The Flat Earth Society
Flat Earth Discussion Boards => Flat Earth Theory => Topic started by: SimonC on November 20, 2022, 07:21:36 PM
-
I hope this post is in the right section. My sincere apologies if not.
Something struck me recently and am sure this must have been debated in the past. But the Congo and the Nile both cross the equator (the Congo twice). And generally speaking (at face value) there is something that does not seem quite right with this. And trying to visualise it from a round earth perspective just doesn't seem logical. If we imagine people hanging upside down from the globe in the southern hemisphere how can the Nile defy 'gravity' and flow in an upwards direction?
Have I missed something here or does this in fact lend itself further to the flat earth theory?
-
Never heard this one before. ::)
-
Is that a good thing (for Flat Earth theory)? :-)
-
I hope this post is in the right section. My sincere apologies if not.
Something struck me recently and am sure this must have been debated in the past. But the Congo and the Nile both cross the equator (the Congo twice). And generally speaking (at face value) there is something that does not seem quite right with this. And trying to visualise it from a round earth perspective just doesn't seem logical. If we imagine people hanging upside down from the globe in the southern hemisphere how can the Nile defy 'gravity' and flow in an upwards direction?
Have I missed something here or does this in fact lend itself further to the flat earth theory?
The flow of rivers will generally take the path of least resistance and flow downhill, because of gravity. The Nile isn't defying gravity, it's flowing downhill or in the direction of the path of least resistance.
I think your misconception might be that you see the relationship between the northern hemisphere to the southern hemisphere in the same way that you see the relationship between up and down -- to someone living in the southern hemisphere, people living in the northern hemisphere would be "hanging upside down".
-
If we imagine people hanging upside down from the globe in the southern hemisphere how can the Nile defy 'gravity' and flow in an upwards direction?
Gravity acts perpendicular to the earth's surface - it feels the same wherever you are on earth, with the only small exception being that it feels a very small bit less powerful at the equator due to the earth's rotation - fun fact! Downhill is downhill - if you move from a point that is higher than another point, with the datum being mean sea level, then you are moving 'downhill', regardless of latitude.
-
I hope this post is in the right section. My sincere apologies if not.
Something struck me recently and am sure this must have been debated in the past. But the Congo and the Nile both cross the equator (the Congo twice). And generally speaking (at face value) there is something that does not seem quite right with this. And trying to visualise it from a round earth perspective just doesn't seem logical. If we imagine people hanging upside down from the globe in the southern hemisphere how can the Nile defy 'gravity' and flow in an upwards direction?
Have I missed something here or does this in fact lend itself further to the flat earth theory?
The flow of rivers will generally take the path of least resistance and flow downhill, because of gravity. The Nile isn't defying gravity, it's flowing downhill or in the direction of the path of least resistance.
I think your misconception might be that you see the relationship between the northern hemisphere to the southern hemisphere in the same way that you see the relationship between up and down -- to someone living in the southern hemisphere, people living in the northern hemisphere would be "hanging upside down".
Yes I appreciate what you say. But lets for one moment visualise a land mass from Australia to the Mediterranean sea. I know this defies science but it would look so 'wrong' if a river flowed from Sydney to the Med. Does that make a little more sense as i feel this might require further consideration?
-
Yes I appreciate what you say. But lets for one moment visualise a land mass from Australia to the Mediterranean sea. I know this defies science but it would look so 'wrong' if a river flowed from Sydney to the Med. Does that make a little more sense as i feel this might require further consideration?
If the source of the river at Sydney was at a higher elevation than the end of the river in the Med, then yes, it would flow that way.
-
Yes I appreciate what you say. But lets for one moment visualise a land mass from Australia to the Mediterranean sea. I know this defies science but it would look so 'wrong' if a river flowed from Sydney to the Med. Does that make a little more sense as i feel this might require further consideration?
If the source of the river at Sydney was at a higher elevation than the end of the river in the Med, then yes, it would flow that way.
But it is not likely that the source will be higher on a globe earth - if we use the globe (north to south0 as height). height is a figure commonly used as 'above sea level'. I get what you say but can you picture it? A river flowing 4 or 5000 miles in a northerly direction? It only happens with 2 main rivers but the fact it does does make one think.
-
But it is not likely that the source will be higher on a globe earth - if we use the globe (north to south0 as height). height is a figure commonly used as 'above sea level'. I get what you say but can you picture it? A river flowing 4 or 5000 miles in a northerly direction? It only happens with 2 main rivers but the fact it does does make one think.
Well, that's pretty much what the Nile is, right? The equator only means anything in the context of the rotation of the earth - if you forget about the rotation, it could be just an arbitrary line. Indeed, if western civilisation had begun in the Southern Hemisphere, our maps would probably be orientated the other way round, with the antarctic at the top of the map. If that was the case, would you take issue with rivers flowing in a southerly direction?
-
Yes I appreciate what you say. But lets for one moment visualise a land mass from Australia to the Mediterranean sea. I know this defies science but it would look so 'wrong' if a river flowed from Sydney to the Med. Does that make a little more sense as i feel this might require further consideration?
