The Legend of Zelda: Windwaker --Flat earth video game?

While you could argue that perhaps this was done for ease of coding or preformance or other reasons, it is still clear that both in lore and in the actual game it is a flat world. I believe this holds for every single version since the NES.

Cause this is FE physics?

srry my bad. I thought the most interesting part is that when sailing, you can see only the tops of the islands at first due to perspective and wave limitations much like the experiments using ships coming in from the sea and only being able to see the tops of those.

I would say “due to perspective and wave limitations” isn’t quite true.





I would say the game uses a persistent magic fog at the horizon. 

There is an explanation for the magic/force that link uses to make objects levitate and bind, etc...the secret stone from Rauru.

Yes, magic.

The islands don't have that, they are presented as just naturally occurring in the game environment.

No, they are presented as the home of gods to the Hylians, i.e. the Zonai.
They also match well with the floating lands from skyward Sword. This would mean they were created by the Goddess Hylia, and rely upon pure magic.

Again, you have no explanation as to why they float.
And any explanation you give will work equally for UA and gravity.

So it does not rely upon UA, and if it did refute gravity, it would also refute the highly selective UA.

Admit it. Zelda is a Flat earther franchise.

Why would I admit such delusional BS?
There is really nothing to indicate the creators think Earth is flat.

We are talking about whether the game world is a flat world, which it is regardless of what other oddities differ from our universe.

Says who?
The original topic was if there were FE undertones to the game, with the developers believing in FE and trying to use the game to promote it.

Having a game world where they don't bother accounting for curvature is NOT promoting a FE, nor does it mean they believe in a FE. Especially as it doesn't take place on Earth.

As for the lore aspect, as it only shows you a small portion of the world, it is entirely unclear if in lore it is flat or if it is round and you are just seeing a small portion of it.

It was then changed to a focus on TotK to claim that it shows UA instead of gravity.

Why would I admit such delusional BS?
There is really nothing to indicate the creators think Earth is flat.

Yes, except every single Zelda using physics that are based on a flat earth. That is "nothing."

Quote from: Username on July 31, 2023, 12:07:20 PM

We are talking about whether the game world is a flat world, which it is regardless of what other oddities differ from our universe.

Says who?

Anyone who is actually looking objectively at the games. There is no doubt TLoZ was a flat earth. Its even more obvious in TAoL as you can see it in the side scrolling. Others have spoken to some of the other games.

The original topic was if there were FE undertones to the game, with the developers believing in FE and trying to use the game to promote it.

It turned that way quite quickly, but that was never the only discussion within the 40 pages, the only one that should be discussed, or what the OP actually says. The OP says there were FE undertones to the game.

So anyways, long story short I think The Windwaker might have FE undertones to it as well it's counterpart The Legend of Zelda: The Phantom Hourglass for the DS platform.

To think if we allowed you to police what discussions were about here what kind strawmen round earth non-sense forum this would be.

Having a game world where they don't bother accounting for curvature is NOT promoting a FE, nor does it mean they believe in a FE.

You were the one arguing it was about the intent of the creators. Now you are arguing that its not promoting FE, in spite that it is - even if we believe you non-intentionally.

Video games can deeply influence the way players perceive and understand the world - like many mediums. By presenting a flat, non-curving game world, players can and do subconsciously adopt a supposedly skewed view of geography and physics. This can potentially reinforce - and promote - that the real world Earth is flat. Additionally, it helps normalize that normal science isn't the only way to look at things by providing a working universe where that isn't the case and realistic enough physics to showcase that it is not a necessity for the earth to be round to observe the majority of what we see.

Especially as it doesn't take place on Earth.

Ah yes, no one forms opinions based on fiction and then extrapolates them to the real world. Reality never mimics art.  Are you mad?

As for the lore aspect, as it only shows you a small portion of the world, it is entirely unclear if in lore it is flat or if it is round and you are just seeing a small portion of it.

You are inventing an entire world that doesn't exist simply to support your tenuous claims.

It was then changed to a focus on TotK to claim that it shows UA instead of gravity.

Because it does.

Yes, except every single Zelda using physics that are based on a flat earth. That is "nothing."

No, it isn't.
Just what part is using physics that are based on a flat Earth?

Note: Specifically based upon a FE, rather than merely approximating a RE.
For a RE, things fall down.
For a small enough portion of it, that can be modelled as flat, with down parallel.

Anyone who is actually looking objectively at the games. There is no doubt TLoZ was a flat earth. Its even more obvious in TAoL as you can see it in the side scrolling. Others have spoken to some of the other games.

