Ball Earth conundrums

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?

Asked and answered.

According to the standard theory of gravity, the force from the moon is essentially the same on the oceans, the atmosphere, the butterfly, the water in your glass (or your body), etc. However, because of volume and density, the effect of that force differs greatly, and because of human limitations on perception, we only notice the gravitational effect on the oceans and larger lakes, but not on smaller lakes, atmospheric vapour, or our own bodies. Other factors such as winds, vibrations, and local conditions override the effects of lunar gravity or make them imperceptible.

And, that same force acting on lower-volume less-density objects will produce a greater effect on those objects.

The fluid dynamics of the water in the ocean would cause it to be an orders-of-magnitude greater resistance to that force than that of atmospheric water vapor (not to mention, the air itself).

The gravitational "pull" of the moon would suck the atmosphere out into space.

According to the inverse-square law, the clouds would "feel" a greater 'effect' than the oceans; albeit, not by a major factor - based on distance alone. However, the difference in 'effect' due to density and other factors would be hugely significant.

And, if you are trying to tell me that the gravitational force of the earth overrides the moon on [much] lower-density matter - while, at the same time - the gravitational force of the moon - a much smaller less-dense body - at a great distance - will override the point-blank-distance gravitational force of the earth on [much] greater-density matter...

"And, you think I am crazy???"

I don't think you're crazy. I do think that you misunderstand some aspects of physics. Because of that, some of your ideas seem crazy.

I think you make a very valid argument against the moon controls the tides.

But if your purpose is to somehow use that as proof against a global earth, I don’t get it.

The tides can be extremely accurately predicted anywhere on earth using the gravitational pull of the moon. Check the tables. There is no other way to predict the tides with the same accuracy.

You need to take some time and study the predictability of the positions of the heavenly bodies using a round earth, and compare the accuracy of the positional predictability of flat earth and all other ridiculous models.

Ok who wants to start a go fund me account to send a flat earthier into orbit on one of the new civilian rockets to put them into orbit ?
Blessings
Bill

The moment he got back and started telling his flat-earth compatriots what he saw, they would accuse him of having been brainwashed by the Conspiracy.

It's another one of those 'i don't understand so therefore...' moments

Or - maybe-just-maybe - I have an all-too-well understanding - and consider these kinds of things with a deeper and more detailed approach than most folks...

Have you really thought deep-or-long about what I have written in this thread so far?

Can you see the point that I am trying to make?

Do you see just how ridiculous it is to think that the gravitational pull of the moon - a much less massive body at such a great distance - could possibly overcome the gravitational pull of the point-blank more massive earth - and/but only for the single largest most massive 'target' - having no effect whatsoever on so many other much less massive 'targets'...???

I sincerely hope you will give this some serious thought and attention.

Thank you. I appreciate knowing that it has "made sense" to someone else...

My intent is two-fold:

1) To illustrate the following statement:


2) I am sick-and-tired of people telling me that I must prove Ball Earth to be 'false' science when no one seems to be willing to prove to me that it is 'true' science.

Therefore, I think it is "high-time" that the Ball Earth folks put some effort (and real thought) into providing the proof for what they blindly believe just because that is what they were told...

In other words, I am trying to get others to "really think about" what they believe and why they believe it.

In other words - if you want me to believe that everything modern science posits is true - then prove it - with real science!

Because - "I promise you" - a great deal of modern science is "made up" - and, you believe it just because you were told to believe it!

And - you don't [seem to] care that you have been lied to all your life!?!?

('you' = "people in general" who are "hard-fixed" on believing-without-proof that Ball Earth is true)

Please direct me to the particular specific information that you have used to prove to yourself what you have stated in the quote above.

Got any links?

What? And 'steal' all of that hard-earned money from all of those gullible folks? God forbid!




(This is intended to be serious while being amusing also.)

And, they would probably be right!

sunrise and sunset are absolutely impossible if the earth is flat.

yet every day, every eye that cares to look up, sees it.

Does the equations below help you?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theory_of_tides

Earth is round. I proved that in the other thread you totally ignored so let me post it again.

Funny how "circleisnotaglobe" can hit the dislike button but can't disprove what I have said.

Guess the poor baby can't handle the truth.