Ball Earth conundrums

[Moses_Young]

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.

That's because they are predicted based on history, not on Earth-shape model. Both Flat Earthers and Heliocentrists can predict lunar eclipses with equal accuracy, as the model used doesn't depend on shape or size of Earth.

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

No it hasn't been explained. Not scientifically. Just-so stories are easy to invent, like how the water magically sticks to the bottom of ball-Earth by gravity. Trying to demonstrate this with science has never been done, and that's the standard many people, such as myself, require in order to believe something that goes against observation.

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

Like I have told you many times before, Flat Earth is the observation. Ball-Earth is a theory, but the theory has to resort to refraction for almost every case on a clear day (to explauin why we can see further than the curve should allow). Yes, there are some observations Flat Earth is imperfect for (as the 2 or 3 in the video you posted), but I'd sooner the 2 or 3 observations/exceptions at evening and morning that don't fit, than every other example on every clear day of the year.

 

[Moses_Young]

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.

Radar, like line of sight, can travel further than the curvature of the Earth would allow. I posted this elsewhere (see link), but see below in case it helps.

https://christianchat.com/conspirac...at-earth-debunked.209031/page-10#post-5007887

https://www.quora.com/What-is-the-range-of-an-average-marine-radar-on-US-Navy-ships?share=1

"Almost every one of the 50+ US Navy ships I sailed on had an installed “average marine radar” from a manufacturer like Raytheon or Furuno. These tend to be “fishing boat” radars with ranges of 25 to 75 nm, depending on how high above the sea surface they were installed."

Note that 25 nautical miles (the lower estimate given) is approximately 46km.

● Let A, B and E represent 3 ships, of height H1, H2, H3, on a ball-Earth of circumference C and radius r.
● Let ships A and B be located on the ball-Earth at such a distance that a straight line between the highest point on A and the highest point on B is tangent with ball-Earth. [This sets ship B at the maximum possible detectable distance, by straight line, from A].
● Let T represent the point where the tangent line AB intersects the ball-Earth.
● Let O represent the center of ball-Earth.
● Let ϴ1 represent the angle between OA and OT.
● Let ϴ2 represent the angle between OT and OB.
● Let ϴT represent the sum of the angles ϴ1 and ϴ2.
● Let D represent the distance of the arc along the circumference of ball-Earth, between the ships A and B.

Also, let:
● H1 = 10m
● H2 = 10m
● C = 40,075,017m
● r = 6,378,000m

Then:

● From basic trigonometry, we know that cos(ϴ) = Adjacent/Hypotenuse

cos (ϴ1) = r / (r + H1)
cos (ϴ1) = 0.999998432112838
cos (ϴ2) = r / (r + H2)
cos (ϴ2) = 0.999998432112838

ϴ1 = acos(0.999998432112838)
ϴ1 = 0.00177081200133473 radians
ϴ2 = acos(0.999998432112838)
ϴ2 = 0.00177081200133473 radians

● We also know that 360º = 2π radians

ϴ1 = 0.001770812 * 360 / (2.π)
ϴ1 = 0.101460053987595º
ϴ2 = 0.001770812 * 360 / (2.π)
ϴ2 = 0.101460053987595º

ϴT = ϴ1 + ϴ2
ϴT = 0.10146º + 0.10146º
ϴT = 0.20292º

● There are 360º in a circle.

D = ϴT / 360 * C
D = 0.20292º / 360º * 40,075,017m
D = 22588.951249m
D = 22.59km

● Therefore, if we lived on a ball-Earth of circumference C = 40,075km, the maximum range that a straight‑beam radar mounted 10m above sea-level could detect a 10m-high ship, is 22.59km.
● In reality, radar can detect ships at much greater distances than this (e.g. easily at 50km).
● The trigonometric diagram of ball-Earth, together with radar ranges which greatly exceed the maximum range predicted by the ball-Earth model, therefore demonstrate that we do not live on a ball‑Earth at all, as some would have us imagine.

 

[Lynx]

Where is that facepalm reaction when you need it?

Have you tested any of this? Can you verify that radar detects boats at the same distance when mounted right above the ocean surface as it does when mounted far above the ocean surface?

