A message from a physicist and a message from a flat earther

Physicist

I am a physicist and it comes naturally to me that all planets are spheres mainly because of gravity.

The gravity of a planet is directly proportional to the planet’s mass and inversely proportional to the planet’s radius.

Gravity can be calculated 6.67*10^-11(planet mass/planet radius^2).

This also means that, according to Newton, the earth’s rotation does not have a particularly large effect on gravity.

The sun has the greatest gravitational force in our solar system, approx. 247N/kg or 247 m/s^2, which means that if you fall one meter on the sun, you will hit the “ground” with a speed of 247 m/s. Similarly, 1 kg on the Sun will be 247N, while on Earth 1 kg will only be 9.81N.

We have formulas to calculate the curvature of the earth, and these are very accurate.

Why do some people think the earth is flat? When all scientific findings indicate that all planets are spheres?
All scientific sources on the shape of the plates are available to anyone. Flat earth documentation is not available, logically enough because it doesn’t exist. As a physicist, I must be able to explain observations and natural phenomena through mathematics and scientific models. This is exactly what makes physics so exciting!

A model must be able to explain all phenomena and observations, you can do that on a sphere. On a flat earth it is not possible, so above all one does not use false values.

The globe rotates 360 degrees/24 hours. Our solar system is moving at 600,000m/s towards the center of the Milky Way where there is a gigantic hole with an enormous gravitational force. Since the acceleration is constant, we do not  notice any of this, so Newton’s second law is fulfilled.

If, on the other hand, the earth’s rotation increased or decreased, we would notice it because Newton’s second law will no longer be fulfilled.

I love my subject and am happy to answer questions, but do not respond to sarcasm.

– Physicist

Flat Earther

The earth is flat because I rolled a marble on a table and it disappeared bottom up. Although when I moved my head up a little to be level with the table, it didn’t do that for some reason.

I brought a small boat back into view that was too small to see, although I can’t bring the sun back for some reason.

The bible teaches the world is flat, although I cannot find one verse that teaches this.

The flat earth map is accurate and explains observation, although it doubles and triples distances in the southern hemisphere for some reason. But the southern hemisphere kind of doesn’t matter.

The globe earth conspiracy means millions are in on the secret, yet not one person has leaked the truth despite the anonymity of Wikileaks etc for some strange reason,

The flat earth is hidden from the populace because it proves that God exists. Although the scientific view proves an eternal God because the cosmos is so finely tuned for our existence, that the odds of it being random are greater than 1 in a number bigger than all the atoms of the universe. Further it does demonstrate the eternal nature of God, but it is just too big to give God the glory if you have a simple mind. The pizza model and dome on top which BTW to keeps the pizza warm and contained makes it easier to see that there is a God, although not a very impressive one.

– Flat Earther

Viewing 20 posts - 5,661 through 5,680 (of 6,414 total)
  • Author
    Posts
  • #937876
    Proclaimer
    Participant

    Correcting Mike again

    Mike
    Not only that, but I SPECIFICALLY TALKED ABOUT the very thing that you said I “deliberately left out” in order to “con” and “deceive” Berean!

    Mike, the scientific explanation for temperature differences has nothing to do with the false argument you talked about regarding distance. You were wrong to make out that this was a  scientific argument or viewpoint.

    You should have just mentioned the angle of light or more specifically ‘the angle of the globe to the sun’ explanation and tried to debunk that instead.

    Tell the truth next time. Don’t make out that the scientific explanation is the distance argument because that isn’t true. Rather, that is a common misconception which you took advantage of.

    Be honest as all children of God should be.

    #937877
    Proclaimer
    Participant

    Another Correction for Mike

    Proclaimer:
    The reason why the temperature is so different is because of the angle that light hits the earth. Light hitting the Sahara is more concentrated than the Antarctica because of the angle that light hits the earth from the sun. In other words, the same amount of energy from the sun has to heat up a larger area because of the shape of the earth.

    Mike:
    This is almost a word for word copy and paste from Scientism.  It’s clear that Proclaimer Googled the answer, and just parroted whatever explanation he could find

    Wrong. I wrote this myself, as I understand this argument fully.

    I did google the image however. I did that after typing my words.

    Argument 49 is completely and utterly debunked.

    #937878
    Proclaimer
    Participant

    Private Debate question

    Mike
    What is your son’s opinion on the fact that you stalled a Hot Seat debate for 6 weeks because you were “unable” to find an answer that was one day and one post removed from your question – despite me repeatedly drawing maps and sending screenshots and doing everything I could think of to show you where that answer was?

