Ball Earth conundrums

Yeah, Gary, I admit your pretty patient. You have taken some heat for your flat earth beliefs.

I'm the one who posted the Blue Marble video, that questioned the validity of the convex earth, but my other posts where just answering questions. Also, I posted an exhibit on why Convex Earth doesn't work, so you can't fault me to much...

Last bit about flat earth, until you guys post a working model of the flat earth, please keep your speed of the sun to yourselves. You know the old saying, first things first. There is literally no frame of reference to cross examine. It's like questioning a dream you had, how do I know you dreamt. Makes sense I hope. lol

Proverbs 27:2.

Let's examine Moses' response in light of the question he was asked, which was... "If the earth does not rotate then how fast must the sun be moving to complete its daily rounds, 8 million miles per hour?"

His response:

So... part of your comment is correct; Moses did give an answer to the question he was asked and, in light of that, I was incorrect in my assessment of his answer, so my apologies to @Moses_Young.

However... his answer is actually incorrect even within the context of the question he was asked, because in the (North-centric) flat earth model, the sun does not travel at the extremity of the earth's diameter, but rather in a circle circumscribed by the Tropic of Capricorn at its maximum extent. The radius of this circle is approximately 12, 600 kilometres, so the circumference would be ~79,100 Km. The speed of the sun at the December solstice would therefore be about 3300 Km/hr, and would vary downwards to the June solstice. I'll let you do the math on that.

Here's the bigger problem with all that...

Your model violates the first law of thermodynamics. It also violates the law of conservation of angular momentum, because with a smaller radius and a constant mass, the sun would have to increase in velocity as the radius decreased. Further, there is no mechanism provided (or even offered) to explain the changes in velocity or, for that matter, of direction. There is no reason why the sun doesn't spiral into a single point over the "North pole" and remain stationary there.

Sorry, your model is physically impossible.

You must have misunderstood my statement - in no way was it intended to "praise me"...

I did not mean 'most' as in "more patient than you are patient" - I mean it as in "the amount of patience I have is highest when folks stay on topic" - it was an intended play on words patterned after those that I quoted.

By the way, Moses didn't say, if that was the maximum speed or minimum, so his answer could of been further off, than even your conclusions. I don't want to dive to deep into this, Gary might get upset with us for going off topic. Especially when responding to a flat earther like Moses Young, or maybe Moses should be warned for going off topic. For some reason, this doesn't seem likely. Flat Earthers got to stick together.

I think if they had a model, we could possibly examine it. In any event, might as well throw darts at a dart board, and see what sticks. This could also be known as flat earth science. The dart board is flat, so maybe there is something to it. If the science doesn't match, than the darts went outside the dart board. Try again type of thing.


I admit, I thought the same thing about the sun rotating on the flat earth, so I was wrong in my assessment of Moses answer as well. If they had a workable flat earth model, it would take the guess work on how they are misusing science, and mathematics. lol Silly us for not knowing how their model operates. We should blame ourselves for not knowing, what they don't know, regarding what they believe!




We have to use our super powers to come up with a working model for a flat earther, so we can understand flat earth answers better. That seems like an unfair advantage, yes?

Moses may certainly 'assume'/'presume' some constraints in order to simplify the thing so as to give the greatest possible speed based on BE accepted equator circumference.

The question obviously came from an "I really don't understand this." stance. Experience says that when you are trying to help a BE person [to] understand FE, you don't "give them the whole encyclopedia all-at-once" in such a case - you give them a simple answer to "bridge the gap in their understanding" first. Then, you move to more complicated details if necessary to build up their understanding to a more proper-and-correct one. I believe this was what Moses was doing. He was trying to give her something simple that she could relate to - without overcomplicating it.

So - don't be so hypercritical - an absolute-perfect-precision answer was not asked-for - nor was it necessary.

Also - yes - it might have been better if he had explained the difference between BE and FE with regard to the path of the sun. However, I believe he is/was trying his best to give her a worthy response while respecting my wishes for keeping this thread in the BE realm without bringing other models in to it. For that, he earns my much-higher respect.

Meanwhile - my respect for kinda is falling through the floor faster-by-the-minute - because, he is purposely bringing everything-but correct topic material (i.e. - ball earth conundrums) "into focus" with an "in your face"/"just because I can" attitude.

SMH

As much as possible, let's not bring other models into this thread. If you really want to further discuss this - please post it in a more appropriate thread.

You have a different way of viewing things, this could explain why you believe in flat earth. By the way, your encouraging such off topics, and doing amazing job in seeing only one side of it. One could possibly see this as hypocritical.

Gary, just to remind you, no one has bother to refute the conclusions of the exhibits, I posted against the convex earth. I think this is a win, until further notice. Can get some credit, where credit is do? If not, no big thing, I'm that bad guy, because I think flat earth is a joke right?

I will leave flat earth alone, if you stop talking about it. Until then, it's fair game.

If I were to all over someone else's thread like some have done in this thread - then, I would certainly expect to be treated in a similar manner. However, since I very much believe in the Golden Rule - and try my best to respect and treat others as I would like to be respected and treated - I don't run around other people's threads doing things like that. And, I am not trying to "praise myself" for it. It just simply is the way it is - how I try to be (how I was raised and believe the Lord wants me to be) IRL propagates onto the internet.