There's a reason they put radar dishes at the very top of a ship, on a mast. If there were no reason, somebody would have discovered it by now and gone a much cheaper route. The much referenced invisible hand of the market would have almost demanded it.

 

[Sculpt]

That's because they are predicted based on history, not on Earth-shape model. Both Flat Earthers and Heliocentrists can predict lunar eclipses with equal accuracy, as the model used doesn't depend on shape or size of Earth.

No it hasn't been explained. Not scientifically. Just-so stories are easy to invent, like how the water magically sticks to the bottom of ball-Earth by gravity. Trying to demonstrate this with science has never been done, and that's the standard many people, such as myself, require in order to believe something that goes against observation.

Like I have told you many times before, Flat Earth is the observation. Ball-Earth is a theory, but the theory has to resort to refraction for almost every case on a clear day (to explauin why we can see further than the curve should allow). Yes, there are some observations Flat Earth is imperfect for (as the 2 or 3 in the video you posted), but I'd sooner the 2 or 3 observations/exceptions at evening and morning that don't fit, than every other example on every clear day of the year.

Again, I don't agree with any of those assessments. And it's my decided opinion there's nothing further I can present to you to change your mind.

I dove into FE about a decade ago. For the sake of others, I've jumped back into the science and propositions from time to time. Each time I do I find the proofs for spherical earth and against a flat earth extraordinarily voluminous and assessable, and ever more so in-person verifiable. I can tell you from direct experience approximately nothing has evolved with flat earth.

I do however learn more about why some people want to entertain flat earth. I'm almost always happy with skeptics who want to do the investigation and research, and especially any final necessary direct experimentation that supports or refutes hypothesis. In regard to an individual's intention to come to a conclusion on whether earth is certainly spherical or flat, depending on how much time they have to do the work, in 2023, with the internet and non-internet resources, one is able to come to a conclusion in one to two weeks. After that, generally speaking, they are keeping a flat earth in-play as a hobby, for a feeling of belongingness with others, or a belief system rather than an issue of physical reality. They push all contrary thoughts down into their subconscious. For them information is no longer the primemover on the issue. Only a decision to change will make a difference.

For a Christian who is new to the issue, the first two weeks of research is good. Asking honest questions with the intent of receiving answers and coming to a conclusion can be done wisely. Asking questions with the intent to drag others in is not a good thing. After those two weeks or so, the main issue for the Christian is that flat earth is a falsehood and a Christian doesn't want to spread falsehood.

 

[Dino246]

Like I have told you many times before, Flat Earth is the observation.

You keep repeating this, but you aren't convincing anyone that it is true.

Flat Earth may be "your" observation, but it is not the observation of everyone else therefore it is not "the" observation.

 

[Dino246]

Where is that facepalm reaction when you need it?

This one?

 

[Dino246]

There's a reason they put radar dishes at the very top of a ship, on a mast. If there were no reason, somebody would have discovered it by now and gone a much cheaper route. The much referenced invisible hand of the market would have almost demanded it.

Didn't you know it's all a NASA conspiracy?

 

[Lynx]

Didn't you know it's all a NASA conspiracy?

Yeah, no... With all the money flowing through the government, I don't think they need a big conspiracy to get a paltry few billion.

Especially a conspiracy that would be easily disproven by simply taking a jet out to the edge.

Shoot, we could make it a tourist attraction. Charter jet tours of the edge of the world. I would go on a trip once, just to see it.

 

[Lynx]

Yeah, no... With all the money flowing through the government, I don't think they need a big conspiracy to get a paltry few billion.

Especially a conspiracy that would be easily disproven by simply taking a jet out to the edge.

Shoot, we could make it a tourist attraction. Charter jet tours of the edge of the world. I would go on a trip once, just to see it.

The more I think about it, the more I feel like FE people are missing out...

Moses you should get some friends together and jump on this! Start a tour company out to the edge. Y'all could make a ton of money!

 

[Billyd]

An interesting fact. If I fly due east, the north pole remains the same distance from me and the south pole remains the same distance from me.

Using flat earth theory, explain this fact.

