And the forces of this whirlpool also perfectly match the calculations of why the iSS stays in space on the globe model?
And the forces of this whirlpool also perfectly match the calculations of why the iSS stays in space on the globe model?
Apparently.
And the forces of this whirlpool also perfectly match the calculations of why the iSS stays in space on the globe model?
Apparently.
so classic globe earth theory has equations ( like actual, reusable, mathematical euquations ) that perfectly match everything we observe on earth and beyond,
and FE theory has this whirlpool idea backed by nothing.
Then what does this tell you?
Interesting. I thought that they made the equations to match observations of the "solar system".And the forces of this whirlpool also perfectly match the calculations of why the iSS stays in space on the globe model?
Apparently.
so classic globe earth theory has equations ( like actual, reusable, mathematical euquations ) that perfectly match everything we observe on earth and beyond,
and FE theory has this whirlpool idea backed by nothing.
Then what does this tell you?
That they made equations to match their mental picture of how the "solar-system" works.
The same equations to describe gravity applies to planets and apples and everything else on earth.
The same equations to describe angular momentum applies to satelites and planets and your bicycle.
It is not like someone just made this shit up to invent a globe-earth-universe.
why aren't scientists speaking out abt the FE?
they could equally well be used to describe a FE model;
why aren't scientists speaking out abt the FE?
because flat earthers did not yet produce anything scientific.
not quite!
its because of the reasons i listed and, also, because the anti-God atheistic materialists ("science falsely so called!") have re-defined "science" to some-thing called methodological naturalism (http://www.arn.org/docs/odesign/od182/methnat182.htm)
Of course science employs more: it also employs the deliverances of reason, logic and mathematics--where, once more, there is little disagreement.
And of course there are whole vast stretches of our cognitive economy where these world-view considerations do indeed seem to be wholly irrelevant. Anyone with decent eyesight will see that the pointer points to 7; metaphysical or theological differences have nothing to do with it. The same will hold, presumably, for a measurement of the distance from Earth to Jupiter.
Theology must take account of all that humanity comes to know about the world,
and science must equally take account of all that we come to know about God.
I agree with the aether explanation. Look up aether on YouTube,
Then provide some mathematics please
better yet, provide practical and experimental demonstrations....that's what science is all abt!
(there's also that mine experiment conducted in the late nineteenth century, i think.....with the two plumb-bobs down a mine-shaft......instead of veering slightly towards each other as would be expected by conventional Newtonian gravitational theory, they actually veered away from each other...as you would expect if 'gravity' was some-thing pressing down from above rather than [pulling towards] from underneath/centre of the Earth....sorry!...i forget the actual name of the experiment....but....i will look it up [if i remember].....unless some-one else knows & can post it.....ta!)
gravity is density.
Can somebody explain why a "theory of gravity" even matters?
What difference does it make? Who needs it??
Can somebody explain why a "theory of gravity" even matters?You need gravity, to keep the lie of a spherical earth.
What difference does it make? Who needs it??
Can somebody explain why a "theory of gravity" even matters?You need gravity, to keep the lie of a spherical earth.
What difference does it make? Who needs it??