If the source of the river at Sydney was at a higher elevation than the end of the river in the Med, then yes, it would flow that way.
But it is not likely that the source will be higher on a globe earth - if we use the globe (north to south0 as height). height is a figure commonly used as 'above sea level'. I get what you say but can you picture it? A river flowing 4 or 5000 miles in a northerly direction? It only happens with 2 main rivers but the fact it does does make one think.
Gravitation force is the same all the way around our globe earth, no matter if you are in the northern or southern hemisphere. Gravity behaves the same no matter your location.
Can you clarify the assumption you are using of "north and south as height"?
-
That's if you believe in gravity of course. And essentially it is just a word to describe a theory and that theory is dependent on many other theories.
The north/south height thing. Its the perception of viewing the so called globe from a top/bottom perspective. The global earthers may think there is no top or bottom but in reality it must have a right way up. It spins (allegedly) west to east. Not north to south so therefore it will always be either north or south side 'up'.
Therefore we have some semblance of a 'top' and its either the south or the north. 'We' have chosen to depict on a 50/50 chance basis the north pole at the top.
And my observations are that if there really is a top how do rivers 'flow' upwards. No matter how high above sea level its source is in relation to its mouth. If we have a global earth then they would flow more south than north. Does that make any further sense or have I muddied it even more? :-)
-
You realize that cardinal directions, East, West, North, South, are terms humans invented, right? If I'm in London, New York is closest to my left, West, if facing North. If I'm in Honolulu, New York is closet to my right, East, if facing North. The opposite if facing South. There is no hard and fast top or bottom or left or right.
Lastly, people in Australia are not hanging upside down. Just ask an Aussie friend.
-
That's if you believe in gravity of course. And essentially it is just a word to describe a theory and that theory is dependent on many other theories.
The north/south height thing. Its the perception of viewing the so called globe from a top/bottom perspective. The global earthers may think there is no top or bottom but in reality it must have a right way up. It spins (allegedly) west to east. Not north to south so therefore it will always be either north or south side 'up'.
Therefore we have some semblance of a 'top' and its either the south or the north. 'We' have chosen to depict on a 50/50 chance basis the north pole at the top.
And my observations are that if there really is a top how do rivers 'flow' upwards. No matter how high above sea level its source is in relation to its mouth. If we have a global earth then they would flow more south than north. Does that make any further sense or have I muddied it even more? :-)
Rivers aren't flowing upwards....they are flowing downhill.
If I dug a 10 foot long trench where one end was oriented towards our globe earth north pole and the other end was oriented towards our globe earth south pole, and the gradient of the 10 foot long trench was such that it sloped towards or was deeper at the north pole end, would it be unreasonable for you to believe that the water would flow towards the "north" if poured at the "southern" end?
-
You realize that cardinal directions, East, West, North, South, are terms humans invented, right? If I'm in London, New York is closest to my left, West, if facing North. If I'm in Honolulu, New York is closet to my right, East, if facing North. The opposite if facing South. There is no hard and fast top or bottom or left or right.
Lastly, people in Australia are not hanging upside down. Just ask an Aussie friend.
I know they are not hanging upside down - I am using the scenario that if the world was a globe then they (or at least someone) would be hanging upside down.
Regarding top, bottom, left or right. Just because there are no hard and fast rules doesn't mean the earth (if it were a globe) would not have a top. Everything else in the natural world has a top and a bottom. Why not the earth and the planets? Do the planets not have a top? Who says they don't?
-
That's if you believe in gravity of course. And essentially it is just a word to describe a theory and that theory is dependent on many other theories.
The north/south height thing. Its the perception of viewing the so called globe from a top/bottom perspective. The global earthers may think there is no top or bottom but in reality it must have a right way up. It spins (allegedly) west to east. Not north to south so therefore it will always be either north or south side 'up'.
Therefore we have some semblance of a 'top' and its either the south or the north. 'We' have chosen to depict on a 50/50 chance basis the north pole at the top.
And my observations are that if there really is a top how do rivers 'flow' upwards. No matter how high above sea level its source is in relation to its mouth. If we have a global earth then they would flow more south than north. Does that make any further sense or have I muddied it even more? :-)
Rivers aren't flowing upwards....they are flowing downhill.
If I dug a 10 foot long trench where one end was oriented towards our globe earth north pole and the other end was oriented towards our globe earth south pole, and the gradient of the 10 foot long trench was such that it sloped towards or was deeper at the north pole end, would it be unreasonable for you to believe that the water would flow towards the "north" if poured at the "southern" end?
If you dug such a trench in Sydney and it fell gradually 10 feet over (as an example) 6,000 miles to say Norway I understand what you say but I cannot imagine it It would be beyond ridiculous. Mainly because your trench would have to be constructed on a perfectly level surface. But that will never happen. You will go through mountain ranges, and jungles and various other forms of topography. But if you believe the earth is a globe then maybe you have to believe that. However of course it would work if the earth was flat.