    The only reason I haven’t been there is because you keep jumping the gun with extra questions and I’ve lost track of the question.

    Post the post number where the question is please and I’ll reply. However  I strongly suspect I have already answered it multiple times. And that’s when I realise you are being dishonest and wasting my time.

    I actually want this discussion to proceed because I really want answers from you about bringing back the sun and why does the light across the sea dissapear. Clearly you are dodging such questions in this topic, so the Hot Seat will either provide results or result a penalty.

    #937879
    Proclaimer
    Participant

    More corrections for Mike

    Mike:
    Wait… are you saying that if the light source moves behind the cloud/haze layer that you can clearly see in your photo (or even behind a mountain or some other tangible obstruction) we should still be able to see the reflections from that light source on the water?

    Nope.

    Here in NZ we are surrounded by thousands of miles of ocean and have some of the clearest and cleanest air on earth. Arguably, NZ is also the most isolated country on earth. There are no mountains for thousands of miles obstructing such a view when I look out to the Pacific Ocean, Southern Ocean, or Tasman Sea. Simple as that.

    When the sun disappears, the light trail should not disappear on a flat earth. Simple. You cannot pretend that in every single case, when the light trail disappears which is every day, that the sun went behind a mountain or became obscured by clouds. You can supposedly bring back a small boat when it disappears, but you cannot bring back the sun. What a joke that is.

    #937881
    Proclaimer
    Participant

    Argument 50 debunked

    Mike:
    50) If the Earth were truly a globe, the Arctic and Antarctic polar regions and areas of comparable latitude North and South of the equator should share similar conditions and characteristics such as comparable temperatures, seasonal changes, length of daylight, plant and animal life. In reality, however, the Arctic/Antarctic regions and areas of comparable latitude North/South of the equator differ greatly in many ways entirely inconsistent with the ball model and entirely consistent with the flat model.

    While this one is easy to debunk, it is a bit more complex too.

    The answer is basically the difference between a maritime and continental climate. Read to learn more.

    Here is a question for you. In Winter, Alice Spring in the centre of Australia is colder at night than Hobart in Tasmania. Google it. Hobart is way closer to the south pole than Alice Springs. So why is this. Because where there is a continent, you tend to get hotter summers and colder winters than over the ocean or an island that is sufficiently distant from a continent.

    Another case in point. Where I live, it rarely hits zero and only once did we ever get snow in the city where I live that I can remember, (excluding the peaks of tall hills or mountains). An American tourist once commented to me that our summers must be amazing because our winter is so mild. I told him that our summers are not hot, just warm. The reason is because we are a group of islands meaning we have a maritime climate. So temperatures are less extreme.

    If you take any country within a continent on a similar altitude and latitude as NZ, you will generally find that they get hotter summers and colder winters than us.

    Now to clinch the argument. The Arctic is basically a sea which is maritime, thus is not as extreme as the Antarctica which is continental. Further, ice is colder than sea which is not frozen because sea water comes from warmer climes. So Antarctic ice on the continent doesn’t move or come from warm climates like sea water from the Gulf Stream and other currents can.

    Antarctica also has many high peaks and obviously that brings the average temperature down too compared with the air over the Arctic Ocean.

    DEBUNBK STATUS: Successful.

    DEBUNK DIFFICULTY: Medium.

    #937882
    Proclaimer
    Participant

    As it stands by default, your answer is as follows:  “There is NOTHING in the heliocentric model that can even come close to being even very liberally construed as ‘waters above the sun, moon and stars’.   You are correct that the model to which I subscribe is NOT compatible with the world the Bible describes.”

    Lol, is that the question I need to answer? Already done it mate. And multiple times. But feel free to quote the post number and I will copy the answer from a previous post and then you can answer questions about bringing back the sun etc, which you are avoiding here.

    #937883
    Proclaimer
    Participant

    Question 52 debunked too

    52) Iceland at 65 degrees North latitude is home to 870 species of native plants and abundant various animal life. Compare this with the Isle of Georgia at just 54 degrees South latitude where there are only 18 species of native plants and animal life is almost non-existent. The same latitude as Canada or England in the North where dense forests of various tall trees abound, the infamous Captain Cook wrote of Georgia that he was unable to find a single shrub large enough to make a toothpick! Cook wrote, “Not a tree was to be seen. The lands which lie to the south are doomed by nature to perpetual frigidness – never to feel the warmth of the sun’s rays; whose horrible and savage aspect I have not words to describe. Even marine life is sparse in certain tracts of vast extent, and the sea-bird is seldom observed flying over such lonely wastes. The contrasts between the limits of organic life in Arctic and Antarctic zones is very remarkable and significant.”

