Gravity and Buoyancy.
« on: March 09, 2016, 02:00:29 AM »
My gripe isn't with the shape of the Earth but with the big bang.

A big bang certainly wouldn't create a flat plane, though one could argue it wouldn't make a newly symmetrical round earth either.
« Last Edit: March 14, 2016, 04:32:54 PM by Pongo »

*

Offline Lord Dave

  • *
  • Posts: 5507
  • Grumpy old man.
    • View Profile
My gripe isn't with the shape of the Earth but with the big bang.

A big bang certainly wouldn't create a flat plane, though one could argue it wouldn't make a newly symmetrical round earth either.

Less big bang more gravity.

My gripe isn't with the shape of the Earth but with the big bang.

A big bang certainly wouldn't create a flat plane, though one could argue it wouldn't make a newly symmetrical round earth either.

Less big bang more gravity.

Gravity has nothing to do with the divine origin of man.

*

Offline Lord Dave

  • *
  • Posts: 5507
  • Grumpy old man.
    • View Profile
My gripe isn't with the shape of the Earth but with the big bang.

A big bang certainly wouldn't create a flat plane, though one could argue it wouldn't make a newly symmetrical round earth either.

Less big bang more gravity.

Gravity has nothing to do with the divine origin of man.
So man kind can exist without being held down to the ground.  Interesting.

*

Offline Jura-Glenlivet

  • *
  • Posts: 1497
  • Life is meaningless & everything dies.
    • View Profile

Angels Dave, angels!
Just to be clear, you are all terrific, but everything you say is exactly what a moron would say.

My gripe isn't with the shape of the Earth but with the big bang.

A big bang certainly wouldn't create a flat plane, though one could argue it wouldn't make a newly symmetrical round earth either.

Less big bang more gravity.

Gravity has nothing to do with the divine origin of man.
So man kind can exist without being held down to the ground.  Interesting.

Being held down is a principle of density in a fluid. When you're in water you go up, because you are less dense than water. In air you go down. A guy in the 1600's decided to try to explain how the Earth revolves around the Sun so that's where we get any explanation other wise.

*

Offline Lord Dave

  • *
  • Posts: 5507
  • Grumpy old man.
    • View Profile
My gripe isn't with the shape of the Earth but with the big bang.

A big bang certainly wouldn't create a flat plane, though one could argue it wouldn't make a newly symmetrical round earth either.

Less big bang more gravity.

Gravity has nothing to do with the divine origin of man.
So man kind can exist without being held down to the ground.  Interesting.

Being held down is a principle of density in a fluid. When you're in water you go up, because you are less dense than water. In air you go down. A guy in the 1600's decided to try to explain how the Earth revolves around the Sun so that's where we get any explanation other wise.
And yet, this works in a vaccume.  Also, density isn't covered in the bible.

How do you convert someone when the bible amswers nothing of how the world works?  Also, what about OTHER religions?

Who said it works in a vacuum? Who said space is a vacuum? Who said anything about space? I'm talking about the thoroughly experimented on property of matter known as density, and its observable effects on earth.

I directed you towards Hermeticism and you are the one that wants to talk about the Bible and Christianity only. No one said any religion is there to tell you how our natural world works, it deals with the supernatural.

I'm not anti-science, in fact I completely agree with the original intention of the scientific method, that is observation of our physical universe and experimentation to test different elements of it. When things become abstract mathematics with relatively (pun intended) little resemblance to reality is where I believe science has took a turn for the worse.

If you want to debate any of this stuff please let's take it to flat earth debate, that's not why I made this post. You just got me spinning my wheels trying to to detract from my original, valid point. I'm not going to play this game with you forever Mr. Dave. So if you can detract from my original point in any meaningful way please do in a thoughtful, constructive manner, not with these poke prods and jabs that are just detracting from the conversation.

*

Offline Jura-Glenlivet

  • *
  • Posts: 1497
  • Life is meaningless & everything dies.
    • View Profile

The problem you have with this argument is, that many of the FE'ers are not religious, therefore to postulate that their view can only be peddled to believers in mumbo jumbo, is to insult them and admit that the whole idea is not scientific, why not tell them their mothers swam after troopships?
Just to be clear, you are all terrific, but everything you say is exactly what a moron would say.


The problem you have with this argument is, that many of the FE'ers are not religious, therefore to postulate that their view can only be peddled to believers in mumbo jumbo, is to insult them and admit that the whole idea is not scientific, why not tell them their mothers swam after troopships?

Then that is a serious problem indeed.

That "Flat Earthers" want to be a scientific community yet fly in the face of "accepted" modern science.