-
That's if you believe in gravity of course. And essentially it is just a word to describe a theory and that theory is dependent on many other theories.
The north/south height thing. Its the perception of viewing the so called globe from a top/bottom perspective. The global earthers may think there is no top or bottom but in reality it must have a right way up. It spins (allegedly) west to east. Not north to south so therefore it will always be either north or south side 'up'.
Therefore we have some semblance of a 'top' and its either the south or the north. 'We' have chosen to depict on a 50/50 chance basis the north pole at the top.
And my observations are that if there really is a top how do rivers 'flow' upwards. No matter how high above sea level its source is in relation to its mouth. If we have a global earth then they would flow more south than north. Does that make any further sense or have I muddied it even more? :-)
Rivers aren't flowing upwards....they are flowing downhill.
If I dug a 10 foot long trench where one end was oriented towards our globe earth north pole and the other end was oriented towards our globe earth south pole, and the gradient of the 10 foot long trench was such that it sloped towards or was deeper at the north pole end, would it be unreasonable for you to believe that the water would flow towards the "north" if poured at the "southern" end?
If you dug such a trench in Sydney and it fell gradually 10 feet over (as an example) 6,000 miles to say Norway I understand what you say but I cannot imagine it It would be beyond ridiculous. Mainly because your trench would have to be constructed on a perfectly level surface. But that will never happen. You will go through mountain ranges, and jungles and various other forms of topography. But if you believe the earth is a globe then maybe you have to believe that. However of course it would work if the earth was flat.
I think that you are getting hung up on a mistaken notion that land masses in the southern hemisphere of our globe earth are lower in height than land masses in the northern hemisphere and so therefore water must flow from "north" to "south" and anything other than that would be hard to imagine. Rivers don't know what humans have labeled "northern" or "southern" on globe maps; rivers simply flow in the direction or path of least resistance due to gravity.
-
I am using the scenario that if the world was a globe then they (or at least someone) would be hanging upside down.
Except that scenario doesn't exist on a globe earth. Gravity causes down to be towards the center of the earth, regardless of where you are on the globe.
-
You realize that cardinal directions, East, West, North, South, are terms humans invented, right? If I'm in London, New York is closest to my left, West, if facing North. If I'm in Honolulu, New York is closet to my right, East, if facing North. The opposite if facing South. There is no hard and fast top or bottom or left or right.
Lastly, people in Australia are not hanging upside down. Just ask an Aussie friend.
I know they are not hanging upside down - I am using the scenario that if the world was a globe then they (or at least someone) would be hanging upside down.
Regarding top, bottom, left or right. Just because there are no hard and fast rules doesn't mean the earth (if it were a globe) would not have a top. Everything else in the natural world has a top and a bottom. Why not the earth and the planets? Do the planets not have a top? Who says they don't?
Here's how it works on a Globe Earth:
(https://i.imgur.com/m8xB0ED.jpg)
-
That's if you believe in gravity of course. And essentially it is just a word to describe a theory and that theory is dependent on many other theories.
The north/south height thing. Its the perception of viewing the so called globe from a top/bottom perspective. The global earthers may think there is no top or bottom but in reality it must have a right way up. It spins (allegedly) west to east. Not north to south so therefore it will always be either north or south side 'up'.
Therefore we have some semblance of a 'top' and its either the south or the north. 'We' have chosen to depict on a 50/50 chance basis the north pole at the top.
And my observations are that if there really is a top how do rivers 'flow' upwards. No matter how high above sea level its source is in relation to its mouth. If we have a global earth then they would flow more south than north. Does that make any further sense or have I muddied it even more? :-)
Rivers aren't flowing upwards....they are flowing downhill.
If I dug a 10 foot long trench where one end was oriented towards our globe earth north pole and the other end was oriented towards our globe earth south pole, and the gradient of the 10 foot long trench was such that it sloped towards or was deeper at the north pole end, would it be unreasonable for you to believe that the water would flow towards the "north" if poured at the "southern" end?
If you dug such a trench in Sydney and it fell gradually 10 feet over (as an example) 6,000 miles to say Norway I understand what you say but I cannot imagine it It would be beyond ridiculous. Mainly because your trench would have to be constructed on a perfectly level surface. But that will never happen. You will go through mountain ranges, and jungles and various other forms of topography. But if you believe the earth is a globe then maybe you have to believe that. However of course it would work if the earth was flat.
I think that you are getting hung up on a mistaken notion that land masses in the southern hemisphere of our globe earth are lower in height than land masses in the northern hemisphere and so therefore water must flow from "north" to "south" and anything other than that would be hard to imagine. Rivers don't know what humans have labeled "northern" or "southern" on globe maps; rivers simply flow in the direction or path of least resistance due to gravity.
Only if the earth was a globe would I be getting hung up on the above. And perhaps too many people believe in gravity per se. Its a theory only and not even a very good one. Its a convenient way to explain something that we dont understand. Objects fall to earth due to them being heavier than air.
