Biggest evidence for flat earth

Imagine you are on the bottom of this or at the side. Why arn't you falling off?

Now imagine this is a map of earth:



doesn't this make more sense? because you can't fall off when you are on side of earth.

Imagine you are on the bottom of this or at the side. Why arn't you falling off?

Now imagine this is a map of earth:



doesn't this make more sense? because you can't fall off when you are on side of earth.

You fail.





I know other flat earthers will disagree, but at least you guys manage to construct something plausible to refute this. And yes, I know this ignores relativity.

That's the "biggest evidence"?

Newton's "law" of gravitation is false. There is no conclusive proof of general relativity either.

Newton's "law" of gravitation is false. There is no conclusive proof of general relativity either.

I know, but unlike the FAQ, which actually offers an explanation for why that could be the case, Nord fails to offer any refutation for it.

And he was arguing from the Round Earth standpoint, saying that if the Earth were round, we'd fall off, forgetting that a Round Earth explains this with Gravity.

And he was arguing from the Round Earth standpoint, saying that if the Earth were round, we'd fall off, forgetting that a Round Earth explains this with Gravity.

Gravity/gravitation acts towards the center of mass of the object (in this case, the round earth).  This is why people don't fall off of the 'bottom' of the RE.

Imagine you are on the bottom of this or at the side. Why arn't you falling off?

Now imagine this is a map of earth:



doesn't this make more sense? because you can't fall off when you are on side of earth.

As I said, please stop associating with us. Their hypotheses may be false upon closer inspection but they at least offer some explanation for observed phenomena.

"Points" like yours don't prove anything apart from the fact that you're thoroughly ignorant of RET which doesn't help anybody, and that you're just the inverse of every other moron who signs up to post nonsense here.

I understand that Nord might need to brush up on the concept of gravitation, but I think hostility toward new members is unnecessary. This site is a place for free-thinkers, so he has the right to post whatever he wants as long as it does not violate the rules.

Actually, Nord is correct. There's no explanation for why gravity exists. It "just does".

An old equation from the 1600's isn't an explanation for what causes it.

Most people, and even many scientists, would say something stupid like "mass causes it" without explaining how mass would cause it.

But what about photons? They don't have any mass and they still have "gravity".

So what causes gravity?

Actually, Nord is correct. There's no explanation for why gravity exists. it "just does".

There is no explanation for why the UA exists either.  It "just does".

I'm sorry, why is the UA a better theory?

Actually, Nord is correct. There's no explanation for why gravity exists. it "just does".

Nor is it necessary for there to be an explanation for why it exists. One need simply prove that it exists.

Alternatively...

Why is there a bull in this field?
Because there is! Now get out quick!
Until I see evidence to explain why there is a bull in this field I refuse to believe there is a bull in this field.

Imagine you are on the bottom of this or at the side. Why arn't you falling off?

Now imagine this is a map of earth:



doesn't this make more sense? because you can't fall off when you are on side of earth.

Am I the only one who thinks Nord is a satirical FER/Creationist alt?

Imagine you are on the bottom of this or at the side. Why arn't you falling off?

Now imagine this is a map of earth:



doesn't this make more sense? because you can't fall off when you are on side of earth.

I love how both models are spherical.

There is no explanation for why the UA exists either.  It "just does".

I'm sorry, why is the UA a better theory?

A Universal Constant happens to be a little more convincing than hypothetical puller particles riding out of the earth and pulling me towards its surface.

It's also a little more convincing than the entire fabric of space-time "bending" for some reason (it obviously has nothing to do with mass due to the photon example).

A Universal Constant is more convincing because we already know that things can accelerate, and that a mechanical upwards acceleration can keep things pinned to the earth. The elements for a mechanism for "gravity" is already in place. Something just needs to push the earth upwards. We already know that things can push and accelerate matter (an explosion, for example). We already know that it's physically possible with our current understanding.

With those "other theories" entirely odd and new branches of physics need to be created for anything to be possible. Puller particles? No evidence what-so-ever. Bending of space? Unexplained and ridiculous.

Nor is it necessary for there to be an explanation for why it exists. One need simply prove that it exists.

I've stepped off my chair and seen the earth rise up towards me.

Where have you seen gravitons?

Quote from: Crustinator on November 15, 2009, 09:31:22 AM

Nor is it necessary for there to be an explanation for why it exists. One need simply prove that it exists.

I've stepped off my chair and seen the earth rise up towards me.

