[Nick428]

1. Tides.
If gravity is fake, how do tides occur on a flat earth? I searched up the King of Flat Earth (Eric Dubay) but could not find a video explaining them, only attempted to debunk the heliocentric model. So, please explain how tides are possible and why the high/low tides change positions everyday.

2. Eclipses.
The path of totality is always curved, and the closer the paths are to the poles, the more curved they are. Hmm. Also, I have not seen one answer how lunar eclipses are possible. on the flat earth. I searched for the KOFE (King of Flat Earth) and could not find an answer, once again, only attempted to debunk the globe.

3. Sunrises/Sunsets. I've seen many videos attempting to explain how these are possible. But according to the flat earth, the sun should appear to be smaller as it's setting. This is not the case. If you watch the sunset/sunrise at ground level, then quickly ascend in altitude, you will see another sunset/sunrise. On the flat earth, this is impossible since gaining altitude does not allow you to see more AND the sun would be out of eyesight. A perfect example to demonstrate this is:

[QED]

1. Tides.
If gravity is fake, how do tides occur on a flat earth? I searched up the King of Flat Earth (Eric Dubay) but could not find a video explaining them, only attempted to debunk the heliocentric model. So, please explain how tides are possible and why the high/low tides change positions everyday.

2. Eclipses.
The path of totality is always curved, and the closer the paths are to the poles, the more curved they are. Hmm. Also, I have not seen one answer how lunar eclipses are possible. on the flat earth. I searched for the KOFE (King of Flat Earth) and could not find an answer, once again, only attempted to debunk the globe.

3. Sunrises/Sunsets. I've seen many videos attempting to explain how these are possible. But according to the flat earth, the sun should appear to be smaller as it's setting. This is not the case. If you watch the sunset/sunrise at ground level, then quickly ascend in altitude, you will see another sunset/sunrise. On the flat earth, this is impossible since gaining altitude does not allow you to see more AND the sun would be out of eyesight. A perfect example to demonstrate this is:

1. The flat plane of the Earth could rotate. This would cause tides. In fact, it is probably possible to compute the angular speed of the plane that would do it.

2. All this demonstrates is that the occlusion is curved, not that it is the Earth’s shadow that makes it so.

3. Check out vanishing perspective theory on the FE wiki.

There are much better arguments to propose that challenge a FE view. These are not very difficult, really.

Hope this helps

[Nick428]

Thank you for responding.

1. Tides.
If gravity is fake, how do tides occur on a flat earth? I searched up the King of Flat Earth (Eric Dubay) but could not find a video explaining them, only attempted to debunk the heliocentric model. So, please explain how tides are possible and why the high/low tides change positions everyday.

2. Eclipses.
The path of totality is always curved, and the closer the paths are to the poles, the more curved they are. Hmm. Also, I have not seen one answer how lunar eclipses are possible. on the flat earth. I searched for the KOFE (King of Flat Earth) and could not find an answer, once again, only attempted to debunk the globe.

3. Sunrises/Sunsets. I've seen many videos attempting to explain how these are possible. But according to the flat earth, the sun should appear to be smaller as it's setting. This is not the case. If you watch the sunset/sunrise at ground level, then quickly ascend in altitude, you will see another sunset/sunrise. On the flat earth, this is impossible since gaining altitude does not allow you to see more AND the sun would be out of eyesight. A perfect example to demonstrate this is:

1. Tides.
If gravity is fake, how do tides occur on a flat earth? I searched up the King of Flat Earth (Eric Dubay) but could not find a video explaining them, only attempted to debunk the heliocentric model. So, please explain how tides are possible and why the high/low tides change positions everyday.

2. Eclipses.
The path of totality is always curved, and the closer the paths are to the poles, the more curved they are. Hmm. Also, I have not seen one answer how lunar eclipses are possible. on the flat earth. I searched for the KOFE (King of Flat Earth) and could not find an answer, once again, only attempted to debunk the globe.

3. Sunrises/Sunsets. I've seen many videos attempting to explain how these are possible. But according to the flat earth, the sun should appear to be smaller as it's setting. This is not the case. If you watch the sunset/sunrise at ground level, then quickly ascend in altitude, you will see another sunset/sunrise. On the flat earth, this is impossible since gaining altitude does not allow you to see more AND the sun would be out of eyesight. A perfect example to demonstrate this is:

1. Tides.
If gravity is fake, how do tides occur on a flat earth? I searched up the King of Flat Earth (Eric Dubay) but could not find a video explaining them, only attempted to debunk the heliocentric model. So, please explain how tides are possible and why the high/low tides change positions everyday.

