Mikeboll’s belief in a flat world

[Proclaimer]

Pressure

How could the ISS possibly withstand the exponentially greater vacuum of space, when the far lesser vacuum created by men was able to crush a heavy steel railway tanker car like it was one of those packing bubbles we all love to pop?

I cannot verify this given the time I have and lack of equipment, but a quick google brought this up.

Several systems are currently used on board the ISS to maintain the spacecraft’s atmosphere, which is similar to the Earth’s. Normal air pressure on the ISS is 101.3 kPa (14.7 psi); the same as at sea level on Earth.

& regarding the pressure outside ISS I will paste in two quotes:

There is a little atmosphere still, enough to slow an orbiting spacecraft over several months, but not enough to exert any gas pressure.

So close to zero that the difference isn’t worth talking about. The ISS is technically still within the atmosphere (in a layer called the thermosphere), but the air is so rarefied at that altitude that it is for all practical purposes a vacuum.

So now we have what is possibly a correct difference in pressure. It seems obvious to me at least that the ISS is built to withstand that force. Car tyres for example withstand higher pressure than this, so if there are billions of inflated tyres in the world, then why couldn’t we build the ISS to withstand a much less pressure difference?

[Proclaimer]

Where the heck is the crater

Where the heck is the crater from the 10,000 pound thrust engine they had to fire to land this thing?  Or the moon dust that should have blew up everywhere and completely covered the gold foil on the feet?

A quick google and I found this site that adequately answers this if they are correct.

1. Landing rockets seldom make a crater under any circumstances. To do so, they would have push the soil upwards. To do THAT, they would have to blast a concentrated jet of material down through the soil and have it push the soil up from underneath. That’s a pressure washer, not a rocket. Rockets don’t do that.
2. In a vacuum, rocket exhaust expands perpendicular to thrust much faster then in an atmosphere. That’s why engine bells have to be wider for use in space to get the same efficiency, and means that even less of the exhaust is blasting directly down than would be true on earth.
3. The LEM descent engine only had 10,000 pounds of thrust at full power and was only running at abut 20% of that during the last moments of descent.
4. The LEM was equipped with six foot long contact probes. The engine was cut off early to minimize soil disturbance and prevent debris from bouncing up and causing damage, and the LEM fell the last few feet (You can see one of the probes, bent flat and buried by soil in the image below).

In spite of all this, the LEMs did “kick up” a good deal of dust, but dust cannot form a dust cloud in vacuum. There is no air for it to hit and swirl around in. Each grain of dust, thrown outward and pushed downward by the exhaust, simply shot out of frame, then bounced along the surface until it came to rest.

Look closely in the photos and you can clearly see the darker, reddish undersoil exposed by the exhaust and rays left as the lighter surface was stripped away. This is even more dramatic when viewed as part of the original 3D image this is taken from. Read more…

https://www.quora.com/Why-didn%E2%80%99t-the-Apollo-11-spaceship-make-a-big-crater-when-it-landed?utm_medium=organic&utm_source=google_rich_qa&utm_campaign=google_rich_qa

And why in the world is the distant horizon of the moon barely an inch farther away than the shadow of the lander?

I’m guessing the lack of light leads to less visible land as well as the fact that the moon’s circumference is way less than Earth’s. I heard once that the amount of land on the moon is less than Asia.

 

[Proclaimer]

No direct individual proof either way

Mike said:

There is no proof of a ball earth,

Personally there is no or little direct individual proof or experience, but same goes for the Flat Earth.

I believe that there is a city called Cairo. I haven’t been there and and have no personal proof its existence. But there are photos, videos, and all kinds of stories about it in the news, in books, and claims of tourists having visited there. Further, I have little reason to doubt it because if it was just a conspiracy then what valid reason would there be to bother with this conspiracy in the first place.

Same with the spherical Earth. Some people claim to have seen it with their own eyes, craft have travelled into space, satellites go around the globe, and there are calculations that people made before the technology was created to prove the globe Earth. I have little conviction to prove to myself that Cairo exists and I think you will find that people are the same with the spherical Earth. It is too hard to believe that it is a conspiracy. Unless of course, millions are involved and working together to fool everyone else. This group of conspirators would include scientists many who were and are great men of God like Newton and Pascal. It would also include explorers like Edmund Hillary who went to Antarctica and helped claim the Ross Dependency for New Zealand. Then there are astronauts, cosmonauts, Elon Musk, Virgin Galactic, Space X, NASA, professional and amatuer astronomers, Greek philosophers, mathematicians, etc. It just seems too elaborate and for what?

