Samuel Birley Rowbotham is bad at experiments

  • 34 Replies
  • 7576 Views
?

Megaman

  • 176
  • Winning all the forums
Samuel Birley Rowbotham is bad at experiments
« on: August 09, 2012, 11:29:09 PM »
Taken from CHAPTER XII: THE CAUSE OF TIDES.

1.) Rowbotham doesn't understand the definition of flood tide.

"1st. Spread out on a table a sheet of paper of any size, to represent a body of water; place an object or mark at each edge of the paper, to represent the shores. Now draw the paper gently upwards in the centre, and notice the effect upon the objects or marks, and the edge of the paper."

The author cites this as proof that the moon pulling on the ocean cannot cause the flood tide.

"flood tide also flood·tide (fldtd)
n.
1. The incoming or rising tide; the period between low water and the succeeding high water.
2. A climax or high point: a flood tide of fears."

Important point: The period BETWEEN LOW water and the succeeding HIGH water.

In order for the paper experiment to be accurate the paper must start in a downward drawn state. Then, the experimenter pulls the paper upward as described. The experimenter will observe that as the paper passes from a concave state to a convex state the marked edges or "shores" will expand and contract demonstrating the flood tide.



2.) Rowbotham doesn't fully understand his own thought experiment

"Facts 8, 9, 11, 12, and 16, show results that must necessarily follow this fluctuation of the earth. The velocity of the flood is greatest as it approaches land. If the waters were put in motion by the moon, the velocity would be greatest where the altitude was greatest or nearest the moon, and least the farthest from it or nearest the shores. The reverse is the case in nature."

This statement is 100% false and can be disproven using the paper thought experiment.

The higher velocity has to do with the fact that if you take something concave and press down on the center (in order to make it flat) the edges of the concavity move away from the center faster than any other part.

Take the paper example that the author uses. Make the paper convex, then slowly press down on it. You can easily see that the center of the paper moves in the direction of the force you are applying (namely, down) and has zero perpendicular velocity. You can also see that at the edges of the paper have 0 downward velocity and that all of the movement is perpendicular to the applied force. This means that  the horizontal velocity of the object (paper, water, ooz) increases the further away the part you are observing is from the center.




3.) Rowbotham doesn't understand proportionality of gravity.

 "In fact 15 we see what could not be possible if the moon were the cause of tidal action by lifting the waters underneath her from their normal position. If the moon's attraction operates in one place, what can possibly prevent its action in all other places when and where the relative positions are the same? No direct explanatory answer has yet been given."

Gravitational interaction is based on mass of interacting objects. None of the lakes on earth are large enough to have tides, in terms of the mass of their contained water.

Biggest lake in the world: Caspian Sea with an area of 371,000 km˛ (371,000,000 meters). Average depth= 187 m

Smallest ocean: Arctic Ocean area of 13,990,000 km˛ (13,990,000,000 meters). Average depth = 1,038 m

Volume of Caspian Sea: 69,377,000,000 meters cubed

Volume of Arctic ocean: 14,521,620,000,000 meters cubed

1 cubed meter of water has a mass of 1,000 kg

Mass of Caspian Sea: 69,377,000,000 kg
Mass of Arctic ocean: 14,521,620,000,000,000 kg

Arctic ocean has a mass that is 209314.6144 times larger than the Caspian Sea.

Highest recurring tide = approx. 16.3 meters

Gravity is proportional mass.

If the same gravitational force that produced this tide is applied to the Caspian Sea it results in a tide of .000077873 meters or 77.873 micrometers

Your author proves nothing by fact 15 above except that he doesn't actually understand gravitation.

Another problem I noticed:

CHAPTER III: THE EARTH NO AXIAL OR ORBITAL MOTION

4.)"Let the ball be thrown upwards from the mast-head of a stationary ship, and it will fall back to the mast-head, and pass downwards to the foot of the mast. The same result would follow if the ball were thrown upwards from the mouth of a mine, or the top of a tower, on a stationary earth. Now put the ship in motion, and let the ball be thrown upwards. It will, as in the first instance, partake of the two....."

In this and the train example the object being thrown is subject to air resistance which dampens its horizontal velocity. In RE the atmosphere rotates with the Earth which means that a thrown object would not be subject to air resistance unless it is a windy day. These are not accurate representations of a rotating Earth model.

