Ball Earth conundrums

Any effects of the moon on earth would be purely 'gravitational' - would they not?

The whole moon is still there at all times, in all phases.

Why do you suppose it matters how much of the moon is 'lit'?

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 moon is sometime closer to us and other times further away. Hence, the effect of gravity on the earth surface is stronger or weaker. All the planets in the solar system are sometimes closer to us. Any Mars mission has to be launched during a small window of time, when Mars is closer to the Earth.

Our solar system is not as smooth and structured as some would believe.

Every month, the moon's eccentric orbit carries it to apogee – its most distant point from Earth – and then, some two weeks later, to perigee – the moon's closest point to Earth in its monthly orbit.

FYI. I was navigator of an Aircraft Carrier. All my charts and my plots were based on a spherical earth. We sailed shortest path most of the time. It was always an arc. It all boiled down to minimizing fuel consumption.

I suggest that you Flat Earthers go back to school and study a little math and physics.

Simply put, you need to stop spreading this FE garbage.

It may be said that it is related; however, the whole point of this thread is that 'Ball Earth conundrums' stands on its own by itself.

In this thread, the idea is to consider only the Ball Earth model - and discuss the things within that model that don't seem to add up...

Just look at the moon and its shape and you can be assured, the earth has the same shape.

FE people are deluded. I don't post to convince them that they are wrong, but to help those who might be susceptible to their irrational rants. I used to think that FE people could be persuaded by logic, reason, facts and genuine observations. I was wrong.

watch the sun or moon rise or set.
100% impossible and inexplicable if the earth is flat; fully explained by a globe planet orbiting a sun with a globe moon orbiting the earth.

done.

@Mawake

since you 'thumbs-downed' this comment, it is incumbent on you to provide a thorough and predictable model for the universal observation of sundown/sunrise moonset/moonrise that withstands 100% criticism, using only flat-earth-consistent geometry & optical physics.

otherwise you're just being an idiot.

** heliocentric, oblate-spherical planet model physics 100% completely explains observation, btw.

give me a workable alternative that withstands all scrutiny & can 100% accurately predict observation, go:

@Moses_Young

either you are also an idiot, or you have a fully formed workable alternative physical model that completely explains universal observation of sundown/sunset and moonrise/moonset.

because you disagreed.

either prove yourself or reveal yourself as a fool without understanding also taken in by this stupid conspiracy theory deception; go:

@Moses_Young

either you are also an idiot, or you have a fully formed workable alternative physical model that completely explains universal observation of sundown/sunset and moonrise/moonset.

because you disagreed.

either prove yourself or reveal yourself as a fool, go:

@Moses_Young

you disagreed again.

put up or shut up.

either you can explain sunrise/sunset in a universally, fully consistent flat-earth physical model, or you can't.
you either have no idea what you're talking about or you do.

do it; go:

Just 'cause someone disagrees with you, don't make them a fool or an idiot. Ad hominem? Some people truly want to understand. Others, like you, don't listen even when it's explained. Why should people like me waste their words by explaining again and again?

I don't believe some are here for honest engagement, but rather, to deter and mislead others who want to properly understand the evidence for the Earth being flat.

@Moses_Young

putting red exes on my posts with no alternative model makes you look foolish.

explain sunrise; go:

As I said, the red x's were for you calling someone an idiot, just because he disagreed with you. I'm not going to waste time with you proving flat Earth. I and many others have already done that on numerous occasions, and you ignored it.

no workable model?

i stand by my statement.

you're an idiot until you can explain what we all see with the eyes God gave us.

no amount of your red exes changes observational fact.
you're preaching falsehood, and anyone with eyes can see that literally 4 times every 24 hours by simply looking towards the heavens.

no workable model?

i stand by my statement.

you're an idiot until you can explain what we all see with the eyes God gave us.

no amount of your red exes changes facts.

@Moses_Young

put up or shut up.

until you can demonstrate that what every eye on earth sees 4 times a day when they look at the heavens is consistent with flat-earth conspiracy theory, all you are doing is fighting against the truth.

which makes you an idiot per Biblical definition.
the truth is the truth.
Christianity is not a religion of idiots. we declare what we know and have seen, and it is verifiable.
flat earth is immediately dismissable as false based on universal observation.

change my mind; give me a physical model explaining sunset 100% withstanding all my scrutiny.
do that, or shut up.

And no amount of ad hominem will change the way I feel about ad hominem. Flat Earth has been explained to you on numerous occasions. You choose rather the blind faith ball-Earth theory and that's your right and choice. But just because I or anyone else don't want to waste more words on explaining to you what has already been proven, it doesn't mean that it hasn't been proven, or that we're idiots for not wanting to waste more words. Perhaps if someone with more honest motives asked a similar question, they would receive a more detailed answer?