Ball Earth conundrums

[GaryA]

I would think most people are capable of doing that.

That would be nice, but - as far as I can tell - in the population as a whole, it is a "relative few" who are blessed with such an ability.

Furthermore, I don’t doubt your reasoning abilities, but our perception of reality clearly is in conflict.

And, you would rather throw insults than to try to better understand why that difference exists? Are you beyond learning? Are you so smug in your self-assurance that - if the perception of someone else does not 100% match your own - "they simply must be an idiot"...???

I’m not saying this to belittle you nor anyone else, but a significant part of the training in naval flight school is based on the knowledge that the earth is spherical. A flatearther would more often than not find that the airport isn’t where the flat earth navigational system placed it to be.

You have not added even one single worthwhile thing to the conversation. All you [apparently] know how to do is sling mud at those who you disagree with - not being able to take a mature stance that would actually add something worthwhile to the conversation - something that addresses the actual subject and not the participants, their "weak mind", their character, or some other non-topic thing...

Grow up. Be mature. Learn how to address and discuss the actual topic itself without ever resorting to disparaging remarks about any of the participants.

If you want to help/support the BE model - properly address and give a reasonable answer to one or more of the conundrums in this thread.

If you just want to be a cheerleader for others who wish to have constructive conversations about the topic - that is okay, too - only, you should keep silent unless you have something of substance to add to the conversation.

What you are doing only makes you look immature. And, it is the kind of thing that makes us FE folks not want to bother trying to discuss any of this with all of the "immature crap" being thrown into the thread.

"I for one do not have time for that crap."

Whether BE or FE - it does not matter - it is the immature posters (and sometimes trolls) that destroy it for the more mature posters who might actually be able to have a decent constructive conversation about the topic if it were not for the constant ...

 

[Susanna]

You are reading too much into what I’m saying. If I come across smug and immature I apologize. My view on the shape of the earth is founded on my own experiences. Based on that I know that the earth is spherical. There are no ball earth conundrums. It is as simple as that.

 

[Braweh]

a significant part of the training in naval flight school is based on the knowledge that the earth is spherical.

Absolute nonsense.

So patently untrue that it places your claim of having anything to do with "Flight School" in woeful question.

All pilot training manuals, and even official NASA documentation, are discussed under the premise of a non-rotating, flat earth.

Shame on you.

 

[Dino246]

All pilot training manuals, and even official NASA documentation, are discussed under the premise of a non-rotating, flat earth.

Prove it. Provide any supporting evidence.

 

[Braweh]

Prove it. Provide any supporting evidence.

The onus is on Susanna to provide proof and evidence for her original ridiculous claim.

Flight manuals and NASA documentation are easy to find. It's all over the internet.

 

[Dino246]

The onus is on Susanna to provide proof and evidence for her original ridiculous claim.

Flight manuals and NASA documentation are easy to find. It's all over the internet.

I’m calling on you to support the claim you made.

 

[Braweh]

I’m calling on you to support the claim you made.

What have you proven or provided any evidence for in this entire thread?

Exactly.

 

[Susanna]

Absolute nonsense.

So patently untrue that it places your claim of having anything to do with "Flight School" in woeful question.

All pilot training manuals, and even official NASA documentation, are discussed under the premise of a non-rotating, flat earth.

Shame on you.

This might be the funniest thing I’ve ever read on here.

LOL

 

[Susanna]

The onus is on Susanna to provide proof and evidence for her original ridiculous claim.

Flight manuals and NASA documentation are easy to find. It's all over the internet.

It’s like asking water whether it’s wet or not.

 

[Susanna]

But seriously, @Braweh, you don’t really believe that the earth is flat?

 

[Braweh]

But seriously, @Braweh, you don’t really believe that the earth is flat?

You don't really believe in the Bible?

 

[Dino246]

What have you proven or provided any evidence for in this entire thread?

Exactly.

Another irrelevant dodge. YOU provide evidence to support the claim YOU made.

 

[Susanna]

You don't really believe in the Bible?

I do. The Bible doesn’t say that the earth is flat.

 

[Braweh]

I do. The Bible doesn’t say that the earth is flat.

It sure doesn't make any case that it's a spinning ball hurdling through endless space.

It also speaks of absolute directions of up and down.

There are no absolute directions in the modern science fairy tale of ball earth.

 

[Susanna]

It also speaks of absolute directions of up and down.

How does this contradict with gravity, geometry and geography?

 

[Braweh]

How does this contradict with gravity, geometry and geography?

Well, there is no gravity to contradict. Just for starters.

It doesn't exist at all, like so many other parts of the fairy tale that science tells us about our world.

What we experience, that science lies and calls gravity, is simply the law of density.

Plain and simple. And super easy to prove.

More dense things go down, less dense things go up.

 

[ByTheGraceOfGod]

 

[Cameron143]

Well, there is no gravity to contradict. Just for starters.