No, it isn't.
Again, it is Hyrule, not Earth.
And again, is this merely an approximation, like a street directory, or is it actually trying to say the entire planet is flat?

It turned that way quite quickly, but that was never the only discussion within the 40 pages, the only one that should be discussed, or what the OP actually says. The OP says there were FE undertones to the game.

And there isn't.

You were the one arguing it was about the intent of the creators. Now you are arguing that its not promoting FE, in spite that it is - even if we believe you non-intentionally.

Video games can deeply influence the way players perceive and understand the world - like many mediums. By presenting a flat, non-curving game world, players can and do subconsciously adopt a supposedly skewed view of geography and physics. This can potentially reinforce - and promote - that the real world Earth is flat.

Not if they have any sense of rational thought and recognise all the other fantasy aspects.

Additionally, it helps normalize that normal science isn't the only way to look at things by providing a working universe where that isn't the case and realistic enough physics to showcase that it is not a necessity for the earth to be round to observe the majority of what we see.

It works with pure fantasy. Not based upon anything like real world physics.
It provides no explanation for how anything happens. Nor does it even attempt to fully model the real world.

So no, it doesn't show Earth doesn't need to be round.

You are inventing an entire world that doesn't exist simply to support your tenuous claims.

That would be you. With you claiming the lore of the game has it as a flat world. But just where is that?
No where.

Because it does.

Except no one can explain how.
So I see no reason at all to think it does.

"No, they are presented as the home of gods to the Hylians, i.e. the Zonai.
They also match well with the floating lands from skyward Sword. This would mean they were created by the Goddess Hylia, and rely upon pure magic."

The fact that there is a creator doesn't mean it doesn't occur in nature. Consider in real life: If God the creator exists, does that mean Earth has to rely upon pure magic? No. That's an absurd leap. Just like yours

"No, they are presented as the home of gods to the Hylians, i.e. the Zonai.
They also match well with the floating lands from skyward Sword. This would mean they were created by the Goddess Hylia, and rely upon pure magic."

The fact that there is a creator doesn't mean it doesn't occur in nature.

They are presented as the creation of magic, not natural and just sitting there.

Now again, what magic holds them up? And why can't this magic work equally for UA and gravity?

Even if you don't want it to be magic, the question still stands, why UA and not gravity?

Quote from: Ichimaru Gin :] on August 01, 2023, 06:42:54 PM

"No, they are presented as the home of gods to the Hylians, i.e. the Zonai.
They also match well with the floating lands from skyward Sword. This would mean they were created by the Goddess Hylia, and rely upon pure magic."

The fact that there is a creator doesn't mean it doesn't occur in nature.

They are presented as the creation of magic, not natural and just sitting there.

Now again, what magic holds them up? And why can't this magic work equally for UA and gravity?

Even if you don't want it to be magic, the question still stands, why UA and not gravity?

Yeah, I always use the words device, machine and technology to describe magic - such as Zonai technology and Zonai devices. I'd hazard it to say the word magic isn't mentioned once in relation to the Zonai. Again, as per usual, you are just making things up to attempt to win an discussion in which you are patently and blatantly incorrect.

If they do mention magic (I can't think of a single instance), it's no surprise as we all know "any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic" and we can be sure that the Zonai's tech fits this bill. Given the appearance of these islands and their timing, its pretty clearly due to zonai technology. In this case, it would be leveraging the bow shock effect of the UA as introduced by TheEngineer or space dialation as introduced by myself. The technology that makes this happen is likely in lore to be the giant floating death star-esque devices.

"No, they are presented as the home of gods to the Hylians, i.e. the Zonai.
They also match well with the floating lands from skyward Sword. This would mean they were created by the Goddess Hylia, and rely upon pure magic."

The fact that there is a creator doesn't mean it doesn't occur in nature. Consider in real life: If God the creator exists, does that mean Earth has to rely upon pure magic? No. That's an absurd leap. Just like yours

The globularist mind is dependent on absurd leap after absurd leap to hold its fragile uneducated world view together. I have to admit, I'm not in the least bit surprised in this behavior. It would make a wonderful subject for a psychological study.

Due to a deeply rooted biological imperative to see connections where they don't exist, the globularist is innately compelled to engage in such silliness. In the wild, they benefited from this because if they assumed a predator was not near when one was, they would die. If they instead assumed a predator was there when one was or was not, either way they are more likely to live.

Its truly a shame to all man that they haven't moved beyond their animal thought structures and learned the skill of critical thought as us Brothers of Zetetic thought have.

Again, as per usual, you are just making things up to attempt to win an discussion in which you are patently and blatantly incorrect.