Where have you seen gravitons?

The graviton is an explanation to why gravity exists. It is not necessary to prove that gravity exists.

Quote from: Tom Bishop on November 16, 2009, 01:38:04 AM

Quote from: Crustinator on November 15, 2009, 09:31:22 AM

Nor is it necessary for there to be an explanation for why it exists. One need simply prove that it exists.

I've stepped off my chair and seen the earth rise up towards me.

Where have you seen gravitons?

The graviton is an explanation to why gravity exists. It is not necessary to prove that gravity exists.

I'm sorry. I still see the earth rise upwards to me. I don't see any gravitons.

Where are they?

I'm sorry. I still see the earth rise upwards to me. I don't see any gravitons.

Where are they?

I'm sorry. I still see the earth pulling me down. I don't see a UA pushing the earth up.

Where is it?

 

I'm sorry. I still see the earth rise upwards to me. I don't see any gravitons.

Where are they?

You still don't get it.

The graviton is an explanation to why gravity exists. It is not necessary to prove that gravity exists.

Quote from: markjo on November 15, 2009, 08:09:54 AM

There is no explanation for why the UA exists either.  It "just does".

I'm sorry, why is the UA a better theory?

A Universal Constant happens to be a little more convincing than hypothetical puller particles riding out of the earth and pulling me towards its surface.

Why would you say that?

It's also a little more convincing than the entire fabric of space-time "bending" for some reason (it obviously has nothing to do with mass due to the photon example).

Your misunderstanding of relativity is not our problem.

A Universal Constant is more convincing because we already know that things can accelerate, and that a mechanical upwards acceleration can keep things pinned to the earth. The elements for a mechanism for "gravity" is already in place. Something just needs to push the earth upwards. We already know that things can push and accelerate matter (an explosion, for example). We already know that it's physically possible with our current understanding.

And what is this perpetual source of energy again?  Oh, and Newton said that every action has an equal and opposite reaction.  What is this perpetual source of energy reacting with that is opposite to its action of pushing the FE?

With those "other theories" entirely odd and new branches of physics need to be created for anything to be possible. Puller particles? No evidence what-so-ever. Bending of space? Unexplained and ridiculous.

And your theory of a perpetual energy source that pushes the FE while keeping the sun, moon and other celestial objects at a more or less constant distance above the FE makes any more sense?

THis evidence only measures a .03╔╩╦. Which is not very big for evidence on my patented evidence scale.

Quote from: Tom Bishop on November 16, 2009, 05:40:52 AM

I'm sorry. I still see the earth rise upwards to me. I don't see any gravitons.

Where are they?

You still don't get it.

The graviton is an explanation to why gravity exists. It is not necessary to prove that gravity exists.

Why make stuff up, or even consider the possibility, if there is no evidence what-so-ever?

When I walk off a chair can already see that the earth rises up towards me.

Why make stuff up, or even consider the possibility, if there is no evidence what-so-ever?

Because, having all agreed that gravity exists in the way that it does, scientists have now moved on to asking why it exists.

Because, having all agreed that gravity exists in the way that it does,

Which way does it exist?

- Force?

- Puller Particles?

- Bends in the Aether (Bending Space)?

"Having all agreed," right?

Which way does it exist?

The attraction between matter.

Quote from: Tom Bishop on November 18, 2009, 04:12:46 AM

Which way does it exist?

The attraction between matter.

Photons have "gravity" and they're not made of matter.

So matter can't have anything to do with it!

Quote from: Crustinator on November 18, 2009, 04:15:55 AM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on November 18, 2009, 04:12:46 AM

Which way does it exist?

The attraction between matter.

Photons have "gravity" and they're not made of matter.

So matter can't have anything to do with it!

Photons have energy.  Energy = mass.

Quote from: Tom Bishop on November 18, 2009, 04:17:37 AM

Quote from: Crustinator on November 18, 2009, 04:15:55 AM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on November 18, 2009, 04:12:46 AM

Which way does it exist?

The attraction between matter.

Photons have "gravity" and they're not made of matter.

So matter can't have anything to do with it!

Photons have energy.  Energy = mass.

So it's energy which causes "gravity" now?

How does it do that again?

So it's energy which causes "gravity" now?

How does it do that again?

Here is one possible explanation: http://www.allanstime.com/UnifiedFieldTheory/gravity.htm

So it's energy which causes "gravity" now?

How does it do that again?

It doesn't matter how. The fact is it does.