Ball Earth conundrums

[Gideon300]

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?

Easy. It depends on the frequency of the signal. Of course, I expect such in depth tech speak to go way over your head. Every other rational proof that the earth is a globe does.

 

[Gideon300]

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.

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.

 

[kinda]

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 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?



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

 

[Gideon300]

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.

 

[kinda]

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.

Alright. Sounds like bold statements.

I would like to ask Dino, if he agrees with this. I just want to make sure, this is sound in the minds of the science elites.

 

[Gideon300]

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.

 

[Romans34]

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?

 

[Dino246]

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?

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.

 

[Moses_Young]

this isn't that hard.

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.

 

[Moses_Young]

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.

Why do you believe reflecting radar off the ionosphere would be unnecessary? You do know the atmosphere is thicker closer to the ground, right? So reflecting radar waves off the firmament over longer distances would allow increased range, due to reduced atmospheric interference?

 

[timemeddler]

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.

wow not even close.

 

[gb9]

take my word for it- flat earthers will never, ever be convinced otherwise.

debate with them is a on ramp to a road with no exit ramp.

just going around and around.

 

[GaryA]

This thread has once again drifted off track - let's keep it focused on Ball Earth conundrums.

I believe the latest Ball Earth conundrum was presented in post #404. What think ye about that?

 

[GaryA]

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.

Both of you guys are "full of it" - trying to make "petty avoidance excuses" while not even reading what I said:

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

 

[GaryA]

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

Only in your imagination...

 

[GaryA]

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.

Whatever thread that was in - please quote it and post it in that thread and "mention" me in that post. Thanks.

 

[Romans34]

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.

 

[Moses_Young]

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.

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.

 

[Dino246]

Only in your imagination...

Don't be asinine, Gary. I read what you wrote, and responded without rancour. There is no need for you to respond with knee jerks the way Moses did. I thought you were better than that.

 

[Dino246]

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.

Once again you display your profound ignorance. Earth's gravity pulls the water off the ball. There is no comparable force of gravity pulling the water off the Earth. I've told you this before, but as usual you refuse to learn.