2. Eclipses.
The path of totality is always curved, and the closer the paths are to the poles, the more curved they are. Hmm. Also, I have not seen one answer how lunar eclipses are possible. on the flat earth. I searched for the KOFE (King of Flat Earth) and could not find an answer, once again, only attempted to debunk the globe.

3. Sunrises/Sunsets. I've seen many videos attempting to explain how these are possible. But according to the flat earth, the sun should appear to be smaller as it's setting. This is not the case. If you watch the sunset/sunrise at ground level, then quickly ascend in altitude, you will see another sunset/sunrise. On the flat earth, this is impossible since gaining altitude does not allow you to see more AND the sun would be out of eyesight. A perfect example to demonstrate this is:

1. The flat plane of the Earth could rotate. This would cause tides. In fact, it is probably possible to compute the angular speed of the plane that would do it.

2. All this demonstrates is that the occlusion is curved, not that it is the Earth’s shadow that makes it so.

3. Check out vanishing perspective theory on the FE wiki.

There are much better arguments to propose that challenge a FE view. These are not very difficult, really.

Hope this helps

1. Flat earthers don't believe in gravity, so we would be feeling the centrifugal force at all time, not the case. Also, this doesn't explain how high/low tides change position everyday, unless the plane would make one full rotation every 27 days, the same amount it takes for the moon to orbit on the heliocentric model. But the rotation would be so weak, it couldn't be strong enough to create tides. I'm also wondering how neap tides can occur on a flat earth.

2. Can you elaborate more on this? I'm not at all familiar with meteorology. But how does the occlusion cause paths of totality to be more curved at the poles? Wouldn't these lines be straight on a flat earth earth?

3. Check out vanishing perspective theory on the FE wiki.
Please provide a link. On the flat earth, we would be seeing the same things increasing in altitude, but on the globe earth, as demonstrated in the video linked below, we are able to see MORE (in this case the sun) because of the geometry and curvature of earth.

[QED]

1. If we don’t believe in gravity why would we believe in the fictitious centrifugal force.

Sure it does, you’re just not using your imagination. The sloshing is not in phase with the rotation. This happens any time a driving force is not a multiple of the system’s Natural frequency. Neap tides could be explained by a precession in the rotation. In fact, given the predictability of them, one could probably compute the time period of the precession. Give it a try!

[QED]

2. It’s simple if you allow another object to be the source of the shadow. You’re only confused because you implicitly insist the Earth must cause it.

3. I don’t have the link handy. Just navigate to the wiki from the menu and search for it. Sorry.

[Nick428]

1. If we don’t believe in gravity why would we believe in the fictitious centrifugal force.
Sure it does, you’re just not using your imagination. The sloshing is not in phase with the rotation. This happens any time a driving force is not a multiple of the system’s Natural frequency. Neap tides could be explained by a precession in the rotation. In fact, given the predictability of them, one could probably compute the time period of the precession. Give it a try!

Well if the centrifugal force is nonexistant, what force is keeping the Earth from rotating? We would be able to feel it, and fly in the air since gravity can't hold us down. (Yall don't believe in gravity)

At my recent response, I made a mistake saying that neap tides occur once every 27 days, they occur once every 13 days. So does the flat plane make one full rotation once a day or once every 13 days with this axial precession occurring ~6-7 days? If the flat plane has an axis, we would all be falling off it though because gravity is nonexistant to the model.

[Nick428]

2. It’s simple if you allow another object to be the source of the shadow. You’re only confused because you implicitly insist the Earth must cause it.

Well of course the Earth causes it. That's a known fact known around the world unless you can present evidence disproving it. There's a reason why it doesn't occur every month when the moon goes in Earth's shadow. You haven't even presented evidence showing how these are possible on the flat earth in the first place. How am I supposed to take you seriously?

[QED]

2. It’s simple if you allow another object to be the source of the shadow. You’re only confused because you implicitly insist the Earth must cause it.

Well of course the Earth causes it. That's a known fact known around the world unless you can present evidence disproving it. There's a reason why it doesn't occur every month when the moon goes in Earth's shadow. You haven't even presented evidence showing how these are possible on the flat earth in the first place. How am I supposed to take you seriously?

It was also a well known fact that if you do not appease the Gods with human sacrifice, then bad shit will follow.

It was also a known fact that the natural healing process for wounds was to supperate.

It was also a known fact that the Earth was the center of the Universe.

