Ball Earth conundrums

Yeah, I watched The Matrix. That's a couple of hours of my life I won't get back. Not as bad as Titanic............. I haven't watched a movie for years. I have other interests.

I live in the real world, not a simulated world.

Truth is objective. This life is what it is and not a simulation. Either the world is a globe or it is not.

evolution is false and the globe earth true. How do I know? In the first case, evolution, I went to the Creator and discovered what He had to say about it.

I'd already rejected evolution as a concept. However, that then begs the question as to how the creation came about.

It never occurred to me to doubt that the earth was a globe. I'd never come across FE believers until I came on this forum. I thought it must have been April Fool's day until I realised that they were serious. The evidence for a globe earth is overwhelming. The evidence for a flat earth is zero.

Yeah, I watched The Matrix. That's a couple of hours of my life I won't get back. Not as bad as Titanic............. I haven't watched a movie for years. I have other interests.

Our world is really a bit like the matrix,But not enslaved by robots, but by sin.

It's not that we created the "creator" and were caged by the "creator",

From the beginning, we were locked up in a small blue house in the universe by the creator.

The mind behind the world system that we live in is Satan. Everything- education, politics, sport, entertainment, the arts, medicine, business, industry etc. is manipulated and controlled by Satan (1 John 5:19). Those things are real enough, but they will be abolished when the kingdom of God in in place. What is like the Matrix is that very few people realise that they are Satan's unwitting dupes.

I live in the real world, not a fantasy/simulated world. Truth is objective. This life is what it is and not a simulation. Either the world is a globe or it is not. I used to read a lot of science fiction. However, I was well aware that it was fiction, not science. Now that I'm born again, I've lost interest in SciFi and fantasy.

I readily reject evolution and I readily accept the globe earth because evolution is false and the globe earth true. How do I know? In the first case, evolution, I went to the Creator and discovered what He had to say about it. I'd already rejected evolution as a concept. However, that then begs the question as to how the creation came about.

It never occurred to me to doubt that the earth was a globe. I'd never come across FE believers until I came on this forum. I thought it must have been April Fool's day until I realised that they were serious. The evidence for a globe earth is overwhelming. The evidence for a flat earth is zero.

Yeah, I watched The Matrix. That's a couple of hours of my life I won't get back. Not as bad as Titanic............. I haven't watched a movie for years. I have other interests.

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?

The earth is egg shape, don't believe me, ask my wife.

When i was a teenager, at this special time of the year now approaching, we would celebrate the egg shaped earth and the moon by waiting until dark to hurl eggs at cars (including the police).
Thereby reinacting Newton's discovery of the theory of gravity with momentum.

We also observed how moving objects came to an abrupt halt - upon which we young scientists demonstarted propulsion of fluids within muscles along with contraction and expantion.

Throwing eggs at cop car sounds like a good way to observe the effects of fines on your wallet

And that's exactly what someone living in a simulated world would say. When you are dreaming, the dream world "feels" real at the time until you wake up. The dream "logic" makes sense at the time.

It can also be the case in dreams that some truths of the waking world shine through, and even stranger, to have moments of being lucid in dreams, fully aware of the dreamworld around you.



And yet people can be tricked and have misconceptions. Even those of faith, or else why would Jesus have warned about false Christs to come? We can be lulled into incorrect perceptions, and we should have the humility to realize this. We will fall and falter, but the love in our hearts guides us to the right path.

The point of thought experiments such as Plato's Allegory of the Cave is to explore the implications that what you commonly refer to as "the world" may not actually be the world. The Allegory of the Cave points to the idea of an experienced reality that is removed contextually from what is objectively true. That which is experienced would be a shadow of what is true.

When we look at cognitive science, we see that what we see as conscious experience is by its nature simulated. The gaps in that internal simulation is the reason why sensory illusions are possible. And that was the point of the more modern "brain in the vat" thought experiment.` You do live in a simulated world, even if you aren't aware of it. That premise isn't fiction.

Do some things really matter? Does it matter if evolution happened or not? Does it matter if we have a correct understanding of what happened during creation? Does it matter if we think the world is flat or round?

I think so long as we don't fall into the trap of persecuting people like Galileo, we're probably better off.



Are you talking about scripture? Or a divine revelation?

I don't agree with the premise that scripture necessarily rules out evolution.

Divine revelation is a different story. On one hand, it could be that your divine revelation gave you the understanding you needed rather than what would be objectively true (a truth embedded in symbolism much like many of the allegories and visions).

It could be that you genuinely have a divine revelation that has reveal something not revealed to others. In that case, it hasn't necessarily been revealed to others (and perhaps that is the case for a reason).



I assume you are comparing Young Earth Creationism (YEC) to atheistic evolution, rather than Old Earth Creationism (OEC).



When we read parts of the OT literally, scripture is written in such a way that it does appear to be referring to a flat earth. This premise is used to project the position "you either believe in a FE or you reject scripture". The FE angle in many cases comes across as either Poe's law at work or a symptom of severe distrust of societal knowledge and people in general.

I think that type of skepticism and willingness to challenge established theory is a great thing in moderation. We should all have the attitude in science that any theory can be challenged and when tested and prodded objectively that only the truth will remain.

It's healthy to challenge evolution as a theory. It's healthy to challenge even the simplest concepts like the shape of the world.



Mentioning sci-fi is usually just a great icebreaker for philosophy. Most people get confused by references to philosophers and their works that they've never read. Most sci-fi is basically the fast-food version of more fulfilling philosophic thought experiments.

They simulation argument is completely irrelevant. Even if hypothetically I am in a simulation, I still experience the world around me and have to react accordingly

Ok who wants to start a go fund me account to send a flat earthier into orbit on one of the new civilian rockets to put them into orbit ?
Blessings
Bill

I don't know, it's never occurred to me to find out. This subject is a bit like evolution to me. Evolutionists often want me to study that theory, as if I could be persuaded by that mumbo jumbo. It's too late, nothing can convince me that God is a liar. Likewise, nothing can convince me that the earth is flat.

The first scientists that ascended 80,000 feet said the earth looked flat with the edges curved upwards.

i have flown quite a few times during the day and night = no curvature can be witnessed.

The Globalists control what you are permitted to see and easily manipulate photos and film.
Thick curved glass portholes create a distortion and give the appearance of a curved earth.

Stanley Kubrik filmed the moon landing - on earth - and when he began to expose it and they killed him.

Commercial planes fly at 30,000 ft. You won't see the curvature there

There are people on here that will make the claim that they did, which is why i stated the facts.