Ball Earth conundrums
- Thread starter GaryA
- 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.
@Moses_Young Nothing, huh?
No tenable physical model, only hurt feelings because you think everyone can have their own truth equally acceptable and there is no actual absolute truth?
OK @everyone it is evident.
What do little red X's mean in this thread?
They mean that people whose lies are called out don't like their false teaching being revealed as false.
They would prefer we allow them to lie and lead people astray into false, lying conspiracy rabbit-holes without 'hurting their feelings' by showing that their falsehoods are false.
They think that's "righteousness" - to let liars go on lying. To profligate lies.
God created the heavens and the earth, and they testify of Him.
Truth will out.
No tenable physical model, only hurt feelings because you think everyone can have their own truth equally acceptable and there is no actual absolute truth?
OK @everyone it is evident.
What do little red X's mean in this thread?
They mean that people whose lies are called out don't like their false teaching being revealed as false.
They would prefer we allow them to lie and lead people astray into false, lying conspiracy rabbit-holes without 'hurting their feelings' by showing that their falsehoods are false.
They think that's "righteousness" - to let liars go on lying. To profligate lies.
God created the heavens and the earth, and they testify of Him.
Truth will out.
-
1
-
1
- Show all
Guess again - if there are any answers to be given in this thread, they need to be good-and-proper "real science" answers to one or more of the Ball Earth conundrums presented - period. Otherwise, general discussion with regard to Ball Earth conundrums is acceptable.
This thread is not about Flat Earth. It is about Ball Earth.
STOP being a troll. STOP trashing my thread.
Go read post #31 in this thread.
This thread is not about Flat Earth. It is about Ball Earth.
STOP being a troll. STOP trashing my thread.
Go read post #31 in this thread.
-
2
- Show all
Sorry Gary. I got distracted by the troll. How about marine radar (taken from another thread)?
It sounds like a typical, off-the-shelf military radar has a range of about 25 nautical miles (although some have much further range). I believe 25 nautical miles translates to 46.3 km.
https://www.quora.com/What-is-the-range-of-an-average-marine-radar-on-US-Navy-ships?share=1
We all know that radars only travel in straight lines. Presuming the radar is mounted 10 m above the water (I think this is conservative, as lots of boats would be shorter), and the boat it is detecting is 10 m above the water, the maximum distance the radar could detect another boat on a ball-Earth is 24.79 km.
To confirm, just enter the heights of the observer and object in the calculation page attached.
https://rechneronline.de/sehwinkel/distance-horizon.php
So, ball-Earth theory predicts a maximum radar range for the most powerful radar of 24.79 km, due to the curvature of Earth, but a standard radar (probably mounted much lower) can detect up to 46.3 km. Note also that more powerful radar can purportedly achieve much greater range.
How does this work on ball-Earth? Either radar travels in curves the same way ball-Earth curves (neither measured nor observed), or ball-Earth theory is false.
It sounds like a typical, off-the-shelf military radar has a range of about 25 nautical miles (although some have much further range). I believe 25 nautical miles translates to 46.3 km.
https://www.quora.com/What-is-the-range-of-an-average-marine-radar-on-US-Navy-ships?share=1
We all know that radars only travel in straight lines. Presuming the radar is mounted 10 m above the water (I think this is conservative, as lots of boats would be shorter), and the boat it is detecting is 10 m above the water, the maximum distance the radar could detect another boat on a ball-Earth is 24.79 km.
To confirm, just enter the heights of the observer and object in the calculation page attached.
https://rechneronline.de/sehwinkel/distance-horizon.php
So, ball-Earth theory predicts a maximum radar range for the most powerful radar of 24.79 km, due to the curvature of Earth, but a standard radar (probably mounted much lower) can detect up to 46.3 km. Note also that more powerful radar can purportedly achieve much greater range.
How does this work on ball-Earth? Either radar travels in curves the same way ball-Earth curves (neither measured nor observed), or ball-Earth theory is false.
-
1
- Show all
post is not a troll.
post is an 9-year veteran-elder of the forum.
post was here before you, and post was here before Gary, and post has been a Christian before anyone was led astray by the weird 'flat earth' conspiracy was ever a thing, at all.
y'all need to examine yourselves. imo you're being ridiculous; simply on objective, physical, empirical logical value you are in error.
you are illogically, unfaithfully dismissing me because of a conspiracy-theory-brand-loyalty. that is evident.
thanks.
post is an 9-year veteran-elder of the forum.
post was here before you, and post was here before Gary, and post has been a Christian before anyone was led astray by the weird 'flat earth' conspiracy was ever a thing, at all.
y'all need to examine yourselves. imo you're being ridiculous; simply on objective, physical, empirical logical value you are in error.
you are illogically, unfaithfully dismissing me because of a conspiracy-theory-brand-loyalty. that is evident.
thanks.
-
3
-
1
- Show all
I disagreed, because this is off-topic. I considered the behaviour to be troll-behaviour, even if you normally are not one. Please respect the OPs wishers, and stay on topic. I also am guilty of this (often until others point it out, although not deliberately), so please don't think the comment was meant as a personal attack.
Please would you explain how the effect of atmosphere and frequency allows radar to work beyond the maximum distance of the curvature of the Earth, according to ball-Earth theory? I'm talking about directed radar (not the technique whereby radar is bounced off the firmament).
To further explain, if the ship A in the diagram below is the ship with the radar, the ship in the middle represents the maximum range that another ship could be detected, according to ball-Earth theory, due to the curvature of the Earth (at 24km, assuming radar height and ship height at 10m). However, in reality, even relatively weak radar can detect ships at double the maximum distance predicted by ball-Earth theory, at some ~50km. More powerful radar can detect ships even further distant. How do atmosphere and frequency accommodate for this serious flaw in ball-Earth theory?
To further explain, if the ship A in the diagram below is the ship with the radar, the ship in the middle represents the maximum range that another ship could be detected, according to ball-Earth theory, due to the curvature of the Earth (at 24km, assuming radar height and ship height at 10m). However, in reality, even relatively weak radar can detect ships at double the maximum distance predicted by ball-Earth theory, at some ~50km. More powerful radar can detect ships even further distant. How do atmosphere and frequency accommodate for this serious flaw in ball-Earth theory?
Feelings are irrelevant in a discussion about facts.
While Post's comments may be considered "ad hominem", his argument is not. He is not saying you are wrong because you are an idiot; that would be an ad hominem argument.
Post has requested repeatedly that you provide an explanation for the observable real-world phenomenon of sunrise. You repeatedly refuse.
One time, because you were offended at his words, okay. Now you're just extending the conversation for no purpose. It's okay to admit you can't explain it, but don't avoid it. That would be intellectual cowardice.
While Post's comments may be considered "ad hominem", his argument is not. He is not saying you are wrong because you are an idiot; that would be an ad hominem argument.
Post has requested repeatedly that you provide an explanation for the observable real-world phenomenon of sunrise. You repeatedly refuse.
One time, because you were offended at his words, okay. Now you're just extending the conversation for no purpose. It's okay to admit you can't explain it, but don't avoid it. That would be intellectual cowardice.
-
1
-
1
-
1
- Show all
