Ball Earth conundrums
- Thread starter GaryA
- Start date
-
Christian Chat is a moderated online Christian community allowing Christians around the world to fellowship with each other in real time chat via webcam, voice, and text, with the Christian Chat app. You can also start or participate in a Bible-based discussion here in the Christian Chat Forums, where members can also share with each other their own videos, pictures, or favorite Christian music.
If you are a Christian and need encouragement and fellowship, we're here for you! If you are not a Christian but interested in knowing more about Jesus our Lord, you're also welcome! Want to know what the Bible says, and how you can apply it to your life? Join us!
To make new Christian friends now around the world, click here to join Christian Chat.
Or they could be trolls putting frivilous arguments out there so people will think that ALL flat earthers are silly, therefore none are taken seriously. For example, The Flat Earth Society Website is controlled by people who don't believe in FE. But some of us have genuinely and sincerely done the research (and the math, etc.), thinking through it logically, and while we don't have everything figured out (neither do BE people), we have certainly concluded that there are serious problems with what modern science has taught us from our youth up.
GaryA's "Ball Earth conundrums" thead (this one) is focused on pointing out the serious problems with the BE theory that he'd like to hear someone explain how things can be that just logically cannot be, and was intended to be discussed without even ever so much as a mention of FE. He just wants to deal with the BE theory alone because he knows the BE theory cannot stand on it's own merit.
And people avoid answering his questions either because:
1) they are too proud to be honest with themselves and consider seriously to research the possibilites for themselves
(nobody believes FE the first time they hear it -- current FErs didn't believe until they researched it for themselves)
[The first time I heard/saw it, I thought it was the most rediculous, stupid thing I'd ever heard/seen in my life.], or
2) they are afraid that what they believe will be proven wrong.
It is very difficult for people to deal with finding out they've been lied to practically all their life.
[I was so embarssed I researched it for weeks before I'd even mention it to my wife], or
3) they for some reason that they will not reveal they would rather mock and ridicule rather than be interested in carrying on a mature,
adult conversation about something very important. [Kind of like trying to tell someone that God, because He loved us so, came in human flesh, died, was buried, and rose again victoriously from the grave to secure eternal redemption for them, and they think you are a nut! I think people in the (modern) sciences laugh you to scorn the most.] And honestly, I would expect that from someone who does NOT identify with Jesus Christ. But I expect more from those who call themselves "Christians".
Most importantly, believing the inerrant Word of God over what man may say, we ought to "let God be true, and every man a liar" (Romans 3:4). My approach, on the other hand, is to propose that "Christians" ought to believe in FE because it is solidly based on Scripture -- "Thus sayeth the Lord!" The thread entitled "Scripture Based Flat Earth Proposal" is based on the Genesis account of creation and suggests that because the sun, moon, and start MUST be MUCH closer than we were taught, not only the BE theory, but the 'universe' itself is in question. But again, people are either PROUD or AFRAID to deal with it. And before you MOCK or RIDICULE the proposal, try answering first. And I guess if you cannot answer, then I guess it would be wise to remain silent like everyone has done up until now. Please go study the thread proposal. I've said enough here. I don't want to hi-jack GaryA's thread.
GaryA's "Ball Earth conundrums" thead (this one) is focused on pointing out the serious problems with the BE theory that he'd like to hear someone explain how things can be that just logically cannot be, and was intended to be discussed without even ever so much as a mention of FE. He just wants to deal with the BE theory alone because he knows the BE theory cannot stand on it's own merit.
And people avoid answering his questions either because:
1) they are too proud to be honest with themselves and consider seriously to research the possibilites for themselves
(nobody believes FE the first time they hear it -- current FErs didn't believe until they researched it for themselves)
[The first time I heard/saw it, I thought it was the most rediculous, stupid thing I'd ever heard/seen in my life.], or
2) they are afraid that what they believe will be proven wrong.
It is very difficult for people to deal with finding out they've been lied to practically all their life.
[I was so embarssed I researched it for weeks before I'd even mention it to my wife], or
3) they for some reason that they will not reveal they would rather mock and ridicule rather than be interested in carrying on a mature,
adult conversation about something very important. [Kind of like trying to tell someone that God, because He loved us so, came in human flesh, died, was buried, and rose again victoriously from the grave to secure eternal redemption for them, and they think you are a nut! I think people in the (modern) sciences laugh you to scorn the most.] And honestly, I would expect that from someone who does NOT identify with Jesus Christ. But I expect more from those who call themselves "Christians".
