901

Flat Earth Theory / Re: gravity

« on: February 19, 2016, 07:45:46 PM »

I've been looking into buoyancy a little bit... and it seems odd that most people accept that in liquid something with less density will be "pushed" to the top... but can't seem to accept that things behave in a similar manner if submerged in a gas (our atmosphere)
Why Gravity ever was postulated seems extraneous to describe the phenomenon we feel as a solid in liquids and gases

902

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Water finding it's own level

« on: February 19, 2016, 06:53:22 PM »

So if the Earth is spinning on an axis, and as a result is 45km larger at the equator as Neil Dumbass Tyson tells us, an oblate spheroid, should there not be a wall of water there?

903

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Has anyone ever flown a plane across Antarctica?

« on: February 19, 2016, 06:50:12 PM »

All it takes is a person with a private jet to take matters in their own hands and go from Australia to South America over the bottom of the globe. Any takers?

Why I hadn't thought of that.  I'll just hop into my private jet right now and see for myself.  I'll take Miley Cyrus and Britney Spears with me, maybe we can have an threesome while we are at it.  Hell, I'll take the Hope Diamond along too, because why not?

Exactly lol... a lot of resistance to the theory is based on "you can go to Antarctica anytime you want! There are even guided tours!" So, my point is if any particular institution wants to finally put the Flat Earth to bed, then they can do so by flying around the "south pole" to prove it. Maybe we can get Richard Branson to do it, he seems like a pretty rad rebellious kind of guy, one who might even be open/have vested interests to proving that we actually are on a sphere, considering he has poured millions into his space plane project.

904

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Has anyone ever flown a plane across Antarctica?

« on: February 19, 2016, 02:35:31 PM »

All it takes is a person with a private jet to take matters in their own hands and go from Australia to South America over the bottom of the globe. Any takers?

905

Flat Earth Community / Re: Is the Earth really flat?

« on: February 19, 2016, 02:29:09 PM »

Look out your window.

This argument is very invalid because from the distance that the sun is from earth, anf the size it would appear flat as would something stupid like a cup

If there ever was someone who came to this forum trying to obscure their preconceptions and biases, it certainly isn't you. On your first post from username "EarthIsntFlat" you ask if it really is. It's obvious it would take earth shattering proof to possibly even make you consider existence on anything but a globe.

The most convincing aspect to me is fluid dynamics, the fact water always seeks it's own level, therefore it couldn't possibly exist on a sphere. That and gravity to me, by all appearances is pseudoscience, in a similar vein as evolutionary theory.

906

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Gravitational Waves

« on: February 17, 2016, 09:20:08 PM »

Besides, magnetic interference and magnetism can be measured. As such, you can measure if magnetic forces are the cause of effect of attraction on an object. This way you can also rule out magnetism as the attracting force of an object in orbit. And, if that's the case, it makes the theory of gravity much more viable.

I don't believe there are objects orbiting the earth, in space that is. Considering the recent release of the new blue marble photograph, it seems to lack a single anomaly (besides the word sex in the clouds) that could be considered one of the 2,000+ satellites apparently in orbit. Also, given the probabilities, it's very hard to believe that there aren't several satellites crashing into one another on a yearly basis, or more of them crash landing around the planet (since space engineers even say that the satellites are slowly falling back to earth the entire time)

907

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Gravitational Waves

« on: February 17, 2016, 05:33:24 PM »

Because masses have no inherent reason to attract. It is a hypothetical concept, as you show yourself that was wholesale borrowed from a principal of attraction which is a known fact.

Ie: I can pick up a magnet and stick it to a piece of metal, and vice versa. I can not however, take a ball of concrete the size of a city block and demonstrate that a pebble will stick to it, eventhough the principle states that there should be some kind of attraction. Whats that? The earth's gravitational pull is too strong for that experiment to work? Then how can the moon have any influence on Earth, considering Earth is 4 times more massive, and the water the moon supposedly pulls is 200,000 times closer to the Earth?

