The Flat Earth Society
Flat Earth Discussion Boards => Flat Earth Debate => Topic started by: Itchy_Arris on April 27, 2015, 01:41:38 PM
-
Ive been reading about the different flat earth concepts. The idea of a disc being accelerated upwards with an ice wall is interesting, but I find it hard to believe. Antarctica has been well mapped, and I see no reason to doubt that is an island continent.
I read about dual earth theory. The person (jroweskeptic) who mainly seems to support this has put a lot of work into it, but it seems to me as a way of answering questions that the standard flat earth has difficulty with, rather than real belief.
Basically I think you are over-complicating things.
I have always believed the the earth is not a globe (that is just ridiculous) but is just the ground at the bottom of the universe. It may be an infinite plain, or as big as the universe, but it's definitely very big. It's not for us to know how big it is, that is why we are only permitted to know a small part of it. Maybe we be allowed to travel further in the future, just as we have discovered new lands up to now, I dont know. Why do you need this universal acceleration? Things fall, that is how the universe works - gravity means things fall downwards. Simple.
Isn't this a simpler, more elagent model? Look out the window - the ground is at the bottom, the sky is at the top, it really is that simple.
I believe it is possible to go to space, or the moon. When astronauts return to earth they splash down in the ocean - well of course they do, the ocean is at the bottom!
The only things I am unsure about is why the totally illogical round earth theory has been taught for all this time, and why almost everyone believes it. I guess brainwashing is a powerful thing.
I am pretty sure mountains exist.
-
You're right.
Mountains do exist ;D.
-
Why do you need this universal acceleration? Things fall, that is how the universe works - gravity means things fall downwards. Simple.
The important question is "why?"
Gravity is explained, mostly: at the very least, we can explain its cause. Even UA is explained. But if gravity makes things 'fall downward', why? Is there just an inherent bias towards one direction in the universe?
If so, how are there stars? Planets? The Sun? The moon? They should be getting larger, crashing into us.
I believe it is possible to go to space, or the moon.
Then why do photos from space depict a sphere? Are they fake? Why would they be faked, and how could so many keep the secret, as you now have witnesses to the deception.
I am pretty sure mountains exist.
WHat about air, does air exist?
-
Why do you need this universal acceleration? Things fall, that is how the universe works - gravity means things fall downwards. Simple.
The important question is "why?"
Gravity is explained, mostly: at the very least, we can explain its cause. Even UA is explained. But if gravity makes things 'fall downward', why? Is there just an inherent bias towards one direction in the universe?
If so, how are there stars? Planets? The Sun? The moon? They should be getting larger, crashing into us.
Why does gravity exist? How can I know that? It's like asking why the universe exists.
The moon and stars are in the sky, moving with their own energy. Maybe they will all fall to the ground eventually, I don't know.
Yes I believe in air!
I believe it is possible to go to space, or the moon.
Then why do photos from space depict a sphere? Are they fake? Why would they be faked, and how could so many keep the secret, as you now have witnesses to the deception.
I am pretty sure mountains exist.
WHat about air, does air exist?
-
Why do you need this universal acceleration? Things fall, that is how the universe works - gravity means things fall downwards. Simple.
What is causing the force of gravity? Simply telling us that "gravity means things fall downwards" sounds like a cop-out. There is an explanation for everything. Why can we see the moons of distant planets orbit their parent? Why isn't our moon just sitting on the ground with us?
EDIT: Oops, BiJane beat me to the question.
-
Why do you need this universal acceleration? Things fall, that is how the universe works - gravity means things fall downwards. Simple.
What is causing the force of gravity? Simply telling us that "gravity means things fall downwards" sounds like a cop-out. There is an explanation for everything. Why can we see the moons of distant planets orbit their parent? Why isn't our moon just sitting on the ground with us?
The worlds best physisists don't know what causes gravity. Why do you expect me to know?
The moons of distant planets orbit due to gravity. This is elementary school stuff, you really should already know this.
The moon has enough energy to counteract the force of gravity, it is in balance. Again, you really should know this.
-
Why does gravity exist? How can I know that? It's like asking why the universe exists.
Not why does it exist: why does it work? Why the force in one specific direction? It seems much too convenient, more to reject RET than to stand on its own.
The moon and stars are in the sky, moving with their own energy. Maybe they will all fall to the ground eventually, I don't know.
How are they moving on their own energy? How does that allow them to resist your gravity which should be a universal force, for you?
Orbits don't work without a round Earth, so the best I can see is that you're relying on some principle akin to airplanes: constant movement allowing them to stay aloft. However, that only worked if air extends as high as the moon/sun, which seems to be clearly untrue, both because the air would be pulled down, and because we can observe air growing thinner as we go higher. So, how exactly does 'moving with their own energy' allow the moon and stars to ignore gravity?
You can generally gauge how reliable a theory is with how many exceptions it needs to make: how much special pleading is involved. It seems your view of gravity has many such exceptions.
The moons of distant planets orbit due to gravity. This is elementary school stuff, you really should already know this.
Except the gravity we learn about is completely different to the gravity you use, and the two cannot be reconciled. How does a force pulling everything in one direction cause rotational motion?
-
Why does gravity exist? How can I know that? It's like asking why the universe exists.
Not why does it exist: why does it work? Why the force in one specific direction? It seems much too convenient, more to reject RET than to stand on its own.
The moon and stars are in the sky, moving with their own energy. Maybe they will all fall to the ground eventually, I don't know.
How are they moving on their own energy? How does that allow them to resist your gravity which should be a universal force, for you?
Orbits don't work without a round Earth, so the best I can see is that you're relying on some principle akin to airplanes: constant movement allowing them to stay aloft. However, that only worked if air extends as high as the moon/sun, which seems to be clearly untrue, both because the air would be pulled down, and because we can observe air growing thinner as we go higher. So, how exactly does 'moving with their own energy' allow the moon and stars to ignore gravity?
You can generally gauge how reliable a theory is with how many exceptions it needs to make: how much special pleading is involved. It seems your view of gravity has many such exceptions.
The moons of distant planets orbit due to gravity. This is elementary school stuff, you really should already know this.
Except the gravity we learn about is completely different to the gravity you use, and the two cannot be reconciled. How does a force pulling everything in one direction cause rotational motion?
Again you are asking me why gravity exists. Nobody knows, even the best physicists in the world don't know. But we do know it does exist.
Are you saying that objects in the sky don't move with their own energy? Do you believe the universe is static?
-
Again you are asking me why gravity exists. Nobody knows, even the best physicists in the world don't know. But we do know it does exist.
We know gravity, as defined by a force that draws objects towards objects with mass, exists. You are not using that definition, you cannot claim all the connotations of the word when you are not using it properly.
I am asking for an explanation of the force you are proposing. Gravity as commonly defined has that explanation: attraction towards mass.
If you don't want to address this, fine, FEers rarely have evidence or detail. The more important matter for you is to address the contradiction.
Are you saying that objects in the sky don't move with their own energy? Do you believe the universe is static?
I am asking how those movements can be reconciled with your view that all things are pulled in one direction. You can't have it both ways.
How could those objects possibly move with their own energy in ignorance of the universal force you require?
Your theory needs work: there's nothing bad about that, just don't ignore input.
-
There are two types of gravity here: normal gravity (N) and flat gravity (F). The orbit of moons and planets depends on N, which also explains Earth's gravity perfectly well. F, however, cannot explain this. You say it's basic stuff taught in school, but "the earth is round" is even more basic stuff taught in school. In F, the earth should also be pulled downwards, ergo, jumping should leave us stranded slightly above the ground. N, however, shows that everything is relative to everything else, and thus the universe can be self-contained and appear exactly as it does.