-
You realize that cardinal directions, East, West, North, South, are terms humans invented, right? If I'm in London, New York is closest to my left, West, if facing North. If I'm in Honolulu, New York is closet to my right, East, if facing North. The opposite if facing South. There is no hard and fast top or bottom or left or right.
Lastly, people in Australia are not hanging upside down. Just ask an Aussie friend.
I know they are not hanging upside down - I am using the scenario that if the world was a globe then they (or at least someone) would be hanging upside down.
Regarding top, bottom, left or right. Just because there are no hard and fast rules doesn't mean the earth (if it were a globe) would not have a top. Everything else in the natural world has a top and a bottom. Why not the earth and the planets? Do the planets not have a top? Who says they don't?
Here's how it works on a Globe Earth:
(https://i.imgur.com/m8xB0ED.jpg)
Nice image. But thats all it is. A cartoon.
-
Nice image. But thats all it is. A cartoon.
Well, all that can be posted here is words, images, and videos. What are you looking for?
-
Objects fall to earth due to them being heavier than air.
They're heavier than the air above them too. And the air beside them.
Why don't they fall sideways or up?
-
Do the planets not have a top? Who says they don't?
Planets spin, so that gives us an axis. We can define top and bottom with respect to that axis. We think of north as "top" and south as "bottom" because that's how we draw maps, but it's completely arbitrary. If you're holding a ball you can say the "top" of it is the bit at the...well, top. But then you can turn the ball over and then the "top" is the complete opposite to it was before.
-
Do the planets not have a top? Who says they don't?
Planets spin, so that gives us an axis. We can define top and bottom with respect to that axis. We think of north as "top" and south as "bottom" because that's how we draw maps, but it's completely arbitrary. If you're holding a ball you can say the "top" of it is the bit at the...well, top. But then you can turn the ball over and then the "top" is the complete opposite to it was before.
You could use that analogy to everything. Therefore our heads are not at the top as our feet could also be the top. Science does need tome constants and when someone writes up an experiment is it not reasonable to refer to something like 'it took the mixture 45 seconds to rise to the 'TOP' of the glass'? Do scientists use things that have a top and bottom or do they not?
-
You could use that analogy to everything. Therefore our heads are not at the top as our feet could also be the top. Science does need tome constants and when someone writes up an experiment is it not reasonable to refer to something like 'it took the mixture 45 seconds to rise to the 'TOP' of the glass'? Do scientists use things that have a top and bottom or do they not?
Yes - we need datums to work from. Sometimes they are arbitrary - like which way we orientate north-south on a map. Sometimes they mean something. In normal life ‘top’ usually means the highest point of something, but the important point you seem to be missing is that height is measured with respect to the surface of the planet. Somebody at mean sea level in Australia is at the same ‘height’ as somebody at mean sea level in Europe. They would have the same gravitational potential energy per unit mass.
We do generally draw the earth north-up. It’s entirely arbitrary - we could draw it the other way round with the South Pole at the top. Globe models, like the ones you see on people’s desks, are normally tilted around 20 degrees to reflect the orientation with respect to the sun and our orbital path, but they too could just be flipped upside down - it’s completely arbitrary, but has now become an accepted convention.
-
Do the planets not have a top? Who says they don't?
Planets spin, so that gives us an axis. We can define top and bottom with respect to that axis. We think of north as "top" and south as "bottom" because that's how we draw maps, but it's completely arbitrary. If you're holding a ball you can say the "top" of it is the bit at the...well, top. But then you can turn the ball over and then the "top" is the complete opposite to it was before.
You could use that analogy to everything. Therefore our heads are not at the top as our feet could also be the top. Science does need tome constants and when someone writes up an experiment is it not reasonable to refer to something like 'it took the mixture 45 seconds to rise to the 'TOP' of the glass'? Do scientists use things that have a top and bottom or do they not?
The point is top and bottom are relative terms, like left and right. There are some things where there is a pretty clear right way up for them to be. For those the top and bottom are well defined. For a sphere it's arbitrary. As I said, the spin of a planet gives us an axis, but north being "up" and south being "down" is only a convention, it would make no difference if they were reversed.
-
Nice image. But thats all it is. A cartoon.
... which depicts, represents, or illustrates, the textbook scientific explanation/description of our globe Earth and how gravity fits in with it.
Taking issue with the illustration BECAUSE it's an illustration, and not ... something else other than a 'cartoon', is not, in itself, a disproof of the science.
-
You could use that analogy to everything. Therefore our heads are not at the top as our feet could also be the top. Science does need tome constants and when someone writes up an experiment is it not reasonable to refer to something like 'it took the mixture 45 seconds to rise to the 'TOP' of the glass'? Do scientists use things that have a top and bottom or do they not?
Yes - we need datums to work from. Sometimes they are arbitrary - like which way we orientate north-south on a map. Sometimes they mean something. In normal life ‘top’ usually means the highest point of something, but the important point you seem to be missing is that height is measured with respect to the surface of the planet. Somebody at mean sea level in Australia is at the same ‘height’ as somebody at mean sea level in Europe. They would have the same gravitational potential energy per unit mass.