5.)"A strong cast-iron cannon was placed with the muzzle upwards. The barrel was carefully tested with a plumb line, so that its true vertical direction was secured; and the breech of the gun was firmly embedded in sand up to the touch-hole, against which a piece of slow match was placed. The cannon had been loaded with powder and ball, previous to its position being secured. At a given moment the slow match at D was fired, and the operator retired to a shed. The explosion took place, and the ball was discharged in the direction A, B. In thirty seconds the ball fell back to the earth, from B to C; the point of contact, C, was only 8 inches from the gun, A."

This doesn't prove that the Earth is stationary. The cannon ball will not lose horizontal velocity unless something opposes  that velocity. Since the atmosphere moves with the Earth in RE, the only thing available to affect horizontal velocity is wind, which accounts for the results that the Rowbotham got.

6.) "When sitting in a rapidly-moving railway carriage, let a spring-gun 1 be fired forward, or in the direction in which the train is moving. Again, let the same gun be fired, but in the opposite direction; and it will be found that the ball or other projectile will always go farther in the first case than in the latter."

First of all, Rowbotham doesn't require that the railway carriage be moving at a constant speed, which is quite careless because in RE the Earth rotates at a constant rate. Therefore, in order for this to be analogous to a rotating Earth, it must have a steady velocity.
If you try this experiment at a constant velocity, you find that the ball or other projectile will go the same distance regardless of direction. His statement that it will go different distances is completely false.

Example: If you smoke or light incense in a car that has a steady velocity, with the windows rolled up and AC off,  you will find that the smoke rises straight up. It does not rise toward the back of the car.



Can any Rowbotham supporters defend him on any of these points?

If so, please point out my errors.





« Last Edit: August 23, 2012, 10:48:33 AM by Megaman »

*

Ski

  • Planar Moderator
  • 8730
  • Homines, dum docent, dispenguin.
Re: Samuel Birley Rowbotham is bad at experiments
« Reply #1 on: August 09, 2012, 11:48:32 PM »
YOU are atleast as bad at experiments as Dr. Rowbotham. First, if the earth were a whirling, swirling globe your analogy is faulty. You imagine a scenario such as an inclosed car at constant speed, yet the earth is not enclosed. And even if it were enclosed, the atmosphere would need constant angular acceleration imparted to it through this twisty, turvey path through space. It would never be at a "steady velocity". The fact that the earth is not stripped bare by one-thousand mile per hour winds is all the evidence one needs to see that the earth is not a rotating globe.
"Never think you can turn over any old falsehood without a terrible squirming of the horrid little population that dwells under it." -O.W. Holmes "Truth forever on the scaffold, Wrong forever on the throne.."

?

Megaman

  • 176
  • Winning all the forums
Re: Samuel Birley Rowbotham is bad at experiments
« Reply #2 on: August 10, 2012, 12:20:46 AM »
YOU are atleast as bad at experiments as Dr. Rowbotham. First, if the earth were a whirling, swirling globe your analogy is faulty. You imagine a scenario such as an inclosed car at constant speed, yet the earth is not enclosed. And even if it were enclosed, the atmosphere would need constant angular acceleration imparted to it through this twisty, turvey path through space. It would never be at a "steady velocity". The fact that the earth is not stripped bare by one-thousand mile per hour winds is all the evidence one needs to see that the earth is not a rotating globe.

1.) Outerspace has 0 friction so there isn't anything to oppose the atmosphere rotating with the Earth. Since the atmosphere moves with the surface of the Earth it is analogous to any scenario where the air has the same velocity as your frame of reference.

2.) I believe you don't actually know what angular acceleration is. Just because an object spins, it doesn't mean that it has angular acceleration but a spinning object must have angular velocity.

Angular acceleration = tangential acceleration/radius

Tangentail acceleration = Horizontal acceleration in the case of RE

Angular acceleration doesn't have to exist for the Earth to continue rotate since there is no friction in space.

Since there is no angular acceleration, there can not be horizontal acceleration.

I take it as a compliment that this is the only point you felt able to refute.



 

*

Ski

  • Planar Moderator
  • 8730
  • Homines, dum docent, dispenguin.
Re: Samuel Birley Rowbotham is bad at experiments
« Reply #3 on: August 10, 2012, 12:46:13 AM »
There is no reason for the atmosphere to be rotating with the earth. Friction hardly needs to stop it. How can it be moving with the earth if the earth is spinning? In fact, it must be moving away from the earth as the earth spins beneath it.
"Never think you can turn over any old falsehood without a terrible squirming of the horrid little population that dwells under it." -O.W. Holmes "Truth forever on the scaffold, Wrong forever on the throne.."