Have I been to kinda's Hollow Earth thread - throwing all-manner-of-off-topic- everywhere - being a troll - trying to change/divert/destroy the topic continually (filling the thread with nonsense off-topic posts) with insults to anyone-and-everyone who did not agree with me? Of course not. I would not think of doing in his thread what he is doing in this one.

I apologise I got a little side-tracked, Gary. I brought up the ball-Earth conundrum about hot air balloons not being able to rise and land in a different country as the Earth rotates beneath (were Earth a ball), and then distracted by answering why this does not require unimaginably high speeds for the sun (or other immensely high numbers that ball-Earth theory uses to reduce critical analysis...) The indoctrination runs deep in many, and I unfortunately took the bait to defend the rational alternative, on that occasion (I think I forgot which thread I was in, also!)

It happens - and, no apology is necessary - you are not 'trolling' the thread like [certain] others.

Temporarily drifting off-topic can happen in any thread. What I do not like is when people deliberately try to continuously move the 'focus' of the thread off-topic while making insults and jabs...

Of course, this only illustrates just how much they "cannot handle" a discussion completely on-topic - they must divert the discussion from the thread topic and resort to bashing people and other models because they cannot give an appropriate "real science" answer to the conundrums.

And, kinda just wants to trample anything that does not match his 'hollow' view. We could discuss FE in 15 other threads - real-and-true 'respect' would stay on topic even if I got off-topic [temporarily] to try to 'corral' folks back to the thread topic without being totally stone-cold about it.

Thanks for understanding.

I fully agree.

I think Kinda is trying to muddy the waters. You (and a few others) have presented fairly solid ball-Earth conundrums, and to try to shield ball-Earth theory from being so obviously defeated, he shows up and starts dipping his diseased little hollow-Earth fly into the ointment (when A - this isn't the thread for it, and B, pretty much all the evidence he conjures up for "hollow-Earth" can usually be applied to support Flat Earth).

I don’t have a horse in this race, but this seems pretty logical to me:

https://www.facebook.com/reel/2452942468206156?fs=e&s=TIeQ9V&mibextid=0NULKw

Please do not attempt to turn this into a Flat Earth thread - keep the focus on 'Ball Earth conundrums'.

If you will post this in a more appropriate thread, I will address it and tell you what is wrong with it.

Same coin different side Gary. Flat earth- ball earth. Same arguments.

Not to mention you know very well threads move about in various ways. But no worries if you don’t want to to take a stab at it.

Nope - wrong!

I understand that threads can "move about in various ways"; however, ...

Part of the reason for this thread is to show that Ball Earthers are [essentially] incapable of addressing the Ball Earth conundrums without setting up Flat Earth as a strawman - to redirect the focus away from the conundrums they cannot address. When people can discuss the conundrums without bringing any other model into it - then - and only then - will there be evidence that Ball Earthers are capable of addressing the conundrums - strickly on the merits of the Ball Earth model.

If someone can present and discuss a Ball Earth conundrum without bringing any other model into it - then, others can also discuss it without bringing any other model into it.

Otherwise, it shows how "weak-minded" and "undisciplined" they are. If they cannot discuss the Ball Earth model without denigrating an opposing model, then they do not really understand the Ball Earth model enough to discuss it. Why then would they even bother to try to discuss it when they do not understand how it actually works??? (i.e. - they believe it, but do not actually understand it well enough to discuss it intelligently)

This thread is not about 'proving' the Ball Earth model wrong by 'proving' the Flat Earth model right - it is about questioning the Ball Earth model based on the Ball Earth model [alone].

Ball earth or convex earth have many things correct, but it is basically reversed of reality. If it wasn't for the work of countless scientists and tons of money invested, we would be pretty lost in our modern world.

I think it's totally reasonable to question science, especially the heliocentric model that has dominated mainstream science world for some time. There is plenty of questionable beliefs, and the flat earthers should be given credit for at least attempting to highlight these inconsistencies.

It would be nice to see heliocentric models believers to at least acknowledge that some of their beliefs are kooky, or at least unprovable, but that's o.k., the earth will continue to function despite what shape the world you believe in.

Shooting from the hip here.....

You would think with how advanced NASA is supposedly is with the Hobble Telescope, and International Space Station, we would see the earth spinning with the stars in the back ground, some amazing views of the moon, where the Apollo missions were filmed, and etc. These lack of images and videos should at least bring in some skepticism, on how how truly advanced NASA is.

What would be really cool to see, if NASA sent a probe into deep space, showing how the earth rotating and orbiting, with sun, moon, and stars in the back ground. This would cement their views to some skeptics, but with the lack of these images, if further breeds contempt to the validity of both the Heliocentric model, and the NASA program.

With that said, I totally question the Heliocentric model, although some parts are true, it's just a complete distortion from reality in my opinion. Once again, I will say, main stream science has helped tremendously in understanding our universe, even though many of their conclusions are flimsy at best.

People seem to be taking the air out of the ball earth conundrums.

I say they still stand - unanswered to any sufficient degree of real scientific evidence to support the Ball Earth model view. In other words, Ball Earth physics itself does not explain what has been questioned in the conundrums.