41

Flat Earth Investigations / Re: Proof positive the earth is flat

« on: May 16, 2021, 01:04:39 PM »

With up I also understood it as upwards.
I do not believe that any of the videos in this thread prove that the Earth cannot be round.
They do not disprove FE either.

42

Flat Earth Investigations / Re: Proof positive the earth is flat

« on: May 16, 2021, 08:12:21 AM »

Go to 0:45 of this video and there is one clearly going up.

Note that all shooting stars are just dust particles or small rocks that burn in the Earth's atmosphere.
The ones that appear to go up only do this because of the observer's perspective. They actually also fall towards Earth.

43

Flat Earth Investigations / Re: Cavendish experiment

« on: May 15, 2021, 06:00:32 AM »

He clearly suggests the recommended range is invalid and questionable there, rather than your suggestion that he is supporting it wholeheartedly. This is another point against you.

How do you get to the conclusion that "he clearly suggests the recommended range is invalid and questionable there"? He simply does not say that. He does not mention the range at all in this quote. What he only talks about is our ability to measure small forces. He always talks about being able to take accurate measurements rather than measurements in general.

This is a another article from Quinn:

https://www.nature.com/articles/35050187?foxtrotcallback=true

It starts with "Newton's constant, G, which governs the strength of the gravitational attraction between two masses, is difficult to measure accurately".
He does not even question the existence of gravity as he takes it for granted both in this latest link and in the part from the other article that you quoted.

You can accept what he says or reject it, but you cannot use him as a reference for the notion that gravity does not exist.

44

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Why?

« on: May 12, 2021, 05:18:23 AM »

To continue to control the public and keep the public from realizing that there is a creator.

You can believe in a creator regardless of the shape of the Earth.
None of the religious people that I know believe that the Earth is flat.

45

Flat Earth Investigations / Re: Cavendish experiment

« on: May 11, 2021, 03:32:32 PM »

I merely pointed out that Quinn states they cannot measure gravity.

But you are cherry picking that statement and not looking at it in the context of the article which basically says "measuring G is hard, but we should be able to do better". Nothing in that article casts any doubt on the existence of gravity, it explicitly says that this doesn't change any scientific theories.

Nope. Saying that they need do do better isn't a statement that they are measuring gravity.

When he says "measuring G is hard, but we should be able to do better" what do you think that he is saying that they are measuring?
In what way is it not a statement that they are measuring gravity?

46

Flat Earth Investigations / Re: Cavendish experiment

« on: May 11, 2021, 06:52:33 AM »

Quinn does not talk about being able to measure gravity.

Actually, he does. Maybe you should read the article:

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/puzzling-measurement-of-big-g-gravitational-constant-ignites-debate-slide-show/

I would ask that whenever you quote me you do not cherry pick to misrepresent what I wrote.
The full quote is:

"Quinn does not talk about being able to measure gravity. He rather talks about the degree of precision to which we can measure it."

The above is consistent to what is written in the article that you posted and also to the one I posted.

47

Flat Earth Investigations / Re: Cavendish experiment

« on: May 10, 2021, 05:47:36 PM »

Quinn says "Could these unresolved discrepancies in G hide some new physics? This seems unlikely. I believe undiscovered systematic errors in all or some of these new experiments is the answer"
At the top of the article you can see that the "unresolved discrepancies" are "about 400ppm".

It is clear that he believes that it is the differences of up to 400ppm that are caused by the systematic errors. He does not say that the systematic errors give him any lack of confidence beyond these discrepancies.
Quinn does not talk about being able to measure gravity. He rather talks about the degree of precision to which we can measure it.

As I said, you cannot really believe that something that cannot be measured cannot exist. To give you an example, what is the distance from the Earth to the Moon? Can it be measured within FE?

Also to give you an example which is more analogous to the discussion on what Quinn says, can you measure your height in micrometers (μm)? If not, does this mean that you do not exist?

48

Flat Earth Theory / Re: More UA and planes

« on: May 10, 2021, 05:26:58 PM »

I can only assume that as the air is being pushed up by the ground so the airplane is being pushed up by the air.

49

Flat Earth Investigations / Re: Cavendish experiment

« on: May 10, 2021, 05:00:58 PM »

Where do you see that he has no confidence in "how it is being measured, what is being measured, or even in the validity of the experiments themselves"? He simply does not say that.

He does not say that no one needs an accurate measurement of gravity.
He says that no one needs a "more accurate numerical value of G (the current recommended value6 is 6.67408 ± 0.00031 × 10−11 kg−1 m3 s−2)".

Also you cannot really mean that if something cannot be measured then it cannot exist.

50

Flat Earth Investigations / Re: Cavendish experiment

« on: May 10, 2021, 04:30:06 PM »

How do you get from  "Who needs a more accurate numerical value of G (the current recommended value6 is 6.67408 ± 0.00031 × 10−11 kg−1 m3 s−2)" to "that means the measurements cannot be ascribed any degree of confidence in either what is being measured, how it is being measured, or both"?

He says that a more accurate numerical value is not needed rather than that the measurements do not have any degree of confidence. He actually said that the degree of error is 450ppm. How can you ignore that?

Note that we are not arguing on whether what he says is correct or not. We are arguing on whether he can be used as a reference when one tries to debunk gravity as a thing.



Edited for a correction again. Sorry about that.