I would say that again, as per usual, you are deflecting.
Notice how much you cling to the word magic, rather than even attempting to address the actual issue.

In this case, it would be leveraging the bow shock effect of the UA as introduced by TheEngineer or space dialation as introduced by myself. The technology that makes this happen is likely in lore to be the giant floating death star-esque devices.

Care to elaborate?

And notice how you again do what you accuse others of? Inventing lore which simply doesn't exist.

The globularist mind is dependent on absurd leap after absurd leap to hold its fragile uneducated world view together. I have to admit, I'm not in the least bit surprised in this behavior. It would make a wonderful subject for a psychological study.

You sure do love projection.

Due to a deeply rooted biological imperative to see connections where they don't exist

Like trying to see a connection between a game and FE?

Its truly a shame to all man that they haven't moved beyond their animal thought structures and learned the skill of critical thought as us Brothers of Zetetic thought have.

Those who would actually follow zetetic thought would discard the FE and all its nonsense.

Quote from: sceptimatic on August 01, 2023, 11:20:38 PM

In this case, it would be leveraging the bow shock effect of the UA as introduced by TheEngineer or space dialation as introduced by myself. The technology that makes this happen is likely in lore to be the giant floating death star-esque devices.

Care to elaborate?

And notice how you again do what you accuse others of? Inventing lore which simply doesn't exist.

You are welcome to take those as conjecture. However, inventing an entire world that doesn't exist, inventing that zonai devices are magic, etc are center to your argument. This is just a foot note and could be easily omitted without affecting the validity of my points negatively.

You sure do love projection.

Ah yes, how surprised am I see you using the tried and true defense of "I know you are but what am I."

You are welcome to take those as conjecture. However, inventing an entire world that doesn't exist, inventing that zonai devices are magic, etc are center to your argument.

No, it isn't.

Firstly, I wasn't inventing an entire world that doesn't exist. That was you, from the start:

While you could argue that perhaps this was done for ease of coding or preformance or other reasons, it is still clear that both in lore and in the actual game it is a flat world.

There is NOTHING to suggest that in the lore of the game it is a flat world.

All you have is that the game is mostly Euclidean.
And in fact, there is one part of the game world which appears non Euclidean if you wish to avoid magic, the lost woods.

Likewise, I don't care if they are magic or technology, the same issue arises.
If this can allow them to defy the highly selective UA and remain in the air, then why can't it also allow them to defy gravity and remain in the air?
Again, you invent a story about how it could work, with nothing from the game to support it, and no real explanation of it at all; just to claim it supports a FE.

This is just a foot note and could be easily omitted without affecting the validity of my points negatively.

Yet instead of attempting to focus on what should be your argument, you cling to this?

You are right, it should be a footnote, but you make it the main focus.

Again, how is it based upon a FE, rather than a simplification of RE/reality?
How does it require UA?

Does this apply for every floating platform, including the multitude of those seen in previous games?
What about those which go up and down?
Do they still require UA? Or can they just be defying gravity?

Care to try addressing the actual argument, rather than clinging to a footnote?

Ah yes, how surprised am I see you using the tried and true defense of "I know you are but what am I."

And I'm not surprised to see a FEer, projecting their inadequacies onto REers, rather than even attempting to defend their argument.
Likewise, I'm not surprised to see a FEer, entirely ignore being called out on it, entirely ignoring examples of how they are doing what they accuse others of.

So I think we can now safely add ToTK to the list of Zelda titles like the Windwaker which exhibit FET components

So I think we can now safely add ToTK to the list of Zelda titles like the Windwaker which exhibit FET components

Only if by that you mean you can find something which remotely resembles something from FE, then sure.
If you mean it demonstrates a FE or requires a FE then no.

Again, why must it be UA rather than gravity.

You're the one that thinks floating islands are more plausible on a round earth.

Another Zelda game with FE themes has been quite welcome

You're the one that thinks floating islands are more plausible on a round earth.

Another Zelda game with FE themes has been quite welcome

You believe floating islands are evidence of either model?  When it’s just fantasy?

You're the one that thinks floating islands are more plausible on a round earth.

No, I don't.
I think it is fantasy, without any connection to the shape of Earth.
Me objecting to the idea it is promoting a FE does not mean I think this fantasy is any more plausible on a RE.

If anything, I indicated there was no difference.
Notice how I wasn't boldly claim it MUST use gravity and is incompatible with UA?
Instead, I asked why it should require UA rather than working equally for gravity.
And I notice you still haven't provided an answer.

Another Zelda game with FE themes has been quite welcome

Yet you still don't have any.

