Ball Earth conundrums

[GaryA]

See how even in your own video, the sun's shape is not circular? This is because the Earth is not turning around to shield the sun, but the increasing distance of the sun from the observer means more and more of the atmosphere is shielding the sun's rays, and these are no longer able to penetrate through to the observer.

The little "wisps" of sunlight that "separate" from the rest and then disappear vividly illustrate that the atmosphere does indeed affect what we see...

 

[GaryA]

And - the "excuses" for the 'bulge' on the side opposite the moon --- that is purely preposterous...

And - the "excuses" for the 'bulge' on the side of the earth opposite the moon --- that is purely preposterous...

 

[GaryA]

The jammer could have burned my skin or boiled my eye fluid. But the amount of radiation from human sources is vastly less than cosmic radiation that bombards us constantly.

Do you not see the complete logic failure in these two statements?

If both of these statements were true, cosmic radiation would have burned the skin and boiled the eye fluid of every one of us the day we were born (or, possibly, before - along with other bodily fluids).

Please get your 'facts' and your 'story' straight...

 

[GaryA]

I'm 70 and in good health. I've worked in high HF and LF environments where the power was enough to make a fluroescent tube light up just from the aerial radiation. Thats one way that we tested the transmitters. Ill effects? Zero. I would happily live near power transmission lines or cell phone towers.

It is good that you have been very fortunate. Indeed, perhaps God has kept you safe from any harm.

However, I have read about many horror stories of cell phone tower technicians getting cancer from heavy RF exposure.

 

[Dino246]

No - sorry - you are in error...

You are allowing the math to interfere with your understanding of the actual physics.

In BE physics...

The equation given represents the total "pull" that is between two objects - where the mass of both objects affect the outcome. However, the actual "pull" of each object on the other is dependent only upon its own mass.

The "pull" of a drop of water falling from a cloud above the ocean against the earth, the ocean, a ship on the water, etc is not the same as the "pull" of [each of] those things against the drop of water.

The greater mass has the greater "pull" on the other object.

The "pull" of the earth on that drop of water is greater than the "pull" of the moon on that drop of water.

And, the overall "net" force on the drop will govern - it falls to earth - it does not "fall" to the moon.

The same is true for every drop of water that is in the ocean. The "point-blank" distance plus the mass of the earth does not allow for the moon - with much lower mass and at such a distance - to "overtake" the earth and "lift" so much mass/weight several feet.

If the earth has such greater "pull" on the drop of water than does the moon - how can the moon possibly "lift" so many more "drops" - all in molecular cohesion from the 'local' forces that are in-effect - against the point-blank effects of the earth and the ocean? (Not to mention the other forces present - the ocean surface is very rarely glass-smooth, no water currents, etc.)

The "net" force is always too great in the earth's favor - the moon "doesn't have a chance" to produce that great of an effect on such a large mass of ocean.

And - the "excuses" for the 'bulge' on the side opposite the moon --- that is purely preposterous...

If the moon were causing the tides, then 'high tide' would only exist in one 'region' on the face of the earth at any moment in time - the mid-point of which would be the point closest to the moon at that point in time.

Where there is only one mass being considered, there is no pull, because there is no gravity. Do the math, and check the units!

The explanation for the tidal bulge given in the link I provided might not fit your worldview, but it fits mine perfectly, so it is not "purely preposterous".

 

[Dino246]

You are "all mixed up"...

I take that comment whence it comes.

 

[GaryA]

The moon's gravity has insufficient power to raise water on it's own.

This part of your post makes sense.

And, I would agree with it - as being an impossibility in the BE model.

It is the differential of gravitational pull from the closest point of the moon to the outer edge of the moon's influence - caused by the curvature of the earth. The difference is 7%. This is what causes tidal flows.

But, this part does not...

I will have to disagree - as, the "net" force would always be greatly in earth's favor.

 

[Jesusistheway64]

We don't have to. Flat Earth is an observation, as is like-begets-like (Creation). The burden of proof is on the one postulating the theory (i.e. Earth is a giant ball, or like-begets-unlike).

It's in the Supposed Christian's faces and they beleive satan over God

 

[tourist]

This part of your post makes sense.

And, I would agree with it - as being an impossibility in the BE model.


But, this part does not...

I will have to disagree - as, the "net" force would always be greatly in earth's favor.

Didn't Isaac Newton invent gravity? jk

 

[Jesusistheway64]

Your checkmate is laughable and your self-righteousness and impatience are just stupid. I'll provide calculations when I have the time, not that I am under any obligation to do so.

Why do people still believe that “Space, is a real “place” that can be explored by humans or by sending probes/rovers? Doesn’t anyone ever stop and think about just how ridiculous what we are told “Space” is and how impossible what they claim we can do and are doing out there? Ever think about how little trial and error there has been when in comes to “Space”, how there is like no testing (if any at all) that actually occurs under the conditions anything going to “Space” would encounter? It’s a joke… Millions or Billions of miles traveled, remote control robots, 1970’s tech still able to operate in a meaningful capacity today, data links sending images and info from 14 billion miles away, batteries that somehow last for 40+ years, boosters landing themselves back on earth, claimed factual knowledge about places and things no one has ever been to and actually observed and never will, the list goes on… I mean, why does anyone think this stuff is happening!?!? Space and all that comes with it is literally the most impossible fantasy land thing imaginable… Everything is based off of assumptions, theories, non-provable, unobservable, made-up, and invisible mathemagical nonsense that exists only on paper and in the minds of liars… Space is Fake. Wake up, people!