-
Itchy knows exactly what we're asking, he's just dodging.
-
Gravity.
Perhaps you read recently about the Higgs Boson being discovered at the LHC. The Higgs is the field and particle that gives particles the property of mass. Objects that have mass, things like people, planets, etc. have a mutual attraction. Agreed we physicists do not yet have an ultimate reason, may never have. But we have a few models, Newtons gravity, and GR for very massive objects.
Infinite or extremely large. What empirical evidence do you have?
-
Again you are asking me why gravity exists. Nobody knows, even the best physicists in the world don't know. But we do know it does exist.
We know gravity, as defined by a force that draws objects towards objects with mass, exists. You are not using that definition, you cannot claim all the connotations of the word when you are not using it properly.
I am asking for an explanation of the force you are proposing. Gravity as commonly defined has that explanation: attraction towards mass.
If you don't want to address this, fine, FEers rarely have evidence or detail. The more important matter for you is to address the contradiction.
Are you saying that objects in the sky don't move with their own energy? Do you believe the universe is static?
I am asking how those movements can be reconciled with your view that all things are pulled in one direction. You can't have it both ways.
How could those objects possibly move with their own energy in ignorance of the universal force you require?
Your theory needs work: there's nothing bad about that, just don't ignore input.
Are you saying that the earth doesn't have mass? I don't see why you think the flat plane can't have gravity.
The stars are a long way from the earth. Very very high up. You should learn about the inverse square law if gravity.
-
Gravity.
Perhaps you read recently about the Higgs Boson being discovered at the LHC. The Higgs is the field and particle that gives particles the property of mass. Objects that have mass, things like people, planets, etc. have a mutual attraction. Agreed we physicists do not yet have an ultimate reason, may never have. But we have a few models, Newtons gravity, and GR for very massive objects.
Infinite or extremely large. What empirical evidence do you have?
We know the universe is very big. Therefore the bottom of the universe must be very big.
Why are people having trouble with something do simple?
-
There are two types of gravity here: normal gravity (N) and flat gravity (F). The orbit of moons and planets depends on N, which also explains Earth's gravity perfectly well. F, however, cannot explain this. You say it's basic stuff taught in school, but "the earth is round" is even more basic stuff taught in school. In F, the earth should also be pulled downwards, ergo, jumping should leave us stranded slightly above the ground. N, however, shows that everything is relative to everything else, and thus the universe can be self-contained and appear exactly as it does.
Are you suggesting that only round objects have gravity? Do some research. All mass has gravity.
I already stated that I dont know why round earth is taught. But I'm trying to find out.
-
Are you saying that the earth doesn't have mass? I don't see why you think the flat plane can't have gravity.
The stars are a long way from the earth. Very very high up. You should learn about the inverse square law if gravity.
So you don't believe things are pulled towards one side of the universe? (What you call down?)
If you do, then you haven't answered any questions. If you only believe in gravity based on mass then a) your initial post is very ambiguous, and b) a flat plane would not form.
-
I don't see what's ambiguous, Ive been very clear, but I'll spell it out for you again.
The earth is the bottom of the universe. How it formed is more of a philosophical/religious question, it may have just been forever. Everything falls to the bottom eventually - we see things falling to the ground all the time, meteorites -but the universe is very big and has a lot of energy, enabling object to stay up for a long time. Remember the entire history of humans is just a blink of an eye in universal time.
It's common sense. You need to realise you have been brainwashed to believe in a ridiculous concept of a bottomless universe. Brainwashing is powerful, but please try to see how nonsensical that is.
Go on, break your programming!
-
Still, if the Earth is the bottom of the universe, gravity would not work. In gravity, the larger the mass, the larger the force of attraction. In your model, gravity will not work, it must be something else, and it shows the same lack of spacial reasoning I see with many here. If the Earth were the bottom of the universe and it is infinite or near infinite, gravity would say that it would have infinite force, meaning infinite acceleration. Light would not even leave the surface of the Earth. And being spread out, basically infinitely with this infinite force, it would collapse the universe onto itself and also pull into itself to a singular point.
The things fall argument is very much like the if the Earth was round we would slide off of it. This is a complete lack of understanding for how gravity works. Yes we do not know the exact cause on the quantum level for gravity, but we do know that it is there, what controls the strength of its force, can measure it, etc. We know that if a mass is sufficient enough (depending on the substance's pliability) it will form into a sphere. There is no force pulling "down" in the universe, there is a force pulling matter to matter.
So for an infinite plane, a disc, a cone, whatever shape you want to think the Earth is other than a sphere, you must not accept gravity. Which is in fact some of the discussions going on here, as most FErs understand this fact, that gravity will not work for their model, hence universal acceleration, denpressure, and whatever the newest aether property is.
-
Still, if the Earth is the bottom of the universe, gravity would not work. In gravity, the larger the mass, the larger the force of attraction. In your model, gravity will not work, it must be something else, and it shows the same lack of spacial reasoning I see with many here. If the Earth were the bottom of the universe and it is infinite or near infinite, gravity would say that it would have infinite force, meaning infinite acceleration. Light would not even leave the surface of the Earth. And being spread out, basically infinitely with this infinite force, it would collapse the universe onto itself and also pull into itself to a singular point.
The things fall argument is very much like the if the Earth was round we would slide off of it. This is a complete lack of understanding for how gravity works. Yes we do not know the exact cause on the quantum level for gravity, but we do know that it is there, what controls the strength of its force, can measure it, etc. We know that if a mass is sufficient enough (depending on the substance's pliability) it will form into a sphere. There is no force pulling "down" in the universe, there is a force pulling matter to matter.
So for an infinite plane, a disc, a cone, whatever shape you want to think the Earth is other than a sphere, you must not accept gravity. Which is in fact some of the discussions going on here, as most FErs understand this fact, that gravity will not work for their model, hence universal acceleration, denpressure, and whatever the newest aether property is.
A black hole singularity has infinite density and infinite gravity. They don't collapse the universe though do they? Don't pretend to understand gravity - nobody does.
-
A black hole singularity has infinite density and infinite gravity. They don't collapse the universe though do they? Don't pretend to understand gravity - nobody does.
Not quite true.
There's a difference between knowing how gravity behaves and the somewhat deeper questions, we know all there is to know about gravity to predict the motions of the planets the evolution and formation of stars and supernova. We know how gravity works on large scales, and the medium scale of the earth, we know how to calculate everything that is observable about gravity from dropping a cannon ball of the tower of Pisa, to Newton and universal laws of gravitation, we know Einstein's general theory of relativity, which at one level is all about gravity and the way mass distorts space and time. From one point of view gravity can be described as the distortion of space by the presence of mass. We know how particles get mass from the Higgs field. Gravitational calculations are what predicts the presence of dark matter, even though we don't know what it is, we know it is there because of what we know about gravity.
Don't pretend gravity is something mysterious and unknown.
-
How do north south orbits work?
-
A black hole singularity has infinite density and infinite gravity. They don't collapse the universe though do they? Don't pretend to understand gravity - nobody does.
Not quite true.
There's a difference between knowing how gravity behaves and the somewhat deeper questions, we know all there is to know about gravity to predict the motions of the planets the evolution and formation of stars and supernova. We know how gravity works on large scales, and the medium scale of the earth, we know how to calculate everything that is observable about gravity from dropping a cannon ball of the tower of Pisa, to Newton and universal laws of gravitation, we know Einstein's general theory of relativity, which at one level is all about gravity and the way mass distorts space and time. From one point of view gravity can be described as the distortion of space by the presence of mass. We know how particles get mass from the Higgs field. Gravitational calculations are what predicts the presence of dark matter, even though we don't know what it is, we know it is there because of what we know about gravity.