 

[Moses_Young]

You keep repeating this, but you aren't convincing anyone that it is true.

Flat Earth may be "your" observation, but it is not the observation of everyone else therefore it is not "the" observation.

I'm simply repeating the truth, and not intending to convert hardcore disciples of Heliocentricity. Anyone fairminded who reads the phrase will at once realise this indeed is our observation. It's doubtful I would ever convince anyone who rejects even the truth presented by his own eyes.

An interesting fact. If I fly due east, the north pole remains the same distance from me and the south pole remains the same distance from me.

Using flat earth theory, explain this fact.

First prove it. In Flat Earth theory, there is no single "South pole". Prove it even exists.

 

[Dino246]

I'm simply repeating the truth

No, you're repeating your perception.

Unfortunately, you exemplify the blind man with the elephant.

 

[Moses_Young]

No, you're repeating your perception.

Unfortunately, you exemplify the blind man with the elephant.

If the curvature were truly visible, there wouldn't be arguments amongst Heliocentrists about how high one must be in order to see it.

 

[Lynx]

If the curvature were truly visible, there wouldn't be arguments amongst Heliocentrists about how high one must be in order to see it.

Less arguing. More tours. I'll pay for a tour of the edge. Let's get this show on the road.

 

[Dino246]

If the curvature were truly visible, there wouldn't be arguments amongst Heliocentrists about how high one must be in order to see it.

Whether the curvature is visible (from anywhere on Earth) is nothing but a side issue. There are many other observations available that do not allow for the Flat Earth model.

If you were repeatedly claiming, "I don't see the curvature", then I wouldn't have an issue with it, because that is a legitimate observation, but that isn't what you're doing. You're going far beyond the actual observation and claiming a conclusion.

 

[posthuman]

Ball-Earth is a theory, but the theory has to resort to refraction for almost every case

lol at "the accepted model has to resort to facts to explain itself"

 

[Romans34]

There are many other observations available that do not allow for the Flat Earth model.

That's exactly how FE'rs feel about the BE model. The whole point of this thread I believe. In other words:

There are many other observations available that do not allow for the Ball Earth model.

 

[Romans34]

You're going far beyond the actual observation and claiming a conclusion.

At least that's better then BE'rs who fall short of actual observation and claim a conclusion.

 

[Romans34]

lol at "the accepted model has to resort to facts to explain itself"

It's a shame though, that the 'facts' of the 'accepted model' are contrary to the Word of God.

 

[GaryA]

Once again, you have fallen for the built-in propaganda of a not-to-scale drawing.

Remember what I said (and never ever forget it):

One other bit of advice - if you really want to get at the truth - do not ever trust a diagram that is not drawn to scale.

Refuse to look at anything except to-scale diagrams/drawings and you will see a different truth.

Ball Earth "propaganda" illustration:

Ball Earth "reality" illustration:



This is a scale drawing of the Ball Earth model Earth ellipse orbit. In the drawing, the Earth orbit path is actually drawn as a circle; however, the actual ellipse is so close to being a circle that I did not bother to draw an actual ellipse shape. (I "borrowed" from an earlier drawing I made to make this one.) To get the proper ellipse, you would "squash" the circle vertically a distance that is less than the drawn line width (4 pixels). That is [just] how close the ellipse is to an actual circle.

Yes - there is still a 2.5 million km "offset" of the sun; however, when you look at it on a to-scale drawing - the overall picture is different - is it not?

The difference between Apoapsis and Periapsis is 5 million km - just under 1.8 times the diameter of the sun. Based on the to-scale illustration above, do you really think that this will result in all of the stuff you are suggesting occuring because of the "offset" distance mentioned above? And, over a distance of 107 versus 108 sun-diameters? (Or, something close to that.)

I suggest to you that the variation in what we experience at different times of the yearly cycle is due to the changing movements of a much closer sun.

You need to realize that - even if they admit that the drawing is "exaggerated" - the propaganda is still present in the illustration. And, they know that "what will stick in your mind" will be what you "take in" from the 'visual' - even while consciously knowing that it is not correct. This is a very powerful "trick" that has been used in so many ways for many years now.