Ball Earth conundrums

[ByTheGraceOfGod]

 

[Moses_Young]

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.

Except for the snarkiness, I liked this. A good attempt at finding true scientific evidence for ball-Earth. Unfortunately, as Dino outlines, the author didn't take similar compass readings of the sunrise and sunset, so I am cautious about taking all he claims as truth, but overall, a reasonable and convincing argument.

Now remember, Heliocentrism also has it's problems with the motion of the Heavenly bodies, and its excuses include a wobble of the Earth and refraction for almost everything else. Flat Earthers could simply provide the same excuses as to being unable to explain the reason for this phenomena, but I don't find making excuses to be scientific. The honest answer is I don't know and can't yet explain it, but this is also the reason I shy away from using the motion of Heavenly bodies to try and prove the non-existence of curvature we should be able to measure down here on Earth. If the Earth is truly a ball, contrary to our observations, we should be able to measure it.

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.

Are you claiming the sun is directly overhead beyond the tropics? If not, I'm not sure how this provides any difference between Heliocentrism and Flat Earth.

 

[Dino246]

This thread is about ‘Ball Earth Conundrums’ (sic), not heliocentrism.

Are you claiming the sun is directly overhead beyond the tropics? If not, I'm not sure how this provides any difference between Heliocentrism and Flat Earth.

Heliocentrism is your fussy baby, not mine. I merely responded to a question.

As I stated in several previous posts in several threads, the North-centric flat Earth model does not allow the sun to appear at any angle ‘South’ from any point South of the Tropic of Capricorn. So too, if the sun appears directly overhead at noon in Darwin, it can’t rise or set at any angle South. It could only appear to rise or set at an angle slightly North.

 

[ByTheGraceOfGod]

This thread is about ‘Ball Earth Conundrums’ (sic), not heliocentrism.

Heliocentrism is your fussy baby, not mine. I merely responded to a question.

As I stated in several previous posts in several threads, the North-centric flat Earth model does not allow the sun to appear at any angle ‘South’ from any point South of the Tropic of Capricorn. So too, if the sun appears directly overhead at noon in Darwin, it can’t rise or set at any angle South. It could only appear to rise or set at an angle slightly North.

 

[Sculpt]

Except for the snarkiness, I liked this. A good attempt at finding true scientific evidence for ball-Earth. Unfortunately, as Dino outlines, the author didn't take similar compass readings of the sunrise and sunset, so I am cautious about taking all he claims as truth, but overall, a reasonable and convincing argument.

Thanks, Mo. We know it usually comes down to confirmation bias. Like, even if he had shown location and sun rise/set with navigational proofs, shown the shadows with a compass, some folks would just say they can't trust the visuals and/or the person.

Individuals have to look inside and figure: if their understanding of the physical world has stopped at some point for some reason, or if they're continuing to be open to new reasonable information? Science evolves as does our personal understanding. Science has historical experimental/observational foundations that it has built, and individuals do too.

We assume the historical layers of science are correct because we only have one lifetime, and we have other priorities. Because human products work or are discarded, we have solid reason to trust those historical layers.

When there's a bunch of different models that explain a bunch of different things, but these models don't fit together or even contradict, it's not reasonable to believe them over a single model that explains, correctly predicts, has functioning tools for the physical world and has done so for centuries. These two different "models" are not on equal footing.

Case in point: I can assume the first time we read Joshua 10 and "stop the sun", we didn't run into the halls declaring to everyone our new faith in the flat earth. Why not? Because it follows the Judeo-Christian concept of Miracle, like all the other miracles. Only after being exposed to FE info did anyone come back to Joshua10, and then used it as confirmation bias. FE is something one possesses. Joshua10 only becomes relevant as a shield to keep it.

Why am I mentioning this? Because of the elephant in the room. Folks who've engaged in the FE convo knows there's a "tail chasing" element. 99% isn't good enough. 1% can still win. I'll get back this.

Now remember, Heliocentrism also has it's problems with the motion of the Heavenly bodies, and its excuses include a wobble of the Earth and refraction for almost everything else. Flat Earthers could simply provide the same excuses as to being unable to explain the reason for this phenomena, but I don't find making excuses to be scientific. The honest answer is I don't know and can't yet explain it, but this is also the reason I shy away from using the motion of Heavenly bodies to try and prove the non-existence of curvature we should be able to measure down here on Earth. If the Earth is truly a ball, contrary to our observations, we should be able to measure it.

