needed to know the tides well in advance. It was easy.

 

[Moses_Young]

You apparently forgot to account for the sun's height above the Earth, which must be added to the Earth's diameter.

I didn't forget. It can be disregarded, as we're talking the two dimensions the sun is theorised to move within. In the calculation, it doesn't matter at which height the sun revolves about the Earth, as the speed will be the same.

While ad-hominem comments are used in such cases, there are also cases where people in an argument are, in fact, "dumb" (ignorant, untaught, resistant to learning). Unpleasant truth hurts. Nobody likes it when their ignorance is exposed.

Hence the resort to ad-hominem, I guess.

The same: gravity. Gravity is relative to the Earth, not to your car.

Still gravity, which holds the air close to the Earth's surface.

Hmmmm. Gravity works on the atmosphere, but not my car? Kind of a pointless analogy for him to begin with then, wasn't it? Like I said, "magic gravity" is very difficult to disprove for ball-Earthers.

I have heard of (but don't have the documentation for) an experiment where two heavy objects were suspended in a tall column such as a skyscraper stairwell. The objects should have been a given distance apart, based on the points of suspension, but were ever so slightly closer.

Science is testable and repeatable. If this experiment were true (which I contest), it should be repeatable at a smaller, practicable scale. That it's not suggests to me any results in favour of gravity were due to experimental error due to the impracticability of the experiment itself.

 

[Dino246]

I didn't forget. It can be disregarded, as we're talking the two dimensions the sun is theorised to move within. In the calculation, it doesn't matter at which height the sun revolves about the Earth, as the speed will be the same.

Bahahaha.... Um, no. Some grade-school geometry will disabuse you of that folly.

Hmmmm. Gravity works on the atmosphere, but not my car? Kind of a pointless analogy for him to begin with then, wasn't it? Like I said, "magic gravity" is very difficult to disprove for ball-Earthers.

Reality is certainly difficult to disprove. Gravity works equally on your car as on the atmosphere; your understanding doesn't work well on either, apparently.

Science is testable and repeatable. If this experiment were true (which I contest), it should be repeatable at a smaller, practicable scale. That it's not suggests to me any results in favour of gravity were due to experimental error due to the impracticability of the experiment itself.

The limits of measurement would likely preclude repeating the experiment on a "smaller, practicable scale". You're welcome to try though.

 

[kinda]

Dino is probably the most patient and most understanding in all the debates of the shape of earth. Giving him credit here. I wanted so desperately for flat earther's to understand how incredibly incorrect their views are, but it's a very rare thing to see them acknowledge any point that is made, that contradicts the flat earth belief. Same goes with believers of the Heliocentric model.

Heliocentric model can be passed off as real science to the majority, but their is a growing population, that are starting to think for themselves, and noticing the inconsistencies. I could never blindly believe it again. Something about, the truth shall set you free.

I admit the shape of the earth is debatable, but their comes a point, when you have to face the facts. I guess it's up to everyone to decide what is true and what isn't, but in my mind, I have never been more convinced that both flat earth and the heliocentric model are in error. You can believe in relativity if you want, but I rather believe in reality.

I'm learning to be more respectful, but I'm still a work in progress.

This vacuum sound represents how both the flat earthers and heliocentric believers respond to the concave hollow earth proofs.

In any event, it's an interesting conversation, and one of the few conversations that keep me interested on CC. So, with that thank you all for keeping me entertained, and thinking!

 

[Moses_Young]

Bahahaha.... Um, no. Some grade-school geometry will disabuse you of that folly.

Lol. If you don't understand something as basic as simple geometry, I can understand why you persist in your ball-Earth beliefs. I don't know I can offer further help, other than to point you to a website that discusses how to calculate a perimeter. Note there is no mention of height in the calculation...

https://www.omnicalculator.com/math/circle-perimeter

Reality is certainly difficult to disprove. Gravity works equally on your car as on the atmosphere; your understanding doesn't work well on either, apparently.

I don't rely on magic gravity to keep all my contradictory theories stuck together. Globalists seem not to mind bad analogies until they contradict the globalist worldview.

The limits of measurement would likely preclude repeating the experiment on a "smaller, practicable scale". You're welcome to try though.

That objects fall downward is demonstrable on any scale. If gravity acted sideways (or even upward), it would likewise be demonstrable on an experimental scale.