Most importantly, believing the inerrant Word of God over what man may say, we ought to "let God be true, and every man a liar" (Romans 3:4). My approach, on the other hand, is to propose that "Christians" ought to believe in FE because it is solidly based on Scripture -- "Thus sayeth the Lord!" The thread entitled "Scripture Based Flat Earth Proposal" is based on the Genesis account of creation and suggests that because the sun, moon, and start MUST be MUCH closer than we were taught, not only the BE theory, but the 'universe' itself is in question. But again, people are either PROUD or AFRAID to deal with it. And before you MOCK or RIDICULE the proposal, try answering first. And I guess if you cannot answer, then I guess it would be wise to remain silent like everyone has done up until now. Please go study the thread proposal. I've said enough here. I don't want to hi-jack GaryA's thread.
-
1
- Show all
I know, but I didn't want to show disrespect. I do try to stay on topic in other people's threads as I hope they would in mine. 
When the animals come in dropping
everywhere and turn it into a pasture - well - then you know who you are dealing with - and, some of them are FEers?!? Worse yet - nearly all of them identify as Christians! SMH
At this point, I am just waiting for the thread to get locked...
The thread has been so heavily "trashed" and "abused" that it would probably be the best thing for it.
I have grown very tired of trying to uphold the original intent for/of the thread while clueless FEers - out of ignorance and immaturity - help to trash it.
"I give up."
Where are the mature FEers?????
I am ready to let someone else carry the baton for a while - I don't have time for all of this
.
The horizon always appears perfectly flat 360 degrees around the observer regardless of altitude. All amateur balloon, rocket, plane and drone footage show a completely flat horizon over 20+ miles high. Only NASA and other government “space agencies” show curvature in their fake CGI photos/videos.
The horizon always rises to the eye level of the observer as altitude is gained, so you never have to look down to see it. If Earth were in fact a globe, no matter how large, as you ascended the horizon would stay fixed and the observer / camera would have to tilt looking down further and further to see it.
The natural physics of water is to find and maintain its level. If Earth were a giant sphere tilted, wobbling and hurdling through infinite space then truly flat, consistently level surfaces would not exist here. But since Earth is in fact an extended flat plane, this fundamental physical property of fluids finding and remaining level is consistent with experience and common sense.
The horizon always rises to the eye level of the observer as altitude is gained, so you never have to look down to see it. If Earth were in fact a globe, no matter how large, as you ascended the horizon would stay fixed and the observer / camera would have to tilt looking down further and further to see it.
The natural physics of water is to find and maintain its level. If Earth were a giant sphere tilted, wobbling and hurdling through infinite space then truly flat, consistently level surfaces would not exist here. But since Earth is in fact an extended flat plane, this fundamental physical property of fluids finding and remaining level is consistent with experience and common sense.
-
1
-
1
- Show all
@GaryA
@Moses_Young
I wanted to repost this, cause my last post on this didn't make sense.
Gary, Moses, do you believe the moon is flat or spherical?
If you look at the pictures, video or live streams of the moon from both the northern and southern hemispheres the geography/features of the moon surface "appears to be flipped": The appearance, the orientation, what we see when looking at it from those two vantage points. Whatever words you want to use... it's not a semantics issue.
If doubting sources, two people can setup a live stream of the moon from the two hemispheres without too much trouble: one from the US and an online pal from Argentina.
The observation is what one would expect from the perspective of a spherical earth and spherical moon. Please see the picture diagram below for the general concept; and then view the two videos which include actual video of the moon from specified locations.
Now the FE model with a spherical moon... as the moon travels (a certain distance above the earth's surface) between the northern US and Argentina, being viewed at the same time, one person would see one side of the moon, and the other person would see the other side (sometimes called the Darkside of the Moon). But of course, we only see one side of the moon with the cycling phases.
The observation matches SE and does not match FE. These are observations available to you. What say you?
@Moses_Young
I wanted to repost this, cause my last post on this didn't make sense.
Gary, Moses, do you believe the moon is flat or spherical?