Quote from: Ichimaru Gin :] on August 03, 2023, 05:41:01 AM

You're the one that thinks floating islands are more plausible on a round earth.

Another Zelda game with FE themes has been quite welcome

You believe floating islands are evidence of either model?  When it’s just fantasy?

Yeah, we do. RE has upside down floating islands.  Given that Link is told by the game mechanics in BOTW/TOTK that he cannot climb upside down, the game's own mechanics disprove the idea that Link is able to keep going around a circle. As is the fact that in many Zelda games, Link cannot loop back to his starting location.

So I think we can now safely add ToTK to the list of Zelda titles like the Windwaker which exhibit FET components

Most definitely. We can set that in stone now and safely move on since there are no legitimate arguments to the contrary.

Yeah, we do. RE has upside down floating islands.

No it doesn't.
Care to try again without lying?

the game's own mechanics disprove the idea that Link is able to keep going around a circle. As is the fact that in many Zelda games, Link cannot loop back to his starting location.

A limitation of the game, where an edge to the world of some form, typically just an arbitrarily limit, with the world still existing but you unable to pass an impenetrable wall, just proves it is a game.

Most definitely. We can set that in stone now and safely move on since there are no legitimate arguments to the contrary.

You can set anything in stone. But that wont make it true.
You have no arguments to support such a fantasy.

Quote from: bulmabriefs144 on August 06, 2023, 11:43:41 AM

Yeah, we do. RE has upside down floating islands.

No it doesn't.
Care to try again without lying?

You can set anything in stone. But that wont make it true.
You have no arguments to support such a fantasy.

Yeah, it does. If we ascribe to your theory.



Objects extending outside from the underside of a spherical object are upside down. 

In the mean time, wow.  Okay, at the right altitude (I was riding the Light Dragon), near Turakawak shrine, I was able to see straight to the Lomei Ruins in Akkala. In can you missed it, this is a straight line with zero curvature.  It lined up with Death Mountain. In fact, I was able to take a shot of all three Lomei ruins though the one near Gerudo (actually the closest geographically) was mostly obscured by dust clouds.

Yeah, it does. If we ascribe to your theory.

No, if we ascribe to your nonsense (including your strawman of the RE model).

Again, in the RE model (and reality) Earth is in free fall, well outside the Roche limit of any other object.
The floating islands in Hyrule are not that.

Again, the islands float by magic. It doesn't really matter if you want to call it magic or technology. Either way, no one has yet provided why this should work for UA, but not gravity.

Objects extending outside from the underside of a spherical object are upside down.

That is your strawman.

In the mean time, wow.  Okay, at the right altitude (I was riding the Light Dragon), near Turakawak shrine, I was able to see straight to the Lomei Ruins in Akkala. In can you missed it, this is a straight line with zero curvature.  It lined up with Death Mountain. In fact, I was able to take a shot of all three Lomei ruins though the one near Gerudo (actually the closest geographically) was mostly obscured by dust clouds.

If it was a straight line, with 0 curvature, any altitude would work.

You keep saying they float from magic with no evidence.

You keep saying they float from magic with no evidence.

I say it is magic, because no one is providing any explanation of how they float.
And as I said, it doesn't actually matter if it is magic.

Unless you can explain the technology which allows it to float, and how that would only work under UA rather than gravity, it means it is just as compatible with gravity as UA.
Now care to be honest and try to actually address that?
Care to explain why they can float under UA and not gravity?

Quote from: bulmabriefs144 on August 08, 2023, 05:49:47 PM

Yeah, it does. If we ascribe to your theory.

No, if we ascribe to your nonsense (including your strawman of the RE model).

Again, in the RE model (and reality) Earth is in free fall, well outside the Roche limit of any other object.
The floating islands in Hyrule are not that.

Again, the islands float by magic. It doesn't really matter if you want to call it magic or technology. Either way, no one has yet provided why this should work for UA, but not gravity.

Magic? No, I'm talking about forces of repulsion.  The sky islands are kept in the sky by what appears to be some sort of strong anti-magnetic metal.  You can see this on some of the islands if you miss the top, and have to climb up from the underside.

Quote from: bulmabriefs144 on August 08, 2023, 05:49:47 PM

Objects extending outside from the underside of a spherical object are upside down.

That is your strawman.

No, it's physics. And common sense. If I were to have an object (such as some sort of magnet) that simultaneously repels and attracts objects causing them to hover around the object, everything hovering toward the top side would be above it, while everything near the underside would be below it.