You say that the Flat Earth would prove that it was created and point to God. I say what? That is crazy. Quite the opposite. Atheists basically claim the universe came from nothing and it would be much easier to believe that a disk was accidentally created than a universe of order that we cannot see the end of. Much easier for one Earth and some lights to appear by random chance, than a globe Earth in a solar system inside a galaxy with billions of suns which is one galaxy of billions, with all that being the observable universe, never mind what we cannot observe. Statistically the former has way more chance of happening without a creator than the latter. The latter should remove all doubt as to the existence of God. Only insanity could claim the universe came into existence with God.

The heavens declare the glory of God Mike. A Flat Earth would mean a rewrite of that scripture to the Earth declares the glory of God and the firmament while less impressive is pretty cool. But our current understanding of the universe leaves men with no excuse. The heavens declare his glory. It shows his eternity, majesty, and awe. Everything about God is way more amazing than our mind can ever conceive.

1 Corinthians 2:9
But as it is written:

“Eye has not seen, nor ear heard,
Nor have entered into the heart of man
The things which God has prepared for those who love Him.”

To be honest Mike, the Flat Earth does seem rather bland or lame compared to something that we are incapable of comprehending. I believe we have a relationship with an eternal God, not a God who built a universe that is very simple and finite. He has blown those away who have eyes. Do you think that just when you understand this or that of God that there is more? In a Flat Earth, there is no more. It ends and begins with a disk and a glass ceiling. But God breaks the glass ceiling. He is way beyond anything we can imagine. What he creates reveals his eternal nature. His ways are not just higher than ours, but beyond anything we can imagine.

Mike, while there is no direct proof for the average man and woman of a Globe Earth, neither is their proof of a Flat Earth. In fact, for most things we take for granted, we have little or no scientific proof of. I have no proof of Africa, The Beatles, The bullet train, the Philadelphia Eagles, and even Walmart.

[Proclaimer]

Mike, this is a picture taken from the city I come from. You can see the centre of the Milky Way where most of the stars are. It is visible with the naked eye. It looks like a cloud of light even now as it is  a clear night here. What is the explanation for this in the Flat Earth theory? A crack in the glass dome?

[Proclaimer]

In your video Mike you say where was the third well that Eratosthenes end up finding for his experiments. I didn’t think Neil was saying he used 3 wells, but that 3 wells gives the proof. I guess that is something Flat Earthers could test. Maybe try 5 wells. Would require 5 Flat Earthers with a spade each. They could collaborate, so long as they all experience daylight at the same time, but different time zones too.

The other point is that while 2 wells can prove either, the point for a Flat Earther is that it also works for the Globe Earth. And for a Globe Earther it works for a Flat Earth. So just do it with 3 wells. I suggest Flat Earthers do it first because they are the ones who doubt the accepted idea that the Earth is a globe. If the experiment doesn’t work as predicted, then you have something and then Globe Earthers will get interested and try and prove you wrong which is what you would want them to do because if you are right, they will discover that.

[Proclaimer]

Mike. There is an explanation for seeing mountains that should be hidden by the curvature of the Earth. I explained it before, but I am not convinced you understood what I was saying. I will; try and make it easier this time, so you or others don’t lose interest. This explanation works for the mountain I photographed and can easily work for other mountains that are supposedly too far away to see in whole including the one in your video.

Take my Mt Ruapehu photo for example because I know this is not fake and I understand the distances and heights involved. The photo shows the shape of the mountain with little or none of the mountain hidden, yet a good portion of it should be right? I will break it down and explain how this is possible.

• Distance to the mountain: 200 km
• Eyesight level: 248 m
• Distance to horizon: 56.21 km
• Obscured object part: 1,622.32 m

So Ruapehu is 1600 metres obscured, yet it doesn’t look like it is right. That means I should be able to see only 1100 metres of Ruapehu at the top but it looks like we can see much more.

BUT you need to take into account that the shape of the mountain starts at 600 metres above sea level or 350 metres above the site I took the photo. So the shape of the mountain from its base to the peak is only 2100 metres not 2700. In other words the whole shape of the mountain is 2100 metres from land base to peak. That leaves 1000 metres obscured down the bottom and 1100 metres at the top visible. This is much less obscurity than first thought. However, that is still relatively substantial, so how is it that the photo appears to show the whole shape including the missing 1000 metres? Easy. The bottom 1000 metres could be the the foreground that is visible on my side of the horizon and the zoom lense has blended it into the mountain to make it look like it is part of the mountain when it could easily be smaller hills much closer to me.

