[GoldCashew]

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.

[SteelyBob]

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.

[stack]

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?

[markjo]

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.

[SimonC]

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)?

[SimonC]

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.

[AATW]

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.

[Tumeni]

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.

[Knickknack]

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.

[markjo]

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.

[SimonC]

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.

[stack]

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.

[SimonC]

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:

So you go 'down' to the centre?

[stack]

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:

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.

[Jonathan]

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

[stack]

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?