It was also a known fact that Jesus/Mohammed/Brahma/blahblahblah is the true prophet or deity.

It was also a known fact that the Universe is static.

So do forgive me if your known fact - and eye-rolling outrage - does not seem compelling to me. Bring evidence.

What do you believe, hmmm? Are you an anti-vaxxer? Christian? Rebuplican? What do you believe that would astonish me because-everyone-in-the-world-knows-that’s-not-true?

I bet me britches you got one. Probably won’t have to dig too deep either.

What beliefs do you have that are so obvious to you that you would never question them? Hmmm? What kind of “flat-earther” are YOU?

[Nick428]

2. It’s simple if you allow another object to be the source of the shadow. You’re only confused because you implicitly insist the Earth must cause it.

Well of course the Earth causes it. That's a known fact known around the world unless you can present evidence disproving it. There's a reason why it doesn't occur every month when the moon goes in Earth's shadow. You haven't even presented evidence showing how these are possible on the flat earth in the first place. How am I supposed to take you seriously?

It was also a well known fact that if you do not appease the Gods with human sacrifice, then bad shit will follow.

It was also a known fact that the natural healing process for wounds was to supperate.

It was also a known fact that the Earth was the center of the Universe.

It was also a known fact that Jesus/Mohammed/Brahma/blahblahblah is the true prophet or deity.

It was also a known fact that the Universe is static.

So do forgive me if your known fact - and eye-rolling outrage - does not seem compelling to me. Bring evidence.

What do you believe, hmmm? Are you an anti-vaxxer? Christian? Rebuplican? What do you believe that would astonish me because-everyone-in-the-world-knows-that’s-not-true?

I bet me britches you got one. Probably won’t have to dig too deep either.

What beliefs do you have that are so obvious to you that you would never question them? Hmmm? What kind of “flat-earther” are YOU?

A known fact is something that modern laws of physics approve of, sort of like common sense. It is a known fact that a lunar eclipse occurs when the Earth is perfectly in line, and in between the sun and moon, because modern science approves that. 500 years ago, it was a "known fact" that the geocentric model with the Earth being at the center of the universe was correct because with their little knowledge compared to what we have today, their "science" approved of a geocentric model, because they knew very little back then. Science can always be wrong. Astrophysicists and scientists today know that we orbit the sun, while they went through years of extra education in a field you clearly know nothing about, so either prove them wrong or keep your mouth shut. Science has been wrong in the past. So present evidence disproving the heliocentric model and disprove the "known fact" of how lunar eclipses can occur, or keep believing in a flat earth.

And yes, I am a proud Christian, republican, pro-vaxxer, and evolution believer, but that's not what we're talking about.

You want evidence? Sure.
- The round shadow Earth makes on the moon
- The orange light on the moon's surface, clearly showing the scattered light is from the Sun
- The accurate predictions of lunar eclipses, years ahead
- The fact that it is always a full moon when the eclipse occurs

[QED]

Well now that’s a bit rude of you, Nick!

Thank you for acknowledging how often your science has been wrong in the past, and is quite possibly wrong in the present.

It is not my job to prove anything wrong, that isn’t how science works.

So it sounds like you don’t really like that whole “thinking” business, and instead just believe what “common facts” are told to you. I guess that makes sense, seeing as how you believe in an imaginary god and voted for Trump.

But that’s not what we’re talking about.

Why don’t you go learn about your RE theory. Come back when you have enough knowledge of it to describe things beyond what can be googled in a few minutes. Learn how orbits work and how you compute them. Better yet, take some classes.

I love your observation about the fact that eclipses only happen during a full moon. To my knowledge, you are the only person ever to draw attention to that here.

Best of luck lad.

[Nick428]

Well now that’s a bit rude of you, Nick!
It is not my job to prove anything wrong, that isn’t how science works.

Well, you're here claiming the Earth is flat, and that the heliocentric model is incorrect, so to make such a claim, you need to back it up with evidence.

Why don’t you go learn about your RE theory. Come back when you have enough knowledge of it to describe things beyond what can be googled in a few minutes. Learn how orbits work and how you compute them. Better yet, take some classes.

I'm familiar with orbits.

I love your observation about the fact that eclipses only happen during a full moon. To my knowledge, you are the only person ever to draw attention to that here.

Thanks.

[QED]

Well now that’s a bit rude of you, Nick!
It is not my job to prove anything wrong, that isn’t how science works.

Well, you're here claiming the Earth is flat, and that the heliocentric model is incorrect, so to make such a claim, you need to back it up with evidence.