Maybe you know more about helio vs egocentric astrological observations than I do. Yes, with a lot of this stuff, refraction, light bending is always an issue, so we can leave that aside. I think one should take a bit of time to look at the issue as a whole. A very good way to do that is a presentation and matching reply-rebuttal video made by a PhD in the fields who's done experiments and calculations, someone not a layman and who is also a teacher.

If you're willing, pray and then checkout these two aforementioned videos. Afterward, ask yourself where you should now be on this issue. If you're not there, write down, for yourself, what is the specific reason you're not?

There are specific effortful hands-on experiments you can do as a proof of SE, but that's secondary. You have to first be in mental state that would actually value it.

The Earth is Definitely Not Flat - YouTube
Response to Globebusters - The Earth Still Isn't Flat - YouTube

 

[GaryA]

With regard to the 'Darwin shadows' video...



The yellow line is the sun path to create the shadows in the video.

The sun path must be east-west at the 'overhead' time of day.

The "straight up" direction on the map should be due north.

The only thing it really shows is that Google Maps is "off" by 15 degrees or so...

 

[GaryA]

The line is actually orange and not yellow.

 

[Moses_Young]

If you're willing, pray and then checkout these two aforementioned videos. Afterward, ask yourself where you should now be on this issue. If you're not there, write down, for yourself, what is the specific reason you're not?

There are specific effortful hands-on experiments you can do as a proof of SE, but that's secondary. You have to first be in mental state that would actually value it.

The Earth is Definitely Not Flat - YouTube
Response to Globebusters - The Earth Still Isn't Flat - YouTube

I think the best evidences (i.e. rejecting NASA photos and the like) for ball-Earth utilise the motion of the heavenly bodies, like the well-documented video you posted previously. However, it is similar evidences that also would disprove ball-Earth (e.g. selenelions). Heliocentrists will argue we can still get selenelions on a ball-Earth because of light refraction. I likewise therefore argue cases like the one discussed in the video posted are possible on a Flat Earth due to light refraction. In reality, it's because there are more to the motions of the Heavenly bodies than we currently understand.

This is the reason I prefer to discuss phenomena and evidence that is measureable here on Earth (e.g. distance to visible horizon at sea level), as there is less uncertainty with misunderstood phenomena.

 

[Sculpt]

I think the best evidences (i.e. rejecting NASA photos and the like) for ball-Earth utilise the motion of the heavenly bodies, like the well-documented video you posted previously. However, it is similar evidences that also would disprove ball-Earth (e.g. selenelions). Heliocentrists will argue we can still get selenelions on a ball-Earth because of light refraction. I likewise therefore argue cases like the one discussed in the video posted are possible on a Flat Earth due to light refraction. In reality, it's because there are more to the motions of the Heavenly bodies than we currently understand.

This is the reason I prefer to discuss phenomena and evidence that is measureable here on Earth (e.g. distance to visible horizon at sea level), as there is less uncertainty with misunderstood phenomena.

Selenelions are interesting. I watched a video of a good one. But let's be fair, using the SE model astronomers have correctly predicted the time and place of aprox 230 lunar eclipses (1900-2023).

You wrote, "it is similar evidences that also would disprove ball-Earth (e.g. selenelions)". Do you see the gigantic irony here? So, the 230 lunar eclipses (all of which are all impossible with a flat earth) don't prove the SE, but the rare visual phenomenon of a selenelion, for which refraction is reasonable, disproves the SE?

A 'flat earth' can't get in-between the sun and the moon to cause a lunar eclipse. It does happen because the spherical earth gets in-between the sun the moon.

You're contorting for FE because you want to. Do you know why you want to?

 

[ByTheGraceOfGod]

Selenelions are interesting. I watched a video of a good one. But let's be fair, using the SE model astronomers have correctly predicted the time and place of aprox 230 lunar eclipses (1900-2023).

You wrote, "it is similar evidences that also would disprove ball-Earth (e.g. selenelions)". Do you see the gigantic irony here? So, the 230 lunar eclipses (all of which are all impossible with a flat earth) don't prove the SE, but the rare visual phenomenon of a selenelion, for which refraction is reasonable, disproves the SE?

A 'flat earth' can't get in-between the sun and the moon to cause a lunar eclipse. It does happen because the spherical earth gets in-between the sun the moon.

You're contorting for FE because you want to. Do you know why you want to?

The earth is not in the way.

Sun and Moon at the same time in the sky.

 

[Sculpt]

Your video is a propaganda piece.

