Ball Earth conundrums

I find it ironic that those who lack knowledge accuse those with more knowledge of lacking knowledge, but I guess this is something you won't be able to understand.

This is more theory than fact. A far simpler explanation, given that there is no evidence of curvature, is that RF can travel further than the visual horizon because the horizon is flat.

If radar is not always line of sight, how on Earth can it be used as proof of a ball-Earth?

You were the one claiming radar proves ball-Earth. And now you are claiming that it can detect objects 1900 miles away? Does it prove ball-Earth or doesn't it? I wish you would make up your mind.

Why is that so hard to accept? It is fact. The reason we don't fly off the surface of the earth is the same reason that you are not splattered all over the inside of an aircraft at 1,000 mph. You are moving at the same speed.

What happens if the aircraft is flying at 67,000 miles per hour, will that cause no splat, because hypothetically going at the same speed.

So, can I take this as you are a believer of the official earth speeds in the Heliocentric model?

Absolutely. Some people are trying to develop craft that can fly at near light speeds. It does not matter as long as the occupant and the craft are at the same speed. Just don't try to jump out of the craft.

What happens if the aircraft is flying at 67,000 miles per hour, will that cause no splat to the pilot, because hypothetically going at the same speed?!?! This is your logic here, not mine!

So, can I take this as you are a believer of the official earth speeds in the Heliocentric model?

View attachment 257375

We have our first no splat guarantee in seems... I find this seriously hard to believe, but I'm not a trained astrophysamis. lol

It's not hypothetical. If does not matter how fast as long as both are going the same speed. It's really not rocket science. It's logic logic, not mine. If the principle works at 1, 10 or 50 mph, it works at any speed. What do they teech in skule these daze? Obviously not logic or common sense.

Does that also mean that the principle is the same if a spinning tennis ball or basketball sheds its water, so will a spinning globe earth? Or does gravity just not work on small objects like it does on larger ones?

this isn't that hard.

I realise that even the simplest concepts are beyond you, but you could at least read what I said. Australia's "JORN" system reflects off the ionosphere exactly because the earth is a globe. If the earth was flat, JORN would not be necessary.

I agree. Just replace the ionosphere with a firmament. Effect is the same. These are both theories - no one has demonstrated an ionosphere exists, anymore than a firmament, to my knowledge.

This conversation originated when Gideon tried to claim radar proved ball-Earth. However, on a ball-Earth, the radar range on many ships would be limited to the distance to the horizon (not all ships bounce their radar off the firmament). Given that even relatively low-power radar is clearly not limited beyond the distance the curve would obstruct radar on a ball-Earth (and is not all being bounced off the firmament), if anything, radar demonstrates the Earth is flat, rather than a ball.

Does anyone want to go on record and state, the believe the earth flies at 67,000 mph, and spins 1,000 mph?!?!

Do they not pretty-much do that when they say they believe the Ball Earth model is correct and true?

maybe.

One can believe that the Earth is spherical while not necessarily holding to certain views of its movement in relation to the rest of the galaxy.

Do they not pretty-much do that when they say they believe the Ball Earth model is correct and true?

You're only confusing the issues by assuming that everyone who believes anything that you reject must believe everything that you reject.

I've already suggested an experiment that anyone can do to show the curvature of the earth. I've already said how surveying lasers prove the curvature of the earth. No FE person has bothered to look into that that I am aware of.

Gravity works exactly the same way, as does centrifugal force. However, most flat-earthers (at least here) don't seem to understand that the rotational velocity of the Earth is very low.

Imagine your wet tennis ball "spinning" at one full revolution per 24 hours. It would be almost imperceptible. The water would probably dry from it without a single droplet being "shed" by centrifugal force.

That one revolution per 24 hours is still about 1,000 mph at the equator. I don't think a tennis ball or basketball spins that fast.

Only in your imagination...

Bold claims by heliocentrists, but are they actually true or scientific?

The ball-Earthers generally believe the Earth is approximately 12,756km in diameter. It is said the deepest oceans are a fraction of this, a mere 10km deep (a fraction of 0.000784).

So if we take a 1m diameter Earth-ball, and immerse it in water, the deepest oceans would correspond to about 0.78mm - pretty thin, but measurable. Now, if said Earth-ball were kept out of the water, slowly rotated once every 24 hours, those 0.78mm water "oceans" would drop from the Earth-ball by gravity long before they dried out (especially at the top of the Earth-ball and the sides, although it's possible a droplet or two would remain here and there ('though this would be quite unlike anything we observed in real life, so as to support the ball-Earth theory).

Conclusion: This bold claim made by heliocentrists is a scam, as real-world tests would demonstrate that the oceans don't remain in place around a ball-Earth.