If you look at the pictures, video or live streams of the moon from both the northern and southern hemispheres the geography/features of the moon surface "appears to be flipped": The appearance, the orientation, what we see when looking at it from those two vantage points. Whatever words you want to use... it's not a semantics issue.
If doubting sources, two people can setup a live stream of the moon from the two hemispheres without too much trouble: one from the US and an online pal from Argentina.
The observation is what one would expect from the perspective of a spherical earth and spherical moon. Please see the picture diagram below for the general concept; and then view the two videos which include actual video of the moon from specified locations.
Now the FE model with a spherical moon... as the moon travels (a certain distance above the earth's surface) between the northern US and Argentina, being viewed at the same time, one person would see one side of the moon, and the other person would see the other side (sometimes called the Darkside of the Moon). But of course, we only see one side of the moon with the cycling phases.
The observation matches SE and does not match FE. These are observations available to you. What say you?
-
1
-
1
- Show all
@GaryA
@Moses_Young
I wanted to repost this, cause my last post on this didn't make sense.
Gary, Moses, do you believe the moon is flat or spherical?
If you look at the pictures, video or live streams of the moon from both the northern and southern hemispheres the geography/features of the moon surface "appears to be flipped": The appearance, the orientation, what we see when looking at it from those two vantage points. Whatever words you want to use... it's not a semantics issue.
If doubting sources, two people can setup a live stream of the moon from the two hemispheres without too much trouble: one from the US and an online pal from Argentina.
The observation is what one would expect from the perspective of a spherical earth and spherical moon. Please see the picture diagram below for the general concept; and then view the two videos which include actual video of the moon from specified locations.
Now the FE model with a spherical moon... as the moon travels (a certain distance above the earth's surface) between the northern US and Argentina, being viewed at the same time, one person would see one side of the moon, and the other person would see the other side (sometimes called the Darkside of the Moon). But of course, we only see one side of the moon with the cycling phases.
The observation matches SE and does not match FE. These are observations available to you. What say you?
@Moses_Young
I wanted to repost this, cause my last post on this didn't make sense.
Gary, Moses, do you believe the moon is flat or spherical?
If you look at the pictures, video or live streams of the moon from both the northern and southern hemispheres the geography/features of the moon surface "appears to be flipped": The appearance, the orientation, what we see when looking at it from those two vantage points. Whatever words you want to use... it's not a semantics issue.
If doubting sources, two people can setup a live stream of the moon from the two hemispheres without too much trouble: one from the US and an online pal from Argentina.
The observation is what one would expect from the perspective of a spherical earth and spherical moon. Please see the picture diagram below for the general concept; and then view the two videos which include actual video of the moon from specified locations.
Now the FE model with a spherical moon... as the moon travels (a certain distance above the earth's surface) between the northern US and Argentina, being viewed at the same time, one person would see one side of the moon, and the other person would see the other side (sometimes called the Darkside of the Moon). But of course, we only see one side of the moon with the cycling phases.
The observation matches SE and does not match FE. These are observations available to you. What say you?
-
1
- Show all
Have you ever seen something illustrated with 3D CAD software - turning it every which way to look at it from different angles - and, with exploded views - etc.? Well, I can do that in my mind. And, while I am certainly not infallible, my reasoning abilities are a [whole] lot greater then you might imagine...
Your "insult-by-insinuation" is not helping anything. And, you should be careful in what you say - one day you just may discover that it is you who is lacking in some ability - comprehension, understanding, reasoning, or whatever.
Your "insult-by-insinuation" is not helping anything. And, you should be careful in what you say - one day you just may discover that it is you who is lacking in some ability - comprehension, understanding, reasoning, or whatever.
-
1
-
1
- Show all
Sometimes, semantics are important - especially, if you want everyone in a discussion to be on the same page with the same understanding of what is being discussed.
Again - the moon's orientation is never flipped - only rotated.
'flipped' means a mirror image; 'rotated' means turned about
~
The reason I have not made any reply to your post #661 is - quite frankly - because I just have not felt like it.
Other than headaches, sinus-related problems, and [something else] I have had to deal with all my life, I stay quite healthy the vast majority of the time. I very rarely get a cold or flu - but, I sometimes get a sore-throat condition that "gets too far along" and becomes a nuisance that can be quite wearisome on my system.
As of late, I have not spent much effort on CC posting replies - especially ones that may take a bit of time and thinking to compose.
