Ball Earth conundrums

once again @Moses_Young

simply putting a red X without giving me an explanation only makes you look like an idiot.

explain sunset; go:

I do agree with you that the Flat Earth is so annoying to talk about,

but I think the intention of this thread, without actually reading it, was to question the validity of the Heliocentric Model. Am I right or mistaken?

Gary, I want to participate in this thread, because I also question the validity of the Heliocentric Model.

Discussion about other models is 'forbidden' in this thread. Why? So that it may be a "sanctuary" of sorts for Ball Earth folks - to discuss Ball Earth conundrums - without having to deal with any other models

But - why?

Do you know?

Or, is it that "it just is" but you do not know why?

Gary, I did a few flat earth threads with you, and you dodge questions like Bill Clinton dodging the Vietnam War. You seem to drift in and out of the discussion, and only returning when it fits your narrative. This is my experience from different threads, but maybe you have changed?!?!


In the broadest sense, it questions the Ball Earth model altogether; however, the specific intent is to have discussions about specific things within the Ball Earth model that do not entirely make sense. (i.e. - 'conundrums')


All I ask is that folks stay with the Ball Earth model topic. And, there is a very important reason for this.

Yes, I'm guessing you want to give them a taste of their own medicine, since it's not fun answering really complicated questions, when the other person doesn't care what you have to say in the first place. It's totally understandable. See my thread on Concave Hollow Earth. I get it. Also, it helps build your case for a future thread on Flat Earth. Lastly, it might make them question their own beliefs, and even maybe doubt the Heliocentric model.


I am being very serious about this. I want Ball Earth folks to "be at ease" while discussing the 'conundrums' presented - hoping for real opportunity for real discussion about real issues - instead of the constant one-up-insult-each-other thing that all-too-often occurs on here.

Agreed.

I have little respect for people who [seem to] only want to trash other people's threads.

I have even less for people who demand of me what they themselves are unwilling to do.

I can 'talk' BE or FE - and, am not afraid of either of them. And, I understand both sufficiently well enough to discuss them with other folks who are also not afraid of [either or both] and are willing to have civil intelligent discussion about [either or both].

Some days I wonder if anyone else on CC [truly] believes in and tries to live by the Golden Rule.

I do believe that there are some that do; however, very often it seems that most do not.

By the way, I'm working out solutions for ocean tides with a Concave Hollow Earth, but it's just in the beginning stages. Do you know of a website, that shows world tides in a map format? I believe tides rise and fall twice a day, so would like to analyze the tide numbers to formulate a reasonable solution.

By the way, I think I am going to start a new habit - in general (except for very special circumstances) - I am going to ignore anything anyone replies to me inside my quote - as if I did not see it - even if I did. In other words - if you want me to give a reply to something you post - then you can learn how to break up a quote into multiple quotes - so you can place your post text outside of any quote - so I can quote it as a reference when giving a reply to it.

For example, you wouldn't reply to this than?


Now - if someone wants to comment only - and expect no reply - then, it is not that big of a deal. (Albeit, I could possibly miss it altogether anyway - if it is hidden [far enough down] inside the unexpanded quote.)

Or this?



But - if you want me to reply to something you post - it is most helpful if you do not place it inside of a quote.

I can tell you are not the type to read between the lines.

~

No - I can't say that I know of any at this time; however, if I ever have the time for such, I plan to look into some of that myself.

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?

Yea....same old mistake. You do not understand gravity. Nor do the mainstream "scientists".

Gravity is electromagnetic in nature. Electromagnetism is the driving force of....everything.

Garbage in garbage out.....

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).

electromagnetic keeps everything on the earth?

Yep. And never forget.....dielectric acceleration (erroneously called gravity) between two masses converge to a "null point" somewhere between them. This notion that bodies accelerate TOWARDS EACH OTHER is total rubbish.

This is precisely what happens when between two magnets. They are NOT "attracted" to "each other".

Can you expand on this? Go into detail on how electromagnetic forces keeps everything on the earth?

I'm not doubting you, heard this before, but I'm not positive this is 100% accurate.

For example, how does the electromagnetic force change the tides twice a day?

Can you expand on this? Go into detail on how electromagnetic forces keeps everything on the earth?

I'm not doubting you, heard this before, but I'm not positive this is 100% accurate.

For example, how does the electromagnetic force change the tides twice a day?

