81

Flat Earth Theory / Re: evidence- for and against

« on: January 19, 2015, 08:32:39 AM »

Excuse my ignorance. the reason i made that point was that irushwithscvs posted a recommendation to seek other knowledge elsewhere. Wherever i go to seek extra knowledge, i am bombarded with absolutely nothing suggesting that anyone outside a blind fringe group ( no offence ) has even considered that the earth is flat.
I respectfully request that you keep my nationality out of this pizaaplanet.
Australians are just as intelligent and respectable as Americans

What are your precise questions? I will try to supply you with the resources to discover the answers.

How about any actual irrefutable evidence that the Earth is flat?

82

Flat Earth Theory / Re: evidence- for and against

« on: January 19, 2015, 08:07:50 AM »

Measurements point to it being true.
So... who to believe? Someone who simply cannot think or a scientific measurement? I choose the scientific measurement.

Whether or not the bulge is significant or not, it is not a perfect sphere. A difference of 42 kms is pretty small on a planetary scale, but certainly seems large enough if you were to go out and travel 42 kms.

Your analogy of rounding 0.3 to 1 instead of to 0 is an inaccurate analogy.
An oblate spheroid is a rotationally symmetric ellipsoid having a polar axis shorter than the diameter of the equatorial circle whose plane bisects it.
Because the difference is only 42 kms does not mean that the definition is moot.

Perhaps if you learn more about RET, you'll understand why it isn't true. I suggest going over more geodesy topics before engaging me again; I won't repeat myself ad infinitum only to have you argue the same incorrect point in a likewise manner.

While I am unfamiliar with Round Earth Theory for the simple reason that it is not a scientific theory as it is an observable fact, I am quite knowledgable about how a round world works. Besides living on a round Earth, I teach secondary science, which includes Earth and Atmospheric Sciences to grade 9.
Everything about a round Earth works flawlessly with all the observations you can make about the Earth and have been made about the Earth as well as all the measurements taken over the years by thousands of scientists.

I find it funny how so many on this site claim the 'countless' experiments, observations and calculations that 'prove' the Earth flat and yet the very wiki that you tell everyone to go to for answers only has a couple experiments listed under 'evidence' that have been thoroughly debunked for years.

The only thing this site has a lot of is thought experiments. Attempts to explain phenomenon IF the world was flat. Sadly, none of them graduate beyond attempts (and I have read the entire wiki - that also is 'sadly').
Funny is that anything that a thought experiment assuming a flat Earth cannot explain is simply passed off as a hoax or conspiracy. I say funny, but it really is kind of sad.

If repeating yourself is annoying, then stop repeating points that have already been refuted. If debating is too far beneath you, don't debate.

83

Flat Earth Theory / Re: evidence- for and against

« on: January 19, 2015, 04:21:46 AM »

Although it's oblateness is minuscule it is measurable so why ignore it?

Do you believe that 0.9999 repeating equals 1?

Yes, 0.9999 repeating equals 1... there are several mathematical proofs to show this

84

Flat Earth Theory / Re: evidence- for and against

« on: January 19, 2015, 04:20:44 AM »

This whole argument is irrelevant. The Earth is not an oblate spheroid or a perfect sphere. It is flat. Period. Heaps of evidence prove this.

And yet, I have yet to see a single piece of evidence that can stand up to any scrutiny.
I have however seen many that show a round Earth, including personal experience.

Denying evidence does not make the evidence nonexistent.

85

Flat Earth Theory / Re: evidence- for and against

« on: January 19, 2015, 04:18:08 AM »

The Earth is an oblate spheroid.
The Earth has a slight bulge around its equator due to its rotation.
https://www.princeton.edu/~achaney/tmve/wiki100k/docs/Equatorial_bulge.html

This isn't correct, even if RET were true. If the Earth were a sphere, its rotational velocity is not high enough to create a oceanic bulge that could classify it as something other than a sphere. While it is not a perfect sphere, it is closer to the defined properties of a sphere than it is to the defined properties of an oblate spheroid. It's like taking 0.3 and saying it would be better to round it to 1 than 0.