To the scientific community "flat-earther" is a derogatory term, and their concepts are ridiculed. It is very troubling to see the same shit-rolls-downhill mentality by a flat-earther to discredit someone who believes in intelligent design, a concept that also flies in the face of "accepted" science.

Does the flat earth society even try to put together a theory regarding the creation of our universe? Or is just, gravity is wrong, heliocentric model is wrong, but the big bang is right?

*

Offline Lord Dave

  • *
  • Posts: 5507
  • Grumpy old man.
    • View Profile
Who said it works in a vacuum?
Science.  Experiments.  Jars devoid of gas yet somehow stuff doesn't float in it.

Quote
Who said space is a vacuum? Who said anything about space? I'm talking about the thoroughly experimented on property of matter known as density, and its observable effects on earth.
You said space, not me.  Also, I'm talking about observable effects on earth too. A lead brick isn't going to float in a jar full of nothing anymore than it'll float in a jar full of air.  Also, if the density of air and us kept us down, then the total force keeping you down is equal to the force acting downwards on you: ie. the weight of the air above you.  This is very very false and can be demonstrated with some very simple math.

Quote
I directed you towards Hermeticism and you are the one that wants to talk about the Bible and Christianity only. No one said any religion is there to tell you how our natural world works, it deals with the supernatural.
The shape of the Earth is not supernatural.  Thus, if you want to use religion to convince people of the shape of the earth, then you have a contradiction.

Quote
I'm not anti-science, in fact I completely agree with the original intention of the scientific method, that is observation of our physical universe and experimentation to test different elements of it. When things become abstract mathematics with relatively (pun intended) little resemblance to reality is where I believe science has took a turn for the worse.
So you're ok with observational science which proves the Earth is round then complain about abstract concepts you don't understand, and all in a thread saying we should have Flat Earth taught as a religion....

I'm done. 
You are either trolling or one giant contradiction.  Either way, convincing you that you're wrong is pointless.  So go ahead, preach that the Earth is flat due to non-scientific reasons while then saying that science is good. 

Thanks for actually putting some thought into a response.

I've only maintained what I've said from the beginning, which is that science as a vehicle for flat earth theory is a non starter. Where you see a contradiction on that point I'd like to know. Whether you personally believe in God or that the Earth is Flat or Round is irrelevant to the topic at hand. But I can tell you are letting your personal views overpower your ability to objectively look at the points I've raised. Even if I didn't personally believe in intelligent design, I still know there are lots of people that do. I only seek to find out why the "flat earth society" chooses to remain strictly atheistic, when it is clear the scientific community shuns it entirely.

*

Offline Lord Dave

  • *
  • Posts: 5507
  • Grumpy old man.
    • View Profile
Thanks for actually putting some thought into a response.

I've only maintained what I've said from the beginning, which is that science as a vehicle for flat earth theory is a non starter. Where you see a contradiction on that point I'd like to know. Whether you personally believe in God or that the Earth is Flat or Round is irrelevant to the topic at hand. But I can tell you are letting your personal views overpower your ability to objectively look at the points I've raised. Even if I didn't personally believe in intelligent design, I still know there are lots of people that do. I only seek to find out why the "flat earth society" chooses to remain strictly atheistic, when it is clear the scientific community shuns it entirely.
The contradiction is that you've said religion deals with supernatural but the Earth's shape is not supernatural (by definition).  It can also be observed and measured.  Yet you then seem to think that using the supernatural angle is the only way to get people to agree the Earth is flat.  You are literally saying "The Earth is flat.  Believe it because I said so." which is a really bad way of getting people to join your cause.

And yes, science does think it's a laughable notion, with good reason.  But, be reminded, they said the same thing about plate tectonics.

The contradiction is that you've said religion deals with supernatural but the Earth's shape is not supernatural (by definition).  It can also be observed and measured.  Yet you then seem to think that using the supernatural angle is the only way to get people to agree the Earth is flat.  You are literally saying "The Earth is flat.  Believe it because I said so." which is a really bad way of getting people to join your cause.
And yes, science does think it's a laughable notion, with good reason.  But, be reminded, they said the same thing about plate tectonics.

If the Earth's shape was satisfactorily observed, measured, and confirmed beyond a reasonable doubt would this forum even exist? There is an incredible amount of faith involved in believing in things like the moon landing, the big bang, or Newtonian gravity.

And the Earth, though aspects and elements of its nature can be examined and measured, isn't automatically natural by definition, depending on your beliefs. I believe in a supernatural formulation obviously, for many of the reasons listed in my OP, and a lot of other people do as well.

I'm just pointing out the error that is trusting in a segment of society, that inherently seeks to invalidate creationism and would prefer to push big bang theories and evolution, to ever contradict themselves by giving flat earth theory any proper attention.

The two concepts are more connected than anyone apparently realizes here on this forum.