That would be a good argument, honestly, if it weren't for the Cavendish experiment proving that there's actual attraction.

The issue with the Cavendish experiment is essentially the same as with any experiment involving the "scientific" method. You approach it with a conclusion, or "hypothesis" in mind, and seek to prove it. Let me get make this clear though, a guy with led balls hanging in his shed in the 18th century is the sole proof of a force we base all of modern astronomical science upon.

That is an obvious misconception. The experiment has been done plenty of times afterwards.

You always approach a possible finding with a hypothesis. You confirm it by making an observation. You explain it with a theory.

Reproducibility is key, you either confirm or disprove an observation or a theory. If the same observation is made, utilizing the workings of the theory you have reproduced the results. If the theory can explain how you get the results over and over again, it becomes a well established theory.

Thats how it works. Observation = fact. Theory = explanation.

But how could Cavendish came to any other conclusion? He went into the experiment implicitly trying to prove gravity is the cause of attraction between the objects. Not that there is an attractive force between these two objects, let's find out what it is. As many scientists and casual observers have noted over the years that there are multitudes of reasons why the positions of metal objects might fluctuate over the course of time. It was flawed from the outset. And if this is the only reproducible proof of Gravity as a force, then I remain unconvinced.

It is, only if you disregard every single man made object put into space as fraud

Coincidentally, I do, but that is a discussion for another topic.

908

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Gravitational Waves

« on: February 17, 2016, 04:29:34 PM »

Because masses have no inherent reason to attract. It is a hypothetical concept, as you show yourself that was wholesale borrowed from a principal of attraction which is a known fact.

Ie: I can pick up a magnet and stick it to a piece of metal, and vice versa. I can not however, take a ball of concrete the size of a city block and demonstrate that a pebble will stick to it, eventhough the principle states that there should be some kind of attraction. Whats that? The earth's gravitational pull is too strong for that experiment to work? Then how can the moon have any influence on Earth, considering Earth is 4 times more massive, and the water the moon supposedly pulls is 200,000 times closer to the Earth?

That would be a good argument, honestly, if it weren't for the Cavendish experiment proving that there's actual attraction.

The issue with the Cavendish experiment is essentially the same as with any experiment involving the "scientific" method. You approach it with a conclusion, or "hypothesis" in mind, and seek to prove it. Let me get make this clear though, a guy with led balls hanging in his shed in the 18th century is the sole proof of a force we base all of modern astronomical science upon.

That is an obvious misconception. The experiment has been done plenty of times afterwards.

You always approach a possible finding with a hypothesis. You confirm it by making an observation. You explain it with a theory.

Reproducibility is key, you either confirm or disprove an observation or a theory. If the same observation is made, utilizing the workings of the theory you have reproduced the results. If the theory can explain how you get the results over and over again, it becomes a well established theory.

Thats how it works. Observation = fact. Theory = explanation.

But how could Cavendish came to any other conclusion? He went into the experiment implicitly trying to prove gravity is the cause of attraction between the objects. Not that there is an attractive force between these two objects, let's find out what it is. As many scientists and casual observers have noted over the years that there are multitudes of reasons why the positions of metal objects might fluctuate over the course of time. It was flawed from the outset. And if this is the only reproducible proof of Gravity as a force, then I remain unconvinced.

909

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Polaris proves the earth is round.

« on: February 17, 2016, 04:24:18 PM »

So I just measured the circumference and diameter of a circular can on my desk and obtained C = 167 mm, D = 53 mm.
Is this then not reality!??

No, you drew a line through zig zags and came up with a figure that does not reflect reality.

No, the can was round, at least to the Planck limit. Thus, pi = 3.14!

I dont completely follow, but I think the point Tom is trying to make is that circles don't exist in nature. It's obvious to everyone that the coca cola plant figured out a long time ago how to manufacture a can to be round.