Don't pretend gravity is something mysterious and unknown.
Well okay, if you assume that 96% of the universe is undetectable dark matter, then yes we understand it. I find that assumption a bit hard to swallow.
Yes the flat earth plain has enormous mass, but it is spread out over the whole diameter of the universe, so low density. No need for enormous gravity. Sorry, try again.
-
So the Universe is basically a cylinder shape in your model, since its a flat earth almost infinitely large on the base of the universe?
So you are also trying to use aetheric whirlpools as a reason for star rotations too. How does that actually work for the southern hemisphere, since the same stars are visible to travel in the same pathway from opposite ends of this disc portion of the infinite flat Earth? I could possibly see the Northern hemisphere if that were the center, or the Southern if that were, but not both at the same time. It simply would not work.
You still cannot use gravity for the reason things fall down in this cylinder universe. The amount of surface for what we as humans live on is substantial enough to form a sphere alone, so the low density argument doesn't work. Gravity is the attraction of matter to matter. So for an infinite plane, and any thickness at all, enough to stand on, would pull itself into spheres. If you are lucky to make multiple spheres and not one infinitely large one.
Another thing is the amount of dark matter thought to be a part of the universe. 96% is not correct. At best it is thought to be maybe somewhere less than 80%, but that is a moot point. There are theories that are trying to do away with the dark matter and dark energy placeholders. http://arxiv.org/pdf/1212.1110v2.pdf (http://arxiv.org/pdf/1212.1110v2.pdf)
You cannot just say things fall down. Like i said, its just more limited reasoning. I'll give you another example of limited reasoning when trying to understand gravity; the people in the Southern hemisphere would feel like they were upside down. Once again limited reasoning, one where you cannot get the up and down mentality out of your brain, along with the lack of understanding to scale. The flat Earth mentality boils down to "it looks flat". Most people cannot understand that the size of the Earth in relation to the size of a human would make the tiny piece you inhabit and see of this massive sphere look flat. Once people can get past that little failure of reasoning, they would be able to see that the rest of the stuff, like the massive conspiracy, make believe aether, intelligent bendy light (bends just right to hide the flat Earth), etc. are simply silly concepts with no proof. The infinite plane is just another one of those things in that list of silly failed concepts.
-
I don't see what's ambiguous, Ive been very clear, but I'll spell it out for you again.
The earth is the bottom of the universe. How it formed is more of a philosophical/religious question, it may have just been forever. Everything falls to the bottom eventually - we see things falling to the ground all the time, meteorites -but the universe is very big and has a lot of energy, enabling object to stay up for a long time. Remember the entire history of humans is just a blink of an eye in universal time.
In that case you're not using a form of gravity with mass attracted to mass: you're just involving a downwards force unrelated to it.
The universe is very big, sure, but the Sun is close to Earth: very close, under FET (by trig). We should have observed that growing larger, and closer. It should we well within the Earth's influence. Could you please clarify what this "Its own energy," is?
I would also query your problem with a bottomless universe, given your title of this thread defines an infinite earth: and so an edgeless universe. Why is the bottom so special? Why must it have a bottom, even with no edge?
-
So the Universe is basically a cylinder shape in your model, since its a flat earth almost infinitely large on the base of the universe?
So you are also trying to use aetheric whirlpools as a reason for star rotations too. How does that actually work for the southern hemisphere, since the same stars are visible to travel in the same pathway from opposite ends of this disc portion of the infinite flat Earth? I could possibly see the Northern hemisphere if that were the center, or the Southern if that were, but not both at the same time. It simply would not work.
You still cannot use gravity for the reason things fall down in this cylinder universe. The amount of surface for what we as humans live on is substantial enough to form a sphere alone, so the low density argument doesn't work. Gravity is the attraction of matter to matter. So for an infinite plane, and any thickness at all, enough to stand on, would pull itself into spheres. If you are lucky to make multiple spheres and not one infinitely large one.
Another thing is the amount of dark matter thought to be a part of the universe. 96% is not correct. At best it is thought to be maybe somewhere less than 80%, but that is a moot point. There are theories that are trying to do away with the dark matter and dark energy placeholders. http://arxiv.org/pdf/1212.1110v2.pdf (http://arxiv.org/pdf/1212.1110v2.pdf)
You cannot just say things fall down. Like i said, its just more limited reasoning. I'll give you another example of limited reasoning when trying to understand gravity; the people in the Southern hemisphere would feel like they were upside down. Once again limited reasoning, one where you cannot get the up and down mentality out of your brain, along with the lack of understanding to scale. The flat Earth mentality boils down to "it looks flat". Most people cannot understand that the size of the Earth in relation to the size of a human would make the tiny piece you inhabit and see of this massive sphere look flat. Once people can get past that little failure of reasoning, they would be able to see that the rest of the stuff, like the massive conspiracy, make believe aether, intelligent bendy light (bends just right to hide the flat Earth), etc. are simply silly concepts with no proof. The infinite plane is just another one of those things in that list of silly failed concepts.
I don't know what shape the universe is, or if it infinite or finite. I never said it was a cylinder.
I don't even know what aesthetic whirlpools are! I don't know what intelligent bendy light is!
Why are you making things up and attributing them to me?
-
I don't see what's ambiguous, Ive been very clear, but I'll spell it out for you again.
The earth is the bottom of the universe. How it formed is more of a philosophical/religious question, it may have just been forever. Everything falls to the bottom eventually - we see things falling to the ground all the time, meteorites -but the universe is very big and has a lot of energy, enabling object to stay up for a long time. Remember the entire history of humans is just a blink of an eye in universal time.
In that case you're not using a form of gravity with mass attracted to mass: you're just involving a downwards force unrelated to it.
The universe is very big, sure, but the Sun is close to Earth: very close, under FET (by trig). We should have observed that growing larger, and closer. It should we well within the Earth's influence. Could you please clarify what this "Its own energy," is?
I would also query your problem with a bottomless universe, given your title of this thread defines an infinite earth: and so an edgeless universe. Why is the bottom so special? Why must it have a bottom, even with no edge?
Kinetic energy, obviously. Duh!
I don't know if the earth or the universe is infinite. The earth plain spans the entire universe, but I didn't say it was infinite all the way down. Obviously the earth ends at the bottom of the universe, it just fills the bottom few miles.
It's common sense that the universe has a bottom. Otherwise where would everything fall to?
-
Title should be Infinite Earth?
Sirry I missed the question mark.
-
Kinetic energy, obviously. Duh!
What causes the upwards kinetic energy? I've studied mathematics quite a while, I can give you the mechanics break down if you want, but horizontal motion does not cancel out downwards motion. What kinetic energy causes the Sun etc to resist the pull of gravity?
Or is this just something you assume must be the case for the sake of convenience?
It's common sense that the universe has a bottom. Otherwise where would everything fall to?
To centres of mass. Down is subjective, in the same way that left or right is subjective. Turn around 180 degrees, your left is now what right was before.
-
You do realize a flat plane with gravity would simply form into a sphere. The center of mass(the middle of the disc) would suck in the parts next to it. Then the gravity would increase, and it would domino effect into a huge sphere. No matter if it's infinite or not.
-
Kinetic energy, obviously. Duh!
What causes the upwards kinetic energy? I've studied mathematics quite a while, I can give you the mechanics break down if you want, but horizontal motion does not cancel out downwards motion. What kinetic energy causes the Sun etc to resist the pull of gravity?
Or is this just something you assume must be the case for the sake of convenience?
It's common sense that the universe has a bottom. Otherwise where would everything fall to?
