Ball Earth conundrums

[Dino246]

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.

What matters is the centrifugal force, which is minimal. That is the force that would tend to throw the water off the ball, or off the Earth. Either you don't understand basic physics (like many flat earthers) or you simply haven't done your homework.

 

[Dino246]

Another Ball Earth conundrum...

If it is true that the moon is at a 30x distance from the earth in/on a plane that is ~5 degrees removed from the earth orbit plane, no eclipse - lunar or solar - may ever be seen at any time - because, the required alignments for such can/could never occur.



View attachment 256703



"Think about it..."

I did think about it, and I see the fatal flaw in your reasoning.

The moon orbits around the Earth. That means your line from the Earth to the moon also represents half the motion of the moon if viewed edge-on to its orbital path. As you can see, there will be times when the moon is "alongside" the Earth rather than above (or below) the plane. If these times coincide with the moon being between the sun and Earth, there will be a total eclipse.

By the way, it took all of about a minute of searching and thinking to debunk your so-called "conundrum".

 

[Cameron143]

If one considers that the word should have been conundum, it's possible that those who come up with them are conundumdums.

 

[Braweh]

... some Flat Earthers (myself included), believe there is a firmament, ...

Also many, many True Christians.

 

[kinda]

Both of you guys are "full of it" - trying to make "petty avoidance excuses" while not even reading what I said:

It's ironic that you said, "Both of you guys are "full of it", while you believe in a flat earth. Anyways...

Gary, you can't assume what people believe, that's why I asked the question. I would say, the earth traveling through space at 67,000 mph is science fiction, and people who believe that are brain washed, or programmed. That's my bold statement.

 

[GaryA]

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.

No knee jerking involved - your assumption and judgment about me was made in/with severe error - it is not true. And, while you may have read what I wrote, you did not respond to what I wrote - in the context of what I wrote. Instead, you "invented" your own separate context apart from mine and proceeded to propound possibilities that were totally outside of the context from which my question was put forth.

 

[GaryA]

I did think about it, and I see the fatal flaw in your reasoning.

The moon orbits around the Earth. That means your line from the Earth to the moon also represents half the motion of the moon if viewed edge-on to its orbital path. As you can see, there will be times when the moon is "alongside" the Earth rather than above (or below) the plane. If these times coincide with the moon being between the sun and Earth, there will be a total eclipse.

By the way, it took all of about a minute of searching and thinking to debunk your so-called "conundrum".

I understand quite well that the moon orbit plane intersects the earth orbit plane - but, would you care to show me where it exists in modern science the official stance that the moon orbit plane "rotates" about the earth?

 

[GaryA]

Gary, you can't assume what people believe

Sure I can - if-and-when I use a term-of-reference which defines what people believe in the context of the use of that term-of-reference.

Do they not pretty-much do that when they say they believe the Ball Earth model is correct and true?

It is a FACT that - if someone says they believe the Ball Earth model is correct and true - they are indeed declaring as correct and true all of what is put forth by the Ball Earth model.

 

[Dino246]

I understand quite well that the moon orbit plane intersects the earth orbit plane - but, would you care to show me where it exists in modern science the official stance that the moon orbit plane "rotates" about the earth?

Why should I bother? You won't even admit it when you have been soundly debunked. You explained the alleged conundrum. You stated that the moon orbits at a 5 degree angle to the ecliptic. I have no need to support claims that I have not made; I'm merely working with the claims you made.

Get some integrity, Gary.

 

[Dino246]

No knee jerking involved - your assumption and judgment about me was made in/with severe error - it is not true. And, while you may have read what I wrote, you did not respond to what I wrote - in the context of what I wrote. Instead, you "invented" your own separate context apart from mine and proceeded to propound possibilities that were totally outside of the context from which my question was put forth.

Here is the original post that started this:

Does anyone want to go on record and state, the believe the earth flies at 67,000 mph, and spins 1,000 mph?!?!

and your response:

Do they not pretty-much do that when they say they believe the Ball Earth model is correct and true?

and my comment to you on your post:

One can believe that the Earth is spherical while not necessarily holding to certain views of its movement in relation to the rest of the galaxy. You're only confusing the issues by assuming that everyone who believes anything that you reject must believe everything that you reject.

There is no "severe error" on my part. My comment makes perfect sense in context. When you put another X on this post, you will only demonstrate that you are unable to consider anything outside your preconceived biases.

 

[GaryA]

There is "severe error" on your part. And, your comment was-and-is totally outside the context of my 'response' post.

It is sad that you cannot see the painfully obvious...

 

[GaryA]

Why should I bother? You won't even admit it when you have been soundly debunked. You explained the alleged conundrum. You stated that the moon orbits at a 5 degree angle to the ecliptic. I have no need to support claims that I have not made; I'm merely working with the claims you made.

And, my claims stand unless someone can show me valid proof of the official stance that I referred to - in which case, I will happily retract that specific 'assumption' in my illustration and reconsider the whole thing.

 

[GaryA]

(Because, I do possess-and-practice honesty-and-integrity.)

 

[GaryA]

'possess': affirm, assert, maintain, uphold, etc.

 

[Dino246]

And, my claims stand unless someone can show me valid proof of the official stance that I referred to - in which case, I will happily retract that specific 'assumption' in my illustration and reconsider the whole thing.

You made the claim, you are responsible to provide the evidence.

 

[GaryA]

You made the claim, you are responsible to provide the evidence.

And, I did.

And, unless there is a counter-claim - proven to be true by the one making the counter-claim - it stands as stated.

 

[kinda]

Here is the original post that started this:



and your response:



and my comment to you on your post:



There is no "severe error" on my part. My comment makes perfect sense in context. When you put another X on this post, you will only demonstrate that you are unable to consider anything outside your preconceived biases.

For the record, I have never ever given an X on anyone's post, ever. So, chill brother!

Dino, I think you played dodge ball to the question, but that's just my perspective. I hope we can both agree that it's hilarious, that people believe the earth is traveling 60,000 miles per hour over the speed limit. I mean a police officer should give the earth a ticket. It's going to fast.

 

[Dino246]

And, I did.

And, unless there is a counter-claim - proven to be true by the one making the counter-claim - it stands as stated.

You don't seem to get it. You're snarling at me to provide evidence for a statement YOU made. I merely refuted your alleged conundrum with regard to that statement. I have no obligation to provide anything more.

 

[GaryA]

Apparently, my research was lacking on this particular issue back when I first considered it.

I just now went looking for - and discovered - the thing I was referring to - that I did not realize before.

Therefore, I retract that particular assumption included in my illustration - and, will reconsider this particular issue once more...

 

[GaryA]

You don't seem to get it. You're snarling at me to provide evidence for a statement YOU made. I merely refuted your alleged conundrum with regard to that statement. I have no obligation to provide anything more.

No - I was suggesting that you needed to provide evidence against my statement. However, since I just found it myself - don't worry about it...