When there is no truth, then everything is a lie and nothing can be trusted. And those who believe in a flat earth are so convinced that they are right that there is no room for an opposing opinion, no possibility they could be wrong. In fact I doubt that any person on earth could bring enough evidence to convince you the earth is not flat because your issue isn't about the science and which theory it supports, it's about a lack of trust in authority. You're so convinced that there are so many people on such a large global scale, that they are all lying, that there is no way to believe the truth because even if someone could give you the absolute truth, you could never be sure and wouldn't believe it and would find someway to discredit it. And trying to use particular scriptures as proof which is based on someone's personal interpretation of that scripture doesn't automatically prove anything. Some of these people you claim are lying may be people of faith and so your saying that they are willingly sinning in order to keep some conspiracy going and their faith or God is not as important as the truth their hiding?

Seeing that God is God, all powerful, all knowing and everywhere and is TRUTH... Well, I'm pretty sure if the earth was flat, He would have communicated such an important truth to his children through his Spirit to confirm those scriptures that you see as proof for your theory, were the real truth so that there would be no doubt or dissension amongst his children.

Isaiah 40:22 It is he that sitteth upon the circle of the earth, and the inhabitants thereof are as grasshoppers; that stretcheth out the heavens as a curtain, and spreadeth them out as a tent to dwell in:

Isaiah 40:22 It is he that sitteth upon the circle of the earth, and the inhabitants thereof are as grasshoppers; that stretcheth out the heavens as a curtain, and spreadeth them out as a tent to dwell in:

In fact let me go deeper with this idea. The Hebrew word used in this verse is חוּג or 'chug' which means vault or horizon. The definition of vault means "a large room or chamber used for storage, especially an underground one" or "a roof in the form of an arch or a series of arches, typical of churches and other large, formal buildings." So in this verse it either means a large cuboid 3D space or an arch that goes over the top of us, not horizontally around us or a 2D shape.

This same word is used in Proverbs 8:27 "I was there when he set the heavens in place, when he marked out the horizon on the face of the deep," Does that mean God put a circle on the face of the deep or an arch over the top of it?

We also find the same Hebrew word in Job 22:14 "Thick clouds veil him, so he does not see us as he goes about in the vaulted heavens" So the heavens are an arch over us?

Using the Hebrew definition of חוּג or 'chug' which is vault or horizon on Isaiah 40:22 Where does God sit then? at the edge of the earth at the horizon? no. Because it says he sits on top or above the inhabitants so he would sit on top of the vault or arch that goes over the earth. This is beginning to sound more like a sphere than a flat disc.

We can see a definition given in Gesenius' Hebrew and Chaldee Lexicon that states "חוּג m. a circle, sphere, used of the arch or vault of the sky, Proverbs 8:27; Job 22:14 of the world, Isaiah 40:22." and as Gesenius's influence as a master of Hebrew is widespread we have no reason to doubt his translation of this word. In fact many non English Bibles translate this word as spherea, orb or globus.

Honestly it falls apart more if you take the verse literally in English. It uses the word circle, but a circle is a 2 dimensional shape. If you propose that the circle is a representation of a late earth while looking down at it, then the same could be said of a sphere from any angle. As soon as you add depth to a circle, it is no longer a circle but a cylinder, a 3D shape as represented by your flat earth models. But the sphere earth has a benefit over the flat earth because it can be represented as both a 2D and a 3D shape at the same time. If the earth was a ball or sphere and the sun was behind it all you would see is a black circle, but add light and it becomes 3 dimensional. The flat earth or cylinder can not be represented as a circle in a 3D view, any part of it that was a circle is now an ellipse or oval. So it would seem to me that this verse is more likely talking about a sphere than a disc/cylinder.

BUT, I stress this, I'm not here to prove that the earth is a sphere or convert you to my side or way of thinking. I believe what I believe and you are free to believe whatever you like, I only offer thoughts to be considered just as you would say of your own arguments. But you did ask me to defend that verse so here we are. My only point with all of this is that you cannot use this verse as undeniable proof of a flat earth because at best it could refer to either a 2D or a 3D object.

Well, I'm pretty sure if the earth was flat, He would have communicated such an important truth to his children

Yea....same old mistake. You do not understand gravity. Nor do the mainstream "scientists".

Gravity is electromagnetic in nature. Electromagnetism is the driving force of....everything.

Garbage in garbage out.....

My inner jury is still out on the question of gravity being fundamentally electromagnetic. Whether it is or not is largely irrelevant because in most contexts, the Newtonian model of attractant mass works. The EM model must have significant explanatory power to account for all the phenomena which are adequately explained by Newtonian mass-physics.