The video I posted is not just about 'Arctic' versus 'Antarctic' - it is about:

45 degrees north versus 45 degrees south
50 degrees north versus 50 degrees south
55 degrees north versus 55 degrees south
60 degrees north versus 60 degrees south
65 degrees north versus 65 degrees south
70 degrees north versus 70 degrees south
75 degrees north versus 75 degrees south
80 degrees north versus 80 degrees south
85 degrees north versus 85 degrees south
90 degrees north versus 90 degrees south

(I could have included all of the other numbers also - but, I take it that you get my point...)

It is irrefutable that - if the Ball Earth model were true - the climate would in fact be identical-or-very-similar in each of these comparisons. There are no two ways about it.

Your non-propaganda video for reference: "The Arctic and Antarctic Prove Flat Earth"

Let's refute. The video I posted (Why the Antarctic is colder than the Arctic?) already covered why Antartica is colder than the Artic: a mile-thick of water-ice on top of land continent that has the highest average elevation for any of the continents. Higher elevation is colder, as highest mountains have year-round Snow-line. The Artic is floating ice flows at sea level. I assume you accepted that. So, let's move on to the other less-polar latitudes.

I think you missed something in a last part of the propaganda video that is one of two factors for the temperature difference. It's when they mentioned the "double whammy" for Antartica. You don't need to try to find it, I'll cover it here.

Part 1: Earth's elliptical orbit around the sun has two phases: Aphelion is when Earth is farthest away during the year, July. Perihelion is when it's closet in January.

July is hotter in N. America, summer, due to Earth's tilt. So, of course in July, the Southern Hemisphere has its winter, tilted away from the sun. That's the double whammy: while farthest away (colder) in the orbit (Perihelion) it's also its winter, (colder) tilt away.

Part 2: Please see this 30 second video on the difference between water heating and cooling vs soil heating/cooling.

Specific Heat of Water vs. Land Experiment - YouTube - You can do this experiment at home.

Soil (land) absorbs heat much better than water (ocean). I'm sure you got it already: 68% of Earth's land is in the Northern Hemisphere.

The Southern Hemisphere gets the whammy of the winter tilt during Earth's colder Aphelion phase. And it's only 32% of Earth's better-heat-absorbing land compared to the Northern's 78%. The differences in both the intensity of the sun's heat rays and absorption surfaces are going to make a colder hemisphere. That's sufficient, but there certainly may be other metrological reasons such as ocean currents, rainfall, etc.

This video covers Parts 1&2: Why the Earth is Hottest When It’s Farthest Away from the Sun - YouTube

The temperature difference between the hemispheres is a predictable consequence of spherical earth.

 

[Sculpt]

Just because you see a flight listed on a website does not mean that it is definitely a real flight.

(BTW - both of those links came up empty/unknown.)

You do not know that it is a real flight until you buy the tickets - AND - make/take the flight - AND - determine that your experience on the flight was actually a true reflection of the flight plan you intended from the beginning.

Here's a video from a pilot who's has the opportunity to video record confirmation the flight listing of 10 hours 50 mins, the airport, the physical airport display board of the flight, the gate and the airplane docked for passenger loading. This is a non-stop Auckland to Santiago.

Again, Santiago to Los Angles is about 10 hours. For flat-earth, Auckland to Santiago is about twice as far away, but the flight duration is about the same. It's summer-warm now in these "prove BE to my own satisfaction" vacation adventure destinations.

Other videos display these flight listings, both ways with same duration. Which I mention because of the ad hoc FE suggestion that there's a super-fast wind current that way. But flights go both ways same duration.

LATAM 800 Auckland to Santiago - 10 hours 50 Minutes - Direct

 

[Moses_Young]

Selenelions are interesting. I watched a video of a good one. But let's be fair, using the SE model astronomers have correctly predicted the time and place of aprox 230 lunar eclipses (1900-2023).

Lunar eclipses are predicted irrespective of ball-Earth or Flat Earth models.

You wrote, "it is similar evidences that also would disprove ball-Earth (e.g. selenelions)". Do you see the gigantic irony here? So, the 230 lunar eclipses (all of which are all impossible with a flat earth) don't prove the SE, but the rare visual phenomenon of a selenelion, for which refraction is reasonable, disproves the SE?

I think you're not understanding my point. There is something neither theory can properly explain about the motion of the Heavenly bodies. We need more information. However, here, down on Earth, we see time and again (almost wherever we look, if we know what we're looking for), that the ball-Earth model fails. Countless lighthouses, mountain ranges, pretty much anything where a constant level can be guaranteed shows that Earth is flat, because we can see the objects for much farther than Earth's curvature would permit.

A 'flat earth' can't get in-between the sun and the moon to cause a lunar eclipse. It does happen because the spherical earth gets in-between the sun the moon.