Quote from: bulmabriefs144 on August 08, 2023, 05:49:47 PM

In the mean time, wow.  Okay, at the right altitude (I was riding the Light Dragon), near Turakawak shrine, I was able to see straight to the Lomei Ruins in Akkala. In can you missed it, this is a straight line with zero curvature.  It lined up with Death Mountain. In fact, I was able to take a shot of all three Lomei ruins though the one near Gerudo (actually the closest geographically) was mostly obscured by dust clouds.

If it was a straight line, with 0 curvature, any altitude would work.

If it had any curvature, we wouldn't be having this discussion. It's rather simple...

I set pins from two locations. The first was atop Light Dragon (Zelda). From there, I was at a good height to see completely across the map, and I could take pictures of all the Lomei mazes, including ones that were completely across the map.

By comparison, at ground level in Lookout Landing, I could see... Hyrule Castle, Gerudo Highlands, and Hebra Mountains. These were the only distant landmarks that I could see.
In order to see Lanaryu Mountain, I had to climb some steps, as it was obstructed by the walls.  I also couldn't see sky islands (except if sky was ideal), except for the two nearest islands, an island in the Central Hyrule Archipelago and the Great Sky Island.


Basically, considering that I was surrounded by walls on all sides, Link's view was remarkably good for tall ground level objects but terrible for objects in the sky. Kinda similar to what I'd expect with zero curvature. Now let's talk about what happens when you have curvature, and how elevation affects it.



Link is riding Light Dragon (Zelda) again, but this time, he is on a round Earth (well, Hyrule). The problem is, the farther away an object, the more profound the curvature. His current location is -0241, 0074, 0019.  Teleporting to Sitsum Shrine on Death Mountain... 2369, 2595, 0790

Let's see the difference is 2610 + 2491 + 771 = 5872 or over a mile difference between the two points. But because we are working with perspective, we scale this to 3 miles view for regular day and about 11 miles for clear view. There's a problem.

The problem is, Hyrule is at a much smaller scale than Earth.  So if we were to curve land (not including the areas off the map like some of the unpinnable mountains), even a few mere miles would curve out of view, meaning that whether Link was at ground level atop Best Waifu Draygon or even atop the highest island (which is one of the flower shaped islands directly above Lookout Landing), he should nonetheless be completely unable to see around the hard corners of curve in this world.



Look, it's not difficult. Any video game player can tell you why on a completely flat screen you can't see forever. Just ask them.



The screen ends. That's it.

There is a limit to sight that has nothing to do with curvature, and everything to do with all lines of sight converging at an endpoint.  There's no clever solution, no tricky trick to this.

You just stop seeing it. It moves outside perspective.

Magic? No, I'm talking about forces of repulsion.  The sky islands are kept in the sky by what appears to be some sort of strong anti-magnetic metal.  You can see this on some of the islands if you miss the top, and have to climb up from the underside.

Again, it doesn't matter if you want to call it magic or not.
The fact is you cannot provide a reason why it works on UA with FE but not with gravity or a RE.

No, it's physics. And common sense.

No, it isn't.
It is your strawman where you want to entirely ignore physics.

A key part of physics is no preferred directionality.
This means that if you want to discuss the underside you need to have some reference for where down is.

For the RE, down is towards the centre.
So it doesn't matter where on the surface of the sphere you are, you are NOT on the underside. There is no underside.

It is only if you take a much smaller sphere and put it on Earth, that you have down still towards the centre of Earth.

Again, stop pretending the RE is a tiny ball on a much larger ball.
That is your strawman that you need to repeatedly cling to to pretend the RE is wrong.

If I were to have an object (such as some sort of magnet) that simultaneously repels and attracts objects causing them to hover around the object, everything hovering toward the top side would be above it, while everything near the underside would be below it.

And how do you identify the top side?

If it had any curvature, we wouldn't be having this discussion.

Not quite. If it had any curvature, and you were honest, we wouldn't be having this discussion.
As you are quite happy to lie to everyone, we are having this "discussion".

Notice how in your image you shown terrain?
Features which go up and down.
If it was actually a straight line with no curvature, it would be flat. There would be no terrain.
Death mountain wouldn't exist.

What you want to do is ignore all that terrain and focus on a hypothetical flat surface. A surface that doesn't exist.

Now let's talk about what happens when you have curvature, and how elevation affects it.

You mean now you will blatantly lie about what happens with curvature, clinging to straw men again.

Once more, Earth is not a tiny ball.
And Hyrule is NOT the entirety of the world in Zelda.
It may be the region you can access, but if you go to the edge you can see it still stretches out beyond.

So once more you are being dishonest.
You are setting up a strawman to attack because you can't attack reality.

