1
Flat Earth Theory / Re: Everest challenge
« on: July 17, 2018, 01:57:00 PM »
Guys, you're forgetting about EA.
Show Posts
This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.
Pages: [1]
2
Flat Earth Theory / Re: The Flat Earth FAQ on Gravity is completely wrong
« on: July 16, 2018, 07:04:18 PM »
If we can all agree that there is a force/ acceleration, apparent or not, acting 'downwards' then we can all agree that on both a flat Earth and a globe the atmospheric pressure will be exponentially decreasing. The barometric formula developed by Boltzman, with its foundation in statistical mechanics, makes no assumption on the shape of the Earth. All that is assumed is that there is an acceleration that is constant in height (a fair one for the globe theory). The exponential decrease in pressure is purely a consequence of the statistical thermodynamics and says nothing on the shape of the Earth or whether or not there is gravity.
Just to be more explicit. Here is the important line in the Wikipedia article:
So, for all theories there should be a vacuum at very high altitudes.
Just to be more explicit. Here is the important line in the Wikipedia article:
Quote
Assuming constant temperature, molar mass, and gravitational acceleration, we get the barometric formula...
So, for all theories there should be a vacuum at very high altitudes.
3
Flat Earth Community / Re: What FE Experiment would you believe?
« on: July 16, 2018, 04:56:52 PM »
Just to add an answer to the original post. No specific experiment would convince me. However, if there are a set of results covering many aspects of a wider theory that have been shown to fit the precipitations of the theory, then I'd be convinced.
For example: you could argue the world was flat because the ground around us is flat. This doesn't cover the entire phase space of the problem however, because the Earth is much larger than the local space. Though if you provided this as an experiment along with others that also demonstrated the Earth was flat on a larger scale, I'd be convinced.
As it stands, only the globe Earth theory predictions can consistently meet observations from many different experiments covering the entire scale and scope of the "shape of the world" argument. Please correct me if I'm wrong but this is clearly demonstrated by the lack of arguments against GET predictions. The discussions of theory in this entire forum are dedicated to developing FET. Essentially, FET is playing catch up and it's nowhere near being a complete theory that can properly explain all the observations we can make here on Earth.
For example: you could argue the world was flat because the ground around us is flat. This doesn't cover the entire phase space of the problem however, because the Earth is much larger than the local space. Though if you provided this as an experiment along with others that also demonstrated the Earth was flat on a larger scale, I'd be convinced.
As it stands, only the globe Earth theory predictions can consistently meet observations from many different experiments covering the entire scale and scope of the "shape of the world" argument. Please correct me if I'm wrong but this is clearly demonstrated by the lack of arguments against GET predictions. The discussions of theory in this entire forum are dedicated to developing FET. Essentially, FET is playing catch up and it's nowhere near being a complete theory that can properly explain all the observations we can make here on Earth.
Pages: [1]