Show Posts
This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.
You think that it is a fail, but you haven't bothered to ask yourself one question.I would say an explanation that only requires one fundamental law to perfectly describe all observations within our solar system to a sub-percent precision is pretty good. "God did this and I don't know why" is not.
"Why is this my best explanation?"
The reason is, that the laws of perspective are completely inconsistent with what would be the case if we were looking at an Earth orbiting the sun, while a moon is orbiting us. With only 2D shadow puppetry, we have managed to show that it is perfectly possible to create the shadow of a moon.I really can't see how you have shown either. You have stated this and have been refuted.
What sort of being would be needed to set up this elaborate false reality?Why is a being required for reality to exist? Where does that being come from?
Not ancient aliens. They would have power only comparable to humans, and even if we considered advanced technology, there is the matter of setting all of this up. You see, something would have to create these ancient aliens, unless they are somehow godlike. But if you're interested in that theory, check out the film Moonfall.You speculate about things you have no clue of (don't worry, noone does), and package these speculations as if they were facts.
And no natural explanation either. As shown by AI drawing experiments, random creation leaves something to be desired.What does AI art have to do with evolution?
So yea, God really is the best answer.God is an excuse for not having an answer. Nothing more.
It's not. Flat Earthers, the real ones, not the controlled opposition types (a category you forgot to mention), are able to be highly individual. If a Round Earther says, "I'm not sure the climate is changing though," that's it. He's excommunicated. That's orthodoxy. Agree with all beliefs or you are just like that Bulmabriefs144 over there.I disagree with you there. There are way too many climate deniers on this planet and only a very small fraction of them are flat earthers. There certainly has been a narrative during covid that "the science" is always right and always in agreement, which is certainly wrong. But round earthers are also individual, there is just a set of established knowledge that we rely on.
And for the record, I don't "rub" anything into anyone's face. But when I often get three to one arguments, I feel obligated to defend my ideas.Agree with you there. There is certainly a tendency to 'gang up' on flat earthers here, and that is not helpful to any discussion.
Categorizing me is actually easy. I'm a Questioner. I question how anything on round Earth can work.It is understandable to have questions. The problem is that nowadays people appear to believe that their opinions are as valid as the ones of experts who have been working in that field for their entire life. Yes, you should always be able and allowed to question things in science. No, someone who has not studied physics (either in University or via books, idc) will probably not find flaws in current theories in physics. We are building upon a combined knowledge that goes back to Newton (or even further into the past, if you will), more than 300 years of lifelong study by some of the greatest minds on our planet. You alone can not figure out this much on your own, no matter how clever you are. Once you have learned the principles, you are very welcome to question them. But your questions regarding the RE model can all be traced back to a blatant misunderstanding of gravity, acceleration, velocity, scale and perspective. So please, please, learn and understand the core principles of a theory before you question it, otherwise your questions are meaningless. (I even created a thread for that (Globe Earth Q&A), please feel free to pop in, that one is intended as a judgement-free zone to ask questions about the RE model.)
Wise, would you mind connecting me to that friend of yours who worked at NASA and is now a flat earther? I would really like to talk to them. I am happy to send you a contact E-Mail via PM or something, let me know what works for you.Frankly, I thought most of the global powers that advocated globalism were doing it out of bad faith most times. But a friend of mine who worked for NASA in the past said that he really believed the earth was a sphere during his years at NASA. As such, they never give people the opportunity to see the whole. Maybe Buzz Aldrin or Armstrong, who thought he was going to the moon, believed they were doing it for US domination of the world or some other sacred purpose. Maybe the people making chemtrails today really believe it's good for human health. That's why I no longer look at globalists from a single point of view. I consider all of them separately. Jackblak can't see the sunset. For him, the sun is nothing more than a program of 1s and 0s. He has never seen and will never see the sun, and I don't care, I already blocked him in the process when I decided to block the robots.There are several types of globalists, and the rationale for each needs to be examined separately.