?

Cat Earth Theory

  • 1614
  • I practise the Zetetic Method!
Re: Samuel Birley Rowbotham is bad at experiments
« Reply #4 on: August 10, 2012, 01:05:55 AM »
There is no reason for the atmosphere to be rotating with the earth. Friction hardly needs to stop it. How can it be moving with the earth if the earth is spinning? In fact, it must be moving away from the earth as the earth spins beneath it.

Um, gravity works on air, too.  Your objection continues to make little sense.  It may help if you draw a picture or something.
If you focus on the cloud, and conceive of it just as you would a dream you are trying to interpret, with practice its meanings and memories will be revealed to you.

*

Ski

  • Planar Moderator
  • 8730
  • Homines, dum docent, dispenguin.
Re: Samuel Birley Rowbotham is bad at experiments
« Reply #5 on: August 10, 2012, 01:43:44 AM »
Gravity would only pull the air toward the center of the mass -- it would not impart spin.
"Never think you can turn over any old falsehood without a terrible squirming of the horrid little population that dwells under it." -O.W. Holmes "Truth forever on the scaffold, Wrong forever on the throne.."

?

Cat Earth Theory

  • 1614
  • I practise the Zetetic Method!
Re: Samuel Birley Rowbotham is bad at experiments
« Reply #6 on: August 10, 2012, 02:25:09 AM »
Gravity would only pull the air toward the center of the mass -- it would not impart spin.

Impart spin?  The atmosphere, having been pushed by the rotating earth underneath it, continues to move at the speed that the earth below moves.  Gravity pulls it inwards, keeping it from flying off into space and continually redirecting its movement around the round earth.  Would this somehow slow the atmosphere down?

I'm not sure what your issue is here.  Once again, a picture of some sort might help.
« Last Edit: August 10, 2012, 02:27:09 AM by Cat Earth Theory »
If you focus on the cloud, and conceive of it just as you would a dream you are trying to interpret, with practice its meanings and memories will be revealed to you.

Re: Samuel Birley Rowbotham is bad at experiments
« Reply #7 on: August 10, 2012, 06:35:41 AM »
This isn't the best analogue, but it's good enough:

Have you ever stirred a cup of coffee?  Notice how you can make all of the liquid spin in the same direction, at the same rate, without applying an identical force to each individual atom in the coffee.
Also, the people on your websites are specifically framing their claims, not to learn the truth of the matter, but because they want to "debunk" Apollo Hoax claims --

?

Megaman

  • 176
  • Winning all the forums
Re: Samuel Birley Rowbotham is bad at experiments
« Reply #8 on: August 10, 2012, 08:54:16 AM »
Gravity would only pull the air toward the center of the mass -- it would not impart spin.


You are correct. Gravity would not account for the spin. It is due to friction between the earth and the air. This is analogous to the friction between the stirring object and the liquid in garygreen's example. If the cup and the air above the surface of the liquid was frictionless, like space, this example would be 100% analogous to that of a spinning earth.
« Last Edit: August 10, 2012, 02:08:55 PM by Megaman »

?

BoatswainsMate

  • 675
  • You just been Tom Bishop'ed
Re: Samuel Birley Rowbotham is bad at experiments
« Reply #9 on: August 10, 2012, 11:16:01 AM »
We should get back to the question about tides, I always love reading comments on how the moon and Earth's rotation cannot cause tides. I guess my nautical almanac is just for show. hell if you could prove that the moon and Earth do not cause tides you would make my life much easier.

?

Megaman

  • 176
  • Winning all the forums
Re: Samuel Birley Rowbotham is bad at experiments
« Reply #10 on: August 10, 2012, 02:13:07 PM »
We should get back to the question about tides, I always love reading comments on how the moon and Earth's rotation cannot cause tides. I guess my nautical almanac is just for show. hell if you could prove that the moon and Earth do not cause tides you would make my life much easier.

Yeah. One of the main things I wanted to point out is that Rowbotham's reasoning for believing that the moon and Earth's rotation cannot cause tides is faulty.

No FE supporter has come to his defense on the problems I pointed out in chapter 8 of his book.

Re: Samuel Birley Rowbotham is bad at experiments
« Reply #11 on: August 10, 2012, 04:50:40 PM »
Rowbotham can be credited with advancing the zetetic school of thought - but beyond that he was a hack.

His works are an interesting insight into history however.