We do generally draw the earth north-up. It’s entirely arbitrary - we could draw it the other way round with the South Pole at the top. Globe models, like the ones you see on people’s desks, are normally tilted around 20 degrees to reflect the orientation with respect to the sun and our orbital path, but they too could just be flipped upside down - it’s completely arbitrary, but has now become an accepted convention.
I am not missing anything. I am doubting the round earth theory. As science only uses gravity to explain things. What if there was no such thing. And we stand on a flat earth with nothing but our weight holding us down? That's what this forum is about - correct me if i am wrong (Moderator) but the forum assumes a flat earth. Hence the nature of the discussions.
-
Can science explain why we are travelling as fast, and as far in in the direction we are travelling (following the sun through billions of miles) Can anyone offer a reasonable explanation? Thats what I find hard to understand - so its logical to think of a flat earth and work feom that - not the other way round.
-
we stand on a flat earth with nothing but our weight holding us down?
But what force is holding us down?
There has to be a force.
You said things fall because they are “heavier than air”. But why would they fall downwards? They’re heavier than the air above them and to the side of them, why down?
-
I am not missing anything. I am doubting the round earth theory. As science only uses gravity to explain things. What if there was no such thing. And we stand on a flat earth with nothing but our weight holding us down? That's what this forum is about - correct me if i am wrong (Moderator) but the forum assumes a flat earth. Hence the nature of the discussions.
Well, if your contention is that gravity doesn’t exist, then rivers flowing south to north is a tiny, tiny thing compared to some more fundamental issues. Clearly, the earth can’t be round without gravity.
At first glance, you are correct. The earth appears flat. It’s a reasonable starting point. But then you look a bit closer, and things aren’t so simple. As per another thread running at the moment…why are there visible horizons? What is a horizon, given that we can see tall distant objects beyond it? Why does the elevation of stars vary with our latitude? Indeed, why can I know how far north I am simply by measuring the elevation angle of the north star? That wouldn’t work unless the earth was round and the star was a long, long way away.
And, as you make more and more of these observations, you realise that the only credible explanation is a spherical earth, orbiting the sun, with a gravitational force acting between objects according to the product of their masses and the inverse of the squared distance between them.
That model, an explanation for what we observe, works perfectly to explain what we see and detect.
-
As science only uses gravity to explain things.
Oh, I think you'll find there's a lot more to "science" than gravity.
What if there was no such thing. And we stand on a flat earth with nothing but our weight holding us down?
Humankind has already been through this "what if" stage. Then a guy called Copernicus came along and stood the "what if" on its head. And guess what? Everything since then has tied in with Copernicus' version.
-
Objects fall to earth due to them being heavier than air.
They're heavier than the air above them too. And the air beside them.
Why don't they fall sideways or up?
Why does a helium balloon float? Where is gravity then?
-
Nice image. But thats all it is. A cartoon.
... which depicts, represents, or illustrates, the textbook scientific explanation/description of our globe Earth and how gravity fits in with it.
Taking issue with the illustration BECAUSE it's an illustration, and not ... something else other than a 'cartoon', is not, in itself, a disproof of the science.
No -but an illustration is not proof of anything.
-
we stand on a flat earth with nothing but our weight holding us down?
But what force is holding us down?
There has to be a force.
You said things fall because they are “heavier than air”. But why would they fall downwards? They’re heavier than the air above them and to the side of them, why down?
Why does there need to be a force holding us down? In case we fall off the globe?
-
As science only uses gravity to explain things.
Oh, I think you'll find there's a lot more to "science" than gravity.
What if there was no such thing. And we stand on a flat earth with nothing but our weight holding us down?
Humankind has already been through this "what if" stage. Then a guy called Copernicus came along and stood the "what if" on its head. And guess what? Everything since then has tied in with Copernicus' version.
would it's 'head' be at the top or the bottom as I am being advised it can be both (or was there a pun intended)? :)
-
I am not missing anything. I am doubting the round earth theory. As science only uses gravity to explain things. What if there was no such thing. And we stand on a flat earth with nothing but our weight holding us down? That's what this forum is about - correct me if i am wrong (Moderator) but the forum assumes a flat earth. Hence the nature of the discussions.
Well, if your contention is that gravity doesn’t exist, then rivers flowing south to north is a tiny, tiny thing compared to some more fundamental issues. Clearly, the earth can’t be round without gravity.
At first glance, you are correct. The earth appears flat. It’s a reasonable starting point. But then you look a bit closer, and things aren’t so simple. As per another thread running at the moment…why are there visible horizons? What is a horizon, given that we can see tall distant objects beyond it? Why does the elevation of stars vary with our latitude? Indeed, why can I know how far north I am simply by measuring the elevation angle of the north star? That wouldn’t work unless the earth was round and the star was a long, long way away.
And, as you make more and more of these observations, you realise that the only credible explanation is a spherical earth, orbiting the sun, with a gravitational force acting between objects according to the product of their masses and the inverse of the squared distance between them.
That model, an explanation for what we observe, works perfectly to explain what we see and detect.