Ball-Earth theory can't explain why the moon's shadow is thinner than the moon's alleged diameter during a solar eclipse (according to ball-Earth theory). There is simply more to the motion of the Heavenly bodies than we currently understand.

You're contorting for FE because you want to. Do you know why you want to?

Nope. I'm taking the simplest explanation for the observations that we can measure and confirm here on Earth, and rejecting the unnecessary explanation for the observations in the Heavens, because the unnecessary explanations can't even properly explain all of the observations in the Heavens, let alone get things right that we can measure and confirm here on Earth.

 

[Lynx]

However, here, down on Earth, we see time and again (almost wherever we look, if we know what we're looking for), that the ball-Earth model fails. Countless lighthouses, mountain ranges, pretty much anything where a constant level can be guaranteed shows that Earth is flat, because we can see the objects for much farther than Earth's curvature would permit.

I don't think you comprehend how big the ball is.

An ant standing on the Epcot Center sphere would think it looks rather flat... from the ant's perspective. Back up far enough though...

 

[ByTheGraceOfGod]

 

[ByTheGraceOfGod]

 

[ByTheGraceOfGod]

 

[Moses_Young]

I don't think you comprehend how big the ball is.

An ant standing on the Epcot Center sphere would think it looks rather flat... from the ant's perspective. Back up far enough though...

So your argument is that the scientists that tell us Heliocentricity is true have somehow underestimated the size of the ball-Earth we are on? It is possible, but doesn't Occam's razor demand that the simplest explanation be used, except where circumstances dictate a more elaborate explanation? To me, the fact that curvature cannot be measured or observed, and we can see further than where the curve should be, enables me to dispense with belief in any curvature at all. If Heliocentrists want to re-examine their model, and propose a larger-sized ball-Earth that works with our observations, I'd be happy to re-examine this model. However, I don't think this can be done, as I'm confident it would introduce other flaws into their model.

 

[Lynx]

So your argument is that the scientists that tell us Heliocentricity is true have somehow underestimated the size of the ball-Earth we are on? It is possible, but doesn't Occam's razor demand that the simplest explanation be used, except where circumstances dictate a more elaborate explanation? To me, the fact that curvature cannot be measured or observed, and we can see further than where the curve should be, enables me to dispense with belief in any curvature at all. If Heliocentrists want to re-examine their model, and propose a larger-sized ball-Earth that works with our observations, I'd be happy to re-examine this model. However, I don't think this can be done, as I'm confident it would introduce other flaws into their model.

But we can measure it, by how far radar can go on the ocean before it is blocked by the curve of the Earth. A taller emitter tower lets it go further because it can get a better angle around the curve. And you may be able to see further than you feel like you should be able to see if the Earth is round, but the Earth is a very, very large ball, much larger than you apparently are conceptualizing.

 

[Sculpt]

Lunar eclipses are predicted irrespective of ball-Earth or Flat Earth models.

I've never even heard of flat-earthers calculating lunar eclipses. I'm pretty comfortable saying they don't. The flat-earth model doesn't address lunar eclipses. I've never seen a flat-earther calculate and predict any heavenly body motions.

I think you're not understanding my point. There is something neither theory can properly explain about the motion of the Heavenly bodies. We need more information. However, here, down on Earth, we see time and again (almost wherever we look, if we know what we're looking for), that the ball-Earth model fails. Countless lighthouses, mountain ranges, pretty much anything where a constant level can be guaranteed shows that Earth is flat, because we can see the objects for much farther than Earth's curvature would permit.

I've seen it. Like seeing 2/3 of the top of buildings along the lakefront in Chicago from Michigan with a telescope but only and consistently during one of the seasons. It's been demonstrated. It's refraction. Light bends, Mo. Refraction is in your world. You can sometimes see farther than the calculation for earth curvature due to refraction. These observations will never prove FE any more than you'll ever disprove refraction. It's your time to waste.

And no, you don't need more information. Information changes nothing for you on this.

Ball-Earth theory can't explain why the moon's shadow is thinner than the moon's alleged diameter during a solar eclipse (according to ball-Earth theory). There is simply more to the motion of the Heavenly bodies than we currently understand.

Yes, it has been explained. I just learned about it. I certainly wouldn't waste my time telling you about it. No offense.

Discussing this with you the last couple weeks makes it perfectly clear to me that you know all the information you need, but you want your Presious. FE will be in-play for you as long as you want it to. That's the only factor. I'm not interested in discussing it with you any longer. Catch ya on the other forums.

I'll leave you with one last vid: Bob Knodel & His Ring Laser Gyroscope Experiment - YouTube