*

Offline Opeo

  • *
  • Posts: 66
    • View Profile
Re: No flat earth model can explain this case
« Reply #20 on: March 02, 2018, 11:17:38 PM »
There is no way to explain using the Round Earth model the case I described, where if you dig a hole deep enough you will fall out into space on the other side. How do you explain falling out into space on the other side?

Please be honest and admit that it can't be explained.

What is there to be explained?

First, why would you fall all the way to the other side? Surely a primary tenet of the globe model is that gravity attracts all to the centre, so you would fall to the centre and go no further, assuming you weren't boiled alive by magma, etc.

Even if you DID reach the other side, why would you emerge into 'space'. You descended into the hole from some point on land or sea within our atmosphere, and the globe model holds that the atmosphere surrounds the Earth. So you would emerge into a similar atmosphere to the one that you left when you entered the hole.

No?

No, you need to explain the case scenario of digging through the earth fall out through the other side. That doesn't make sense if the earth is round and gravity is as they claim it is. You need to explain the case of falling out through the other side if one diggs deep enough.

Tom, unlike your world view that trusts only things you have personally seen, mainstream science constantly repeats hundreds or thousands of rigorous experiments to fully and completely describe phenomena. The Zetetic approach may see an apple fall from the tree and leave it at that, maybe at best measuring that it seems to happen at 9.8 m/s^2 at least some of the time. But the scientific method just takes that as a starting point to create new experiments to delve deep into gravity and really figure out how it works. Then, slowly, through these thousands of experiments, starting with Galileo dropping objects off the tower of Pisa to the Cavendish experiment to modern day advances in gravitational waves, the scientific community develops incredibly sophisticated and robust mathematical models that can explain all observations and, most importantly, predict new ones before they happen.

The prediction bit is important because it's something ad hoc reactionary models like FE can't do. The current FE model is made up of a million different rules all meant to explain one or two phenomena. Lunar eclipses happen? Well there must be some invisible shadow object. You're 0.3% lighter at the equator than at the poles (the exact amount predicted by centripetal force of the Earth's rotation)? Well, there must be some "celestial gravitation." Flights from place to place in the southern hemisphere aren't drastically longer than their northern counterparts? The airlines must be lying. Australia gets significantly more sun in the summer than the spotlight model predicts? We'll get back to you on that one.

All of these were tacked on to the model to deal with problems. Mainstream science always does the opposite. A scientist will come up with a hypothesis, describe how it could be tested or observed, and then look for it. Einstein predicted gravitational waves in 1916, and the technology didn't exist to find them until 100 years later, when they were discovered in 2016. The Higgs Boson was hypothesized in the '60s before being found by the LHC in 2013.

All this is to say your point about the Earth seems to suggest scientists either can't know what would happen or are mistaken about what would happen is completely incorrect. Science has absurdly refined mathematical equations to describe gravity that are so good they accurately predicted the existence of black holes and gravitational waves long before the evidence existed. With these it's easy to plug in what would happen to a ball dropped through the center of the Earth. If you'd like to see that worked out, here it is: http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/Mechanics/earthole.html

In short, assuming the absence of atmosphere or Coriolis effects the ball would accelerate (though not at a constant 9.8 m/s^2) until it hit the center point, at which time it would begin decelerating all the way up until it barely reached the other side. Then it would fall back down and complete this again and again forever. If you add atmosphere and the Coriolis effect then the ball would have friction from the air and side of the shaft and slowly slow down over time until it came to rest at the very center of the Earth.
"It's easier to fool people that to convince them that they have been fooled ;^)" — Marcus Aurelius, 180 A.D.

Offline Frocious

  • *
  • Posts: 188
    • View Profile
Re: No flat earth model can explain this case
« Reply #21 on: March 02, 2018, 11:52:11 PM »
There is no way to explain using the Round Earth model the case I described, where if you dig a hole deep enough you will fall out into space on the other side. How do you explain falling out into space on the other side?

Please be honest and admit that it can't be explained.

What is there to be explained?

First, why would you fall all the way to the other side? Surely a primary tenet of the globe model is that gravity attracts all to the centre, so you would fall to the centre and go no further, assuming you weren't boiled alive by magma, etc.

Even if you DID reach the other side, why would you emerge into 'space'. You descended into the hole from some point on land or sea within our atmosphere, and the globe model holds that the atmosphere surrounds the Earth. So you would emerge into a similar atmosphere to the one that you left when you entered the hole.

No?

No, you need to explain the case scenario of digging through the earth fall out through the other side. That doesn't make sense if the earth is round and gravity is as they claim it is. You need to explain the case of falling out through the other side if one diggs deep enough.