Exactly - the earth cannot be round without gravity. Its the cart before the horse. Lets presume the earth is round then come up with a theory that stops us falling off it.
And you mention 'credible explanation'. That doesn't meet the 'beyond a reasonable doubt' test.
-
an illustration is not proof of anything.
Again, I say - we can post here only words, illustrations, and videos.
What forms of proof are you likely to accept?
-
Why does a helium balloon float? Where is gravity then?
The same place it is when a plane flies, when a bird or insect takes off, or the wind blows a leaf upwards.
The motive force of the plane's engines, allied with the lift provided by airflow over the wings, generates upward force sufficient to counteract gravity.
Same principle for the other two. The bird's wing action, or the air currents moving the leaf, provide sufficient force to counteract gravity
-
Why does there need to be a force holding us down? In case we fall off the globe?
If there's no force then when you jump why do you come back down again?
And if it's just because you're heavier than air then as I keep saying, if you lift a ball and then let it go then that ball is heavier than the air above it and the air beside it. Why does it fall downwards rather than go in a different direction?
-
Nice image. But thats all it is. A cartoon.
... which depicts, represents, or illustrates, the textbook scientific explanation/description of our globe Earth and how gravity fits in with it.
Taking issue with the illustration BECAUSE it's an illustration, and not ... something else other than a 'cartoon', is not, in itself, a disproof of the science.
No -but an illustration is not proof of anything.
The summary of your original post was that:
"there is something that does not seem quite right; and trying to visualize it from a Round Earth perspective"
-- The purpose and intent of all of the above is to try to help you visualize it from a Round Earth perspective, as per your inquiry.
"people hanging upside down from the globe in the southern hemisphere how can the Nile defy 'gravity' and flow in an upwards direction?"
-- Again, people aren't "hanging upside down" from the globe in the southern hemisphere; gravity pulls us towards the center of our globe earth no matter your location. This is a statement that I see many Flat Earthers make; something like how is it possible that when I am in the northern hemisphere that airplanes are flying upside down in the southern hemisphere.
-- The Nile is simply flowing towards the path of least resistance due to gravity; it's not defying gravity. The Nile doesn't know or care that humans have arbitrarily labelled a globe map the northern hemisphere or the southern hemisphere. We as humans could have easily labelled the southern hemisphere the northern hemisphere; you would then be asking why does the Mississippi river seem to defy gravity because it's flowing north while the Nile was then flowing south.
-
Exactly - the earth cannot be round without gravity. Its the cart before the horse. Lets presume the earth is round then come up with a theory that stops us falling off it.
And you mention 'credible explanation'. That doesn't meet the 'beyond a reasonable doubt' test.
People didn’t presume the earth was round. They made a series of observations, such as those I mentioned earlier which you have studiously ignored, and the only possible explanation for all of those observations was a spherical planet. Gravity doesn’t just explain our own experiences standing here on earth, but also observations of the other planets, their moons and the sun.
-
Can science explain why we are travelling as fast, and as far in in the direction we are travelling (following the sun through billions of miles) Can anyone offer a reasonable explanation? Thats what I find hard to understand - so its logical to think of a flat earth and work feom that - not the other way round.
First off, the "cartoon" was not meant to be proof of anything. Just a simple explanation of how RE works.
Secondly, and better still, can science explain why the earth is stationary and flat with other orb-like cosmic objects hovering above it? Can you offer a reasonable explanation?
-
Exactly - the earth cannot be round without gravity. Its the cart before the horse. Lets presume the earth is round then come up with a theory that stops us falling off it.
Actually, the earth was known to be round for around 1500 years or more before Newton came up with gravity. Before that, people believed that things fell for much the same reasons that you explain: because that's what heavy things do. Newton's version of gravity describes, with pretty good precision, how heavy things fall the way they do.
And you mention 'credible explanation'. That doesn't meet the 'beyond a reasonable doubt' test.
Science doesn't use the "beyond a reasonable doubt" standard. It uses the "preponderance of evidence" standard, and that standard is much higher than you probably think.
-
Exactly - the earth cannot be round without gravity. Its the cart before the horse. Lets presume the earth is round then come up with a theory that stops us falling off it.
Actually, the earth was known to be round for around 1500 years or more before Newton came up with gravity. Before that, people believed that things fell for much the same reasons that you explain: because that's what heavy things do. Newton's version of gravity describes, with pretty good precision, how heavy things fall the way they do.
And you mention 'credible explanation'. That doesn't meet the 'beyond a reasonable doubt' test.
Science doesn't use the "beyond a reasonable doubt" standard. It uses the "preponderance of evidence" standard, and that standard is much higher than you probably think.
A couple of questions if you don't mind. From a science perspective; if gravity did not exist and as a consequence let's say that everything floated 'on air' so to speak. Would it be fair to say that science would then want to know why things floated and why they did not fall to the ground (as opposed to why things do not float and do fall to the ground)? And if so why would we think there was something preventing us falling (as we seem to wonder why we don't float for example)?