    Why should there be any contrast at all for two equal but opposite points on a ball that is heated from the same distant sun?

    This one is pretty easy, the answer is winds, isolation, and ocean currents.

    Islands have plants and animals that originate from nearby continents. In NZ for example, our flora is reminiscent of tropical Polynesia with palms and ferns despite being a temperate and not tropical land. The reason is NZ has no close temperate continents for which to get seeds and animals from. Australia is distant, but some plants were able to be colonized here via the wind or birds who carried seeds. Same with animals. We have an abundance of birds because they can fly here. But no native mammals or snakes because NZ was too isolated. In fact, birds were so safe here, that many lost their ability to fly.

    South Georgia is extremely isolated and is near Antarctica which hosts little life. Where exactly are these islands going to get plants or animals from? Yes birds have found their way there and carry seeds from other locations. But by and large, there is simply not a large enough repository of plants and animals close by to match Britain and it’s close proximity to Europe.

    As for ocean currents, if I remember correctly, Britain has a warm ocean current (Gulf Stream) meaning it is warm for it’s latitude. And I’m guessing that Georgia is bathed in the cold ocean current that prevails the Southern Ocean. This has a huge impact on rainfall, climate, and temperatures. Take a look at a map of ocean currents and you will see that land near warm ocean currents are generally warmer than land surrounded by cold ocean currents. This isn’t a coincidence Mike.

    Once again, you show your lack of scientific knowledge and further cement in our minds your ignorance coupled with your desire for something to be true as the main reason for believing the earth is flat. You have zero proof of a flat earth and do not understand the science of the natural world and the cosmos.

    #937885
    Danny Dabbs
    Participant

    @t8

    Proclaimer, you said to Berean: “Mike is trying to deceive you…”

    Mike said:
    “That right there is a very deceptive statement…”

    I totally agree with Mike.

    #937886
    Proclaimer
    Participant

    Deception?


    @dannyd
    , what else do you call saying this is globe argument for sharp  temperature differences when it is not actually the argument at all. There are two options:

    1. He made a mistake, but never apologised, in which case an apology is outstanding;
    2. He intenionally left out the reason and intentionally used the common misconception to deceive Berean.

    Now consider that Mike was given the correct argument on more than one occasion, that leaves one option.

    What other explanation is there?

    #937887
    mikeboll64
    Blocked

    Proclaimer:  You should have just mentioned the angle of light or more specifically ‘the angle of the globe to the sun’ explanation and tried to debunk that instead.

    Tell the truth next time. Don’t make out that the scientific explanation is the distance argument because that isn’t true. Rather, that is a common misconception which you took advantage of.

    Be honest as all children of God should be…

    @dannyd, what else do you call saying this is globe argument for sharp  temperature differences when it is not actually the argument at all. There are two options:

    1.  He made a mistake, but never apologised, in which case an apology is outstanding;
    2. He intenionally left out the reason and intentionally used the common misconception to deceive Berean.

    Now consider that Mike was given the correct argument on more than one occasion, that leaves one option.

    What other explanation is there?

    I don’t know about the rest of you here, but I’m both baffled and lost.  Proclaimer is posting words as if he is speaking from a position of knowledge/authority, but I can’t for the life of me decipher what he’s actually saying.

    He does this a lot, like when he talked down to me like I was a child as he authoritatively explained how gravity will pull two things together up to a point, and then gravity’s repellant properties will take over and hold the two objects in a state of limbo at that distance from each other forever.

    Of course he was spouting nonsense – but doing it as if he was some expert explaining to a slow-learning student how things work.

    He is doing the same now, as far as I can tell.  But let’s see…

    Proclaimer, would you be so kind as to quote the particular statement I made to Berean in an attempt to purposely deceive him?  Thanks.

    #937889
    mikeboll64
    Blocked

    Mike: What is your son’s opinion on the fact that you stalled a Hot Seat debate for 6 weeks because you were “unable” to find an answer that was one day and one post removed from your question – despite me repeatedly drawing maps and sending screenshots and doing everything I could think of to show you where that answer was?

     

    Proclaimer:  Post the post number where the question is please and I’ll reply. 

    You mean like I did in this PM to you 11 weeks ago?

    Screenshot (467)

     

    Or maybe like I did here 10 weeks ago in a different PM?

    Screenshot (468)

     

    Or maybe like I did here 8 weeks ago?

    Screenshot (471)

     

    Or how about 2 months ago when I moved that ONE question to the VERY LAST post on the entire thread, just so you would be able to find it?

