Ball Earth conundrums

You have completely-and-totally destroyed any-and-all 'respect' that I may have had for you up until now.

I love reading your posts, Gary. Although I'm by no means an unbiased adjudicator, debate-wise, you've got 'em beat in this thread. Numerous ball-Earthers keep avoiding the topic, as they cannot scientifically explain the valid ball-Earth conundrums you raise. (And then they get angry and make up intelligent-sounding ad hominem! Lol.)

I love reading your posts, Gary. Although I'm by no means an unbiased adjudicator, debate-wise, you've got 'em beat in this thread. Numerous ball-Earthers keep avoiding the topic, as they cannot scientifically explain the valid ball-Earth conundrums you raise. (And then they get angry and make up intelligent-sounding ad hominem! Lol.)

I've yet to see any ball earth conundrum that has not been answered. The problem is that the answers don't fit FE preconceived notions, so FE people reject them, no matter how logical they are.

This youtube video will Shirley change your mind....

What is "ball earth?" Is that another name for a round, oval, or elliptical earth as opposed to a flat earth? How can anyone who circumnavigates the globe not recognize the fact of the "circle of the earth?"

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:

What is "ball earth?" Is that another name for a round, oval, or elliptical earth as opposed to a flat earth? How can anyone who circumnavigates the globe not recognize the fact of the "circle of the earth?"

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:

How can anyone who travels in an air balloon not realise the Earth is stationary? If the Earth was a spinning ball, all that would be needed to travel to other countries is to elevate oneself above the Earth (e.g. by a hot air balloon), and wait for the other country to spin by underneath before landing at one's destination. This ball-Earth conundrum is "solved" by ball-Earthers by invoking the explanation of "magic gravity" that somehow velcros the atmosphere to the Earth's surface, right? (To make the claim that the atmosphere is spinning at the same speed as the Earth).

How can anyone who travels in an air balloon not realise the Earth is stationary? If the Earth was a spinning ball, all that would be needed to travel to other countries is to elevate oneself above the Earth (e.g. by a hot air balloon), and wait for the other country to spin by underneath before landing at one's destination. This ball-Earth conundrum is "solved" by ball-Earthers by invoking the explanation of "magic gravity" that somehow velcros the atmosphere to the Earth's surface, right? (To make the claim that the atmosphere is spinning at the same speed as the Earth).

If the earth does not rotate then how fast must the sun be moving to complete its daily rounds, 8 million miles per hour?

How dumb can you be? If you were right, you would be thrown out of you car when it got up to speed. That's what seat belts are for, right? The air moves with the earth. BE people say that because it is true. Aircraft fly at hundreds of miles an hour with hundreds of people on board. They can move around as if the aircraft was stationary.

What is your alternative to gravity? Pressure, as one of your FE "experts" says? How come everything falls down then? Pressure exerts its force equally around an object. Something else has to make some fall. That would be gravity.

I answered this in another thread in the setting of a concave hollow earth, but you probably won't believe it. I'm not a flat earther by the way, but someone needs to defend these misguided flat earthers. lol Some of their points are valid, not all, but be careful when arguing, you may be surprised...Not often, once in awhile.

Flat earthers don't have a working model, so any answers they give, will be wild speculation at best.

By the way, the heliocentric model is quite humorous in my mind. Do you know how fast the sun is traveling in the heliocentric model by chance?


If anyone wants to beat up on the concave hollow earth, link is below.

https://christianchat.com/conspirac...rum/concave-hollow-earth-theory.198187/page-7



Figuring out speed of the sun in a Concave Hollow Earth.

View attachment 245951


We can grab the circumference of the earth with a quick google search. Circumference of earth is about 25,000 miles, but since the sun rotates inside the earth at approximately 100-3500 miles up from earth (Concave Earth), than how do we figure this out?

View attachment 245952

Circumference = 3.14 X Distance.

How to find distance? According to the Tamarack Mine Shaft experiment using plumb lines, the center of gravity/universal compression is about 4,000 miles up from the ground. So distance of space is 8,000 miles wide. No so grand compared to the Heliocentric model. lol

Now since the sun is not centered, but off centered, we will have to make a guess on where exactly the sun is orbiting at. My guess would be 2,000 feet above sea level, so that would make distance 4,000 miles.

Now we have distance to figure out circumference.

Circumference = 3.14 X 4,000 miles

Circumference = 12,560 miles for the sun's orbit

Using the formula of Velocity = Distance / Time....

V = 12,560 miles divided by 24 hours.

V= 523 miles per hour, or speed of the sun's orbit.

This is just a rough estimate. This is far more believable to me, than the earth traveling at 67,000 miles an hour, but hey believe what you want. Plus, I don't even know for sure, if my numbers are 100% accurate.

I don't have enough imagination to even begin to accept the idea that the sun rotates inside the earth.

Alright, here is a video, no imagination required.