It doesn't exist at all, like so many other parts of the fairy tale that science tells us about our world.

What we experience, that science lies and calls gravity, is simply the law of density.

Plain and simple. And super easy to prove.

More dense things go down, less dense things go up.

How do you explain 2 items of different density dropped from the same height in a vacuum reaching the ground at the same time?

 

[Sculpt]

I usually tend to think of it as being spherical; however, in a 'like' similarity to wave particle duality - the moon seems to exhibit both spherical and flat qualities.

In the spirit of brotherhood, let's pause this for beat.

In one sense, we're 'chasing a tail' here. To some extent, we've both heard about historical observations and calculations over the centuries, confirmed and then added to, that set the heliocentric and SE model among astronomers and in other fields. But without doing those ourselves, how can we accept the SE? This video is very respectful to Flat-earthers, and plainly examines the dilemma:

If you've watched the video, which I think says it well, I think it suggests there's a reason someone bucks the SE convention. I'm a natural skeptical, I don't trust the government, I've seen the FE presentations, but I didn't get hit with a reason or motivation to disbelieve the established convention of SE and heliocentrism. I would suggest FE 'accomplishes' something for you besides explaining the natural universe. Why? Because SE already explained the natural universe and supports the devices and techniques that function in the world. That 'thing' is your personal business, but I hope you've asked yourself what it is.

For those Flat-earthers who aren't just having a bit of fun... For those who honestly do not intend to stand exclusively on a scientific reading of Joshua 10:13 to determine the physical reality earth and sun... For those who are willing to engage with reasonably conclusive SE evidence before declaring the earth is flat to others... I think this can be accomplished in 2023.

 

[Sculpt]

I usually tend to think of it as being spherical; however, in a 'like' similarity to wave particle duality - the moon seems to exhibit both spherical and flat qualities.


For starters, what you said here is totally incorrect. In the FE model, the "dark side of the moon" is the 'top' of the moon. No one would ever be able to see it from the earth surface. Only the bottom side of it is seen from below.

True story. When I first wrote that part I wrote (in bold type), "one person would see one side of the moon, and to a certain degree some common view of the bottom, and the other person would see the other side (sometimes called the Darkside of the Moon). But of course, we only see one side of the moon with the cycling phases." But then I deleted it, thinking to myself, "he knows what you mean, this is concept, keep it succinct and simple".

Yes, in the FE model, if the moon is a sphere, depending on the moon's elevation and size, and the exact viewing angle from London, and from Sydney (Let's just match to the first video from my post which is specifying those geographic locations and actual photographic moon video), each viewer will see a certain degree of the "bottom bowl" portion of the moon. It's a matter of degree.

Are you familiar with the FE model of the moon's general elevation and course moving around the surface of FE? In FE model the moon hovers over the surface and it moves in a varying circle motion, like a spoon stirring around the surface of a pot of soup. This is how THEY explain night and day. Are you familiar? It's a very important make-or-break part of it: the night and day thing. If the moon doesn't have a geo-location hovering over the earth surface, a fair distance away from the sun (that's doing the same thing), then FE model doesn't have night and day. It's one of the more clever aspects of the FE model.

For this part, lets create a real-life nighttime scenario where you are in Ohio and I'm in southern Argentina looking at the moon at the same time. We can both zoom-in on the moon and live feed it to youtube, and look at both our images. For day/night purposes, geographically, we are both in the -5 GMT longitude zone (longitude strip hyperlink). Obviously, with both models, we both get the sunrise in less than 60 mins of each other because that fact is observed every day. It's midnight 12:00 AM in Ohio. In the FE model that has day and night included, the moon travels between us roughly over the "equator line"; roughly midway between us.

In the FE model, it's dark/nighttime, because the sun is so far away from us. The sun is on the other side of the FE map... it's noontime in Indonesia (which is on the SE equator). In our midnight, we can't see the sun, but we can see the moon. The moon must be closer to the surface (and us) than the sun is far away from us, right? We can't see the very bright sun, but we can see the not-so-bright moon. Now imagine the moon passing between us, some distance above the surface, like a satellite... you in Ohio, me in Argentina. You must be seeing some of the moon's surface from your vantage point (your side) that I'm not, and vise versa, right?

Of course, we don't see differing sides of the moon, but in the FE sun/moon model, we would. Which model is more likely correct based on the observations of the moon, "the turn of features" difference we see from England compared to Australia (that video)? Here's an insulting video I found today that illustrates what I just presented above: (1) Destroying Flat Earth Without Using Science - Part 1: The Moon - YouTube

A flat moon is the only FE explanation I've heard for this observation. Lastly, when it's nighttime and the moon is out, look at it. I think the Lord meant us to see it, and I say it plainly looks spherical. Would the Lord purposely give that illusion with a flat moon?