The first type and the most common type are robot accounts. They work under an AI that constructs the perception that the world is a sphere. They don't have a choice, they don't think. They were not offered the alternative of believing something different or advocating something different. They are AI's slaves and servants, obligated to do whatever AI commands. There's no point in arguing with them because they always have answers for algorithmic reasons.
The second type is jinn. Most of them are hostile to humans and defend everything that is against humans. Since the lie of the globe world is against people, because it is based on lies and deception, they gladly defend this lie. They have a choice, they have free will, but they don't change, they simply don't.
The third type, physical slaves, are those who run the entire world. They are chosen, protected, empowered and misled by the enemies of humanity. Their numbers are few and they are by no means convinced. Only if their orders change, then they change. Almost all of the current top managers are in this group.
The last group are idiots. It consists of people with low intelligence level. They are the mass we call "sheep". They are easily manipulated and believe what they see on TV or social media. It is easy them to be deceived, and it is also easy to be persuaded again. They may change their minds, but it is not so easy as they have been manipulated for years.
Wise, I'd rather lose an argument to you, than lose you to an argument.
So, instead of arguing, I'm going to suggest one more group of globalists for you to include on your list.
Astronauts - those that have seen the Earth from a great distance away.
Would you like me to name them all?
Mark Sargent has already publicly declared that if he went up in a rocket ship and observed Earth's curvature with his own eyes, he would denounce Flat Earth immediately. Pray that he never gets an invite, Wise.
In the meantime, Wise, I'll give you and Sceptimaniac a cheerful little thought to brighten up your day.
Most globalists when watching a sunset, unwittingly watch the sun moving down at the stationary horizon, until it disappears. This is actually the flat earther way of interpreting and enjoying a sunset. (This is the way Jack Black enjoys watching sunsets)
The proper way of a true globalist to watch and enjoy a sunset is to root him or herself to the Earth itself, be conscious of the sphere of the Earth itself, and instead witness the sun as perfectly stationary. Shift your awareness that we and the Earth is what is moving. Observe the entire Western horizon moving up, gradually blocking out the sun, and yourself as ever so slightly, moving back, as on the world sized ball rotating gently backwards.
Wise, if you dare to try this at home, put a mattress on the ground behind you, so you don't hurt yourself if you lose your balance and fall backwards.
If the sun were not a hologram, we could do a lot of experiments with it. But its software does not allow this.
When you wish to know something that is beyond science, you study philosophy. Philosophy leads to logic and reason, which in turn mean that you understand ideas without having to be told. For example, if you are shown a small dinosaur carcass and it bears a striking resemblance to a a chicken skeleton mixed with a lizard tail, you don't need a professor to tell you that. Simple logic means you know what each skeleton look like, and connect them based on characteristics. Never having any grasp of logic mean all of this is lost on you.Bulma, sorry if I'm a bit lost, but where is this different from science? To make this conclusion you'd need to know what a chicken skeleton looks like, and ideally also a few other skeletons of animals that look similar, just to be able to exclude that you are not mistaking the chicken skeleton for something else. I.e. you need to know the basics of the field you are studying to make sure that you are not making simple mistakes. Learning about the basics and then making your own conclusions based upon available data is pretty much exactly what science is doing (or at least supposed to do, unless we are all paid shills from big government that have nothing better to do in our lives than to hide the shape of the earth), no?
Made my day, thank you!
When sun and moon line up, you have a perfect circle. Go ahead, find a lamp. Make a circle by cupping your hands together. Now move your hands from not in the path above the lamp (new moon), to progressive levels of being in the path. It will slowly go to crescent, then gibbous, then full. Then if you keep moving it will move out. Proven. By shadow puppetry.Tried it. Did never get a crescent shape. Only a venn-diagram-overlap-like shape.
Are you high?Finally a sensible explanation for this thread...
I never meant I rely solely on firsthand experience.
I meant I don't blindly accept the word of "experts."
Well, then you lied...You cannot get your knowledge from secondhand or thirdhand sources.