    Screenshot (472)

     

    Proclaimer, save your breath.  Nobody here considers you to be a man of integrity or honor.  No one takes you seriously anymore.  You are a clown.  A joke.  We laugh at and pity you.

    Proclaimer:  I actually want this discussion to proceed because I really want answers from you about bringing back the sun and why does the light across the sea dissapear. Clearly you are dodging such questions in this topic, so the Hot Seat will either provide results or result a penalty.

    Like I said, save your breath.  Do you really think that after all this dodging of direct questions, anyone here believes that you seriously want this Bible Vs Scientism discussion?  It’s been the bane of your existence for the past year.  It has exposed you as a very ignorant, deceptive, and petty juvenile delinquent.

    And now YOU want answers or there’ll be penalties?  😅  How freaking rich, coming from the dude who stalled the debate for 6 weeks because he couldn’t find an answer that was one day and one post removed from his question, and hasn’t been able to find my question for 3 months (even after I provided the post number AND moved it to the very last post on the entire thread)!

    Your own rules say that you weren’t allowed to post anything anywhere else on this site until you answered the Hot Seat question, right?  Yet you kept right on posting this entire time – completely disregarding your own rules, right?

    I told you two months ago that my question is the very last post on our private thread, right?  Go answer it and ask one of your own if you really want this discussion to proceed.  But remember that our private thread is not “Mike Vs Ball Earth”.  It is the “BIBLE Vs Scientism” – so just make sure to include the scripture(s) that speak to any question you ask me there.

    As for the two things from this thread that you say I’m dodging, perhaps you should actually READ the thread, and then you’d know that I addressed both of them DIRECTLY – one of them multiple times already.  Where are your DIRECT rebuttals to my rebuttals (as in, quote a statement from me, show how it is wrong, then quote another statement from me, show how it is wrong, etc.)?

    #937890
    mikeboll64
    Blocked

    Mike:  Wait… are you saying that if the light source moves behind the cloud/haze layer that you can clearly see in your photo (or even behind a mountain or some other tangible obstruction) we should still be able to see the reflections from that light source on the water?

     

    Proclaimer:  Nope.

    Well then, it seems as if I HAVE addressed the point you said I hadn’t, and that we are in agreement that if the sun disappears behind the cloud/haze layer, we WOULDN’T be able to see the reflections from it on the water.

    See?  Question asked.  Question DIRECTLY answered.  Issue is resolved by two party agreement.  Then we move on.  That’s how discussions work, man.

    So, since you have acknowledged by default/silence that the “waters above” in the Biblical world contradict your heliocentric fantasy (thereby losing the entire debate already), I have moved on to this direct question which deserves a direct answer from you and Gene…

    Proclaimer and Gene, please explain why your interpretation of Genesis 1 has God creating light after it already existed, creating heaven after it already existed, creating earth after it already existed, and creating the luminaries after they already existed.

    It seems to be an odd and bizarre interpretation, but I’m sure there is a rational explanation for it, right?  Let’s hear it fellas.  Thanks.

    #937892
    mikeboll64
    Blocked

    Mike:  As it stands by default, your answer is as follows:  “There is NOTHING in the heliocentric model that can even come close to being even very liberally construed as ‘waters above the sun, moon and stars’.   You are correct that the model to which I subscribe is NOT compatible with the world the Bible describes.”

    Proclaimer:  Lol, is that the question I need to answer? Already done it mate. And multiple times.

    Yes, I know.  You have repeated your answer “clouds” multiple times.  That answer was thoroughly debunked by common sense and the scriptures, seeing that clouds are not “waters”, nor are they ABOVE the sun, moon and stars, which means they can’t be the “waters ABOVE” the raqia that the sun, moon and stars are IN.

    Since then, I have repeatedly asked you and Gene for your NEW answer since the old one was debunked, and by default/silence, you have both answered:  “There is NOTHING in the heliocentric model that can even come close to being even very liberally construed as ‘waters above the sun, moon and stars’.   You are correct that the model to which I subscribe is NOT compatible with the world the Bible describes.”

    You have lost the entire debate with that one answer.  But there is still so much more I have to show you, and so the running and hiding from you and Gene will continue on.

    Proclaimer:  But feel free to quote the post number and I will copy the answer from a previous post and then you can answer questions about bringing back the sun etc, which you are avoiding here.