I must confess I find that video lacking scientific persuasion.

If the earth does not rotate then how fast must the sun be moving to complete its daily rounds, 8 million miles per hour?

How dumb can you be?

If you were right, you would be thrown out of you car when it got up to speed.

That's what seat belts are for, right? The air moves with the earth. BE people say that because it is true. Aircraft fly at hundreds of miles an hour with hundreds of people on board. They can move around as if the aircraft was stationary.

What is your alternative to gravity? Pressure, as one of your FE "experts" says? How come everything falls down then? Pressure exerts its force equally around an object. Something else has to make some fall. That would be gravity.

Ad hominem such as this, is typically a tactic utilised by those who know they cannot win the debate.

Nope. If I jump out of my car, I will quickly accelerate in the opposite direction of my car due to air resistance on my body, as the car is moving, but the air outside the car is not. Certainly when I hit the stationary ground, the forces of friction will quickly cause my body to slow down to the ground speed and stop. While I stay within the car, the car provides the continuing force/acceleration to counterbalance the air resistance against us. So in our car example, the car is moving but the air/ground is stationary. In your ball-Earth theory, what mysterious force enables the air to move in synchronisation with the ground, but prohibits it from achieving the same movement and synchronisation with my car?

People in aircraft are moving at the same speed as the aircraft. That's why the seatbelts are recommended. If the plane suddenly drops, people not strapped down get broken bones etc. from hitting the roof of the aircraft, then dropping (sometimes significantly) to the plane's new level. Note also that the air in the plane is encapsulated. Were a body on the outside of the plane, jumping up from the plane would quickly cause such a body to slow from the plane's speed, due to air resistance. This is a phenomenon not explained by ball-Earth theory for someone jumping on the ground, as there is nothing in the ball-Earth theory to describe how air is encapsulated within the ball-Earth.

This is a red herring. No one really cares that objects fall down as it is an established fact. But ball-Earthers require "gravity" to also act sideways and upwards, dependent on object masses and distances. Yet ball-Earthers have yet to obtain one real world, scientific example of where gravity pulls objects sideways or upwards. (Except in ball-Earth theory, but a theory doesn't prove itself).

The difference is speed!

How can you compare 600mph commercial airline speed, with 1,000mph rotation speed, and 66,600mph orbiting speed?!?! I find this to be lacking of reason, but hey, that's just me.

You can't really prove gravity, how can you recreate it in a lab? You can measure objects falling, but the theory of gravity can't be proven. Same with universal compression, so let's not get to far ahead ourselves please.


View attachment 250297

My point is, people take things in their textbook as facts, without actually testing what they read. All I'm saying is, their could be another explanation of why things fall to earth, besides gravity.

And once again, I don't believe in flat earth, or the heliocentric model.

For the purposes of this question, let's assume the widely accepted diameter of the Earth of 12713 km is correct. Let's disregard any upward/downward motion of the sun, and presume that the sun is moving about the extremity of the Earth's circumference.

Circumference = pi * D ~ 3.141593 * 12713 km
Therefore, Earth's circumference is 39939 km.

We know the sun completes one revolution per day. Therefore, the sun travels 39939 km in 24 hours.

39939 km / 24 h = 1664 km/h

So on flat Earth, the sun would need to be traveling at a speed in the order of 1664 km/h, give or take depending on whether it is within or without the Earth's diameter.

Ad hominem such as this, is typically a tactic utilised by those who know they cannot win the debate.

Nope. If I jump out of my car, I will quickly accelerate in the opposite direction of my car due to air resistance on my body, as the car is moving, but the air outside the car is not. Certainly when I hit the stationary ground, the forces of friction will quickly cause my body to slow down to the ground speed and stop. While I stay within the car, the car provides the continuing force/acceleration to counterbalance the air resistance against us. So in our car example, the car is moving but the air/ground is stationary. In your ball-Earth theory, what mysterious force enables the air to move in synchronisation with the ground, but prohibits it from achieving the same movement and synchronisation with my car?

People in aircraft are moving at the same speed as the aircraft. That's why the seatbelts are recommended. If the plane suddenly drops, people not strapped down get broken bones etc. from hitting the roof of the aircraft, then dropping (sometimes significantly) to the plane's new level. Note also that the air in the plane is encapsulated. Were a body on the outside of the plane, jumping up from the plane would quickly cause such a body to slow from the plane's speed, due to air resistance. This is a phenomenon not explained by ball-Earth theory for someone jumping on the ground, as there is nothing in the ball-Earth theory to describe how air is encapsulated within the ball-Earth.

This is a red herring. No one really cares that objects fall down as it is an established fact. But ball-Earthers require "gravity" to also act sideways and upwards, dependent on object masses and distances. Yet ball-Earthers have yet to obtain one real world, scientific example of where gravity pulls objects sideways or upwards. (Except in ball-Earth theory, but a theory doesn't prove itself).