How can he explain something that doesn't happen? There is absolutely no way that I would "fall out the other side" if I dug deep enough into the Earth. If I somehow dug a shaft through the center of the Earth and jumped in, I would fall until I reached the center of the planet and then stop. I would not fall through to the other side, because that isn't how gravity works.

For the sake of discussion, even if this worked the way you (completely irrationally) believe, I would simply fall all the way to the other side of the planet. I wouldn't make it into space unless I reached escape velocity during my travels.

There is no scenario of "digging through the earth fall out through the other side." If you think that's what happens, the burden of proof is on you big fella.

*

Offline Tom Bishop

  • Zetetic Council Member
  • **
  • Posts: 10665
  • Flat Earth Believer
    • View Profile
Re: No flat earth model can explain this case
« Reply #22 on: March 03, 2018, 12:16:11 AM »
(Responding to  "Surely a primary tenet of the globe model is that gravity attracts all to the centre, so you would fall to the centre and go no further.  Even if you DID reach the other side ...)

No, you need to explain the case scenario of digging through the earth fall out through the other side. That doesn't make sense if the earth is round and gravity is as they claim it is. You need to explain the case of falling out through the other side if one diggs deep enough.

You're the one who introduced the case scenario. I point out that you wouldn't fall out of the other side (due to gravity), but you ask me to explain falling out of the other side. Why?

Why not? You guys post "How do you explain this thought experiment I came up with?" all the time. Every day. See: This thread. Why not explain my thought experiment?

*

Offline Opeo

  • *
  • Posts: 66
    • View Profile
Re: No flat earth model can explain this case
« Reply #23 on: March 03, 2018, 12:36:10 AM »
(Responding to  "Surely a primary tenet of the globe model is that gravity attracts all to the centre, so you would fall to the centre and go no further.  Even if you DID reach the other side ...)

No, you need to explain the case scenario of digging through the earth fall out through the other side. That doesn't make sense if the earth is round and gravity is as they claim it is. You need to explain the case of falling out through the other side if one diggs deep enough.

You're the one who introduced the case scenario. I point out that you wouldn't fall out of the other side (due to gravity), but you ask me to explain falling out of the other side. Why?

Why not? You guys post "How do you explain this thought experiment I came up with?" all the time. Every day. See: This thread. Why not explain my thought experiment?

Tom, did you miss my several paragraphs explaining this though experiment? I linked to the math and everything.
"It's easier to fool people that to convince them that they have been fooled ;^)" — Marcus Aurelius, 180 A.D.

*

Offline AATW

  • *
  • Posts: 6499
    • View Profile
Re: No flat earth model can explain this case
« Reply #24 on: March 03, 2018, 08:38:15 AM »
Are you challenging me to show that a light source located at 90 degrees to Zenith would create a shadow pointing 180 degrees in the opposite direction?
I am suggesting that if you are as bothered about empirical evidence as you claim, doing some experiments and observations about how shadows work would be a good idea as you have shown a few times you don't understand it.

I've given more details here:

https://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=8672.msg140197#msg140197

There was no flat earth response to that at all.
The only way you can produce long shadows is to have a light source PHYSICALLY on the horizon.
Note, physically. Not "appearing to be by perspective".
Tom: "Claiming incredulity is a pretty bad argument. Calling it "insane" or "ridiculous" is not a good argument at all."

TFES Wiki Occam's Razor page, by Tom: "What's the simplest explanation; that NASA has successfully designed and invented never before seen rocket technologies from scratch which can accelerate 100 tons of matter to an escape velocity of 7 miles per second"

*

Offline Tumeni

  • *
  • Posts: 3179
    • View Profile
Re: No flat earth model can explain this case
« Reply #25 on: March 03, 2018, 10:28:54 AM »
If you dig a hole deep enough you will eventually fall out into space. How do you explain that? Checkmate.

Tom, is this what you're describing as your "thought experiment"?
=============================
Not Flat. Happy to prove this, if you ask me.
=============================

Nearly all flat earthers agree the earth is not a globe.

Nearly?

*

Offline Boots

  • *
  • Posts: 795
  • ---- Cogito, ergo sum. ---- -Descartes
    • View Profile
Re: No flat earth model can explain this case
« Reply #26 on: March 03, 2018, 11:34:26 AM »
The sunrise/sunset scenario described in the OP actually happens. Every day. No one ever digs through the earth and falls into space. Bishop's response to the OP is silly and does nothing to refute the point being made.
“There are some ideas so absurd that only an intellectual could believe them.” - George Orwell

*

Offline Tom Bishop

  • Zetetic Council Member
  • **
  • Posts: 10665
  • Flat Earth Believer
    • View Profile
Re: No flat earth model can explain this case
« Reply #27 on: March 03, 2018, 04:55:53 PM »
And evidence that this actually happens?

If you guys are unwilling to explain the results of my thought experiment -- which clearly shows your model to be wrong, then I am unwilling to explain the results of yours.