Why don’t you go learn about your RE theory. Come back when you have enough knowledge of it to describe things beyond what can be googled in a few minutes. Learn how orbits work and how you compute them. Better yet, take some classes.

I'm familiar with orbits.

I love your observation about the fact that eclipses only happen during a full moon. To my knowledge, you are the only person ever to draw attention to that here.

Thanks.

Excuse me Nicholas, but what claims did I make exactly? Could you provide those quotes?

Or did you just assume what I believe?

Glad you understand orbits. So I assume you can derive kepler’s Second law. Of course you can. What was that conservation law that it derives from again?

And of course it makes complete sense to you that bound orbits have negative energy. Of course.

There is one bound orbit that doesn’t have negative energy. What type is that again?

I know, I’m being kinda pricky here. I shouldn’t do that. Lemme know how I can help your understanding of orbits and it will be my pleasure.

[Nick428]

Well on other threads you claim the Earth is flat, so since you are going up against a model that has been proven to be true for over 400 years, you need to present evidence to disprove mainstream science.

I had a project on gravity and it's effect on orbits, so I guess I understand orbital mechanics at a beginner's level.

Kepler's Second Law states the closer an object gets to the perihelion of orbit, the faster it'll accelerate, causing it to have the most kinetic energy, and least potential kinetic energy. More eccentric orbits cause it to accelerate more.

Oh yes, elliptic orbits have negative energy, it makes sense.

Elliptic orbits are the only ones with negative energy since it's a periodic orbit.

And I'm sure you know the type of orbit where it exceeds enough velocity to escape the gravitational field of an object, one of 2 orbits with positive energy.

[QED]

Well on other threads you claim the Earth is flat, so since you are going up against a model that has been proven to be true for over 400 years, you need to present evidence to disprove mainstream science.

I had a project on gravity and it's effect on orbits, so I guess I understand orbital mechanics at a beginner's level.

Kepler's Second Law states the closer an object gets to the perihelion of orbit, the faster it'll accelerate, causing it to have the most kinetic energy, and least potential kinetic energy. More eccentric orbits cause it to accelerate more.

Oh yes, elliptic orbits have negative energy, it makes sense.

Elliptic orbits are the only ones with negative energy since it's a periodic orbit.

And I'm sure you know the type of orbit where it exceeds enough velocity to escape the gravitational field of an object, one of 2 orbits with positive energy.

Find me the quote where I say that. I’ll wait.

So the conservation law used to derive Keplers second law is conservation of angular momentum. I asked this question because it is difficult to find in a google search

The correct answer is circular orbits, which are bound orbits with ZERO energy.

Non-bound orbits make hyperbolas, with the Sun at the focus.

This has been fun, but I think we’re done here, unless you can produce that quote.

[Blazar]

There is no proof or comparable experiment to prove that the moon causes the tides or that gravity exists at all. I know that fanatical scientists have claimed to have collected data to prove this, but it was with million dollar extra-sensory machines to which very very few people will ever see the raw data. As a result this data is interpreted by the highest bidder.

Let me explain proof for you. If a friend of mine says he sees a lion at the zoo, I'd believe him. If he said he saw a unicorn at the zoo, I would then have to go to the zoo to see the unicorn to believe him. Now even if I see the unicorn behind the fence, there's no telling if it's a unicorn, someone could have glued a horn to its head. So to confirm that it truly is a unicorn I would need to speak to the animal trainer to have a chance at gaining access to the cage. Many heliocentric followers go no further than the 2nd step when deciding what to believe. If you tell them about it and show it on a picture on a tv screen, that's enough proof for them. Those fanatical people 400 years ago that determined the world was round also asked you to abandon all sense and reason in the name of god. Prior to that, in order to gain power, they exiled and murder anyone who disagreed with them (inquisition). During that they commanded people in the name of god to go slaughter Muslims in the crusades. The people who "proved" the heliocentric model 400 years ago were fanatical perverts.

[Nick428]

Well on other threads you claim the Earth is flat, so since you are going up against a model that has been proven to be true for over 400 years, you need to present evidence to disprove mainstream science.

I had a project on gravity and it's effect on orbits, so I guess I understand orbital mechanics at a beginner's level.

Kepler's Second Law states the closer an object gets to the perihelion of orbit, the faster it'll accelerate, causing it to have the most kinetic energy, and least potential kinetic energy. More eccentric orbits cause it to accelerate more.

Oh yes, elliptic orbits have negative energy, it makes sense.