To centres of mass. Down is subjective, in the same way that left or right is subjective. Turn around 180 degrees, your left is now what right was before.
I don't know what the hell you're on about "upwards kinetic energy". You're as bad as that other bloke, making things up and making out that they are my claims. Is that how you debate here?
The stars are moving away from us as space expands. Don't you know that?
Do you not know that heat rises? Pretty basic stuff this. The Sun is very very hot, so rises even against gravity. We can see this is easily possible with hot air balloons.
The thing don't seem to understand is that gravity is incredibly weak. I just picked up a TV remote - there, I defeated the gravity of the whole earth!
-
Kinetic energy, obviously. Duh!
What causes the upwards kinetic energy? I've studied mathematics quite a while, I can give you the mechanics break down if you want, but horizontal motion does not cancel out downwards motion. What kinetic energy causes the Sun etc to resist the pull of gravity?
Or is this just something you assume must be the case for the sake of convenience?
It's common sense that the universe has a bottom. Otherwise where would everything fall to?
To centres of mass. Down is subjective, in the same way that left or right is subjective. Turn around 180 degrees, your left is now what right was before.
I don't know what the hell you're on about "upwards kinetic energy". You're as bad as that other bloke, making things up and making out that they are my claims. Is that how you debate here?
The stars are moving away from us as space expands. Don't you know that?
Do you not know that heat rises? Pretty basic stuff this. The Sun is very very hot, so rises even against gravity. We can see this is easily possible with hot air balloons.
The thing don't seem to understand is that gravity is incredibly weak. I just picked up a TV remote - there, I defeated the gravity of the whole earth!
Hot air rises because it's less dense, not because of some special property of heat itself.
-
I don't know what the hell you're on about "upwards kinetic energy". You're as bad as that other bloke, making things up and making out that they are my claims. Is that how you debate here?
Upwards kinetic energy is what you need if kinetic energy, as you said, keeps the Sun aloft. I mean, clearly it does need to be upwards: any other direction won't keep the Sun aloft.
The stars are moving away from us as space expands. Don't you know that?
So is your contention now that space is expanding at the exact same rate that the Sun s falling? This is getting more and more convenient.
Do you not know that heat rises? Pretty basic stuff this. The Sun is very very hot, so rises even against gravity. We can see this is easily possible with hot air balloons.
Heat only rises within the atmosphere. Hot air is less dense than cool air, so it goes up. For an aside, if you try it with water, the opposite's true: cold water is less dense, so it rises. That's how the surface of a glass of water can freeze while the rest remains liquid. The point is, the Sun would only be able to rise if the atmosphere of a similar composition to the Sun extended far enough.
The thing don't seem to understand is that gravity is incredibly weak. I just picked up a TV remote - there, I defeated the gravity of the whole earth!
If it's so weak, fly away. It's what you're saying the Sun does.
-
You do realize a flat plane with gravity would simply form into a sphere. The center of mass(the middle of the disc) would suck in the parts next to it. Then the gravity would increase, and it would domino effect into a huge sphere. No matter if it's infinite or not.
No it wouldn't. You're thinking of it as in free space, where of course it would form a sphere. I do have a pretty good understanding of physics. I'm a chemistry graduate, not some hick.
As I've already explained, the earth is at the bottom. Think of it like the ocean floor if you are having trouble visualising this. The earth can not form a sphere, it all stuck to the bottom!
-
So the lack of anything at the bottom of the universe is like solid something.
-
How do north south orbits work?
Err, same as any other orbit. What a shit question.
-
Title should be Infinite Earth?
Sirry I missed the question mark.
If you hit 'modify' on your first post, you can change the title of the thread, I think. (Just tested it on a thread I started, should work).
-
So the lack of anything at the bottom of the universe is like solid something.
?
Come back when you can compose a coherent sentence.
-
Title should be Infinite Earth?
Sirry I missed the question mark.
If you hit 'modify' on your first post, you can change the title of the thread, I think. (Just tested it on a thread I started, should work).
Okay thanks.
Youre so serious here! I was joking about the Sun rising coz it's hot! Of course the sun is just our nearest star. Just because the Sun and Earth both have gravity, doesn't mean they should crash into each other. We wouldn't be here if that was the case on a round or flat earth. They are just in equilibrium.
And yes gravity is VERY weak, orders of magnitude weaker than the other 3 fundamental forces. And nobody knows why.
-
Youre so serious here! I was joking about the Sun rising coz it's hot!
We've got people here who seriously argue for the non-existence of air, for fairies existing, and for dinosaurs building boats. Jokes are hard to spot.
Of course the sun is just our nearest star. Just because the Sun and Earth both have gravity, doesn't mean they should crash into each other. We wouldn't be here if that was the case on a round or flat earth. They are just in equilibrium.
Not at all. On a round Earth, the Earth is falling towards the Sun: that's what orbit is, perpetual falling. However, the Sun's rotating itself, so we constantly shift angles as we fall: that causes circular motion. It's a kind of equilibrium, but not like you're opposing. Two gravities don't cancel each other out, especially as one's is far weaker than the other: (the Earth's under RET, the Sun's under FET), and no matter what, their gravities will just attract them even more.
And clearly, you can't orbit around a flat body: the Sun doesn't go around the Earth, it just moves atop it. There's nothing to prevent the gravitational pull you rely on: the Sun should be falling.
And yes gravity is VERY weak, orders of magnitude weaker than the other 3 fundamental forces. And nobody knows why.
Weak in comparison to them, sure. But a) those forces aren't hugely relevant here, b) there are many hypotheses as to why: it's not that no one understands, it's that no one's sure which is the case, and c) weak in comparison is not weak. Getting hit by a car is orders of magnitude weaker than getting hit by a supersonic jet going full-speed, that doesn't mean it's not still major.
-
You must remember that the sun is part of a galaxy of hundreds of billions of other stars. Obviously, all the other stars are above the sun, so the sun is balanced between the gravity if the earth, and the rest of the galaxy. It's kind of trapped there. The flux of these gravitational pulls makes the sun move in a circular path, causing day and night.
-
You must remember that the sun is part of a galaxy of hundreds of billions of other stars. Obviously, all the other stars are above the sun, so the sun is balanced between the gravity if the earth, and the rest of the galaxy. It's kind of trapped there. The flux of these gravitational pulls makes the sun move in a circular path, causing day and night.
If the gravitational pull of the rest of the galaxy is in total equilibrium with that of the Earth, keeping the Sun in place, then the gravity in your model is orders of magnitude greater than what we've calculated (from various experiments, such as Cavendish), as it should also be having a major impact on the Earth. Why does the gravitational pull of the stars not carry over the cosmically insignificant FE distance from the Sun to Earth?
This still doesn't explain the Sun keeping in place.
I would seriously suggest you reconsider that aspect of your theory. Originality's refreshing, but not if the model doesn't work.
Anyway, that's all from me for tonight.
-
Okay I should have said weak relative to the other FFs. But still, if one person can defeat the gravity of the whole earth, I'd say that qualifies as weak.
-
How do north south orbits work?
Err, same as any other orbit. What a shit question.
Alt detected.
SO you are telling me a satellite can orbit over the north and south pole on a flat earth?
-
You must remember that the sun is part of a galaxy of hundreds of billions of other stars. Obviously, all the other stars are above the sun, so the sun is balanced between the gravity if the earth, and the rest of the galaxy. It's kind of trapped there. The flux of these gravitational pulls makes the sun move in a circular path, causing day and night.
If the gravitational pull of the rest of the galaxy is in total equilibrium with that of the Earth, keeping the Sun in place, then the gravity in your model is orders of magnitude greater than what we've calculated (from various experiments, such as Cavendish), as it should also be having a major impact on the Earth. Why does the gravitational pull of the stars not carry over the cosmically insignificant FE distance from the Sun to Earth?