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 heliocentric model & evolution go hand & hand... there is NO way we live on a spinning ball!
Well it amazes me how far people will go to defend the lies of Satan. There’s is absolutely zero proof we live on a spinning ball in the vast nothingness of space as we blaze through at ridiculous speeds over 1,000mph and then spinning around the sun at speeds over 66,000mph and then the sun is traveling at speeds over 480,000mph and the universe is expanding at speeds over 500,000,000mph! Yet that’s what we are told we must believe because they say so! Prove it, not to me but to yourself. You’ll never be able to but you can prove to yourself the earth is flat.
FYI, the evolution lie is all a big giant part of the heliocentric model. Do you really believe God made us from sludge and over “millions of years”, with zero proof I would like to add, humans just popped out of the primordial slime ?!?! The Bible DOES give us clues of its shape but you must be awake to understand it.
It is shameful that they are using the Bible to continue the lie!
Also, it is easy to debunk a ball earth theory just by the curvature calculator itself.
Those that are defending the heliocentric model, which is the worship of the Baal god btw, then you are knowingly or unknowingly working for Satan himself.
Now that you’ve been told are you now going to go look into flat earth or keep fighting for the evil that is destroying us one by one with lies and false promises just because you want to think we are living in a vast nothingness of space?

 

[GaryA]

Didn't Isaac Newton invent gravity? jk

You mean - like - Al Gore invented the internet...?

 

[tourist]

You mean - like - Al Gore invented the internet...?

Yes, with the same results - none.

 

[GaryA]

Another Ball Earth conundrum...

If it is true that the northern hemisphere is hotter than the southern hemisphere when the north pole is pointed toward the sun (northern summer; north gets more sun than south) - and, the southern hemisphere is hotter than the northern hemisphere when the south pole is pointed toward the sun (southern summer; south gets more sun than north) - then, it really should be equally as hot at the two half-way-in-between points of 'spring' and 'fall' - and, even more hot than the other two positions - because, the light of the sun is constantly and consistantly hitting the globe from-north-pole-to-south-pole.

During the 'spring' and 'fall' seasons, it should be the hottest everywhere - and, evenly - all at the same time.

"Think about it..."

 

[Gideon300]

Another Ball Earth conundrum...

If it is true that the northern hemisphere is hotter than the southern hemisphere when the north pole is pointed toward the sun (northern summer; north gets more sun than south) - and, the southern hemisphere is hotter than the northern hemisphere when the south pole is pointed toward the sun (southern summer; south gets more sun than north) - then, it really should be equally as hot at the two half-way-in-between points of 'spring' and 'fall' - and, even more hot than the other two positions - because, the light of the sun is constantly and consistantly hitting the globe from-north-pole-to-south-pole.

During the 'spring' and 'fall' seasons, it should be the hottest everywhere - and, evenly - all at the same time.

"Think about it..."

The globe is at an angle. The sun never sets in the far north summer, but the light has further to travel through the atmosphere and little heat gets through. Temperatures at the equator are much more even throughout the year. The angle of the earth relative to the sun does not change.

Cloud cover and rainfall influence surface temperatures a great deal. I live in the southern part of Australia. We've had extreme temperatures even into mid Autumn. It can get real hot in late spring. This year, summer has been mild and dry. Most years, that is a recipe for extreme heat.

Weather is far more complex than your simplistic view allows. There is no conundrum. Just FE confusion.

 

[Gideon300]

Do you not see the complete logic failure in these two statements?

If both of these statements were true, cosmic radiation would have burned the skin and boiled the eye fluid of every one of us the day we were born (or, possibly, before - along with other bodily fluids).

Please get your 'facts' and your 'story' straight...

The radiation from human sources is concentrated in a small area. Solar radiation has a vast area to cover. Solar radiation does not get through structures. So no, unless you are born in a field, under the hole in the ozone layer and left in the open, you will survive no problem. However, in my part of the world you can get second degree sunburn in 15 minutes in summer at midday.

 

[GaryA]

The angle of the earth relative to the sun does not change.

In the very best of Ball Earth language:

"Of course, it does..."

 

[GaryA]

However, in my part of the world you can get second degree sunburn in 15 minutes in summer at midday.

Tell me more about this. (sincerely)

What particular-and-specific reason(s) do you believe this happens?

 

[Gideon300]

In the very best of Ball Earth language:

"Of course, it does..."

That's because the earth is a ball. Tell me the flat earthers who have traveled the earth producing maps? Have they measured the distances between cities and nations, drawn up the coastlines of countries? Obviously not. If they did, they would discover the absolute obvious, that the earth is a globe.

 

[Gideon300]

Tell me more about this. (sincerely)

What particular-and-specific reason(s) do you believe this happens?

There is a massive hole in the ozone layer. It's a natural phenomen, exacerbated by chloroflurocarbons in the atmosphere. Since the use of CFC's has been made illegal, the ozone hole has not expanded as much. Ozone limits the transmission of UV rays, which are the cause of sunburn and suntanning.

Our weather forecast quotes UV status. In summer, it is extreme for much of the day. It's the end of summer now and it is still high.

 

[GaryA]

The sun never sets in the far north summer, but the light has further to travel through the atmosphere and little heat gets through.

Would you say that this is because the light has to travel [virtually or moreso] "sideways" through the atmosphere in that scenario?

How much further would you say the light has to travel through the atmosphere?