We already observed that the photo has way too much water in it and that the peninsula was stretched big time. So you can see what is going on. The distance to the mountain is pulled closer to me along with everything else, thus everything in the photo is flattened and the result is one big mountain with lots of water in the foreground. That is, there could easily be a long distance between the top of the mountain and what looks like the bottom.

Do you understand what I am saying Mike?

• Distance to the mountain: 200 km
• Eyesight level: 248 m
• Distance to horizon: 56.21 km
• Obscured object part: 1,622.32 m
• Land base of mountain: 600 above sea level
• Land base of mountain above eyesight level: 350 m
• Actual hidden part of the mountains shape: 1000 m
• Foreground merging into background: 1,622.32 m

Stats assume no refraction took place.

[Miia]

Gene: “Check it out for yourselves”

Dig4Truth: That’s a great idea Gene. And that’s all we’re really asking, check it out for yourselves. That’s how the growing masses of FE people all got started!

😀 Yes. I am also asking my kids “Should we really believe all that scientists have told us is true?” And there’s a lot of truth in that.

[Miia]

You’re a Kiwi, miia? For some reason I was thinking that you were from the UK.

Yep. Never been out of NZ either.

[Miia]

Mike: But scripture does say the earth is fixed and cannot be moved, right? And it does say the earth rests on pillars, right? And Joshua did command the sun and the moon to stand still in the sky – as opposed to commanding both the earth and moon to stop rotating and orbiting, right? And Jesus did say “the sun will be darkened, the moon will not give her light, and the stars will fall from the sky”, right? Doesn’t that tell us the moon has it’s own light to give, which aligns with God saying He created the sun and moon as TWO lights in the firmament? And that’s good, because it is beyond obvious that – despite what the heliocentrists have told us – the sun is not what lights the moon. And how will stars “fall” from the sky? “Fall” to where? In Revelation he says they will fall to the earth. Can a single star fall to the earth in the heliocentric model?

That is very true.

I don’t know the science… but the idea of the Earth as a dome with the waters separated and the lights in the sky for the Earth and a portal to God’s throne makes perfect sense. I can’t get my head around the ability of a conspiracy… but it all makes me wonder what we believe to be true simply because we have been taught it by men.

[Lightenup]

Hopefully this will shed some light on what it means that the earth has pillars to stand on:

from: http://www.aish.com/sp/pg/48884852.html

Pillars Of Our Mishnah

In our Mishnah, Shimon HaTzaddik declares that the world stands on three things: Torah, service [of God], and acts of human kindness.

So, the three pillars on which the world stands are:

1. Torah
2.  Service
3.  Acts of human kindness

[Dig4truth]

mila: “😀 Yes. I am also asking my kids “Should we really believe all that scientists have told us is true?” And there’s a lot of truth in that.”

 

 

Very good point. I have to wonder if Gene would also include “all the scientists” that consider evolution to be true.

If we have been lied to about evolution by most “scientists” why would we think that they would not take another huge issue and run with it? Run, that is, in the direct opposite direction of God.

So I’ll ask Gene directly. Do you believe in evolution because most all of the scientists tell us it’s true? Is that the measure of truth for you? Do you, Gene, believe that the world was not created but evolved? That life began as a single cell? That those cells evolved and ultimately man evolved from primates?

And evolution includes the universe. Do you believe that the universe came not from God but from nothing that exploded? Do you believe that the sun was here before the earth? These are the teachings of the great majority of scientists.

 

[Dig4truth]

Not to put too fine a point on this, I’m not picking on anyone but just using a comment by Gene that is a common sentiment to illustrate the point of whom we should trust. I believe this is a blind spot in the “church”. We have been indoctrinated into thinking that because a scientist or a majority of scientists has a belief it has to be true. For example;

Should we believe that the earth is billions of years old because most geologists say that the geogical layers were made very slowly rather than being laid down by a worldwide flood in a short amount of time?

 

[Dig4truth]

t8: “By that reckoning, we should observe auroras thousands if not millions of times more in my part of the world than the north pole.”

 

Thats not necessarily so. Auroras are limited to where the excitement of the atmosphere is located. Just because there is a lot of area doesn’t mean that it must be covered by auroras.

[NickHassan]

Hi Dig4,

So because scientists have got some things wrong we should never trust any of their observations.

We should trust yours?

