Ball Earth conundrums

  • 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.

Romans34

... let God be true ...
Oct 28, 2023
309
125
43
In the strictest technical sense - "maybe, maybe not" - however it absolutely beyond-a-shadow-of-any-doubt-whatsoever proves that the earth cannot possibly be a spinning ball.
But the sun and moon standing still at Joshua's request in Joshua chapter 10 AND bringing the shadow backward 10 degrees at Hezekiah's request in 2 Kings chapter 20 BOTH are consistent with the FE model. And that without killing everyone on the "planet" in the process, which of course, would have happened if you stopped the "spinning ball".
 

Dino246

Senior Member
Jun 30, 2015
25,606
13,863
113
But the sun and moon standing still at Joshua's request in Joshua chapter 10 AND bringing the shadow backward 10 degrees at Hezekiah's request in 2 Kings chapter 20 BOTH are consistent with the FE model. And that without killing everyone on the "planet" in the process, which of course, would have happened if you stopped the "spinning ball".
Presuming that the Earth stopped, and not the sun… as the text states. It’s inconsistent to argue flat earth on the basis of the text and the conveniently ignore the text when it doesn’t fit your theory. ;)
 

Romans34

... let God be true ...
Oct 28, 2023
309
125
43
Presuming that the Earth stopped, and not the sun… as the text states. It’s inconsistent to argue flat earth on the basis of the text and the conveniently ignore the text when it doesn’t fit your theory. ;)
Actually my view is based upon the Biblical text. I was being sarcastic about the lunacy of the BE theory. ;)
 

Dino246

Senior Member
Jun 30, 2015
25,606
13,863
113
Actually my view is based upon the Biblical text. I was being sarcastic about the lunacy of the BE theory. ;)
Lunacy or not, BE is consistent with a great amount of actual observation. Your position is based on interpretation, whether your own or that of various translators.

That's the root of the tension between Scripture and science: both sides treat their "evidence" as unbiased and free from interpretation, when in fact neither is.
 

Sculpt

Well-known member
Apr 18, 2021
1,147
368
83
I noticed the change in the following image from the two times you posted it (post #620 and post #695):





The first image "outright lies" in the lower-left corner. What exceedingly untrustworthy source did you get this image from?
I tried grabbing a smaller size of the graphic but it didn't make a difference. I didn't notice the change. Good eye. The second post's image would be the correct concept, the twist. I think the first one is a reverse image. As I said, the image is just representing the concept that the appearance of the moon has changed directly related to the change in perspective based on the spherical model -- to lead directly into the video which provides the location and actual photos (seen below from video 1). But ONLY for the purpose of you being able to confirm it yourself.

1701115083915.png

As I always point out, it's meant to be in your grasp to directly confirm, should you choose to do so. No one can stop you from getting a direct image of the moon from Australia from a Flat-earther or any source you find reasonable, to compare to your own N-hemisphere view. That is my specific stated intention for you with this and the flight. You can verify it yourself.
 

Sculpt

Well-known member
Apr 18, 2021
1,147
368
83
@Dino246 @Moses_Young @GaryA

Dino, I wonder if you can take a look and advise on the below video that I think confirms the curvature observation you describe relating to the Sydney Opera House shadows. This video has info of the SE sunrise and SE sunset from Darwin, Australia on a day where the sun is almost exactly overhead (0.1 degree). And then real-time video recording outside.

I'll put the video time at 1:18 where he's noting the (Spherical Earth) calculation chart for the sun on this date, onto the visual computer model for the SE sun rise, nearly no shadow at noon, and SE sun set (Which is impossible in FE model.) Videographer goes out to the airport confirming location, time/date, and live-recorded video of shadows.

The author did a lot here, but to me, unfortunately, I think it's missing more blatant specific visual directional video the SE shadows. Instead of video of a long SE shadow with N/S verification, and the shadows are short, before and after noon. All of that visual evidence is there, but not the visual details it could have been better. But it can certainly be repeated by anyone there with those parameters.