?

Megaman

  • 176
  • Winning all the forums
Re: Samuel Birley Rowbotham is bad at experiments
« Reply #12 on: August 10, 2012, 05:09:19 PM »
Rowbotham can be credited with advancing the zetetic school of thought - but beyond that he was a hack.

His works are an interesting insight into history however.

Advancing the zetetic school of thought?

How?

By teaching how to do faulty experiments?

By laying out how to do thought experiments that aren't thought out and then claiming they prove something that they don't?

If his contributions are considered an advancement of the zetetic school of thinking the that type of thinking is concerned more with fantasy than fact.

Re: Samuel Birley Rowbotham is bad at experiments
« Reply #13 on: August 10, 2012, 05:33:24 PM »
Rowbotham can be credited with advancing the zetetic school of thought - but beyond that he was a hack.

His works are an interesting insight into history however.

Advancing the zetetic school of thought?

How?

By teaching how to do faulty experiments?

By laying out how to do thought experiments that aren't thought out and then claiming they prove something that they don't?

If his contributions are considered an advancement of the zetetic school of thinking the that type of thinking is concerned more with fantasy than fact.


You make valid points.

The Zetetic school of thought is mainly described in chapter 1 of Earth Not a Globe, written by Rowbotham.  Lord Wilmore also wrote a discorse you can find via careful use of the search function.

?

Megaman

  • 176
  • Winning all the forums
Re: Samuel Birley Rowbotham is bad at experiments
« Reply #14 on: August 10, 2012, 08:42:48 PM »
Sweet. I'll check those out.

Thanks man.

Re: Samuel Birley Rowbotham is bad at experiments
« Reply #15 on: August 11, 2012, 08:50:15 PM »
Gravity would only pull the air toward the center of the mass -- it would not impart spin.

What?  The atmosphere stays close to earth because of gravity.  The atmosphere doesn't fall to earth because it's light enough to stay up.  As you get higher, the atmosphere becomes more thin because the higher you go, the less gravity there is.  This wouldn't happen if the earth was a flat disc on top of a "universal accelerator."  Everything not attached to the magical dome would fall to earth because nothing would be keeping it up.  I mean, not every molecule has its own universal accelerator attached to it to keep it above earth, does it?

How can you tell us that completely logical physics don't make sense, and then replace it with physics that really DON'T make sense?
...does anyone find it funny that the Flat Earth model is actually round?

?

Cat Earth Theory

  • 1614
  • I practise the Zetetic Method!
Re: Samuel Birley Rowbotham is bad at experiments
« Reply #16 on: August 11, 2012, 09:02:29 PM »
As you get higher, the atmosphere becomes more thin because the higher you go, the less gravity there is.  This wouldn't happen if the earth was a flat disc on top of a "universal accelerator." 

I'm a bit tired right now, but I don't think this is right.  The atmosphere gets thinner when you go higher because there's less pressure, due to there being less atmosphere on top of it.  Gravity decreasing probably plays a small role but I don't think it's the main cause.

An earth with UA would still have an atmoplane that would get thinner with altitude.
« Last Edit: August 11, 2012, 09:04:43 PM by Cat Earth Theory »
If you focus on the cloud, and conceive of it just as you would a dream you are trying to interpret, with practice its meanings and memories will be revealed to you.

?

Megaman

  • 176
  • Winning all the forums
Re: Samuel Birley Rowbotham is bad at experiments
« Reply #17 on: August 11, 2012, 10:03:21 PM »
As you get higher, the atmosphere becomes more thin because the higher you go, the less gravity there is.  This wouldn't happen if the earth was a flat disc on top of a "universal accelerator." 

I'm a bit tired right now, but I don't think this is right.  The atmosphere gets thinner when you go higher because there's less pressure, due to there being less atmosphere on top of it.  Gravity decreasing probably plays a small role but I don't think it's the main cause.

An earth with UA would still have an atmoplane that would get thinner with altitude.

This is true, atmosphere thinning with altitude would occur in both scenarios but UA doesn't account for the fact that things weigh less at higher altitudes.

*

Ski

  • Planar Moderator
  • 8730
  • Homines, dum docent, dispenguin.
Re: Samuel Birley Rowbotham is bad at experiments
« Reply #18 on: August 11, 2012, 10:36:23 PM »
As you get higher, the atmosphere becomes more thin because the higher you go, the less gravity there is.  This wouldn't happen if the earth was a flat disc on top of a "universal accelerator." 