Please be patient, and - Lord willing - I will try to make a reply.
Again - the moon's orientation is never flipped - only rotated.
'flipped' means a mirror image; 'rotated' means turned about
~
The reason I have not made any reply to your post #661 is - quite frankly - because I just have not felt like it.
Other than headaches, sinus-related problems, and [something else] I have had to deal with all my life, I stay quite healthy the vast majority of the time. I very rarely get a cold or flu - but, I sometimes get a sore-throat condition that "gets too far along" and becomes a nuisance that can be quite wearisome on my system.
As of late, I have not spent much effort on CC posting replies - especially ones that may take a bit of time and thinking to compose.
Please be patient, and - Lord willing - I will try to make a reply.
-
2
- Show all
Have you ever seen something illustrated with 3D CAD software - turning it every which way to look at it from different angles - and, with exploded views - etc.? Well, I can do that in my mind. And, while I am certainly not infallible, my reasoning abilities are a [whole] lot greater then you might imagine...
Your "insult-by-insinuation" is not helping anything. And, you should be careful in what you say - one day you just may discover that it is you who is lacking in some ability - comprehension, understanding, reasoning, or whatever.
Your "insult-by-insinuation" is not helping anything. And, you should be careful in what you say - one day you just may discover that it is you who is lacking in some ability - comprehension, understanding, reasoning, or whatever.
I’m not saying this to belittle you nor anyone else, but a significant part of the training in naval flight school is based on the knowledge that the earth is spherical. A flatearther would more often than not find that the airport isn’t where the flat earth navigational system placed it to be.
I usually tend to think of it as being spherical; however, in a 'like' similarity to wave particle duality - the moon seems to exhibit both spherical and flat qualities.
For starters, what you said here is totally incorrect. In the FE model, the "dark side of the moon" is the 'top' of the moon. No one would ever be able to see it from the earth surface. Only the bottom side of it is seen from below.
There is a lot of missing data here. If you really want to examine the true reality of the thing, you need to include and consider such things as the direction (angle) and inclination-from-horizon (angle) of the moon from each of the places where it is being viewed at the same time - along with, of course, the relative rotation of the moon.
In the most general sense - the observation matches both BE and FE models. The critical task is to supply all of the aforementioned missing data to see how it falls into place.
One other bit of advice - if you really want to get at the truth - do not ever trust a diagram that is not drawn to scale.
You may say - "For basic concepts, it is okay." - and, sometimes that may be true - however, always realize that a lot of those illustrations "plant" suggestions into your mind - which, if you accept them at face value - they will throw you off. There is a great deal of error in many such diagrams. And, many-a-deception has been carried out based on not-to-scale illustrations. There are many such diagrams used in the BE model. Refuse to look at anything except to-scale diagrams/drawings and you will see a different truth. It really does make a difference.
Only consider the real truth with a real diagram/drawing - one that is drawn to scale - so that you can see the true nature of the relationships between the various items under consideration in the true context of what is being illustrated.
For starters, what you said here is totally incorrect. In the FE model, the "dark side of the moon" is the 'top' of the moon. No one would ever be able to see it from the earth surface. Only the bottom side of it is seen from below.
There is a lot of missing data here. If you really want to examine the true reality of the thing, you need to include and consider such things as the direction (angle) and inclination-from-horizon (angle) of the moon from each of the places where it is being viewed at the same time - along with, of course, the relative rotation of the moon.
In the most general sense - the observation matches both BE and FE models. The critical task is to supply all of the aforementioned missing data to see how it falls into place.
One other bit of advice - if you really want to get at the truth - do not ever trust a diagram that is not drawn to scale.
You may say - "For basic concepts, it is okay." - and, sometimes that may be true - however, always realize that a lot of those illustrations "plant" suggestions into your mind - which, if you accept them at face value - they will throw you off. There is a great deal of error in many such diagrams. And, many-a-deception has been carried out based on not-to-scale illustrations. There are many such diagrams used in the BE model. Refuse to look at anything except to-scale diagrams/drawings and you will see a different truth. It really does make a difference.
Only consider the real truth with a real diagram/drawing - one that is drawn to scale - so that you can see the true nature of the relationships between the various items under consideration in the true context of what is being illustrated.
-
1
-
1
- Show all