Your prior Sydney Opera House post:
At the following link, you can see an image of the Sydney (Australia) Opera House, which was build on a peninsula that juts northward into Sydney Harbour.

https://www.google.ca/maps/@-33.8566344,151.2143751,500m/data=!3m1!1e3?hl=en-US

In this picture, you can see the sun rising toward the Southeast of the Opera House. Pay special attention to the location of the smaller building, shown here to the right of the main House. It is to the Southwest, which means this photo is taken from the Northwest of the House.

View attachment 234989

For the flat-earther, this poses an insurmountable problem, because on the North-centric flat earth, the sun can never appear Southeast of Sydney. On the real spherical earth, this is simply due to the sun peeking over the southern arc of the planet as it is tilted toward the sun between October and March.
At the following link, you can see an image of the Sydney (Australia) Opera House, which was build on a peninsula that juts northward into Sydney Harbour.

https://www.google.ca/maps/@-33.8566344,151.2143751,500m/data=!3m1!1e3?hl=en-US

In this picture, you can see the sun rising toward the Southeast of the Opera House. Pay special attention to the location of the smaller building, shown here to the right of the main House. It is to the Southwest, which means this photo is taken from the Northwest of the House.

View attachment 234989

For the flat-earther, this poses an insurmountable problem, because on the North-centric flat earth, the sun can never appear Southeast of Sydney. On the real spherical earth, this is simply due to the sun peeking over the southern arc of the planet as it is tilted toward the sun between October and March.
 

Susanna

Well-known member
Apr 14, 2023
1,623
534
113
48
Galveston and Houston
@GaryA, there’s been so many competent people in this thread explaining how flat earth is not only an inconsistency, but also flat (pun not intended) out wrong. I’m kinda curious, why are you so persistent about claiming that the earth is flat?
 

Dino246

Senior Member
Jun 30, 2015
25,606
13,863
113
Dino, I wonder if you can take a look and advise on the below video that I think confirms the curvature observation you describe relating to the Sydney Opera House shadows. This video has info of the SE sunrise and SE sunset from Darwin, Australia on a day where the sun is almost exactly overhead (0.1 degree). And then real-time video recording outside.

I'll put the video time at 1:18 where he's noting the (Spherical Earth) calculation chart for the sun on this date, onto the visual computer model for the SE sun rise, nearly no shadow at noon, and SE sun set (Which is impossible in FE model.) Videographer goes out to the airport confirming location, time/date, and live-recorded video of shadows.

The author did a lot here, but to me, unfortunately, I think it's missing more blatant specific visual directional video the SE shadows. Instead of video of a long SE shadow with N/S verification, and the shadows are short, before and after noon. All of that visual evidence is there, but not the visual details it could have been better. But it can certainly be repeated by anyone there with those parameters.
This is good information, as directional information is not needed for the video he posted. It's unfortunate that he didn't show video for that location at sunrise and sunset that same day (with a compass to show direction). Because he doesn't, there isn't plenty of room for the FE proponents to simply dismiss the video as irrelevant or inadequate.

A thoughtful person would consider his claim, even in the absence of video evidence. If indeed the Earth is flat, then it would be impossible for the Sun to appear to rise and set from a measurably different latitude and cast no shadow at noon. It's the same basic principle as with the Sydney Opera House, though because Sydney is located South of the Tropic of Capricorn, it is impossible for the Sun to be directly overhead there or at any point further South.
 

Dino246

Senior Member
Jun 30, 2015
25,606
13,863
113
Memes are not evidence. Show sources.

The first picture is obviously not taken at an altitude of 100,000 feet (19 miles). I suspect that an FE proponent started with a plain picture of the Earth and added the erroneous caption in an attempt to delude the thoughtless and ignorant.
 

Mosie

Active member
May 30, 2022
120
55
28
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?
............
You know what got me thinking, on the flat earth vs. ball earth? The idea that the earth is a 'continuous' plain.
 

Dino246

Senior Member
Jun 30, 2015
25,606
13,863
113
............
You know what got me thinking, on the flat earth vs. ball earth? The idea that the earth is a 'continuous' plain.
Which makes sense on the surface of a sphere. 😎