Measurements point to it being true.
So... who to believe? Someone who simply cannot think or a scientific measurement? I choose the scientific measurement.

Whether or not the bulge is significant or not, it is not a perfect sphere. A difference of 42 kms is pretty small on a planetary scale, but certainly seems large enough if you were to go out and travel 42 kms.

Your analogy of rounding 0.3 to 1 instead of to 0 is an inaccurate analogy.
An oblate spheroid is a rotationally symmetric ellipsoid having a polar axis shorter than the diameter of the equatorial circle whose plane bisects it.
Because the difference is only 42 kms does not mean that the definition is moot.

86

Flat Earth Theory / Re: evidence- for and against

« on: January 18, 2015, 06:31:51 PM »

RET FAQ:

Q: Is the Earth a sphere?

A: No.

Correct.
The Earth is an oblate spheroid.
The Earth has a slight bulge around its equator due to its rotation.
https://www.princeton.edu/~achaney/tmve/wiki100k/docs/Equatorial_bulge.html

87

Flat Earth Theory / Re: evidence- for and against

« on: January 18, 2015, 09:42:33 AM »

As for evidence, we have the Bedford Level experiment and various measurements showing that the Sun is only 3000 or so miles away. Read the wiki for exact equations.

Interesting that you mention that farce of an experiment.

If the world were round, then there is a cumulative curvature to it. Experimentation on land is difficult to do due to land being anything but flat (as a look out my door can attest to).
Water is the best medium since it would naturally follow gravity and best show any curvature to the Earth right? While this is true (for the most part), you have to be careful of the sample body of water used for observation.
The Bedford experiment uses... a river.
Now, a river is a horrible sample of water to use for one simple reason: it is running water. Running water flows downhill.
You are not going to get a significant curve over a short distance due to the downward flow of the water - it significantly reduces the amount of curve that can be observed. You are instead looking uphill and downhill (even if the grade is insignificant to perception).

The calculation that the sun is only 3000 miles away?
Eratosthenes calculated the Earth to have a circumference of 24,662 miles around 200BC. He used the angles of the sun in Syene and Alexandria to calculate a difference of 7.2 degrees.
His measurements were pretty accurate compared to the modern value of 24,900 miles.
Now, the calculation as to the distance of the sun was conducted based on his work, but simply changing his assumptions. By assuming the world is flat and using some trigonometry based on the 7.2 degree difference between the angle of the sunlight that fell on Syene and Alexandria, we will get a result of approximately 3000 miles.
See the problem? Making an assumption like "the world is flat" changes the outcome of the calculations. A better statement would be that the Sun is only 3000 or so miles away IF the Earth is flat.
The second problem with the calculation that the Suns is only 3000 miles away is that it only utilizes those 2 cities as data points. The calculations would need to be replicated at various locations before they mean anything.
That's a big thing in science: replicability in various situations.
When you find one piece of data that fits your idea, you must further test it in different situations and locations. Performing a single experiment and concluding you are correct is premature.

88

Flat Earth Theory / Re: evidence- for and against

« on: January 18, 2015, 06:25:56 AM »

Funny that you post those bullet points, without posting the subsequent debunking of each and every one of them. Go go gadget confirmation bias.

Funny that you use the term 'debunking' even though any 'debunking' I have ever seen here are only possible explanations (and even those only work when leaving out other bits of data) but never include any evidence that would actually debunk the phenomenon. (Thought experiments about how something would work IF the Earth were flat are not evidence).

On the other hand, I have yet to see any evidence for a Flat Earth (yes, I have read the entire wiki) that is not easy to debunk.

89

Flat Earth Theory / Re: No gravity on Earth

« on: January 16, 2015, 07:53:00 AM »

So much for thinking that someone would even to attempt to provide evidence that the Earth is accelerating... I guess I didn't expect much to begin with.