910

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Gravitational Waves

« on: February 17, 2016, 03:56:23 PM »

Because masses have no inherent reason to attract. It is a hypothetical concept, as you show yourself that was wholesale borrowed from a principal of attraction which is a known fact.

Ie: I can pick up a magnet and stick it to a piece of metal, and vice versa. I can not however, take a ball of concrete the size of a city block and demonstrate that a pebble will stick to it, eventhough the principle states that there should be some kind of attraction. Whats that? The earth's gravitational pull is too strong for that experiment to work? Then how can the moon have any influence on Earth, considering Earth is 4 times more massive, and the water the moon supposedly pulls is 200,000 times closer to the Earth?

That would be a good argument, honestly, if it weren't for the Cavendish experiment proving that there's actual attraction.

The issue with the Cavendish experiment is essentially the same as with any experiment involving the "scientific" method. You approach it with a conclusion, or "hypothesis" in mind, and seek to prove it. Let me get make this clear though, a guy with led balls hanging in his shed in the 18th century is the sole proof of a force we base all of modern astronomical science upon.

911

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Gravitational Waves

« on: February 17, 2016, 02:50:58 PM »

Because masses have no inherent reason to attract. It is a hypothetical concept, as you show yourself that was wholesale borrowed from a principal of attraction which is a known fact.

Ie: I can pick up a magnet and stick it to a piece of metal, and vice versa. I can not however, take a ball of concrete the size of a city block and demonstrate that a pebble will stick to it, eventhough the principle states that there should be some kind of attraction. Whats that? The earth's gravitational pull is too strong for that experiment to work? Then how can the moon have any influence on Earth, considering Earth is 4 times more massive, and the water the moon supposedly pulls is 200,000 times closer to the Earth?

912

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Sun and Moon shape

« on: February 17, 2016, 05:15:33 AM »

Neither.  It is a good question but irrelevent to the true form of the earth.
The sun is not a "source" but rather a focal point of converging rays.

So if you're saying the sun is not the "source" of daylight, what then is?
Also, the shape of the sun is totally relevant to the shape of the Earth!

It is not a mystery.  Just open your eyes, look up in the sky and see for yourself.  The models claim no more than what you can see.

I have, the sun appears round in shape all day so it must either be:
- a disc that is perfectly centered (aimed) on my specific location at all times during the day, even when I travel, or
- a sphere
If the sun is a disc close to Earth it cannot appear as a round shape from all points on a flat earth. Simple observation tells me this is not true.
If the sun is a sphere it will cast daylight on all points of a flat earth all of the time. Simple observation tells me this is not true as it is currently night outside.

Quick question... Isnt the moon conveniently aimed at us at all times? What would lead you to believe the sun is any different in that regard?

913

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Gravitational Waves

« on: February 17, 2016, 04:47:25 AM »

What keeps the sun floating in space? What makes gravity work? How does a big bang create massive spheres of differing materials. Where did the oxygen in our atmosphere come from? Don't try to ask me questions that you know have tricky answers when there are tons of holes around heliocentric theory as well.

One possibility is the sun could possibly be bound to the earths magnetic field. Thats a thing right? It's quantifiable, observable, doesn't necessarily take faith to believe in. Gravity however, is entirely too flawed to base everything on. No one has adequately explained why something as massive as the sun doesn't just pull everything into it. You'd rather me believe our entire solar system, and the supposed millions of others exists solely upon luck. Good thing Jupiter is there pulling us away from the sun, and keeping us the perfect distance for life as we know it to thrive.

By the way what is life? Another product of the big bang I suppose.

914

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Polaris proves the earth is round.

« on: February 16, 2016, 09:09:52 PM »

what does pi, or the volume of an orange for that matter have to do with polaris? This thread seemed like a golden opportunity to show how ridiculous the accepted orbit wobble and spin of our earth simply doesn't align with what we actually observe in the heavens. Or that the advertised distance from earth of our own "star" has changed half a dozen times since the inception of the heliocentric theory, yet we are to believe science has the vaguest idea the proximity of stars in distant galaxies. It is their contension that they are trillions and trillions of miles away, the only way to account for the apparent lack of significanct stellar parallax on our spinning wobbling elliptical slingshot around a star 93,000,000 miles away (radial distance btw). Lucky us that polaris always hangs out above our north magnetic pole for our viewing convenience during this journey.