[Dig4truth]

t8: “But if you really wanted to prove that the Earth is flat, you could run this experiment yourself with ease. Try doing it with the moon first and if you need further clarification, do it with the sun and video recorder in front of the lense. Given that both emit light or reflect it, you should be able to track it for quite a while after it dissappear from the naked eye.”

 

Not necessarily so. There is a very simple explanation. It is illustrated in this 2 minute video.

 

 

Keep in mind that the sun is probably smaller and closer than you or I have been taught.

 

[Proclaimer]

Thanks Dig4truth.

I like the name BTW.

Nice example in the video and point taken. However, I also saw a video of a boat going over the horizon, but the boat was brought into view by a telescope or binoculars. So why can’t we do that with the sun?

If the sun is 3000 miles away or so and it lights up a good part of the disk, then when it disappears out of view, you should be able to bring it back using magnification just like you can with a boat. Except, you should be able to to it for much longer than you can with a boat before it disappears out of view by reason of the bright light it emits. Has anyone demonstrated this?

Further, you should get varying distances in different locations because the line of sight will not always be equal given how random high hills or mountains are. In a very large plain on Earth you could get equal distance as it becomes too far to see of course, but in other areas not so. Has anyone performed this experiment and observed different distances to the sun when using a telescope.

Finally, I imagine that if we were on a flat disk, what you should observe in a very flat part of the terrain is the sun disappearing over the horizon then being brought back by magnification until such point that the sun decreases in size to the size of a star in fact and then fade from there. It wouldn’t be an abrupt disappearance and remaining around the same size right? Has this been observed. Can you track the sun until it is no bigger than a star?

[Dig4truth]

t8: “The Earth easily wins the gravitational tug of war. The moon still has an influence and the fact that there are different tides depending on where the moon is backs up this up.”

 

I agree. And by the way, thanks for the challenging questions.

The earth’s gravitational field certainly would be greater, much greater, assuming it exists. Here’s the question; if the moon is close enough to exert an influence on earth and earth’s influence is much greater then why doesn’t the earth pull the moon closer? The measurements clearly show that the moon is receding from the earth.

Dont get me wrong, I know they have answers for this delima but are they reasonable?

How can a much lesser force influence a much greater force without being overcome?

How can a force act on a much denser [and further away] material (water) and not act on a much lighter [and closer] material (atmosphere)?

Something just doesn’t seem right about it to me.

 

 

 

 

[Proclaimer]

I performed that experiment in the video Dig4Truth and got a completely different result.

I used a table and placed my smart phone on top as it has a straight edge. I moved it back and I could see the bottom edge of the phone the whole time. However, I found that if you placed the back of the table lower than the front even slightly, then it went over the horizon. But if you got it perfectly level, it stayed in view. I did find keeping your view level was difficult however, but the way to make sure you were level was to always be able to see the back edge of the table while having it line up with the front edge. If you get it perfect, the back line will hide exactly behind the front line. Then when I slid my phone away from me, I saw it the whole time.

I feel like the guy in the video must have known about this because when you try it out, it becomes apparent that not being perfectly level will hide the bottom of the sliding object. Either the guy is trying to dupe people, or he is not a careful scientists or truth seeker. He did the experiment in a haphazard way because he already made his mind up and thus didn’t bother to do it carefully.

[Dig4truth]

t8: “Finally, I imagine that if we were on a flat disk, what you should observe in a very flat part of the terrain is the sun disappearing over the horizon then being brought back by magnification until such point that the sun decreases in size to the size of a star in fact and then fade from there. It wouldn’t be an abrupt disappearance and remaining around the same size right? Has this been observed. Can you track the sun until it is no bigger than a star?”

 

A logical question. However there is a lot of moister in the air. This moister will refract light downwards and magnify it. This is difficult to explain which is why I’m glad that some FE people are doing some good experiments! You can see one possible explanation in this 4 minute video:  (Bonus – you will find out how much moister is in the air too!)

 

 

 

[Dig4truth]

t8: “I performed that experiment in the video Dig4Truth and got a completely different result.”

 

You are correct that if you are not perfectly level to the tabletop then you would probably see the coin all the way. If you think about that when you are slightly above the edge then you would necessarily see the entire top. This is supported by the fact that after the sun sets if you increase your height you can bring it back in to view. I’ve seen this done with a drone before.

One thing I noticed, because I was looking for it, was if I could see the bottom of the coin before he slid it back. And I could. Unless he purposely tilted the table then I trust his experiment was valid.

In any case as you will see there are other factors involved as well. But golly, you’re trying hard! Kudos!

[Author]

Posts