And, again, none of this explains:
- How everyone on the planet, regardless of their location, sees the same phase of the moon. Your model does not address this.
- How the moon phases occur. Your model does not address this.
These are the questions posed in this thread and 9 pages in, you still haven't even remotely answered them. Try again.
How does it not?
Your own... oh wait, that was DataOverflow... his own model shows that when light hits the dome, it brightens all parts of it. In other words, when light hits a dome, it brightens the whole sky, and if the sun projects itself into the dome, you see the image of the sun, even though it is actually outside. From existing round earth theories, you already know that the sun is not where it appears to be, as it appears to be extremely close. Yet if it is so distant, it would need to be in multiple places at once. Why do I say that? Because the moon has to move around the entirety of Earth and arrive at the orther side within 12(ish) hours. I've done the math and this isn't right.
Earth's circumference: 24,901.461 mi
Earth's diameter: 7926 mi
Moon's orbit speed: 2,288 miles per hour
North Pole to South Pole: 12,430 miles
To go completely around the supposedly round Earth we get a circumference. Circumference is roughly Dπ (that is, 7926 x 3.14...) right so that's a complete circuit. You'll also note that this is roughly 12 times the moon's orbital speed. Sorry, 10.8833041958042. I'm saying this because I want you to notice something. This is the amount of a complete circuit around the Earth. In other words, in 10.883 hours, it should move from my town, eventually out of sight, and then back into sight. But because the other side of the world is halfway across, this is actually half the circumference, as we discovered when I found out that distance from North Pole to South Pole. That is, 24901.461 / 2 = 12450.7305 / 2288 = 5.441752840909091, that is the moon should be visible in the sky for only 5½ hours.
So let's check out the sky! I'm on Richmond outskirts, so...
10:35 pm moonrise, 9:57 am moonset. Moon is out anywhere from 11 to 14 hours. The moon is moving nearly twice what it should because apparently scientists cannot do math. Btw, all of these numbers can be easily obtained online.
Yes, we do? 0+0+0=0? How is that so hard to understand?2 + 2 = one 2 + one 2 = add 2 two (one + one) times = 4So my question is how would you write the aforementioned 3 zero digitally [like 4 (a digit) in case 2 + 2 ] while adding three zeros?When you write 4, how do you know it is 2+2 and not 3+1? (Answer is: you don't, both 2+2 and 3+1 give the same 4, same as 0+0+0 gives the same 0 as just 0.
3 + 1 = one 3 + one 1 = add one 3 with one 1 = 3 + 1 = 4
5 + 2 + 3 = on 5 + one 2 + one 3 = add one 5, one 2 and one 3 = 10
0 + 0 + 0 = one 0 + one 0 + one 0 = add zero three (one + one + one) times = For this we don’t have any expression in digits
Sorry Jack I was just helping Kami. Hope you will not be offended
So my question is how would you write the aforementioned 3 zero digitally [like 4 (a digit) in case 2 + 2 ] while adding three zeros?When you write 4, how do you know it is 2+2 and not 3+1? (Answer is: you don't, both 2+2 and 3+1 give the same 4, same as 0+0+0 gives the same 0 as just 0.
There are various types of flatties, lets run through a few types.
First are trolls, I don’t know why but triggering people gives them a kick, probably the only stimulation that they get from other human beings, I suspect they have too close a tie to their mothers and masturbation is a sin, so the pressure builds, here they get at least a modicum of release, think Norman Bates with a computer, but ugly.
Second and probably the majority are just idiots, the world is full of them, and they just pick a side and clutter up arguments on all things, they are the lint in your filters the hair in your drains, they block the wind from your sails, litter beaches and drive too slowly, some are flatties some are right but in a dumb and tedious manner.
The other main group are the narcissists, not the classical, staring at their reflection in a river kind necessarily, mostly preening self-taught demi intellectuals, who either can’t get the adoration they feel they deserve from conventional disciplines, usually because in their haste they missed the basics, so like spurned lovers they cast former sweethearts as demons.
