Easy. It depends on the frequency of the signal. Of course, I expect such in depth tech speak to go way over your head. Every other rational proof that the earth is a globe does.
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.
I realise that even the simplest concepts are beyond you, but you could at least read what I said. Australia's "JORN" system reflects off the ionosphere exactly because the earth is a globe. If the earth was flat, JORN would not be necessary.You were the one claiming radar proves ball-Earth. And now you are claiming that it can detect objects 1900 miles away? Does it prove ball-Earth or doesn't it?I wish you would make up your mind.
What happens if the aircraft is flying at 67,000 miles per hour, will that cause no splat to the pilot, because hypothetically going at the same speed?!?! This is your logic here, not mine!
So, can I take this as you are a believer of the official earth speeds in the Heliocentric model?
We have our first no splat guarantee in seems... I find this seriously hard to believe, but I'm not a trained astrophysamis. lol
Absolutely. Some people are trying to develop craft that can fly at near light speeds. It does not matter as long as the occupant and the craft are at the same speed. Just don't try to jump out of the craft.
Alright. Sounds like bold statements.
I would like to ask Dino, if he agrees with this. I just want to make sure, this is sound in the minds of the science elites.
It's not hypothetical. If does not matter how fast as long as both are going the same speed. It's really not rocket science. It's logic logic, not mine. If the principle works at 1, 10 or 50 mph, it works at any speed. What do they teech in skule these daze? Obviously not logic or common sense.
Does that also mean that the principle is the same if a spinning tennis ball or basketball sheds its water, so will a spinning globe earth? Or does gravity just not work on small objects like it does on larger ones?
Gravity works exactly the same way, as does centrifugal force. However, most flat-earthers (at least here) don't seem to understand that the rotational velocity of the Earth is very low.
Imagine your wet tennis ball "spinning" at one full revolution per 24 hours. It would be almost imperceptible. The water would probably dry from it without a single droplet being "shed" by centrifugal force.
I agree. Just replace the ionosphere with a firmament. Effect is the same. These are both theories - no one has demonstrated an ionosphere exists, anymore than a firmament, to my knowledge.
This conversation originated when Gideon tried to claim radar proved ball-Earth. However, on a ball-Earth, the radar range on many ships would be limited to the distance to the horizon (not all ships bounce their radar off the firmament). Given that even relatively low-power radar is clearly not limited beyond the distance the curve would obstruct radar on a ball-Earth (and is not all being bounced off the firmament), if anything, radar demonstrates the Earth is flat, rather than a ball.
Why do you believe reflecting radar off the ionosphere would be unnecessary? You do know the atmosphere is thicker closer to the ground, right? So reflecting radar waves off the firmament over longer distances would allow increased range, due to reduced atmospheric interference?
This thread has once again drifted off track - let's keep it focused on Ball Earth conundrums.
I believe the latest Ball Earth conundrum was presented in post #404. What think ye about that?
I believe the latest Ball Earth conundrum was presented in post #404. What think ye about that?
Both of you guys are "full of it" - trying to make "petty avoidance excuses" while not even reading what I said:
Whatever thread that was in - please quote it and post it in that thread and "mention" me in that post. Thanks.
That one revolution per 24 hours is still about 1,000 mph at the equator. I don't think a tennis ball or basketball spins that fast.
Bold claims by heliocentrists, but are they actually true or scientific?
The ball-Earthers generally believe the Earth is approximately 12,756km in diameter. It is said the deepest oceans are a fraction of this, a mere 10km deep (a fraction of 0.000784).
So if we take a 1m diameter Earth-ball, and immerse it in water, the deepest oceans would correspond to about 0.78mm - pretty thin, but measurable. Now, if said Earth-ball were kept out of the water, slowly rotated once every 24 hours, those 0.78mm water "oceans" would drop from the Earth-ball by gravity long before they dried out (especially at the top of the Earth-ball and the sides, although it's possible a droplet or two would remain here and there ('though this would be quite unlike anything we observed in real life, so as to support the ball-Earth theory).
Conclusion: This bold claim made by heliocentrists is a scam, as real-world tests would demonstrate that the oceans don't remain in place around a ball-Earth.
Don't be asinine, Gary. I read what you wrote, and responded without rancour. There is no need for you to respond with knee jerks the way Moses did. I thought you were better than that.
Once again you display your profound ignorance. Earth's gravity pulls the water off the ball. There is no comparable force of gravity pulling the water off the Earth. I've told you this before, but as usual you refuse to learn.