...

How can you tell us that completely logical physics don't make sense, and then replace it with physics that really DON'T make sense?

Because the real physics make more sense than your physics. The atmosphere is being equally accelerated. Density is due to pressure, as CET said.
"Never think you can turn over any old falsehood without a terrible squirming of the horrid little population that dwells under it." -O.W. Holmes "Truth forever on the scaffold, Wrong forever on the throne.."

?

Megaman

  • 176
  • Winning all the forums
Re: Samuel Birley Rowbotham is bad at experiments
« Reply #19 on: August 11, 2012, 10:43:30 PM »
As you get higher, the atmosphere becomes more thin because the higher you go, the less gravity there is.  This wouldn't happen if the earth was a flat disc on top of a "universal accelerator." 

...

How can you tell us that completely logical physics don't make sense, and then replace it with physics that really DON'T make sense?

Because the real physics make more sense than your physics. The atmosphere is being equally accelerated. Density is due to pressure, as CET said.


This still doesn't explain weight variation or the fact that atmosphere is thickest at the equator.

Please explain these with your "real physics"

...oh, that's right. Your physics can't so you just pretend that these observations don't exist.

Another FE'er thwarted
« Last Edit: August 11, 2012, 10:54:26 PM by Megaman »

*

Pongo

  • Planar Moderator
  • 6753
Re: Samuel Birley Rowbotham is bad at experiments
« Reply #20 on: August 11, 2012, 11:12:18 PM »
What weight variation are you talking about?

?

Megaman

  • 176
  • Winning all the forums
Re: Samuel Birley Rowbotham is bad at experiments
« Reply #21 on: August 11, 2012, 11:18:52 PM »
What weight variation are you talking about?

Things weigh about half a percent less at the poles than at the equator.


I am assuming that you agree with the changes in atmosphere based on location since you aren't asking about it.
« Last Edit: August 12, 2012, 01:32:46 AM by Megaman »

?

Cat Earth Theory

  • 1614
  • I practise the Zetetic Method!
Re: Samuel Birley Rowbotham is bad at experiments
« Reply #22 on: August 11, 2012, 11:21:43 PM »
There can also be a measurable difference with increases in altitude.  Non-balancing scales have to be calibrated with standardized weights after being transported to adjust for these differences.
If you focus on the cloud, and conceive of it just as you would a dream you are trying to interpret, with practice its meanings and memories will be revealed to you.

*

Pongo

  • Planar Moderator
  • 6753
Re: Samuel Birley Rowbotham is bad at experiments
« Reply #23 on: August 11, 2012, 11:37:08 PM »
What weight variation are you talking about?

Things weigh about half a percent less at the poles than at the equator.


I am assuming that you agree with the changes in atmosphere based on location sense you aren't asking about it.

Why on earth would assume that? If I sat through a complete history of ancient gods then ask what was Juno the god of as clarification, would you assume that I agreed with all the other information?

?

Megaman

  • 176
  • Winning all the forums
Re: Samuel Birley Rowbotham is bad at experiments
« Reply #24 on: August 12, 2012, 01:26:36 AM »
What weight variation are you talking about?

Things weigh about half a percent less at the poles than at the equator.


I am assuming that you agree with the changes in atmosphere based on location since you aren't asking about it.

Why on earth would assume that? If I sat through a complete history of ancient gods then ask what was Juno the god of as clarification, would you assume that I agreed with all the other information?

I think you took away a different sense of "agree" than I intended.

Yes. I would assume that you agree, in the sense that you have come to an understanding of the other information.

If a person asks a question about a specific piece of information the, teacher relays the requested information. They don't rehash the entire class. This is because when someone asks a question about one thing and nothing else it is assumed that they understand or agree with the information that was not asked about.



« Last Edit: August 12, 2012, 01:28:07 AM by Megaman »

?

trig

  • 2240
Re: Samuel Birley Rowbotham is bad at experiments
« Reply #25 on: August 12, 2012, 01:44:28 AM »
There can also be a measurable difference with increases in altitude.  Non-balancing scales have to be calibrated with standardized weights after being transported to adjust for these differences.
You have to be careful with the subject of gravitational force and altitude. Mountains themselves have a measurable gravitational pull, so when you climb a rocky, steep mountain the gravitational pull generally increases. If you climb a soft, gently sloping hill, probably made of sand or gravel, the gravitational pull generally decreases.