Or/and, the precocious child who finally allowed out into the world of the hoi polloi finds he isn’t the hub of everyone’s world, the star in their skies, in fact the people, the world, the universe in general pays them little heed and this is unacceptable, so the planet itself, its laws and foundations must be rebuilt by them, to serve as recompense for the injustice and to assuage the fear that they just don’t matter.
The Earth is horizontally, quite large, but thinking of it as a big globe has been debunked over, over, and over again.TBH that's a bit of a stretch
Throughout the site, there are so many claims, visuals and common misconceptions put forth by RE, but let us all say the issue of Earth shape is put to rest.
Round Earth believers can twist, turn, and shout all they want but this thread is now considered a victory for FET.
Kami, this isn't the debate section. Give the FET answer!Sorry, I thought I did that. I explained why, under FET, light has to curve upwards to explain things disappearing bottom-up, and why downwards-bending light would not cause this. So upwards-bending light would be a viable answer why things disappear bottom-up on a flat disk. If this violates the TOS please feel free to remove.
The answer I most frequently see is that light is drawn downwards by the same force we consider to be gravity - so when a ship is on the horizon, the light that reflects off its lower parts will curve into the sea and not reach you, while those parts that are higher will appear closer to the sea.If light curves downwards you would still be able to see the bottom of a ship, just floating higher than it should be (the light ray would basically be a parabola from the ship's bottom to the observer's eyes). It would have to curve upwards for that to happen.
You realize that this is normally the go-to FE argument, right?
The easiest way to reliably prove that the earth is flat would be sending up a weather balloon with a GoPro strapped to it.
You people have the numbers. You could set up a GoFundMe and get the money within a month, set it up in a weekend and livestream the balloon going up to Youtube.
But NO. The most evidence I've seen here is some sketchy math,reasoning, and some even more sketchy diagrams. So I'm going to do the hard work and set up a really sketchy CER ( Claim, Evidence, Reasoning, for those who don't know). It's like a mini scientific method.
Claim: The earth is flat
Evidence: The Flat Earth Society launches a weather balloon that rises to 35,000 feet with a GoPro strapped to it. The video shows that indeed, the earth is flat and the evidence is posted to Youtube to see for yourself.
Reasoning: Since the Flat Earth Society has public video evidence that the Earth is flat, The FE society puts it all together and we have a proven claim with 1 hard piece of evidence ( and many more sketchy ones that forum users have tried to add).
Therefore, according to the reliable evidence, the earth is flat.
*( I put the sketchy evidence as reliable because at this point, looking outside , seeing the ground is flat, and proclaiming that the earth is flat counts as evidence)
** THIS CER IS ENTIRELY FICTIONAL UNLESS PROVEN ( NOT TESTED, JUST EXAMPLE)
People have. Quite a number of times.
Since your solution is so simple, free from error, requires no need for explanations, by your account reliable, and you are perfectly willing to take YouTube videos as evidence, here is exactly what you asked for (actually, three times the height you asked for!) and therefore your easy, reliable way to prove the Earth is flat has shown you that it is.
That's edited footage. The raw footage shows heaps of curvature and looks nothing like that. Clearly some flat earth maniac has had a panic attack and manipulated the video.
Can we have an 'edgy 12-year old' firewall on this forum?well of course the proof is hidden by the governments you sheep will never understand you only belive what the government feeds youeasy all the CGI artists are killed after they are finished the government has them come up with a few 100 pictures that satisfy the sheep of the public then whack them and get the next one if you look closely you can see slight style differences in all of them why? because of different CGI artists and for your second claim the governments just lied to us they created photoshop in the 50s and when they created a more advanced tool they released it to the public playing you all for fools
Evidence is overrated to you, isn't it? The important thing to you is telling your far fetched little story. Your tall tale.
CGI was first used in film in the 1958 movie opening credits of "Vertigo". One CGI artist, and boy, is that one sophisticated display of CGI! It almost gave me vertigo!