 

[Dino246]

Lol. If you don't understand something as basic as simple geometry, I can understand why you persist in your ball-Earth beliefs. I don't know I can offer further help, other than to point you to a website that discusses how to calculate a perimeter. Note there is no mention of height in the calculation...https://www.omnicalculator.com/math/circle-perimeter

https://www.omnicalculator.com/math/circle-perimeter
The calculation doesn't mention height because the framers of that web page assume you're smart enough to include it where appropriate. Sadly, their assumption is incorrect in certain cases.

I don't rely on magic gravity to keep all my contradictory theories stuck together. Globalists seem not to mind bad analogies until they contradict the globalist worldview.

You may not rely on gravity, but you have nothing whatsoever on which to base your theories.

That objects fall downward is demonstrable on any scale. If gravity acted sideways (or even upward), it would likewise be demonstrable on an experimental scale.

Please demonstrate that you understand what "the limits of measurement" means by providing an explanation.

 

[Billyd]

Show me one real picture from deep space that presents a flat or concave earth. There are millions that show a ball earth.

Also demonstrate how we can have a lunar eclipse with your crazy flat or concave earth garbage.

I suggest that all you who believe that the earth is any thing but a ball, get your head out of the sand and use your eyes.

 

[kinda]

Show me one real picture from deep space that presents a flat or concave earth. There are millions that show a ball earth.

Also demonstrate how we can have a lunar eclipse with your crazy flat or concave earth garbage.

I suggest that all you who believe that the earth is any thing but a ball, get your head out of the sand and use your eyes.

Millions that show a ball earth? Interesting.

Ever hear of the Blue Marble?

That's what I like about you Billyd, you are very plain spoken, really easy to understand, but from my concave hollow earth thread, you seem to be lacking understanding sometimes. I will try to answer your question in my thread.

By the way, did you miss all the points the disproved the Convex earth?? You can only question, but not defend?!?!

 

[GaryA]

Bahahaha.... Um, no. Some grade-school geometry will disabuse you of that folly.

Um, yes. Moses gave a completely valid answer for the question he was asked. Perhaps, you don't understand the FE model as well as you think...?

In the FE model, the sun does not travel in a path around the earth like it does in the BE model. In the FE model, it travels in a circular path within a plane that is above the earth and parallel to the top surface of the earth. It does not go over-the-side-and-underneath...

 

[kinda]

Um, yes. Moses gave a completely valid answer for the question he was asked. Perhaps, you don't understand the FE model as well as you think...?

In the FE model, the sun does not travel in a path around the earth like it does in the BE model. In the FE model, it travels in a circular path within a plane that is above the earth and parallel to the top surface of the earth. It does not go over-the-side-and-underneath...

O.k., this is gonna be grand. lol Dino, this is to funny.

Is there a possibility, that I can see this model with Moses Young's numbers?!?! Please!!! The reason I ask, so you can see the folly of your ways (not to point out that flat earth doesn't have a model). Oh man!

I could be wrong, but once I think you guys start drawing this out, you might have a laugh. Who knows? lol I fear for the ice on the Northern Areas, as well as Antarctica with your numbers on a flat earth thinking. This is great!

On a side note, for some reason Moses Young used the same exact formulas. This was right after I figured it out on my own, when prompted in another thread. Different conclusions by the way. One day, you guys are gonna laugh at all this, but maybe not. lol We can hunt down that thread if you want to confirm. Might take some time.

 

[GaryA]

Show me one real picture from deep space that presents a flat or concave earth.

Show me one real picture from deep space...

There are none - because, 'deep space' does not exist.

There are millions that show a ball earth.

Brother - there is not even one non-edited non-composite non-fake picture of the whole earth in existence.

They are all edited. They are all composites. They are all fakes.

I suggest that all you who believe that the earth is any thing but a ball, get your head out of the sand and use your eyes.

Not only are eyes required - a mind receptive to the truth is also needed - to be able to "see" what-really-is.

 

[GaryA]

Dino is probably the most patient and most understanding in all the debates of the shape of earth.

In this thread, I am the most patient when people stay within the thread topic.

I'm learning to be more respectful, but I'm still a work in progress.

It will help a great deal if you dare to stay within the thread topic.