-
Exactly - the earth cannot be round without gravity. Its the cart before the horse. Lets presume the earth is round then come up with a theory that stops us falling off it.
Actually, the earth was known to be round for around 1500 years or more before Newton came up with gravity. Before that, people believed that things fell for much the same reasons that you explain: because that's what heavy things do. Newton's version of gravity describes, with pretty good precision, how heavy things fall the way they do.
And you mention 'credible explanation'. That doesn't meet the 'beyond a reasonable doubt' test.
Science doesn't use the "beyond a reasonable doubt" standard. It uses the "preponderance of evidence" standard, and that standard is much higher than you probably think.
Incidentally re preponderance of evidence. It is actually a low barrier and is based on the balance of probability. Therefore if that is what science relies on a 'theory' would only have to scrape over the half way line for it to be accepted. Beyond a reasonable doubt is a very high barrier almost bordering on certainty.
-
The test of a good theory is whether it explains observations and makes good predictions which can be tested.
Gravity does explain why we fall when we jump off something - rather than float upwards or go sideways or just stay hovering.
But it explains so much more than that. It explains why the earth is a sphere, and why all the coherent celestial objects above a certain mass are too.
It explains how the moon orbits us and how we orbit the sun. It explains how stars and planets form.
It's a very powerful theory, Neptune was discovered because of the way perturbations in Uranus's orbit were observed which implied something else was out there.
https://www.nasa.gov/feature/175-years-ago-astronomers-discover-neptune-the-eighth-planet
Science should always be open to the idea that a better theory will come along, indeed Einstein did change our understanding of gravity.
But the theory of gravity isn't just some vague idea, it explains a lot of what we observe and can make testable predictions.
-
There's a consistency to gravity pulling everything on Earth to a central point. Between the three main elements making up our planetary ecosystem, air, water, and soils/rocks, they all exhibit the same variations in density, equally, all over the planet.
Wherever you go, air pressure is always highest at sea level, and it progressively gets lower as you go higher.
Wherever you go, water pressure in seas, oceans and lakes is lowest at the surface, and gets higher the deeper you go.
Wherever you go, there are generally soils, sands and loose aggregrates at the surface, with denser soils and rocks as you dig down and go lower.
Why would this be universally so, if the world were flat? What possible explanation could there be for a consistent downward force in (say) Australia, and the UK, if they were both on a flat plane? Surely you would need a different focal point for the force in each location, otherwise the force would not act vertically.
EDIT
Wherever you go, acceleration due to gravity is found to be consistent with everywhere else on the planet. Which surely is more consistent with all gravity drawing everything to one point, as opposed to folks in Australia being drawn to one, and those in the UK to another.
-
A couple of questions if you don't mind. From a science perspective; if gravity did not exist and as a consequence let's say that everything floated 'on air' so to speak. Would it be fair to say that science would then want to know why things floated and why they did not fall to the ground (as opposed to why things do not float and do fall to the ground)? And if so why would we think there was something preventing us falling (as we seem to wonder why we don't float for example)?
This is a weird question. Science doesn't look for reasons why things don't happen unless there is a reason to think they should happen. If there was no gravity, why would anyone think something was preventing us from falling? The obvious answer to why we don't fall would be there was no cause or force to make it happen.
-
A couple of questions if you don't mind. From a science perspective; if gravity did not exist and as a consequence let's say that everything floated 'on air' so to speak. Would it be fair to say that science would then want to know why things floated and why they did not fall to the ground (as opposed to why things do not float and do fall to the ground)? And if so why would we think there was something preventing us falling (as we seem to wonder why we don't float for example)?
The goal of science is to describe and understand the world around us as it exists. If just floating around is the norm, then science would probably try to figure out why that happens. It's a lot harder to figure out why things that you don't experience don't happen.
Incidentally re preponderance of evidence. It is actually a low barrier and is based on the balance of probability. Therefore if that is what science relies on a 'theory' would only have to scrape over the half way line for it to be accepted.
Sure, until a theory with better evidence comes along. The challenge to come up with theories that better explain how things happen has been ongoing for thousands of years, therefore the quality of evidence necessary to supplant existing theories is very high.
-
A couple of questions if you don't mind. From a science perspective; if gravity did not exist and as a consequence let's say that everything floated 'on air' so to speak. Would it be fair to say that science would then want to know why things floated and why they did not fall to the ground (as opposed to why things do not float and do fall to the ground)? And if so why would we think there was something preventing us falling (as we seem to wonder why we don't float for example)?
This is a weird question. Science doesn't look for reasons why things don't happen unless there is a reason to think they should happen. If there was no gravity, why would anyone think something was preventing us from falling? The obvious answer to why we don't fall would be there was no cause or force to make it happen.
That's exactly my point. You state that science doesn't look for reasons why things don't happen unless there is a reason to think they should happen. So what made science go looking for reasons why things fall to earth? Its no different to science looking at reasons why we would float and not fall to earth.