Name just one CGI artist "whacked"? Just one will be fine. Oh, and Adobe Photoshop was first created in 1987. You have zero proof it was created in the 1950s.
You and zero proof seem to go hand in hand don't they? Zero proof, zero credibility, zero sway.
Like Zorro, do you carve out a big "Z" for Zero, to let people know you were there?
Is pi a tangible number to you? Is -1?QuoteQuoteCan zero has a base and power? I mean 0 which has 1 base and 1 powerYour question is unclear.
Can 1?
Can 0.5?
Can -1?
What do you mean by a base and a power?
Sorry I meant coefficient, not base. Nothing is represented by a symbol 0 which has 1 coefficient and 1 power just like any number say 5 which has 1 coefficient and 1 power. That’s why I asked if zero were a number, can we add five zeros (can we write five zero like 50 which is actually fifty) to 7 zero (70 which is actually seventy) or 5 zero to the power 5 i.e. 50^5 (it's not fifty to the power five)
The span of time or length has its start and end but in b/t them are the countless instants and units of length. So it depends on which unit of time or unit of length is of interest. An option is very wide.QuoteDo you think non-zero numbers exist tangibly?Hat off, yesQuoteQuote0 apple for 0 person is a wrong concept. Zero (0) is not even a single thing. It just represents the start of something or represents nothing in math. it's just a word.It isn't a word.
It is a number, a number that represents nothing.
Numbers are actually symbols that represent tangible items/things. So, in your case, it can be said zero is a non-tangible number. (zero is just an imaginary thing which we call nothing represented symbol 0)
A point is a tangible number (unit of time or length) while a path followed by the tangible number of the function may be a true definition of a line.
Pretty sure this is wrong. A line is defined as a set of points with certain properties, for example the line AB could be defined as {y | y=(B-A)*x+A for x in [0,1]}. I mean mathematical, 0-dimensional points here.But still, the question is if the point is dimensionless geometrically then the line (either straight or curvy) which is made of points is also dimensionless.No, it isn't.
Again, your problem is that you are trying to break a line down into a series of shorter lines, declare these shorter lines to be points, and then build the line back up from these shorter lines.
These shorter lines are not points. The line is not made from these points.
Okay, staying with your example: Say is a gravitational acceleration of 7-2 = 5 m/s^2 the moon. But there is also a gravitational acceleration of 7m/s^2 on the earth. So earth and moon both accelerate ('fall') towards the sun. However, there is also a 2 m/s^2 difference between the acceleration on the earth and the one on the moon, which is the cause of their orbital motion.QuoteAgain, it DOES orbit the sun.
Earth and the moon together orbit the sun.
I know.
But the net gravitational force of attraction = gravitational force b/t the sun and moon – gravitational force earth and moon, say 7-2 = 5 N
So automatically gravitational force of the earth and the moon is eliminated. The moon should drop independently on the sun just like you cancel out gravity forces in the shell.No. This is again a baseless assertion without any evidence to back it up.
The math is correct. M of the hollow sphere can be calculated from the difference of diameters of the outer and inner of the shell. The center of gravity of the shell would still be the center of the shell.Tell me you don't understand Newton's shell theorem (or the equations of gravity for extended bodies) without telling me you don't understand Newton's shell theorem.
It's not necessary that “g” would always be zero. Again the thickness of half of the shell can be changed.
An object would fall if released from the ceiling of a deep well if its top is closed.Your point being?
But still, the question is if the point is dimensionless geometrically then the line (either straight or curvy) which is made of points is also dimensionless.
Pretty much all of it. I can not think of one branch of mathematics that would live without the existence of the number 0QuoteA very large part of math relies upon it.Which part? It could be fictional math,
When the moon is in b/t earth and sun in a line
The gravitational force of attraction b/t the sun and moon > The gravitational force of attraction b/t the sun and earth
Since the net gravitational force of attraction b/t the sun and moon is greater therefore technically the moon should have had its own separate orbit around the sun instead of orbiting around the earth.