Until it's proven that the Earth is accelerating (upwards), the rest of the discussion about how it works is useless hypotheticals...

Drop an apple. Apple falls down.

Or, to spell it out for our friend AMann, the earth accelerates upward to meet the apple.

Sadly, that is not evidence. The fact that the apple and the Earth meet when dropped within the atmosphere of the Earth is only proof that a force acts on either the apple or the Earth, but it is not in itself evidence specifically that the Earth is accelerating 'upwards'.

Do you actually have something or is this wiki just a joke?

90

Flat Earth Theory / Re: No gravity on Earth

« on: January 16, 2015, 12:23:32 AM »

So much for thinking that someone would even to attempt to provide evidence that the Earth is accelerating... I guess I didn't expect much to begin with.

Until it's proven that the Earth is accelerating (upwards), the rest of the discussion about how it works is useless hypotheticals...

91

Flat Earth Theory / Re: No gravity on Earth

« on: January 14, 2015, 07:44:44 PM »

ok - I've been all through the wiki and something that seems to be severely lacking with the flat-earth idea is evidence.

Now, this idea of the Earth accelerating upwards intrigues me. I am looking for any evidence of it. Is there any?

The evidence for the acceleration, as indicated by the equivalence principle, is the force we experience as gravity.

That is an explanation not evidence.
The equivalence principle only attempts to show that there is little difference between the force of gravity and an acceleration of equal proportions. It is not however evidence that our perception of gravity is based on acceleration.
What empirical evidence is there that the Earth is accelerating?

92

Flat Earth Theory / Re: No gravity on Earth

« on: January 14, 2015, 08:15:32 AM »

ok - I've been all through the wiki and something that seems to be severely lacking with the flat-earth idea is evidence.

Now, this idea of the Earth accelerating upwards intrigues me. I am looking for any evidence of it. Is there any?

93

Flat Earth Theory / Re: No gravity on Earth

« on: January 12, 2015, 12:22:22 AM »

It is impossible to discern acceleration from a relative frame of reference. This is called The Equivalence Principle. You might want to study it as it is one of the most basic principles in physics.

I am familiar with the equivalence principle. It states that in any small region of space-time, the effects of a gravitational field are indistinguishable from those of an appropriate acceleration of the frame of reference.

Because of this principle, if I was unable to see (if I were in a closed box) and it were in free-fall, I would not be able to tell if I was experiencing the affects of free-fall or the affects of zero-gravity.
Similarly, if I were approaching the Earth at an acceleration of 9.81m/s^2, I would not be able to tell if it was gravity working on me or in the case that Earth had no gravity that the Earth was accelerating towards me at the same rate as gravity. (The impact with the Earth would be the same).

The difference between the principle and the idea that the Earth is accelerating in an upward direction is the direction of the forces on our bodies. With gravity, I would be falling to the Earth, whereas with an accelerating Earth, a force pushing up on us. In the case of Gravity, when on the ground, there is no acceleration. In the case an an accelerating Earth, there is an acceleration 'upwards' in which case inertia would work in opposition.

But we digress...

More important than the affects of inertia if certain situations were true is the evidence that the Earth is accelerating in an 'upward' direction. Without evidence, the idea, no matter how good it sounds, is merely a guess.

Wrong. Equivalence principle is why we don't feel Earth accelerating. If you want to argue the merit of the Equivalence Principle then you are in the wrong place. I'm sure Einstein would love to hear your theories on how he was wrong, but unfortunately he's dead so I guess we'll never know.

Either way, my money is on Einstein. Unless you're claiming to be smarter than him. Are you?

I do not claim to be smarter than anyone in particular. The fact of the matter is that in spite of how smart someone is, knowledge increases with generations as it is built on itself. I would highly doubt that I am smarter than Pythagoreas either, but I am confident that my math knowledge is above his simply because we have learned more since his time and built upon his concepts.