    Sorry Sport, my days of jumping through hoops to navigate you directly to a certain post – just so you can STILL avoid answering it for 3 months or more – are over.  Besides, why do you need a post number?  I’m telling you right here and right now that your answer of “clouds” doesn’t work – and WHY it doesn’t work.  Why would you need a different post in which I tell you the same thing? 🤔  (Of course I know why… it’s your stalling tactic.)

    As for bringing back the sun, go find and read one of my posts about zooming a finger back up over a countertop horizon… and THEN get back to me.  Until that time, you are bearing false testimony about me by saying that I have – and still am – avoiding the issue.  Same goes for the “reflections on water” issue.

    #937893
    mikeboll64
    Blocked

    Danny: @t8

    Proclaimer, you said to Berean: “Mike is trying to deceive you…”

    Mike said:
    “That right there is a very deceptive statement…”

    I totally agree with Mike.

    Thanks Danny.

    When the debate has been lost, slander becomes the tool of the loser.  –  Socrates

    #937895
    Proclaimer
    Participant

    Slander is defined as a lie that hurts a person’s reputation. I’m telling the truth. Deal with it. Truth is reality. Wake up! Chop chop. Bring back the sun.

    #937896
    Proclaimer
    Participant

    South Pole Oriented Flat Earth map

    This map makes way more sense to me in NZ if the earth was flat. That makes the arctic the ice wall.

    But it gets the northern hemisphere severely wrong. The UN stolen flat earth map makes the same error as this map, but for the southern hemisphere. Let me think about this.

    What if the earth was a globe. That would get both hemisphere right.

    Just a thought.

    Antartic-Centred-Map

    flat-earth-globe-inverse-inverse-flat-earth-globe

    #937897
    Proclaimer
    Participant

    Mike doesn’t believe that clouds are water

    Yes, I know.  You have repeated your answer “clouds” multiple times.  That answer was thoroughly debunked by common sense and the scriptures, seeing that clouds are not “waters”,

    Clouds are water. Everyone knows that. They are part of the water cycle. Ice is water. Clouds and steam are water. And water exists in liquid form. Basic stuff Mike. Water can exist in three states, possibly four. I guess science is not your thing. If you wish to understand it, I imagine there are some great into videos on the water cycle available on YouTube.

    nor are they ABOVE the sun, moon and stars, which means they can’t be the “waters ABOVE” the raqia that the sun, moon and stars are IN.

    And yet God exists in heaven / raqia. So the waters are above God? Your understanding is obviously broken.

    Back to the drawing board Mike.

    #937898
    mikeboll64
    Blocked

    Proclaimer:  Slander is defined as a lie that hurts a person’s reputation. I’m telling the truth.

    I already gave you the perfect solution to prove that you are telling the truth… Quote my statement that was intentionally designed to deceive Berean into believing something that I know is a lie.

    Proclaimer:  Chop chop. Bring back the sun.

    Already done… twice on video.  Your turn now…

    1. Can you zoom the fingertip back up over the countertop horizon?

    2.  Does the entire hand need to be behind the countertop horizon for the experiment to work?

    #937899
    mikeboll64
    Blocked

    Proclaimer: Clouds are water.

    No they aren’t. God gathered the waters below into seas. Seas are water, clouds are not. Did anyone ever ask you to give them a drink of water and you handed them an icicle or shot some steam at them?

    Proclaimer:  And yet God exists in heaven / raqia. So the waters are above God? Your understanding is obviously broken.

    God does not exist in the raqia, and so it is your understanding that is broken.  But God did open the floodgates in the raqia and let these waters above the sun, moon, and stars fall to the earth and flood it.

    What are these waters above the sun, moon, and stars that God allowed to flood the earth in your model?

    #937902
    GeneBalthrop
    Participant

    Mike…….Water can appear in three forms…..

    1…..Solid……  like a ice cube, frozen lake, snow ect. 

    2….liquid……. like our oceans, lakes,  streams,  rain showers , floods ect.

    3….gas or vapor……….like steam,  and our clouds in the heavens / sky,  and even on earth as fog. 

    All of these are the forms water can exist in, common sense 101 .  We all know that clouds are large accumilations of water vapor, that have risen from the oceans and other things, into our atmosphers at different levels, and can condense into liquid under different pressures and tempatures.

    The sky is devided into different atmospheres and water exists in them all to one degree or another. Even in space water exists.

    Peace and love to you and yours Mike………gene

     

     

     

     

Viewing 20 posts - 5,661 through 5,680 (of 6,414 total)
  • You must be logged in to reply to this topic.

© 1999 - 2024 Heaven Net

Navigation

© 1999 - 2023 - Heaven Net
or

Log in with your credentials

or    

Forgot your details?

or

Create Account