[Tumeni]

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?

[AATW]

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?

[AATW]

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.

[SimonC]

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?

[SteelyBob]

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.

[AATW]

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.

[Tumeni]

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.

[SimonC]

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.

[SimonC]

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.

[AATW]

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?

[SteelyBob]

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.

[Tumeni]

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.

[SimonC]

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?

[SimonC]

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.

[SimonC]

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?

[SimonC]

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)?

[SimonC]

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.

[Tumeni]

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?

[Tumeni]

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

[AATW]

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?