No; it just means there is no ambient force in either direction.So if there's no upward force and there's no force pushing down, then everything's calm, right?
Scripture Based Flat Earth Proposition
- Thread starter Romans34
- Start date
-
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.
Please note what you think are the "best arguments" against the ball earth. I suspect many of them have been addressed already.
Being hypocritical doesn't advance anyone's argument.
Which explains perfectly why ships float on the open ocean....
And also why they sink.
Try again, Gary.
Actually, I should note, the Tiangong space station has greatly reduced gravity, thus the "floating visual effect", but it's not zero gravity.
Thank you once again for proving my point. Low hanging fruit.
As far as the hypocrisy is concerned, Touché, my sincere apologies. Allow me to politely rephrase my comment. I strongly and lovingly encourage you to avoid the tap water, or at least use a quality filtration device. And, are you familiar with propaganda and it’s uses? What does the word indoctrination mean to you? Ever heard the term confirmation bias? Confirmation bias can make the most shallow arguments (often from authority) seem reasonable to those who are under it’s influence.
Concerning your question above, and thanks for asking. I’m kind of busy today, way too busy to go through this entire thread pulling out our best arguments. So I’m going to post a couple of videos instead, one in particular that has over 100 rather compelling questions that ball earthers need to address.
You see, from our perspective, we are very well aware that we do not know the whole story, because it is obviously being hidden from us. And we are also aware of why and how the truth is being concealed. We have no problem admitting that we lack information concerning the reality of our cosmos. You guys on the other hand are completely certain that each and every one of your conclusions are settled science, beyond any contradiction. It’s an almost regal attitude, and kind of disturbing. We serfs are merely searching for the truth. And praise be to God, we will no longer accept the tall tales long put forth by the wizards of deception, who pass themselves off as seekers of knowledge, who elevate themselves above the rest of us as though they alone possess the keys to understanding. Especially when, they are clearly the enemies of Almighty God, and have proven so, and continue to prove it so, as each new day, with some new witty invention, they drive humanity further and further away from the knowledge of their Creator and nearer the technological abyss that Satan has in store for all of those who will not come out of this world system, this Babylon that elevates men above the Almighty, denying His very existence, and sealing their doom. If you want the worlds system, the worlds wisdom, you can have it. But be warned, it comes with the worlds fate.
Sorry brother - but - you are already brainwashed (you have been all of your life) - the results of your study is lacking - your observations are tainted.
The 'meniscus' idea is totally outside of the context of the statement that @Prodigal made in post #381.
Rarely-if-ever is the entire surface of any ocean as smooth as glass; nonetheless, it has no significance in the larger scope of the overall shape of it. The same is true of 'meniscus' in the scope of the context of the statement that Prodigal made in post #381.
You might find it more useful if you stop making these shoot-from-the-hip lame potshots and start doing more thinking before you post.
A lack of buoyancy contributes to why they sink.
Of course - now - apparently - you want to talk about 'density' too. Okay. It plays a big part in why they sink.
Something else in this video is noteworthy - the sunspot - directly below the sun - cannot happen without a close sun.
If the sun were 93 million miles away, there is no way possible it could/would create a sunspot like we see in the video.
And your arrogance is disappointing.
(Regarding ships...)
That doesn't work. The density of both the water and the ship are unchanged between when the ship is floating and when it sinks. Further, the "medium" (water) is not "contained" such that it provides buoyancy. It is, rather, distinctly uncontained, leaving your explanation for the floating boat rather illogical.
If you are standing in a swimming pool with a beach ball and you push down on the beach ball so that it drops deeper into the water - the effect of buoyancy exists without 'gravity' being the majority force in play. (And, I say it this way from a Ball Earth perspective for your sake and to make my point.) Hence, the concept of 'gravity' having a downward pull on the ball - as the downward force "in play" where buoyancy is concerned - is separate and distinct from the concept of 'buoyancy' itself - which "does not care" what actually causes the downward force - it exists due to some downward force.
You are to be pitied because you refuse to separate the two concepts into their proper contexts according to what is actually occurring. Because, to do so requires that you examine the two concepts separately. And, you are afraid to do that because of 'sacred gravity'.
What causes the downward force is 100% absolutely-completely-totally separate from what causes 'buoyancy' to occur. And, that is the point that I am making that you refuse to acknowledge - 'gravity' is not required for 'buoyancy' to exist or occur. Rather, it is at best a separate-and-secondary consideration for what causes the downward force that comes into play where the effect of 'buoyancy' is concerned. It is outside of the primary consideration of what is at play with regard to the effect of buoyancy.
Your refusal to separate the two concepts - which are painfully clear as being separate from a physics point of view - is illogical and ridiculous.
Think about the physics...
What keeps a ship afloat?
What has changed if the ship sinks?
Do you not know that the oceans are contained by the land that forms the contour of the shape that the water fills?
Gary, stop being a jackdonkey. Try to interact without making demeaning comments about others. If you can't, your ideas aren't worth the pixels to print them.
So - if you say that we are to be pitied for claiming that buoyancy exists on its own - that is okay - it is not a 'demeaning' comment - and, you are not being a 'jackdonkey'; however, if one of us says that you are to be pitied for not separating two different concepts of physics - it is a whole different ball game...
Oh, come on now - be reasonable...
You are only saying that because you have no answer while avoiding the question.
BTW - regardless of 'tact' - what I have said has value - as the simple truth about the two separate concepts in the realm of physics.
I shake my head too - because you have no answer while avoiding the question.
To use your words to say something similar:
If you do not understand it - or, cannot explain it - then, you are in no better a position than where you claim us to be.
Don't be a hypocrite - do the very thing you demand of others...
They are not "separate concepts" but are intimately related.
Gravity has been measured and quantified. The acceleration due to Earth's gravity is 9.8 metres per second squared at sea level.
What is the acceleration due to buoyancy?
It's a nonsensical question, because "buoyancy" is not a force, but rather a derivative effect of gravity.
I'm done trying to explain this to people who refuse to accept reality.
Can two things be "intimately related" without being two separate things?
Two separate-but-related concepts are still two separate concepts.
Let go of it, brother - you can accept that there are two separate concepts and still talk about how they are related in the Ball Earth model. But, you need to accept that they are in fact two separate concepts...
It's a nonsensical question because they are two separate concepts - and, neither one is a derivative of the other.
Buoyancy is an effect and not a force.
Me too.
Ngl, I wish I was a flat earth supporter just for the fun of arguing with round earthers. For whatever reason flat earthers really irk people. Naturally I used to pretend to be a flat earther to my cousin for years just to mess with him. Though he got me back with weird pronunciations on words. It was a good fake fight. Anyways, I don't know why people care so much about who's right when it comes to Christians. Eventually we'll know everything, so why bother arguing when we can all just wait for the full truth reveal? Unless this is a perpetual fake argument as well. In which case, I have decided to join the side of the Hexahedron earth.