As I already said however, we are digressing from the point of the thread, which is looking for evidence of the idea that the Earth is accelerating in an 'upward' direction, which mimics the effects of gravity.
I do know that not everyone who believes the Earth is flat throw out the concept of gravity, so I am only looking for the evidence acquired that gave rise to the idea that the Earth was accelerating as opposed to being under the effects of gravity.

94

Flat Earth Theory / Re: No gravity on Earth

« on: January 11, 2015, 08:38:18 AM »

It is impossible to discern acceleration from a relative frame of reference. This is called The Equivalence Principle. You might want to study it as it is one of the most basic principles in physics.

I am familiar with the equivalence principle. It states that in any small region of space-time, the effects of a gravitational field are indistinguishable from those of an appropriate acceleration of the frame of reference.

Because of this principle, if I was unable to see (if I were in a closed box) and it were in free-fall, I would not be able to tell if I was experiencing the affects of free-fall or the affects of zero-gravity.
Similarly, if I were approaching the Earth at an acceleration of 9.81m/s^2, I would not be able to tell if it was gravity working on me or in the case that Earth had no gravity that the Earth was accelerating towards me at the same rate as gravity. (The impact with the Earth would be the same).

The difference between the principle and the idea that the Earth is accelerating in an upward direction is the direction of the forces on our bodies. With gravity, I would be falling to the Earth, whereas with an accelerating Earth, a force pushing up on us. In the case of Gravity, when on the ground, there is no acceleration. In the case an an accelerating Earth, there is an acceleration 'upwards' in which case inertia would work in opposition.

But we digress...

More important than the affects of inertia if certain situations were true is the evidence that the Earth is accelerating in an 'upward' direction. Without evidence, the idea, no matter how good it sounds, is merely a guess.

95

Flat Earth Theory / Re: No gravity on Earth

« on: January 11, 2015, 07:05:37 AM »

why is it that we do not feel the inertia of the acceleration of the Earth?

Why would we?

Because that is how inertia works.
You can test it yourself, it is a very easy experiment. Ride in a vehicle, have the driver step on the accelerator and feel yourself pushed back into the chair. As long as you are accelerating, you feel as if you are being pushed in the opposite direction of the acceleration.
It's one of the laws of inertia: For every action (force) there is an equal and opposite (force).

This also works in the up and down orientation and can be felt when traveling by plane, or if you are daring enough, skydiving or bungee jumping.

The force felt is often referred to as g-force, since it is based on the force of gravity (or on a FE site, the acceleration of the same rate that is perceived as the force of gravity).

96

Flat Earth Theory / Re: No gravity on Earth

« on: January 11, 2015, 06:12:34 AM »

Einstein came to the conclusion that the effect that most people think of as gravity is exactly the same as acceleration.  I think he was a pretty smart guy, don't you?

Since gravity is a force and a force applied to an object causes acceleration, this is something that is already known.
I was asking if there was any evidence of the 'upward' acceleration of the Earth... any experiments conducted... etc.

The trouble I have with the explanation of the Earth accelerating is inertia. The act of accelerating the Earth beneath us would cause inertia which can be felt. And inertia is something that I have experienced many times.

So, now, in addition to wondering if there is any evidence of the 'upward' acceleration of the Earth, why is it that we do not feel the inertia of the acceleration of the Earth?

97

Flat Earth Theory / No gravity on Earth

« on: January 09, 2015, 09:41:45 AM »

I was reading the Flat-Earth wiki and was a little surprised that gravity was removed from the model of the flat-Earth in order to make it work. So... what we are calling gravity is really the acceleration of the Earth in a direction opposite of what we would consider 'down'?
Ok... trying to wrap my head around that. Are there any experiments done that can be shared to confirm? Any evidence of this claim? Or is it simply a proposed mechanism in order to get the Flat-Earth idea around the need for gravity?
I am all for new cool thoughts, but this would require replicable evidence to start believing...