-
A couple of questions if you don't mind. From a science perspective; if gravity did not exist and as a consequence let's say that everything floated 'on air' so to speak. Would it be fair to say that science would then want to know why things floated and why they did not fall to the ground (as opposed to why things do not float and do fall to the ground)? And if so why would we think there was something preventing us falling (as we seem to wonder why we don't float for example)?
This is a weird question. Science doesn't look for reasons why things don't happen unless there is a reason to think they should happen. If there was no gravity, why would anyone think something was preventing us from falling? The obvious answer to why we don't fall would be there was no cause or force to make it happen.
That's exactly my point. You state that science doesn't look for reasons why things don't happen unless there is a reason to think they should happen. So what made science go looking for reasons why things fall to earth? Its no different to science looking at reasons why we would float and not fall to earth.
Because humans, regardless of science, tend to try and figure out how things work or don't work. Where do you think religion came from? Basically trying to make sense of the world.
A part of doing so is trying to figure out how things work or don't and an off-shoot, in doing so, some people try to make things better and/or exploit, create something new and understanding how something currently works or doesn't aids in that.
It's unclear what you think the mystery is.
-
You realize that cardinal directions, East, West, North, South, are terms humans invented, right? If I'm in London, New York is closest to my left, West, if facing North. If I'm in Honolulu, New York is closet to my right, East, if facing North. The opposite if facing South. There is no hard and fast top or bottom or left or right.
Lastly, people in Australia are not hanging upside down. Just ask an Aussie friend.
I know they are not hanging upside down - I am using the scenario that if the world was a globe then they (or at least someone) would be hanging upside down.
Regarding top, bottom, left or right. Just because there are no hard and fast rules doesn't mean the earth (if it were a globe) would not have a top. Everything else in the natural world has a top and a bottom. Why not the earth and the planets? Do the planets not have a top? Who says they don't?
Here's how it works on a Globe Earth:
(https://i.imgur.com/m8xB0ED.jpg)
So you go 'down' to the centre?
-
You realize that cardinal directions, East, West, North, South, are terms humans invented, right? If I'm in London, New York is closest to my left, West, if facing North. If I'm in Honolulu, New York is closet to my right, East, if facing North. The opposite if facing South. There is no hard and fast top or bottom or left or right.
Lastly, people in Australia are not hanging upside down. Just ask an Aussie friend.
I know they are not hanging upside down - I am using the scenario that if the world was a globe then they (or at least someone) would be hanging upside down.
Regarding top, bottom, left or right. Just because there are no hard and fast rules doesn't mean the earth (if it were a globe) would not have a top. Everything else in the natural world has a top and a bottom. Why not the earth and the planets? Do the planets not have a top? Who says they don't?
Here's how it works on a Globe Earth:
(https://i.imgur.com/m8xB0ED.jpg)
So you go 'down' to the centre?
In its simplest form, on a globe earth, yes. Check out the wiki to see how some FE adherents think otherwise.
-
Exactly - the earth cannot be round without gravity. Its the cart before the horse. Lets presume the earth is round then come up with a theory that stops us falling off it.
Actually, the earth was known to be round for around 1500 years or more before Newton came up with gravity. Before that, people believed that things fell for much the same reasons that you explain: because that's what heavy things do. Newton's version of gravity describes, with pretty good precision, how heavy things fall the way they do.
And you mention 'credible explanation'. That doesn't meet the 'beyond a reasonable doubt' test.
Science doesn't use the "beyond a reasonable doubt" standard. It uses the "preponderance of evidence" standard, and that standard is much higher than you probably think.
A couple of questions if you don't mind. From a science perspective; if gravity did not exist and as a consequence let's say that everything floated 'on air' so to speak. Would it be fair to say that science would then want to know why things floated and why they did not fall to the ground (as opposed to why things do not float and do fall to the ground)? And if so why would we think there was something preventing us falling (as we seem to wonder why we don't float for example)?
Gravity Equation is plagiarizing Coulomb's Law
Gravity Constant G is equally Coulomb Constant after unit conversion
-
Exactly - the earth cannot be round without gravity. Its the cart before the horse. Lets presume the earth is round then come up with a theory that stops us falling off it.
Actually, the earth was known to be round for around 1500 years or more before Newton came up with gravity. Before that, people believed that things fell for much the same reasons that you explain: because that's what heavy things do. Newton's version of gravity describes, with pretty good precision, how heavy things fall the way they do.
And you mention 'credible explanation'. That doesn't meet the 'beyond a reasonable doubt' test.
Science doesn't use the "beyond a reasonable doubt" standard. It uses the "preponderance of evidence" standard, and that standard is much higher than you probably think.
A couple of questions if you don't mind. From a science perspective; if gravity did not exist and as a consequence let's say that everything floated 'on air' so to speak. Would it be fair to say that science would then want to know why things floated and why they did not fall to the ground (as opposed to why things do not float and do fall to the ground)? And if so why would we think there was something preventing us falling (as we seem to wonder why we don't float for example)?
Gravity Equation is plagiarizing Coulomb's Law
Gravity Constant G is equally Coulomb Constant after unit conversion
If anything, wouldn't it be the other way around considering that Coulomb was born 10 years after Newton died?