Re: No flat earth model can explain this case
« Reply #28 on: March 03, 2018, 05:31:25 PM »
And evidence that this actually happens?

If you guys are unwilling to explain the results of my thought experiment -- which clearly shows your model to be wrong, then I am unwilling to explain the results of yours.
We should begin with you giving details of how you are going to determine the shape of the earth.

*

Offline Opeo

  • *
  • Posts: 66
    • View Profile
Re: No flat earth model can explain this case
« Reply #29 on: March 03, 2018, 06:00:51 PM »
And evidence that this actually happens?

If you guys are unwilling to explain the results of my thought experiment -- which clearly shows your model to be wrong, then I am unwilling to explain the results of yours.

There's overwhelming evidence that this would happen. Every single experiment performed since the Principia was published in 1687 has supported that the Law of Universal Gravitation is accurate on these scales. At some point when you have thousands of pieces of supporting evidence on one side and zero pieces of dissenting evidence and no evidence-based alternate hypotheses, you gotta accept it's real.
"It's easier to fool people that to convince them that they have been fooled ;^)" — Marcus Aurelius, 180 A.D.

*

Offline Tom Bishop

  • Zetetic Council Member
  • **
  • Posts: 10665
  • Flat Earth Believer
    • View Profile
Re: No flat earth model can explain this case
« Reply #30 on: March 03, 2018, 06:23:08 PM »
And evidence that this actually happens?

If you guys are unwilling to explain the results of my thought experiment -- which clearly shows your model to be wrong, then I am unwilling to explain the results of yours.

There's overwhelming evidence that this would happen.

If there is so much of it, why not link it for us then, that proves this case in the OP?

*

Offline AATW

  • *
  • Posts: 6499
    • View Profile
Re: No flat earth model can explain this case
« Reply #31 on: March 03, 2018, 06:30:57 PM »
And evidence that this actually happens?

If you guys are unwilling to explain the results of my thought experiment -- which clearly shows your model to be wrong, then I am unwilling to explain the results of yours.
You have stated without any backup what would happen in your thought experiment and then declared that because that would happen (which it wouldn't) that the RE model is wrong.

Someone above linked to the maths which explains why you wouldn't simply fall through the whole earth and into space. In brief, once you're past the centre of the earth the gravitatizonal force would then be working as a brake.
Tom: "Claiming incredulity is a pretty bad argument. Calling it "insane" or "ridiculous" is not a good argument at all."

TFES Wiki Occam's Razor page, by Tom: "What's the simplest explanation; that NASA has successfully designed and invented never before seen rocket technologies from scratch which can accelerate 100 tons of matter to an escape velocity of 7 miles per second"

Re: No flat earth model can explain this case
« Reply #32 on: March 03, 2018, 06:31:30 PM »
And evidence that this actually happens?

If you guys are unwilling to explain the results of my thought experiment -- which clearly shows your model to be wrong, then I am unwilling to explain the results of yours.

There's overwhelming evidence that this would happen.

If there is so much of it, why not link it for us then, that proves this case in the OP?
We are confident about the angle of the sun enabling us to prove the shape of the earth, have you done some measurements?

*

Offline Opeo

  • *
  • Posts: 66
    • View Profile
Re: No flat earth model can explain this case
« Reply #33 on: March 03, 2018, 06:41:30 PM »
And evidence that this actually happens?

If you guys are unwilling to explain the results of my thought experiment -- which clearly shows your model to be wrong, then I am unwilling to explain the results of yours.

There's overwhelming evidence that this would happen.

If there is so much of it, why not link it for us then, that proves this case in the OP?

I was clearly referring to the hole-through-the-Earth thought experiment. I don't have anything to say about OP's thought-experiment, since unlike on gravity you guys have a fleshed out alternate hypothesis so straight logical positivism doesn't work because you'll just use your current framework to explain it. The FE theory of perspective and optics still obviously has huge holes, like being completely unable to explain seasons in the southern hemisphere whatsoever, but the fact that it exists and can provide an alternate explanation for at least some phenomena makes it different from the Law of Universal Gravitation which has no offered alternative whatsoever that explains anything besides the single case of 1g acceleration at Earth's surface.
"It's easier to fool people that to convince them that they have been fooled ;^)" — Marcus Aurelius, 180 A.D.

Offline Westprog

  • *
  • Posts: 213
    • View Profile
Re: No flat earth model can explain this case
« Reply #34 on: March 03, 2018, 07:04:58 PM »
I would contest your use of lexicon in your description. In my view, the Sun is approaching from a distance, reaching zenith to the viewer, and then receding into the distance. What the lenses of our eyes perceive as we view its course through the sky is also affected by atmospheric refraction (AR). AR is the amount of moisture in the air, or lack thereof, which also acts as a lens and further distorts the actual object (image) given to our brains through these two "lenses".