Elliptic orbits are the only ones with negative energy since it's a periodic orbit.

And I'm sure you know the type of orbit where it exceeds enough velocity to escape the gravitational field of an object, one of 2 orbits with positive energy.

Find me the quote where I say that. I’ll wait.

So the conservation law used to derive Keplers second law is conservation of angular momentum. I asked this question because it is difficult to find in a google search

The correct answer is circular orbits, which are bound orbits with ZERO energy.

Non-bound orbits make hyperbolas, with the Sun at the focus.

This has been fun, but I think we’re done here, unless you can produce that quote.

No, elliptical orbits also have negative energy, since they are a periodic orbit orbiting around the foci.

Too lazy to find a quote, but on other threads, your response always assumes you are a flat earther.

[Nick428]

There is no proof or comparable experiment to prove that the moon causes the tides or that gravity exists at all. I know that fanatical scientists have claimed to have collected data to prove this, but it was with million dollar extra-sensory machines to which very very few people will ever see the raw data. As a result this data is interpreted by the highest bidder.

Evidence for gravity:
- You can pick up a 10lb weight, but can't pick up a truck
- Objects accelerating faster the more they fall
- Buoyancy
And also this:

Clearly demonstrates that 2 objects with completely different densities fell on the floor at the same time in a vacuum

Since most of you flat earthers claim that density is an alternative for gravity, I'm going to address that too. You need a force to accelerate a mass, density is not a force. Why do objects accelerate to the ground?

Evidence for tidal force being effected by moons gravity:
- Stronger tides when moon is in perihelion of orbit
- Spring tides being stronger, with moon being a new moon/full moon
- 2 high tides and 2 low tides a day, with one high tide being stronger, and one being weaker
- The position of the high/low tides changing everyday, correlating to the moon's orbit

Tons of evidence proving gravity, and that the heliocentric model stands correct.

[QED]

Well on other threads you claim the Earth is flat, so since you are going up against a model that has been proven to be true for over 400 years, you need to present evidence to disprove mainstream science.

I had a project on gravity and it's effect on orbits, so I guess I understand orbital mechanics at a beginner's level.

Kepler's Second Law states the closer an object gets to the perihelion of orbit, the faster it'll accelerate, causing it to have the most kinetic energy, and least potential kinetic energy. More eccentric orbits cause it to accelerate more.

Oh yes, elliptic orbits have negative energy, it makes sense.

Elliptic orbits are the only ones with negative energy since it's a periodic orbit.

And I'm sure you know the type of orbit where it exceeds enough velocity to escape the gravitational field of an object, one of 2 orbits with positive energy.

Find me the quote where I say that. I’ll wait.

So the conservation law used to derive Keplers second law is conservation of angular momentum. I asked this question because it is difficult to find in a google search

The correct answer is circular orbits, which are bound orbits with ZERO energy.

Non-bound orbits make hyperbolas, with the Sun at the focus.

This has been fun, but I think we’re done here, unless you can produce that quote.

No, elliptical orbits also have negative energy, since they are a periodic orbit orbiting around the foci.

Too lazy to find a quote, but on other threads, your response always assumes you are a flat earther.

Not all elliptical orbits do. Ellipses with a particular eccentricity, making them a circle, have zero energy. Circles are ellipses where both foci occupy the same location.

You’re also too lazy to learn, apparently.

[Nick428]

Elliptic orbits aren't circular orbits.
Circular: e = 0
Elliptic 0 < e < 1
Elliptic orbits have negative energy because they are a periodic orbit, and don't have enough orbital energy to exceed the escape velocity for the object they are orbiting. The Vis-viva equation can calculate this.
ε= -(μ/2a) where:
ε= orbital energy
μ= standard gravitational parameter
a= semi-major axis
ε < 0 because elliptic orbits have negative energy, as I said from the very beginning.

[QED]

Elliptic orbits aren't circular orbits.
Circular: e = 0
Elliptic 0 < e < 1
Elliptic orbits have negative energy because they are a periodic orbit, and don't have enough orbital energy to exceed the escape velocity for the object they are orbiting. The Vis-viva equation can calculate this.
ε= -(μ/2a) where:
ε= orbital energy
μ= standard gravitational parameter
a= semi-major axis
ε < 0 because elliptic orbits have negative energy, as I said from the very beginning.

That isn’t what I said. I said circular orbits are elliptical orbits. They are a kind of elliptical orbit. Just like a square is a kind of rectangle.

In science, words are important. So please pay better attention.