This still doesn't explain the Sun keeping in place.
I would seriously suggest you reconsider that aspect of your theory. Originality's refreshing, but not if the model doesn't work.
Anyway, that's all from me for tonight.
The gravitational pull of the stars does carry the distance between the sun and earth. But the earth is fixed at the bottom of the universe, it cannot be pulled upwards. So the Sun is held between the Earth and the rest of the galaxy. Why it is much closer to the Earth? I can only speculate that the gravity if Earth is very slightly greater than the galaxy, so the sun has been moving closer to earth very very slowly. But that's only speculation. The rest is solid fact.
It's not a theory or model I'm making up and trying to make work. It's just how it is. I've been thinking about it for a long long time, and it makes much more sense than what we are force-fed at school.
-
How do north south orbits work?
Err, same as any other orbit. What a shit question.
Alt detected.
SO you are telling me a satellite can orbit over the north and south pole on a flat earth?
You can orbit however you like around a spherical body. We know that someplanets have moons as we've seen them. But obviously it's not possible to orbit the earth, it's the bottom of the universe, you can't go under it. Man made satellites exist I believe, but they just go round in circles.
-
So the Universe is basically a cylinder shape in your model, since its a flat earth almost infinitely large on the base of the universe?
So you are also trying to use aetheric whirlpools as a reason for star rotations too. How does that actually work for the southern hemisphere, since the same stars are visible to travel in the same pathway from opposite ends of this disc portion of the infinite flat Earth? I could possibly see the Northern hemisphere if that were the center, or the Southern if that were, but not both at the same time. It simply would not work.
You still cannot use gravity for the reason things fall down in this cylinder universe. The amount of surface for what we as humans live on is substantial enough to form a sphere alone, so the low density argument doesn't work. Gravity is the attraction of matter to matter. So for an infinite plane, and any thickness at all, enough to stand on, would pull itself into spheres. If you are lucky to make multiple spheres and not one infinitely large one.
Another thing is the amount of dark matter thought to be a part of the universe. 96% is not correct. At best it is thought to be maybe somewhere less than 80%, but that is a moot point. There are theories that are trying to do away with the dark matter and dark energy placeholders. http://arxiv.org/pdf/1212.1110v2.pdf (http://arxiv.org/pdf/1212.1110v2.pdf)
You cannot just say things fall down. Like i said, its just more limited reasoning. I'll give you another example of limited reasoning when trying to understand gravity; the people in the Southern hemisphere would feel like they were upside down. Once again limited reasoning, one where you cannot get the up and down mentality out of your brain, along with the lack of understanding to scale. The flat Earth mentality boils down to "it looks flat". Most people cannot understand that the size of the Earth in relation to the size of a human would make the tiny piece you inhabit and see of this massive sphere look flat. Once people can get past that little failure of reasoning, they would be able to see that the rest of the stuff, like the massive conspiracy, make believe aether, intelligent bendy light (bends just right to hide the flat Earth), etc. are simply silly concepts with no proof. The infinite plane is just another one of those things in that list of silly failed concepts.
I don't know what shape the universe is, or if it infinite or finite. I never said it was a cylinder.
I don't even know what aesthetic whirlpools are! I don't know what intelligent bendy light is!
Why are you making things up and attributing them to me?
I meant to pose that as a question about the aetheric whirlpools, since that is the only way any flat Earther has had to explain the motion of the sun, moon, other planets, and stars in the sky. The flat Earth explanation of Southern and Northern circumpolar stars together does not work. Infinite flat Earth would still have to deal with this problem.
Gravity will not work for a flat Earth. Since you studied chemistry, the initial formation of every element after hydrogen will not work without gravity. Since you need fusion of the nuclei.
So how do you propose to explain the stars paths as seen from RE due to the rotation of the Earth?
How do you propose to explain sunset/sunrise, moon rise/moon set, and stars dropping below the horizon on this infinite flat Earth?
How do you propose feel the force of gravity on Earth? I do not accept your apparent limited understanding of gravity and you calling it gravity as an answer.
The sun is not inside the atmosphere, so it cannot rise like a hot air balloon, now you want to say the rest of the universe exerts a pull, due to gravity on the sun keeping it in balance. So how much larger is the sun than the other stars? You said it was a star like the others, but then you say the other stars have that much pull as to equalize it. No, gravity does not work that way. It is subject to the inverse square law meaning the further away you get, the less force is imparted on you. Those other stars, if they are the same as the sun, are too far away to give that much force to the sun.
Right now, your proposals are rather infantile at best. It wasn't even a fun ride, at least the mountains guy is entertaining. No facts are involved in your claims, please stop saying otherwise.
-
Sorry I haven't entertained you. I wasn't trying to. I just hoped I could help some people break their programming, but I see you are brain washed good and proper.
The Sun is being influenced by the gravity of a whole galaxy you half-wit, not individual stars. And you have the nerve to say I don't understand gravity well! Hilarious!
The sky appears different in different places on Earth. That's just common sense, you are looking from a different viewpoint.
The sun sets as it gets further away, getting closer and closer to the horizon until it no longer shines on your part of the world.
-
The sun sets as it gets further away, getting closer and closer to the horizon until it no longer shines on your part of the world.
I was wondering about this. What exactly happens when I see the sun disappear below the horizon in the West and then rise in the East? It just pops from one side of the sky to the other? And if the sun was moving farther and farther away from us, it would shrink in size, which it not only DOESN'T do, but actually INCREASES in size as it gets closer to the horizon due to atmospheric refraction.
-
No you really do not have a clue about gravity.
Guess what makes up the vast visible majority of galaxies, guess what it's stars. They are very far away and are very far away from each other. Hence the gravitational force they would impart on the sun would be much less than what the sun imparts on the Earth, or in your model the Earth imparts on the Sun. A big reason for this is proximity to the source of the force. I suggest you look up the force calculations for gravity which includes distance from the source.
I will say it again for clarity, you have no idea what you are talking about when it comes to gravity. Yes I have the nerve to say it, its true.
The sky appears different in different areas. Ok so get a photo of the night sky from South Africa, one from Australia, and one from South America. All from the same latitude. All pointing south at each spots midnight. You will notice something, all the stars are the same. If you watch long enough, all the stars will appear to rotate in the same direction around the same point in the sky. Do the same thing for Northern hemisphere. The stars will be different from the Southern stars, and will rotate in the opposite direction than the Southern ones do.
Also you must have a problem with geometry and how far light will travel. In your notion, how far away is the sun? How far away is the moon? Just rough estimates.
I am beginning to see that you are no more that another troll, you have nothing to offer but your ideas, which are pretty bad.
-
Sorry I haven't entertained you. I wasn't trying to. I just hoped I could help some people break their programming, but I see you are brain washed good and proper.
The Sun is being influenced by the gravity of a whole galaxy you half-wit, not individual stars. And you have the nerve to say I don't understand gravity well! Hilarious!
The sky appears different in different places on Earth. That's just common sense, you are looking from a different viewpoint.
The sun sets as it gets further away, getting closer and closer to the horizon until it no longer shines on your part of the world.
You are saying that gravity can be a downwards force (F, remember?). You are then using N gravity (mass-->mass) to explain space. Why not just accept N gravity, since it is necessary in either model?
Also, why doesn't the earth fall? It can't go forever, no physical object can go down infinitely. And if there's a void below, why doesn't it fall in?
Although it might seem, you're applying Occam's Razor, you're not.
-
How do north south orbits work?
Err, same as any other orbit. What a shit question.
Alt detected.
SO you are telling me a satellite can orbit over the north and south pole on a flat earth?