Similarly, Galileo says that all objects fall at the same rate but isn't the moon and the earth a perfect example that they don’t fall at the same rate on the sun in the absence of air resistance?
Moreover if “g = GM/d^2” is the “g” of the hollow sphere then we can find the “g” of the hollow sphere at any distance “d” from its center. As “d” can be < the radius of the hollow sphere therefore we can still calculate “g” of the hollow sphere within the shell.
Concentric circles within a shell represent the contour of “g” but these concentric ring changes when the geometry of the shell change as explained above.
The mass has a gravitational field on all its sides. So within a shell, an object would be attracted toward the sides, not the center.
so above are two different opposite scenarios i.e attraction toward the center and attraction toward the inner side of the shell.
I don't see any reasons we should zero a number.You are welcome to invent your own mathematics without zero. However, you should be aware that the current mathematics is incredibly successful, and yours probably will suck (just a personal opinion, happy to be disproven here!).
Dimension is to size and size is to object.A line is made up of infinitely many points. As soon as you combine infinitely many objects (you actually need an uncountable infinity here, as a sidenote), you can not really know the dimension of the combination of those objects.
Isn’t a line the shortest distance b/t two points? If a point is dimensionless then how a line that is made of points has a dimension? Shouldn’t a line be dimensionless as well?
IMPOV:From https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Point_(geometry) :
Zero is misunderstood. It means zilch which can’t be a number. It means the start of something.
Similarly, a point has always a diameter or linear dimension no matter how small it is even in imagination. The same analogy is applied to a "Line" which is made of "points"
In classical Euclidean geometry, a point is a primitive notion that models an exact location in space, and has no length, width, or thickness.Your opinion does not coincide with the mathematical definition. Do with that what you will.
Again, slowly: Two forces on the same particle cancel out (if they are opposite direction and same magnitude). Two forces on different particles don't cancel out.QuoteIt depends on how you interpret it. Each mass always creates a gravitational force towards it on any other particle. It is just that inside the sphere, the forces created by all particles of the sphere cancel out.Again - Gravitational forces are attractive. They never cancel out and you have agreed. Should they cancel each other, apple wouldn’t even fall towards the ground.
No, it isn't strange.
Each part of the sphere does create a force, but they cancel.
Isn’t below your statement.No, this is just you applying an equation to a situation where you can not apply it, as has been repeatedly explained.QuoteAs a consequence, for example, within a shell of uniform thickness and density there is no net gravitational acceleration anywhere within the hollow sphere.
No net gravitational acceleration means g = GM/d^2 = 0, GM/d^2 = 0 G=0
The final destination of the settlement of the particle that contains inside the hollow sphere should be the center of the hollow sphere if gravity were to exist.That is just wrong, why do you think this would be the case?
Reasons: the “g” of larger mass has greater on one side of the cross-section than the “g” of smaller mass on the other side of the cross-section in the shell theorem.
Similarly, what would you do if the hollow sphere is not symmetrical, symmetrical, and unsymmetrical holes in it?That is a different situation, then. Obviously.
They do not. There is no greater "g". You are misunderstanding the basic concept of gravity and are phrasing your misunderstanding as a fact.Quote(That does not mean there is no gravity inside the sphere, the sphere does not 'cancel' other gravitational forces from other objects.)but masses move toward the greater "g"
Welcome back! That said, the only reasonable model is the non-euclidean model. This is likely while you are foolishly mistaken into believing such a ludicrous idea as a round earth.Thank you! Can you point me to where I could read up on that model?
This is how a van de graff generator works to produce large voltages on the outside of a metal sphere. The inside doesn't experience the electric field, so static electricity can be used to charge a small strip inside the sphere, which then has the charge on that repel other nearby charges to push it outwards, where it then reaches the spherical shell, and evenly distributes itself over the shell to cause no force on the inside.I learn something new every day