Look, it's not difficult. Any video game player can tell you why on a completely flat screen you can't see forever. Just ask them.
The screen ends. That's it.
There is a limit to sight that has nothing to do with curvature, and everything to do with all lines of sight converging at an endpoint.

The limit has NOTHING to do with lines of sight converging.
Instead it has to do with the fact it is a game. A game, with artificial limitations, like resolution, and rendering limits.

Once more, the vanishing point is infinitely far away.
When things "disappear" due to perspective, they are simply too small to resolve and using better optics allow them to be viewed.
Also in this case, they disappear BEFORE the horizon.

Conversely, when, in reality, things disappear at the horizon, they are obstructed from view, with no optics able to bring them back into view.
And plenty even disappear when still resolvable, showing it is NOT perspective.

Quote from: bulmabriefs144 on August 10, 2023, 12:38:16 PM

Magic? No, I'm talking about forces of repulsion.  The sky islands are kept in the sky by what appears to be some sort of strong anti-magnetic metal.  You can see this on some of the islands if you miss the top, and have to climb up from the underside.

Again, it doesn't matter if you want to call it magic or not.
The fact is you cannot provide a reason why it works on UA with FE but not with gravity or a RE.

Quote from: bulmabriefs144 on August 10, 2023, 12:38:16 PM

No, it's physics. And common sense.

No, it isn't.
It is your strawman where you want to entirely ignore physics.

I'm not entirely sure you used the term strawman correctly.

A key part of physics is no preferred directionality.
This means that if you want to discuss the underside you need to have some reference for where down is.

That's funny, because when I discussed the idea of no preferred directionality in another thread...
https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=91148.630
I basically got sass. People telling me that while it is possible to push a Jeep Wrangler forward or downhill, it is completely impossible to push it uphill or straight upward. If no directionality is preferred (because you need to have the Earth round) then it is fully possible to rotate directions, and indeed push objects straight up given the right circumstances (I discussed a harness). Pick one. Either we have non-fixed directionality and you have to account for multi-directional movement including straight up walls and ceilings, or we have a fixed directionality toward the bottom of the Earth (FE or RE), or we have semi-non-fixed directionality and a FE.

For the RE, down is towards the centre.

So why is it that objects fly? I create a random object with a dense magnetic & metallic center. All objects should be pulled strongly toward the center. For purposes of this experiment, this object's outside is a sturdy water bucket (holds 20 gallons of water) made from indestructible plastic, while the core is a floating orb in the center of the bucket that has equal mass (compressed and proportional to the surface space) to the Earth. Basically, I'm creating an experimental microcosm. It ought to supposedly stick any gravel, sand, and water into it, while leaving everything outside the bucket alone.

But there's a problem. I introduce a bee hummingbird (since the experimental space is small, so must the bird be). The bird is not grounded. It flies out of the bucket going back to what you call normal gravity. It's not stopped by that either. Neither is a helicopter, jumbo jet, or hot air balloon.


So it doesn't matter where on the surface of the sphere you are, you are NOT on the underside. There is no underside.

Yes. There is. Just because your "scientist" gurus say no, doesn't mean that's the case. If all force were equal, we still have other forces to work with! Even central gravity, you're basically describing a sort of magic that mysteriously violates angular momentum. Or do you want to answer this question?

A more practical example.  I can place my Jeep Wrangler in neutral and push it around the garage with or with out the front wheels turned.  But I can’t lift it vertically off the ground by strength.

Or.  What’s different where I can push the wrangle around the garage, I can let it roll downhill, but I can’t push it uphill.

What’s the difference with mass where I can push the wrangler around the garage from standstill.  I can let the wrangle roll down a hill from standstill.  But can’t push / roll the wrangle uphill from standstill.

Meanwhile, if you were honest, you would tell me that Link's eyes cannot see around corners. Yes, even though he is a Hylian elf, eyes don't do that.



The reason we become lost in mazes is because vision is indeed fallible. Now, maybe if you didn't double-down when caught in lies, and shift the facts to whatever you want them to be to suit the purpose at hand, we could actually have a real discussion and not just have alot of crap.
We can't climb walls or ceilings, we can't push objects uphill, but you say gravity is not fixed. Because you say so?

Why don't we get sick in the same way as jet lag, when we walk over the equator? Or around certain points of latitude or longitude? Even if gravity is centered, the liquids inside your body should be doing this.


Blood rush is a serious problem, and liquids and solids do not move at the same pace.

I'm not entirely sure you used the term strawman correctly.

I am.
You are dishonestly misrepresenting the RE model, pretending it is something it is not, so you can attack that misrepresentation rather than the RE model.
That is a strawman.