You can orbit however you like around a spherical body. We know that someplanets have moons as we've seen them. But obviously it's not possible to orbit the earth, it's the bottom of the universe, you can't go under it. Man made satellites exist I believe, but they just go round in circles.
Why do you think NASA lies to us?
-
I just hoped I could help some people break their programming, but I see you are brain washed good and proper.
Who is doing the brainwashing and why?
-
I just hoped I could help some people break their programming, but I see you are brain washed good and proper.
Who is doing the brainwashing and why?
I'm hoping this forum can help me find the answer to that one.
-
Sorry I haven't entertained you. I wasn't trying to. I just hoped I could help some people break their programming, but I see you are brain washed good and proper.
The Sun is being influenced by the gravity of a whole galaxy you half-wit, not individual stars. And you have the nerve to say I don't understand gravity well! Hilarious!
The sky appears different in different places on Earth. That's just common sense, you are looking from a different viewpoint.
The sun sets as it gets further away, getting closer and closer to the horizon until it no longer shines on your part of the world.
You are saying that gravity can be a downwards force (F, remember?). You are then using N gravity (mass-->mass) to explain space. Why not just accept N gravity, since it is necessary in either model?
Also, why doesn't the earth fall? It can't go forever, no physical object can go down infinitely. And if there's a void below, why doesn't it fall in?
Although it might seem, you're applying Occam's Razor, you're not.
No idea what you're prattling on about. I have not mentioned any different types of gravity. The earth can't fall as it at the very bottom.
-
No you really do not have a clue about gravity.
Guess what makes up the vast visible majority of galaxies, guess what it's stars. They are very far away and are very far away from each other. Hence the gravitational force they would impart on the sun would be much less than what the sun imparts on the Earth, or in your model the Earth imparts on the Sun. A big reason for this is proximity to the source of the force. I suggest you look up the force calculations for gravity which includes distance from the source.
I will say it again for clarity, you have no idea what you are talking about when it comes to gravity. Yes I have the nerve to say it, its true.
The sky appears different in different areas. Ok so get a photo of the night sky from South Africa, one from Australia, and one from South America. All from the same latitude. All pointing south at each spots midnight. You will notice something, all the stars are the same. If you watch long enough, all the stars will appear to rotate in the same direction around the same point in the sky. Do the same thing for Northern hemisphere. The stars will be different from the Southern stars, and will rotate in the opposite direction than the Southern ones do.
Also you must have a problem with geometry and how far light will travel. In your notion, how far away is the sun? How far away is the moon? Just rough estimates.
I am beginning to see that you are no more that another troll, you have nothing to offer but your ideas, which are pretty bad.
You need to realise that the earths gravity is not very strong, it's only a relatively thin mass.
The Sun is 93 million miles away. The moon 250,000 miles.
-
I just hoped I could help some people break their programming, but I see you are brain washed good and proper.
Who is doing the brainwashing and why?
I'm hoping this forum can help me find the answer to that one.
There are any number of possibilities.
1. Reptillian Shape Shifters
2. Illuminati
3. Freemasons
4. The Government, the Obomunists
5. NASA
6. Satan
7. Some evil alien race who live in the hollow earth
8. NAZIS
9. Combinations of the above, like NAZI Government NASA Freemason Illuminati Reptillian shape shifters.
10. Some all powerful evil organization so secret that just to even know of it's existence is certain death.
11. Sunworshippers.
Must be others I've missed, any suggestions? Voldemort?
-
Yes the Sun is 149,600,000 km away. Its mass is also gargantuan at 1.989 x 10^30 kg.
The moon is at 384,400 km with a mass of 7.35 x 10^22 kg.
Earth is 5.972 x 10^24kg with a radius of 6,371 km.
Now the force of gravity as modeled by Newton is F = G mM/r^2 the force is inversely proportional to the square of the distance. Double the distance between masses and the force decreases by 1/4.
Now for some maths. I am going to calculate the gravitational pull of the Sun, the moon, and the Earth on me.
G = 6.673×10^-11(m/kg)^2 m= my mass = 80kg r = center to center distance M=sun/moon/earth mass
Fg(sun) = 6.673×10^-11(m/kg)^2 x 80 kg x 1.989x10^30 kg / (149,600,000,000 m)^2 = 0.474 Newtons = 0.1066lbs
Fg(moon) = 6.673×10^-11(m/kg)^2 x 80 kg x 7.35 x 10^22 kg / (384,400,000 m)^2 = 0.00266 Newtons = 0.000598lbs
Fg(earth) = 6.673×10^-11(m/kg)^2 x 80 kg x 5.972 x 10^24kg / (6,371,000m)^2 = 785 Newtons = 176 lbs
You st
Mass matters. Distance matters more!
For sh*ts and giggles lets see the force on me by the star nearest the Sun, Proxima Centauri.
Distance is 4.24 light years = 4.011350x10^16 m Mass is 0.123 Solar mass = 2.446x10^29kg
Fg(PC) = 6.673×10^-11(m/kg)^2 x 80 kg x 2.446x10^29kg / (4.011350x10^16m)^2 = 8.115x10^-13 Newtons = 1.83x10^-13 lbs= .000000000000183 lbs
Now you state that the pull of a star on the Sun is greater than the pull of the Earth on the Sun.
-
The gravitational pull of the stars does carry the distance between the sun and earth. But the earth is fixed at the bottom of the universe, it cannot be pulled upwards. So the Sun is held between the Earth and the rest of the galaxy. Why it is much closer to the Earth? I can only speculate that the gravity if Earth is very slightly greater than the galaxy, so the sun has been moving closer to earth very very slowly. But that's only speculation. The rest is solid fact.
What about us? Why does the Sun get to more or less ignore gravity, yet the distance between us and the Sun (minor on the scales we're talking about) erases it so completely we have nowhere near the resistance to gravity that the Sun has?
it makes much more sense than what we are force-fed at school.
It doesn't, that's the problem. It just doesn't work.
Also:
You need to realise that the earths gravity is not very strong, it's only a relatively thin mass.
This contradicts what you said above. Is the Earth's gravity strong or weak?
The Sun is 93 million miles away. The moon 250,000 miles.
That's only possible under RET. Eratosthenes calculated the curvature of the Earth, a measurement that has been repeated with more accuracy, and the only way to explain away that experiment is to have the Sun closer to the Earth, rather than further away. That's what FEers have concluded. You can go ahead and use RE distances if you want, but it opens up a whole can of worms if the Earth isn't round.
-
Yes the Sun is 149,600,000 km away. Its mass is also gargantuan at 1.989 x 10^30 kg.
The moon is at 384,400 km with a mass of 7.35 x 10^22 kg.
Earth is 5.972 x 10^24kg with a radius of 6,371 km.
Now the force of gravity as modeled by Newton is F = G mM/r^2 the force is inversely proportional to the square of the distance. Double the distance between masses and the force decreases by 1/4.
Now for some maths. I am going to calculate the gravitational pull of the Sun, the moon, and the Earth on me.
G = 6.673×10^-11(m/kg)^2 m= my mass = 80kg r = center to center distance M=sun/moon/earth mass
Fg(sun) = 6.673×10^-11(m/kg)^2 x 80 kg x 1.989x10^30 kg / (149,600,000,000 m)^2 = 0.474 Newtons = 0.1066lbs
Fg(moon) = 6.673×10^-11(m/kg)^2 x 80 kg x 7.35 x 10^22 kg / (384,400,000 m)^2 = 0.00266 Newtons = 0.000598lbs
Fg(earth) = 6.673×10^-11(m/kg)^2 x 80 kg x 5.972 x 10^24kg / (6,371,000m)^2 = 785 Newtons = 176 lbs
You st
Mass matters. Distance matters more!