915

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Gravitational Waves

« on: February 16, 2016, 08:59:49 PM »

You're being nothing but an apologist and just repeating yourself. How is there a such thing as "just the right distance" to REVOLVE around something when the only principal of the "law" is objects are drawn to other objects in a straight line? And as far as your magnet concept that isn't a mystery, that is well known property of feromagnetism. However I'm a organic mass not an iron nail. Nothing we observe on Earth can be duplicated and experimented to show a living protein drawn to anything else... Well besides pointless debate over the internet that is.

Gravity does pull objects in a straight line towards the center of the object they're orbiting. It's the speed along their prograde vector that makes them flying past the object they orbit, as fast as they fall towards them.

It's the lack of friction that keeps them from slowing down, and the gravitational pull off the major gas planets Jupiter and Saturn that balances the orbit of earth around the sun so that the orbital decay of earth is reduced to a few centimeters (IIRC) a year.

It is? And that is proven via what, chalkboards of mathematical equations working backwards towards a predetermined solution? Its unrealistic, has no basis in observable phenomenon, and is a usurpation of the scientific method. But we just take someones word on it as gospel. I swear modern science is as much a excercise of faith as the religions science routinely seeks to askew.

916

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Gravitational Waves

« on: February 16, 2016, 12:57:49 PM »

You're being nothing but an apologist and just repeating yourself. How is there a such thing as "just the right distance" to REVOLVE around something when the only principal of the "law" is objects are drawn to other objects in a straight line? And as far as your magnet concept that isn't a mystery, that is well known property of feromagnetism. However I'm a organic mass not an iron nail. Nothing we observe on Earth can be duplicated and experimented to show a living protein drawn to anything else... Well besides pointless debate over the internet that is.

917

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Gravitational Waves

« on: February 16, 2016, 06:39:54 AM »

Yeah, I think the upward acceleration thing is bunk. It really is superlative to the concept. With that aside, I do find it hard to pass the common sense test that we somehow are drawn by a magical property of mass to the ground, but that same force is to explain why we orbit around a star 93 million miles away.

918

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Gravitational Waves

« on: February 16, 2016, 04:40:15 AM »

I still don't understand how gravitation makes a planet spin and hold an orbit around an object when the equation itself says there is an attraction between two "products of mass." Doesn't sound like a simple extension to say that explains why an object would do every freaking thing possible to avoid another, ie: rotate around it instead, perpetually to infinity, never getting closer but holding just the right distance-- in Earths case, coincidentally by some kind of comical cosmic accident, the picture perfect distance for life to exist to be exact. I'm just concerned humanity bet on the wrong horse, metaphorically, and has been compounding the problem ever since. We went from being the center of our known universe to a lucky insignigant speck in the cosmos. My personal belief is we lie somewhere in between.

919

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Gravitational Waves

« on: February 16, 2016, 01:34:16 AM »

If gravity exists by virtue of mass then why do we revolve around the sun instead of careen into it? Why does the moon not fall to earth? Also by pressure and density I meant as to why something like a helium filled would go towards the part of the atmosphere with less pressure. That makes sense to me. But a force that can't totally be proven in its accepted form having hundreds of years of math piled on top seems like a huge error in human scientific history

920

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Gravitational Waves

« on: February 15, 2016, 07:23:36 PM »

  I'm really glad we have people here who can comprehend these complex concepts. I'm not particularly one of those people.

In layman's terms can you explain to me what constitutes "up" and "down"? I don't believe in Newtonian gravity, and I feel there is adequate cause to believe density and pressure are enough to explain the phenomenon. But I'm still at a loss to explain why down is perpendicular to the plane.