51

Flat Earth Investigations / Re: Cavendish experiment

« on: May 10, 2021, 03:48:01 PM »

Yes, but he did not just say "we should be able to measure gravity" in isolation. This is just one of the sentences of an article. You cannot just take this sentence and ignore the rest of the article.

As T. Quinn himself says, there have been many experiments that have measured gravity. The problem is that the results of these experiments differ by up to 450ppm and he believes that they need to do better than that.

Just read this: https://www.nature.com/articles/nphys3651?proof=t

Among other things he says "Who needs a more accurate numerical value of G (the current recommended value6 is 6.67408 ± 0.00031 × 10−11 kg−1 m3 s−2)? The short answer is, nobody, for the moment, but being apparently unable to converge on a value for G undermines our confidence in the metrology of small forces".

He clearly speaks about an unsatisfactory level of accuracy in the measurement rather than an inability to measure at all.


Edited to correct a spelling error

52

Flat Earth Investigations / Re: Cavendish experiment

« on: May 10, 2021, 03:02:59 PM »

So T. Quinn said that the results vary by as much as 450ppm (parts per million in case you do not know what ppm is).
He also said "although at present there is no pressing problem in theoretical physics that requires an accurate value of G, accurate values of the fundamental constants are an essential part of the foundations of physics".
Elsewhere he said "We should be able to measure gravity".

In what way does the interpretation of the above as meaning "we should be able to measure gravity accurately" misrepresent what T. Quinn said?

53

Flat Earth Investigations / Re: Cavendish experiment

« on: May 10, 2021, 01:04:45 PM »

Nothing in that article casts any doubt on the existence of gravity.

Quinn stating:  “We should be able to measure gravity.” - seems to cast huge doubt on the existence of gravity, considering that is a full admission they cannot measure it.

You cannot just isolate this sentence out of the entire document and claim that it implies that gravity does not exist.

It is the same as me taking into isolation "seems to cast huge doubt on the existence of gravity" and say that Action80 wrote that it only seems to cast doubt on the existence of gravity so Action80 supports that it does not cast doubt on the existence of gravity.

Edited for clarity.

I do not believe a more feeble attempt to communicate a point has ever been made here on this forum.

Regardless, Quinn stating "We should be able to measure gravity," doesn't imply anything.

It admits that gravity cannot be measured and has not been measured.

From that, I can infer gravity doesn't exist.

If you read the entire article you will see that he only means that they should be able to measure gravity more accurately.
Your attempt to say that he means that they cannot measure gravity at all sounds much more feeble than my comment actually.

54

Flat Earth Investigations / Re: Cavendish experiment

« on: May 10, 2021, 12:30:24 PM »

Nothing in that article casts any doubt on the existence of gravity.

Quinn stating:  “We should be able to measure gravity.” - seems to cast huge doubt on the existence of gravity, considering that is a full admission they cannot measure it.

You cannot just isolate this sentence out of the entire document and claim that it implies that gravity does not exist.

It is the same as me taking into isolation "seems to cast huge doubt on the existence of gravity" and say that Action80 wrote that it only seems to cast doubt on the existence of gravity so Action80 supports that it does not cast doubt on the existence of gravity.

Edited for clarity.

55

Flat Earth Theory / Re: My Happiest Thought

« on: April 16, 2021, 06:35:29 AM »

What if there is a giant rocket dead-center (shape-wise) so that no matter which way it tilts, the rocket is always pushing 'up'?

It would fall if its mass is not evenly distributed. Take for example a saucer and balance it on your finger. You can easily do it because it is evenly balanced.
Add a cookie to the side of it and it will tilt or even fall.

Edited to add this: I think I misunderstood what you said. Did you mean that the "rocket" changes the direction of the force so that when it tilts it is pushed up in the new direction where the disk is facing?

56

Flat Earth Community / Re: Questions for flat earth

« on: March 18, 2021, 06:58:30 AM »

I am not a "believer" of flat Earth. I do not think that one needs to be a supporter of a flat Earth model to answer your questions, though, so I'll give it a try.

1) There is no evidence of alien life yet and definitely not of alien intelligent life that has visited us. Hypothetically speaking they could be coming either from beyond the ice wall or from within the Earth. Or we can ask them when we see one! On their motivations to interact with us I would say that curiosity would be the main driver. Or conquest!!

2) You question on the firmament cannot be answered, but the same goes for outer space. If the firmament does not exist then who put outer space there? It is a philosophical question rather than a scientific one. Note that the existence of the firmament is a separate issue to the question on the shape of the Earth.

3) Regarding the number of people that have studied this, based on the answers I've seen in other posts here, I would say that proponents of a flat Earth support that it is because most people are nurtured to the idea of a spherical Earth in childhood and never challenge this as adults.

57

Suggestions & Concerns / Re: Post limit on DMs

« on: March 17, 2021, 01:38:50 PM »

Valid points. You convinced me, it is fair.

58

Suggestions & Concerns / Re: Post limit on DMs

« on: March 17, 2021, 11:18:43 AM »

Yes, but isn't it that people with a very low number of posts (like me) are those who would most likely need to contact someone such as a moderator in case they have a question?

Edited to better phrase what I wanted to say.

59

Flat Earth Investigations / Re: How does FE explain star trails?

« on: February 07, 2021, 05:48:24 PM »

I think that we can all agree that the process that JSS followed to get his photos of the circular star trails is easily reproducible.

Why doesn't anyone else do the same to check the validity of his results?