For sh*ts and giggles lets see the force on me by the star nearest the Sun, Proxima Centauri.
Distance is 4.24 light years = 4.011350x10^16 m Mass is 0.123 Solar mass = 2.446x10^29kg
Fg(PC) = 6.673×10^-11(m/kg)^2 x 80 kg x 2.446x10^29kg / (4.011350x10^16m)^2 = 8.115x10^-13 Newtons = 1.83x10^-13 lbs= .000000000000183 lbs
Now you state that the pull of a star on the Sun is greater than the pull of the Earth on the Sun.
Great you've calculated the gravitational pull of one star. The galaxy contains hundreds of billions. Are you denying that stars orbit the centre of the galaxy?
-
The gravitational pull of the stars does carry the distance between the sun and earth. But the earth is fixed at the bottom of the universe, it cannot be pulled upwards. So the Sun is held between the Earth and the rest of the galaxy. Why it is much closer to the Earth? I can only speculate that the gravity if Earth is very slightly greater than the galaxy, so the sun has been moving closer to earth very very slowly. But that's only speculation. The rest is solid fact.
What about us? Why does the Sun get to more or less ignore gravity, yet the distance between us and the Sun (minor on the scales we're talking about) erases it so completely we have nowhere near the resistance to gravity that the Sun has?
it makes much more sense than what we are force-fed at school.
It doesn't, that's the problem. It just doesn't work.
Also:
You need to realise that the earths gravity is not very strong, it's only a relatively thin mass.
This contradicts what you said above. Is the Earth's gravity strong or weak?
The Sun is 93 million miles away. The moon 250,000 miles.
That's only possible under RET. Eratosthenes calculated the curvature of the Earth, a measurement that has been repeated with more accuracy, and the only way to explain away that experiment is to have the Sun closer to the Earth, rather than further away. That's what FEers have concluded. You can go ahead and use RE distances if you want, but it opens up a whole can of worms if the Earth isn't round.
I already explained that the earth is fixed at the bottom of the universe. That's why it's not affected by gravity in the same way as bodies in space.
If you actually read my posts you might be able to understand things better.
The distances I gave are the ones I have been taught. Maybe they were a lie as well.
Have you measured the distances? If not, you don't know any better than I do.
-
I already explained that the earth is fixed at the bottom of the universe. That's why it's not affected by gravity in the same way as bodies in space.
I'm not talking about the Earth as a whole, I'm talking about what's on it. I can jump, we can lift up dirt: there's plenty that isn't fixed down, yet it's still barely affected by the gravity of the stars that has such a tremendous effect on the Sun.
The distances I gave are the ones I have been taught. Maybe they were a lie as well.
You were also taught the Erath's round: you're rejecting that.
I would suggest you look up Eratosthenes. He calculated the curvature of the Earth by assuming that the Sun was a long distance away, and found shadows varied in length depending on location. You can verify that yourself if you want: just the existence of time zones implies it (which I have personally experienced, and you probably have as well). The only way to explain the varying sizes is either to have the Sun a long way away, and a curved Earth (which you reject), or a Sun far closer to a flat surface. In each case, the angle light hits the objects at will be different.
So, unless you're now saying the Earth is round, you need the Sun to be very close. This is just an observation, if you continue to reject RET. However, it does make your gravity untenable, due to what we would observe if the Sun was being pulled down, or if the stars exerted enough gravity to counter that pull.
-
Okay, okay, it doesn't bloody work.
I think I'll stay as Itchy Arris though. It's more fun being a flattie.
You can't be a flattie if you admit you're wrong. It's just not done.
-
Someone hacked my account ;D.
-
Someone hacked my account ;D.
Tell them to be more entertaining. The last account-hack we had on this forum was much more fun.
-
Itchy, why do you believe that a round Earth is illogical?
-
Itchy, why do you believe that a round Earth is illogical?
Everywhere you go it looks like a flat plain, with the sky above. That works.
A round earth with the sky at the side and Australians walking around upside down? Come on, can't you see that the brainwashers have made you believe the impossible?
-
Someone hacked my account ;D.
Tell them to be more entertaining. The last account-hack we had on this forum was much more fun.
Well it wasn't exactly hacked, but my friend who is priest well he isnt really a priest he just calls himself that lol he used my computer and posted here.
-
Everywhere you go it looks like a flat plain, with the sky above. That works.
And that's exactly what you would expect on a round Earth. On a flat earth you would expect to see distant continents when you are at the beach but that doesn't happen.
A round earth with the sky at the side and Australians walking around upside down? Come on, can't you see that the brainwashers have made you believe the impossible?
"down" in Australia is nit the same direction as "down" everywhere else on Earth. Up and down are simply relative directions that are defined by the direction things fall, up and down are simply ideas invented by our minds to make sense of the world and they do not exist outside of our minds.
Has anyone ever told you that there is no up or down in space? That's because being in space generally involves free falling which causes you to be weightless relative to your ship and when that's happening there is no way to tell the difference between the ceiling, the floor, and the walls without visual cues.
You haven't even mentioned why upside down gravity would be impossible. If you have ever been on a roller coaster with a loopty loop you would know that when you go on the loop at high speeds you don't feel like you are upside down because the centrifugal force is more then powerful enough to counteract gravity meaning that if you were to drop something in the roller coaster at the top of the loop while you are upside down then that object would appear to fall towards the sky from your frame of reference. My point is that if upside down "gravity" is possible in a roller coaster then why do you think it's so logical for gravity to be upside down in Australia?
-
Everywhere you go it looks like a flat plain, with the sky above. That works.
And that's exactly what you would expect on a round Earth. On a flat earth you would expect to see distant continents when you are at the beach but that doesn't happen.
A round earth with the sky at the side and Australians walking around upside down? Come on, can't you see that the brainwashers have made you believe the impossible?
"down" in Australia is not the same direction as "down" everywhere else on Earth.
Brilliant logic there roundie. Is Australia magic then?
-
lol you have to be trolling. There's no way you can't be trolling. It's too much.
-
lol you have to be trolling. There's no way you can't be trolling. It's too much.
Really? Let me put it this way. According to round earth belief, New Zealand is approximately the antipole of where I am now. Round earth theory says those Kiwis are opposite me walking around upside down, and they don't even notice!!! A flat earth says New Zealand is on the same plane, just a long way away. Which is more believable?
-
Everywhere you go it looks like a flat plain, with the sky above. That works.
And that's exactly what you would expect on a round Earth. On a flat earth you would expect to see distant continents when you are at the beach but that doesn't happen.
A round earth with the sky at the side and Australians walking around upside down? Come on, can't you see that the brainwashers have made you believe the impossible?
"down" in Australia is not the same direction as "down" everywhere else on Earth.
Brilliant logic there roundie. Is Australia magic then?
An upside down map is just as acurite as an upside right one. I could just turn a globe upside down and then America and everything else on the northern hemisphere is on the bottom of the world. There is no magic involved, things falling in a specific direction at a specific acceleration is not an intrinsic property of matter, what is an intrinsic property of matter though is that mass attracts mass which is also known as gravity. We are attracted to the Earth because it has a lot of mass, and because every action has an equal and opisite reaction the Earth is attracted to you too. You and the Eartg exart equal forces in each other but that doesn't effect the Earth much because it has a lot of mass.
Before you bring this up, ants are in fact attacted to mountains but they are attracted to the Earth more. There is actually less gravity on mountains because you are firther from the Earth and there is less gravity on the equator because the Earth spins. These effects can be measured with bathroom scales, so you can't deny that they exist. Gravity also changes a bit based off of the density of the ground beneath you and that is one way ores are detected. Gravity has even been measured between two small masses in laboratories many times and such experiments are repeated in schools sometimes as well.