A key part of physics is no preferred directionality.
This means that if you want to discuss the underside you need to have some reference for where down is.

That's funny, because when I discussed the idea of no preferred directionality in another thread...
I basically got sass.

I wouldn't call that sass.
You could not explain the directionality.

If no directionality is preferred (because you need to have the Earth round) then it is fully possible to rotate directions, and indeed push objects straight up

Without gravity, yes.
Gravity provides directionality.

Either we have non-fixed directionality and you have to account for multi-directional movement including straight up walls and ceilings, or we have a fixed directionality toward the bottom of the Earth (FE or RE), or we have semi-non-fixed directionality and a FE.

Or I can pick reality.
We have no intrinsic directionality, and directionality comes from interactions.

That means if you have a large sphere in space, in free fall, well outside the Roche limit of other objects, down is towards that object and up is away from it.
No need for a magical, inexplicable down.

So why is it that objects fly?

Because multiple forces act.

I create a random object with a dense magnetic & metallic center. All objects should be pulled strongly toward the center. For purposes of this experiment, this object's outside is a sturdy water bucket (holds 20 gallons of water) made from indestructible plastic, while the core is a floating orb in the center of the bucket that has equal mass (compressed and proportional to the surface space) to the Earth. Basically, I'm creating an experimental microcosm. It ought to supposedly stick any gravel, sand, and water into it, while leaving everything outside the bucket alone.

Why would it magically leave everything outside the bucket alone?

But there's a problem. I introduce a bee hummingbird (since the experimental space is small, so must the bird be). The bird is not grounded. It flies out of the bucket going back to what you call normal gravity. It's not stopped by that either. Neither is a helicopter, jumbo jet, or hot air balloon.

Wrong again.
With the mass of Earth placed into a region smaller than a bucket, the gravitational attraction would be much greater.
If it was an orb with a radius of 6.371 cm, then its radius is roughly one 100 millionth of that of Earth. And as the force of gravity scales as 1/d^2, that means the value of g for that orb would be 10 quadrillion times that of Earth.
Your little bird would fall in and be killed by that force.

But ignoring that, and sticking to just reality, where birds can fly, that is because another force acts.
Gravity is not magic. If you have a strong enough force acting opposing gravity, you can have a net force acting in a direction opposite the force due to gravity, allowing birds to fly.
If you remove the wings, the birds can't fly.
If you remove the helicopter's blades (its rotary wing) or the jumbo jet's wings, they can't fly.
If you allow the air in the hot air balloon to cool, it can't fly.
They all need an additional force acting.

Yes. There is. Just because your "scientist" gurus say no, doesn't mean that's the case.

No, there isn't.
Your irrational hatred of the RE model, and wanting to strawman it by pretending there is an underside will not change that.

If you wish to claim there is an underside, then tell us what location on the RE is the lowest point, and most importantly, WHY.

If all force were equal, we still have other forces to work with! Even central gravity, you're basically describing a sort of magic that mysteriously violates angular momentum. Or do you want to answer this question?

The one clinging to pure magic here is YOU! Where you want to claim things fall for no reason.

What question?
Why things can be pushed on level ground but not up?
And why it accelerates when going down?
Because gravity pulls it down. When you move it up, you need to apply a force to overcome gravity.
When you move it down, gravity pulls it for you.
When you move it level, you are neither fighting gravity nor having it assist you.

If you mean your crappy drawing, again, Earth is not a tiny ball, neither is Hyrule.

Meanwhile, if you were honest, you would tell me that Link's eyes cannot see around corners.

I am honest.
I'm not the one blatantly lying to everyone repeatedly, with pure BS like a clearly irregular terrain magically being straight.
That would be YOU!

Do you know why you can't see around corners? Because objects block the way, e.g. the corner.
We can even use a doorway as an example.
The wall around the doorway blocks the view.
An honest person would admit you can see through the doorway to the other side, seeing objects on the other side of the door; where it is when the line of sight is obstructed, such as trying to look straight through the wall, that you can't see it; clearly demonstrating how obstructions block the view.
Conversely, dishonest people want to pretend that this magically means there is some distance limit to your eyes, where perspective magically cuts off your vision, as if you can't see someone standing on the other side of the doorway, because of the wall to the side, even though the wall doesn't block the view.

Now, maybe if you didn't double-down when caught in lies, and shift the facts to whatever you want them to be to suit the purpose at hand, we could actually have a real discussion and not just have alot of crap.

