Ball Earth conundrums

[Sculpt]

Lol. This is what I mean about science. Have you ever tried it? I have. Water doesn't spin the other way North and South of the equator. Its nothing to do with some omnipotent government, just bad information to begin with, and those perpetuating the myth without verifying.

Have you personally verified this? On site? If not, your information is no more reliable than that of the sources you decry.

I guess I'm still engaged. The clock/counter-clockwise spin of water doesn't matter unless you create the necessary controls. There are many obvious ways to create either spin without those controls. But you can indeed create those controls and test, and do it yourself at home.

This is an excellent video from a scientist who does lots of excellent science vids. Two participants, one in Sydny, AU and the other in Huntsville, AL, US. They demonstrate the theory doesn't work without controls. Then with the same control design they demonstrate.

 

[Romans34]

refraction of light passing through a medium is contrary to the word of God??

No, I wasn't thinking so much about refraction as I was the question I have asked repeatedly concerning the stars falling to the earth from 25 trillion miles away. You know . . . in the thread entitled "Scripture Based Flat Earth Proposition". Yes, absolutely contrary to the teachings of the Word of God.

 

[Romans34]

I'm unaware of any such observations. I am, however, aware of many misinterpretations of observations.

Please see post#842 above. When I observe the heavens, I don't see sun, moon, and stars as being millions of miles away.

Also, my observation of the moon tells me it cannot rotate in two different directions simultaniously, and only show the same 'face' or 'side' always.

 

[posthuman]

@Moses_Young is not talking about any 'conclusion' AT ALL; rather, he is only talking about - and interested in - 'observation'. He only wants to know:

"What is your observation - is it dark outside at midnight?"

He is not talking about - or interested in - what you may conclude from that - he is talking about - and interested in - what your observation is - "plain and simple"...

No Gary.

it's dark outside at midnight and he wants to know if i observe that the sun has ceased to exist.

 

[Moses_Young]

Have you personally verified this? On site? If not, your information is no more reliable than that of the sources you decry.

Yes. Both North and South of the equator, I tried draining several water containing receptacles (sinks, toilets etc.) Direction of the water in both hemispheres was dependent on the configuration of the receptacle - it could rotate either way. It certainly didn't work as "advertised".

 

[posthuman]

Yes. Both North and South of the equator, I tried draining several water containing receptacles (sinks, toilets etc.) Direction of the water in both hemispheres was dependent on the configuration of the receptacle - it could rotate either way. It certainly didn't work as "advertised".

That's an insufficient experiment.

You need to rule out confounding variables; you need absolutely still water in a smooth recepticle that doesn't affect the direction of the water.

You can't deduce things when you do not understand what you are observing.

 

[Moses_Young]

That's an insufficient experiment.

You need to rule out confounding variables; you need absolutely still water in a smooth recepticle that doesn't affect the direction of the water.

You can't deduce things when you do not understand what you are observing.

Again, burden of proof. The one making the claim (i.e. that water when draining does so in opposite directions in opposite hemisphere) is the one with whom the burden of proof lies. I've tried some straightforward tests, and it's simply untrue. There might be some more science to it, but I haven't seen it, and at least so far as is commonly advertised, the claim is just plain false.

 

[posthuman]

Again, burden of proof. The one making the claim (i.e. that water when draining does so in opposite directions in opposite hemisphere) is the one with whom the burden of proof lies. I've tried some straightforward tests, and it's simply untrue. There might be some more science to it, but I haven't seen it, and at least so far as is commonly advertised, the claim is just plain false.

your tests were not "straightforward" - you did not eliminate or account for physical influences that affect the direction of the draining water.

simply flushing a toilet and declaring there is no coriolis force is what's called "poor experimental design"

 

[Moses_Young]

your tests were not "straightforward" - you did not eliminate or account for physical influences that affect the direction of the draining water.

simply flushing a toilet and declaring there is no coriolis force is what's called "poor experimental design"

Your guys are making the claim. Not me. Take it up with the heliocentrists who believe this is a real phenomena. If they come up with something scientific and convincing, I in turn will likewise examine their evidence with the same level of scrutiny. Until then, it's just a wild claim without any substance. I examined the claim's evidence at the level it was given, and found it to be false.

 

[Dino246]

Yes. Both North and South of the equator, I tried draining several water containing receptacles (sinks, toilets etc.) Direction of the water in both hemispheres was dependent on the configuration of the receptacle - it could rotate either way. It certainly didn't work as "advertised".

Okay, this was noted on the video. What do you think of their conclusion where based on controlled environments?