*

Offline Lord Dave

  • *
  • Posts: 5507
  • Grumpy old man.
    • View Profile
The contradiction is that you've said religion deals with supernatural but the Earth's shape is not supernatural (by definition).  It can also be observed and measured.  Yet you then seem to think that using the supernatural angle is the only way to get people to agree the Earth is flat.  You are literally saying "The Earth is flat.  Believe it because I said so." which is a really bad way of getting people to join your cause.
And yes, science does think it's a laughable notion, with good reason.  But, be reminded, they said the same thing about plate tectonics.

If the Earth's shape was satisfactorily observed, measured, and confirmed beyond a reasonable doubt would this forum even exist? There is an incredible amount of faith involved in believing in things like the moon landing, the big bang, or Newtonian gravity.
Moon landing?  No.  We have evidence.
Big bang?  Eh, its a theory.  Lots of evidence but obviously no definite proof.
Newtonian Gravity?  No.  Not even a little.  Want proof?  Drop something.  Want more proof?  Do it in a sub, under water.  Go test it.

Quote
And the Earth, though aspects and elements of its nature can be examined and measured, isn't automatically natural by definition, depending on your beliefs. I believe in a supernatural formulation obviously, for many of the reasons listed in my OP, and a lot of other people do as well.
Yeah it kinda is.  Natural means it exists and is bound by the laws of the universe.  It is part of nature, of the environment.  Of the universe.

Quote
I'm just pointing out the error that is trusting in a segment of society, that inherently seeks to invalidate creationism and would prefer to push big bang theories and evolution, to ever contradict themselves by giving flat earth theory any proper attention.

The two concepts are more connected than anyone apparently realizes here on this forum.
As opposed to a segmemt of society that tells you something without proof and saying "trust me."?

Didnt you just admit the big bang is a trust us scenario? I don't understand at all your comment about dropping something from a sub, because buoyancy itself completely defies gravity. Things that are less dense than water rise, things that are more dense drop. A theory, by definition, not a law, of gravitation has nothing to do with it.

*

Offline Lord Dave

  • *
  • Posts: 5507
  • Grumpy old man.
    • View Profile
Didnt you just admit the big bang is a trust us scenario? I don't understand at all your comment about dropping something from a sub, because buoyancy itself completely defies gravity. Things that are less dense than water rise, things that are more dense drop. A theory, by definition, not a law, of gravitation has nothing to do with it.
It doesn't defy anything.  Buoyancy is a force like any other.  It pushes less dense objects up or, more accurafely, more dense objects down.  Its a product of gravitation.  Lets take wood and water.  They both are being pulled down at the same rate.  However, the water is denser so its mass can move the wood against gravity to get closer to the surface.  The wood moves out of the way of the water until its floating on top.

A submarine is denser than water.  FYI.  How does that defy your logic?

At this point I feel like you are just pulling shit out of your ass. If a mod can take these last several posts about bouyancy to debate thatd be greeat

Didnt you just admit the big bang is a trust us scenario? I don't understand at all your comment about dropping something from a sub, because buoyancy itself completely defies gravity. Things that are less dense than water rise, things that are more dense drop. A theory, by definition, not a law, of gravitation has nothing to do with it.
It doesn't defy anything.  Buoyancy is a force like any other.  It pushes less dense objects up or, more accurafely, more dense objects down.  Its a product of gravitation.  Lets take wood and water.  They both are being pulled down at the same rate.  However, the water is denser so its mass can move the wood against gravity to get closer to the surface.  The wood moves out of the way of the water until its floating on top.

A submarine is denser than water.  FYI.  How does that defy your logic?

Why is buoyancy defined as something that only affects object in liquid water? Our atmosphere is a fluid just as much as a body of water is.

*

Offline Lord Dave

  • *
  • Posts: 5507
  • Grumpy old man.
    • View Profile
Didnt you just admit the big bang is a trust us scenario? I don't understand at all your comment about dropping something from a sub, because buoyancy itself completely defies gravity. Things that are less dense than water rise, things that are more dense drop. A theory, by definition, not a law, of gravitation has nothing to do with it.
It doesn't defy anything.  Buoyancy is a force like any other.  It pushes less dense objects up or, more accurafely, more dense objects down.  Its a product of gravitation.  Lets take wood and water.  They both are being pulled down at the same rate.  However, the water is denser so its mass can move the wood against gravity to get closer to the surface.  The wood moves out of the way of the water until its floating on top.

A submarine is denser than water.  FYI.  How does that defy your logic?

Why is buoyancy defined as something that only affects object in liquid water? Our atmosphere is a fluid just as much as a body of water is.
Never said otherwise.
Just easier to see in water than air.