You did not ask any question, but rather instead pointed out something and then made a conclusion, so I am not sure if there is a question there.

The effect you described (using my lexicon) perfectly explains what people see... for those who believe they are on a ball and the ball is rotating... and for FE believers, that they are standing on a stationary plane and the object (the Sun) is circling overhead in ever tightening and widening concentric circles. The effect, at face value, is the same regardless, but how one interprets it is debatable.

Respect

The effect of an overhead sun circling in tightening and widening concentric circles does not, in any way, reflect what we actually see. What we see is the sun moving in the sky, and eventually going out of sight. It doesn't change size.

There are two reasonable explanations for this. Either the sun is circling the Earth, or the Earth is rotating. What we don't see is the Sun becoming ever more distant. We know what happens when objects move away. They appear smaller. This never happens with the Sun.

In order to explain this total contradiction, FE theory has had to come up with... well, I suppose one could call them theories, but they hardly qualify as such. More just words applied to the situation to say "The Earth is flat, and the Sun hovers above it. There are optical distortions, not observed in any other situation we've ever seen, which make it appear as if the Sun were rotating around a globe." The idea that atmospheric refraction or perspective could make a receding object remain the same size is ludicrous.

The main point is that though FE advocates claim to just believe what they see, in fact they adhere to a bizarre range of ideas relating to optical illusions.

*

Offline Tumeni

  • *
  • Posts: 3179
    • View Profile
Re: No flat earth model can explain this case
« Reply #35 on: March 03, 2018, 07:07:17 PM »
If you dig a hole deep enough you will eventually fall out into space. How do you explain that? Checkmate.

Was this 'thought experiment' intended as a disproof of the OP?
=============================
Not Flat. Happy to prove this, if you ask me.
=============================

Nearly all flat earthers agree the earth is not a globe.

Nearly?

Offline Frocious

  • *
  • Posts: 188
    • View Profile
Re: No flat earth model can explain this case
« Reply #36 on: March 03, 2018, 09:15:04 PM »
And evidence that this actually happens?

If you guys are unwilling to explain the results of my thought experiment -- which clearly shows your model to be wrong, then I am unwilling to explain the results of yours.

How many posts do you actually read in these threads? Your "thought experiment" has been answered to multiple times.

*

Offline Boots

  • *
  • Posts: 795
  • ---- Cogito, ergo sum. ---- -Descartes
    • View Profile
Re: No flat earth model can explain this case
« Reply #37 on: March 03, 2018, 09:17:52 PM »
And evidence that this actually happens?

If you guys are unwilling to explain the results of my thought experiment -- which clearly shows your model to be wrong, then I am unwilling to explain the results of yours.

No one has ever dug a hole and fell into space nor did it ever appear like that had happened. The sun rises and sets every day. The OP is not proposing a thought experiment but a literal one. You can do it with a friend tomorrow if you like.
 
Your post does nothing to address the OP.
« Last Edit: March 03, 2018, 09:21:01 PM by Boots »
“There are some ideas so absurd that only an intellectual could believe them.” - George Orwell

*

Offline Tom Bishop

  • Zetetic Council Member
  • **
  • Posts: 10665
  • Flat Earth Believer
    • View Profile
Re: No flat earth model can explain this case
« Reply #38 on: March 03, 2018, 11:26:50 PM »
And evidence that this actually happens?

If you guys are unwilling to explain the results of my thought experiment -- which clearly shows your model to be wrong, then I am unwilling to explain the results of yours.

No one has ever dug a hole and fell into space nor did it ever appear like that had happened. The sun rises and sets every day. The OP is not proposing a thought experiment but a literal one. You can do it with a friend tomorrow if you like.
 
Your post does nothing to address the OP.

I don't see any observations or records. Therefore it is a thought experiment.

Until you are willing to explain the results of my thought experiment, I am unwilling to explain the results of yours.
« Last Edit: March 03, 2018, 11:30:23 PM by Tom Bishop »

Re: No flat earth model can explain this case
« Reply #39 on: March 03, 2018, 11:30:02 PM »
And evidence that this actually happens?

If you guys are unwilling to explain the results of my thought experiment -- which clearly shows your model to be wrong, then I am unwilling to explain the results of yours.

No one has ever dug a hole and fell into space nor did it ever appear like that had happened. The sun rises and sets every day. The OP is not proposing a thought experiment but a literal one. You can do it with a friend tomorrow if you like.
 
Your post does nothing to address the OP.

I don't see any observations or records. Therefore it is a thought experiment.

I am unwilling to explain the results of that thought experiment until you have explained the results of my thought experiment.
Still you avoid explaining how you would measure the earth to determine its shape.