 

[Dino246]

Please see post#842 above. When I observe the heavens, I don't see sun, moon, and stars as being millions of miles away.

Also, my observation of the moon tells me it cannot rotate in two different directions simultaniously, and only show the same 'face' or 'side' always.

Neither has anything directly to do with the shape of the Earth.

 

[posthuman]

Your guys are making the claim. Not me. Take it up with the heliocentrists who believe this is a real phenomena. If they come up with something scientific and convincing, I in turn will likewise examine their evidence with the same level of scrutiny. Until then, it's just a wild claim without any substance. I examined the claim's evidence at the level it was given, and found it to be false.

The coriolis force isn't a "claim" it's demonstrated fact.

you falsely deny that Foucault's pendulums work, but that's just your categorical rejection of the truth for a lie. it is a very well known and documented simple machine.

If you design a water experiment correctly, it will also show coriolis force.

 

[posthuman]

Your guys are making the claim. Not me. Take it up with the heliocentrists who believe this is a real phenomena.

i know that toilets don't swirl in opposite directiona in different hemispheres, i don't make that claim.
but the urban myth of it has to do with the coriolis force, and the coriolis force is real.

what i'm saying is with a properly designed experiment, we would see water move in opposite direction with latitude, just like the foucault pendulum does, when you build one of those correctly so that other forces aren't influencing it's behavior

 

[posthuman]

No Gary.

it's dark outside at midnight and he wants to know if i observe that the sun has ceased to exist.

@GaryA
@Moses_Young

put your little red x's out there all you wish,
but fact is that the observation is a lack of distinguishable curvature in a narrow field of view from low altitude,
and the conclusion that the earth is flat from that observation is unjustified.

the conclusion is corroborated by that observation in the absence of any other observations, but the observation is not sufficient evidence to make the conclusion, and mountains of other observations make the conclusion of an infinite planar earth completely untenable.

 

[posthuman]

@GaryA
@Moses_Young

put your little red x's out there all you wish,
but fact is that the observation is a lack of distinguishable curvature in a narrow field of view from low altitude,
and the conclusion that the earth is flat from that observation is unjustified.

the conclusion is corroborated by that observation in the absence of any other observations, but the observation is not sufficient evidence to make the conclusion, and mountains of other observations make the conclusion of an infinite planar earth completely untenable.

@Moses_Young
@GaryA

so i am 100% correct to say that no, the observation is not an infinite planar earth, and you two are 100% incorrect to disagree.

infinite plane planet is a conclusion, not an observation.

 

[Sculpt]

Also, my observation of the moon tells me it cannot rotate in two different directions simultaniously, and only show the same 'face' or 'side' always.

Brother, Romans34, I'm sorry, I don't know what you mean by this. Would you please specify with a little detail what mean here?

 

[GaryA]

@Moses_Young is not talking about any 'conclusion' AT ALL; rather, he is only talking about - and interested in - 'observation'. He only wants to know:

"What is your observation - is it dark outside at midnight?"

He is not talking about - or interested in - what you may conclude from that - he is talking about - and interested in - what your observation is - "plain and simple"...

No Gary.

it's dark outside at midnight and he wants to know if i observe that the sun has ceased to exist.

@GaryA
@Moses_Young

put your little red x's out there all you wish,
but fact is that the observation is a lack of distinguishable curvature in a narrow field of view from low altitude,
and the conclusion that the earth is flat from that observation is unjustified.

the conclusion is corroborated by that observation in the absence of any other observations, but the observation is not sufficient evidence to make the conclusion, and mountains of other observations make the conclusion of an infinite planar earth completely untenable.

My "little red x" is indicating that I disagree with your assessment that:

1) my observation concerning what @Moses_Young was talking about was incorrect

2) what he was talking about was something other than simple observation

 

[GaryA]

infinite plane planet is a conclusion, not an observation.

And yet - you will contend that 'curvature' is an observation... ??????????

 

[Gideon300]

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".

Or it means that God made the sun and moon move relative to the earth. It proves nothing.

 

[Romans34]

Or it means that God made the sun and moon move relative to the earth. It proves nothing.

So how did that work exactly. We are made to understand that "time" as we know it is measured by the relationship between the sun, moon, (and throw the stars in as well), and the earth. The earth orbits the sun every year, the moon goes through all its phases every month, and day and night are regulated by the spinning of the earth, etc. Also, we are told that the earth cannot stop spinning at its 25,000 miles per day rate (at the equator) or it would kill us all. So how did the natural shadow go BACKWARD ten degrees without stopping or reversing the earth's rotation?