And more pathetic projection.
You are yet to catch me in any lines. Conversely I have caught you in plenty.
You happily lie, making up whatever dishonest BS you think you need to pretend your delusional BS is true.
There have even been plenty of times where you contradict yourself, and switch back and forth between different contradictory blatant lies to pretend the RE must have a problem

If you want a real discussion, try having one.
Notice how yet again you avoided the real issue?
Whatever magic you appeal to should work equally for UA or gravity. So the floating islands do not need a FE.

You know you have no rational response to this, so you deflect with whatever dishonest BS you can muster to pretend RE must be wrong.

We can't climb walls or ceilings, we can't push objects uphill, but you say gravity is not fixed.

Why should we be able to?
Again, you just assert delusional BS with no justification at all.

Why don't we get sick in the same way as jet lag, when we walk over the equator? Or around certain points of latitude or longitude? Even if gravity is centered, the liquids inside your body should be doing this.

Again, WHY?
Stop just asserting delusional BS and try explaining it.
Why should we magically get jet lag from walking over the equator?
What makes the equator so magically special?
Why should any other point of latitude or longitude magically cause that?

"No, they are presented as the home of gods to the Hylians, i.e. the Zonai.
They also match well with the floating lands from skyward Sword. This would mean they were created by the Goddess Hylia, and rely upon pure magic."

The fact that there is a creator doesn't mean it doesn't occur in nature. Consider in real life: If God the creator exists, does that mean Earth has to rely upon pure magic? No. That's an absurd leap. Just like yours

Or more precisely, a being that creates things based on magic as someone here conjectures, can also enact laws.

"Let there be a force that causes atoms to stick together." (Cohesion)
"Let there be a force that causes metal to be attracted." (Magnetism)
 
 Why is there no force of gravity mentioned? Would God repeat himself? There are already two laws governing the motion of objects.

 "Let there be a force that lets light things float and heavy things sink." (Buoyancy)
 "Let there be a force that allows objects to stay in motion until they slow to a stop. Let it be governed by the force of buoyancy." (Momemtum)
 "Let there further be a force that overrides buoyancy. Let it be governed by the force of momentum." (Propulsion)

This is why falling objects continue falling (momentum stalls so we have free fall/terminal velocity, but they still continue toward ground because of buoyancy as it is truly understood to not only be about floating but also sinking). This is also why you can fly or swim (propulsion allows push against mediums, but short of self-propulsion as in swimming, it is subject to gradual decline of momentum). There is no such thing as infinite momentum. I cannot fire an arrow and expect it to go forever without falling. And no it's not because of a constant force ("gravity"), it starts happening the moment the arrow begins to slow.

Granted these aren't the only laws. But gravity is not needed.

That said, there seem to be different rules on firing arrows in each Zelda game. Skyward Sword and Ocarina of Time? Arrows fly forward until they go offscreen (this is insane).
The overhead games? Arrows sometimes bypass objects that boomerang hits and sometimes not, travels an entire screen.
Botw? Arc fully determines distance. Ancient bow arrows travel straight until a certain distance.
Totk? Arc determines distance but there is a hard momentum limit (probably based on the bow).

Why is there no force of gravity mentioned? Would God repeat himself? There are already two laws governing the motion of objects.

Because you are literally fabricating quotes to further back up your dishonesty?
And notice how you didn't even fabricate one for UA?

Again, care to try being honest for once and explaining why the magical floating islands need magical highly selective UA rather than gravity?
Or will you just continue to dishonestly deflect?

buoyancy as it is truly understood to not only be about floating but also sinking

No, it isn't.
When incredibly poorly understood, including have absolutely no idea why, it is thought to be that.
But when understood, we recognise buoyancy as arising from a pressure gradient in a fluid which itself is caused by gravity (or something equivalent). This is an upwards force (or equivalent).
It provides no reason for things to fall, and relies upon gravity (or equivalent) to work.

There is no such thing as infinite momentum.

Momentum does not need to be infinite for an object to travel forever. What you need is nothing to remove the momentum.

I cannot fire an arrow and expect it to go forever without falling. And no it's not because of a constant force ("gravity")

It is because of gravity.
Your wilful rejection of reality wont change that.

Granted these aren't the only laws. But gravity is not needed.

Then provide an explanation for why things fall.

That said, there seem to be different rules on firing arrows in each Zelda game.

As if it is just a game, rather than reality.
With the rules of the game not actually based upon reality.
As if they just chose whatever rules they wanted for the game, rather than trying to hide claims about reality in it.

Another great proof is in the underworld. Not only is this a clear indication of a vertical cosmology, which plane out makes no sense given a globular world view, but also we can easily note that there are no plate tectonics - something that would be necessary on a round earth to create the various mountains and valleys present in Hyrule.