Southern stars also prove the Earth is round, Sigma Octantus can only be seen in the Southern Hemisphere and unless you are standing on the South Pole it's always south of the observer, and the Polaris does the same thing exept it's to the north. That along with the constant angular distance between stars can only be explained on a round Earth.
If you are truly open minded then you would consider what I have just said instead of ignoring it like every other flat earther. It's OK to be wrong, but it's not OK to stay wrong. If you have a bias then don't expect to be finding truth any time soon because any correct theory doesn't require a bias to believe.
-
lol you have to be trolling. There's no way you can't be trolling. It's too much.
Really? Let me put it this way. According to round earth belief, New Zealand is approximately the antipole of where I am now. Round earth theory says those Kiwis are opposite me walking around upside down, and they don't even notice!!! A flat earth says New Zealand is on the same plane, just a long way away. Which is more believable?
Why would they notice? They are 8,000 miles beneath your feet.
-
Everywhere you go it looks like a flat plain, with the sky above. That works.
And that's exactly what you would expect on a round Earth. On a flat earth you would expect to see distant continents when you are at the beach but that doesn't happen.
A round earth with the sky at the side and Australians walking around upside down? Come on, can't you see that the brainwashers have made you believe the impossible?
"down" in Australia is not the same direction as "down" everywhere else on Earth.
Brilliant logic there roundie. Is Australia magic then?
An upside down map is just as acurite as an upside right one. I could just turn a globe upside down and then America and everything else on the northern hemisphere is on the bottom of the world. There is no magic involved, things falling in a specific direction at a specific acceleration is not an intrinsic property of matter, what is an intrinsic property of matter though is that mass attracts mass which is also known as gravity. We are attracted to the Earth because it has a lot of mass, and because every action has an equal and opisite reaction the Earth is attracted to you too. You and the Eartg exart equal forces in each other but that doesn't effect the Earth much because it has a lot of mass.
Before you bring this up, ants are in fact attacted to mountains but they are attracted to the Earth more. There is actually less gravity on mountains because you are firther from the Earth and there is less gravity on the equator because the Earth spins. These effects can be measured with bathroom scales, so you can't deny that they exist. Gravity also changes a bit based off of the density of the ground beneath you and that is one way ores are detected. Gravity has even been measured between two small masses in laboratories many times and such experiments are repeated in schools sometimes as well.
Southern stars also prove the Earth is round, Sigma Octantus can only be seen in the Southern Hemisphere and unless you are standing on the South Pole it's always south of the observer, and the Polaris does the same thing exept it's to the north. That along with the constant angular distance between stars can only be explained on a round Earth.
If you are truly open minded then you would consider what I have just said instead of ignoring it like every other flat earther. It's OK to be wrong, but it's not OK to stay wrong. If you have a bias then don't expect to be finding truth any time soon because any correct theory doesn't require a bias to believe.
Australia has different down to everywhere else.....Ant are attracted to mountains.....
What are you on boy? ;D
-
Australia has different down to everywhere else.....Ant are attracted to mountains.....
What are you on boy? ;D
It's called objectivity, you should try it some time. WARNING: thinking objectively might endanger your flat Earth beliefs.
-
Australia has different down to everywhere else.....Ant are attracted to mountains.....
What are you on boy? ;D
It's called objectivity, you should try it some time. WARNING: thinking objectively might endanger your flat Earth beliefs.
There is no such thing as objectivity.
-
Up to now Infinite earth is my favorite FE Theory. It enables us to find ever new land just by walking. Are there inhabitable places beyond the huge deserts of ice? Another sun? Intelligent dinosaurs sailing over the ocean.?On an infinite earth EVERYTHING must exist somewhere, you just have to travel far enough.
-
Up to now Infinite earth is my favorite FE Theory. It enables us to find ever new land just by walking. Are there inhabitable places beyond the huge deserts of ice? Another sun? Intelligent dinosaurs sailing over the ocean.?On an infinite earth EVERYTHING must exist somewhere, you just have to travel far enough.
I think it might be so big that it's practically infinite, rather than absolutely infinite, ie it's as wide as the universe.
I find the thought that the known world is all there is quite depressing. Far better to believe there are wonderful new lands out there.
And yes, I do think species that we think are extinct might be out there. Not sure about the sailing.
-
I find the thought that the known world is all there is quite depressing. Far better to believe there are wonderful new lands out there.
Yes, and that is a realistic foundation for any theory about the world.
Also, death is impossible, everyone who supposedly dies in fact goes to Disneyland Florida, wars aren't real, and the final series of Warehouse 13 never happened.
-
I find the thought that the known world is all there is quite depressing. Far better to believe there are wonderful new lands out there.
Yes, and that is a realistic foundation for any theory about the world.
Also, death is impossible, everyone who supposedly dies in fact goes to Disneyland Florida, wars aren't real, and the final series of Warehouse 13 never happened.
Ah, but it's more believable than what most people on earth, and a lot on this forum, believe. You know, supernatural magic eternal beings sending their "son" to the earth via a virgin birth. Walking on water. Resurrection. Etc etc.
-
I find the thought that the known world is all there is quite depressing. Far better to believe there are wonderful new lands out there.
Yes, and that is a realistic foundation for any theory about the world.
Also, death is impossible, everyone who supposedly dies in fact goes to Disneyland Florida, wars aren't real, and the final series of Warehouse 13 never happened.
Ah, but it's more believable than what most people on earth, and a lot on this forum, believe. You know, supernatural magic eternal beings sending their "son" to the earth via a virgin birth. Walking on water. Resurrection. Etc etc.
And yet you act like you are all knowing and that you have the ability to magically detect truth. I can't believe I have to tell you this, but you are a human being who makes mistakes and you can be wrong just like every other human on this very round planet.
-
I find the thought that the known world is all there is quite depressing. Far better to believe there are wonderful new lands out there.
Yes, and that is a realistic foundation for any theory about the world.
Also, death is impossible, everyone who supposedly dies in fact goes to Disneyland Florida, wars aren't real, and the final series of Warehouse 13 never happened.
Ah, but it's more believable than what most people on earth, and a lot on this forum, believe. You know, supernatural magic eternal beings sending their "son" to the earth via a virgin birth. Walking on water. Resurrection. Etc etc.
You're confusing science with religion. A round earth is far more believable than a flat one.
Not believing in a round earth because the idea of people walking "upside down" on the other side is bewildering to you is not a valid reason to dismiss it.
-
A round earth is only more believable because it has been drilled into you. If you can clear your mind of all you've been taught, then make up your own mind with the evidence provided by your own senses, you will come to the conclusion that the earth is just the ground beneath the sky.
-
A round earth is only more believable because it has been drilled into you. If you can clear your mind of all you've been taught, then make up your own mind with the evidence provided by your own senses, you will come to the conclusion that the earth is just the ground beneath the sky.
And if you study anything (such as meteorology) you'll find out that the only explanation for what we observe is a round Earth.
Or, are you saying only direct, personal experience is the way to know something? In which case, I would like to conclude Australia does not exist.
-
A round earth is only more believable because it has been drilled into you. If you can clear your mind of all you've been taught, then make up your own mind with the evidence provided by your own senses, you will come to the conclusion that the earth is just the ground beneath the sky.
Look at your computer, if you wanted to know how it works you could just say it's magic and make up some rediculous explenation or you could study it and see that it works by using electrical transistors to to calculations. Saying that it's magic is definitely a simpler answer, but it's not the right one.
My point is that a simple explenation is not nesesarily the right one.