What you can always know is that if you take a plane and go to higher altitudes on top of the same place the gravitational pull will decrease with the square of your distance from the center of the planet.

And yes, you have to re-calibrate non-balancing scales with more than a 0.01% or so precision when you go to other locations, whether at the same height or not.

?

Megaman

  • 176
  • Winning all the forums
Re: Samuel Birley Rowbotham is bad at experiments
« Reply #26 on: August 12, 2012, 10:42:13 AM »
There can also be a measurable difference with increases in altitude.  Non-balancing scales have to be calibrated with standardized weights after being transported to adjust for these differences.
You have to be careful with the subject of gravitational force and altitude. Mountains themselves have a measurable gravitational pull, so when you climb a rocky, steep mountain the gravitational pull generally increases. If you climb a soft, gently sloping hill, probably made of sand or gravel, the gravitational pull generally decreases.

What you can always know is that if you take a plane and go to higher altitudes on top of the same place the gravitational pull will decrease with the square of your distance from the center of the planet.

And yes, you have to re-calibrate non-balancing scales with more than a 0.01% or so precision when you go to other locations, whether at the same height or not.

Exactly. The FE model doesn't allow for weight variation or atmospheric density that varies with location.

Re: Samuel Birley Rowbotham is bad at experiments
« Reply #27 on: August 13, 2012, 02:13:16 PM »
This is one of my favorite Rowbotham experiments:

http://www.sacred-texts.com/earth/za/za45.htm

He explains how, when looking through a levelled telescope, sea level dips below eye-level, betraying the true form of the earth.

My favorite paragraph describing this:

Quote from: Samual Birley Rowbotham
..As a, still further proof of this behaviour of the telescopic levelling instruments, the following simple experiment may be tried. Select a piece of ground--a terrace, promenade, line of railway, or embankment, which shall be perfectly horizontal for, say, five hundred yards. Let a signal staff, 5 feet high, be erected at one end, and a theodolite or spirit level fixed and carefully adjusted to exactly the same altitude at the other end. The top of the signal will then be seen a little below the cross-hair, although it has the same actual altitude, and stands upon the same horizontal foundation. If the positions of the signal staff and the spirit level be then reversed, the same result will follow.

And thus we see how the naked eye is the only true instrument to deduce the shape of the earth - telescopes and other magnifying instruments mislead you into thinking the earth is a spheroid

Re: Samuel Birley Rowbotham is bad at experiments
« Reply #28 on: August 20, 2012, 08:16:29 AM »
As you get higher, the atmosphere becomes more thin because the higher you go, the less gravity there is.  This wouldn't happen if the earth was a flat disc on top of a "universal accelerator." 

I'm a bit tired right now, but I don't think this is right.  The atmosphere gets thinner when you go higher because there's less pressure, due to there being less atmosphere on top of it.  Gravity decreasing probably plays a small role but I don't think it's the main cause.

An earth with UA would still have an atmoplane that would get thinner with altitude.

Yeah, you're right.  As you go higher (on a Round Earth), there is more space (or atmosphere) to cover, so the molecules themselves become more spread out.

It seems to me that, if the earth was flat, this wouldn't happen.  Especially if it were enclosed in a dome... it seems the atmosphere would get THICKER as altitude rises because a dome would cause more density.
...does anyone find it funny that the Flat Earth model is actually round?

*

markjo

  • Content Nazi
  • The Elder Ones
  • 41648
Re: Samuel Birley Rowbotham is bad at experiments
« Reply #29 on: August 20, 2012, 11:31:34 AM »
Yeah, you're right.  As you go higher (on a Round Earth), there is more space (or atmosphere) to cover, so the molecules themselves become more spread out.

No, that isn't why the atmosphere gets thinner with altitude.  It's because, believe it or not, air has mass and, as we all know, things with mass are affected by gravity (or universal acceleration).  Think of the atmosphere as a swimming pool full of water.  In the same way that all of the water at the top of the pool presses down on the water at the bottom of the pool, all of the air at the top of the atmosphere presses down on the bottom of the atmosphere.  The primary difference being that air compresses a lot more than water does.  This means that the air at sea level is compressed under all of the weight of the atmosphere above it.

Quote
It seems to me that, if the earth was flat, this wouldn't happen.  Especially if it were enclosed in a dome... it seems the atmosphere would get THICKER as altitude rises because a dome would cause more density.

No, that's not it either.  Again, think of air as a fluid.  The more dense it is, the more it wants to sink.  This means that dense air will sink towards sea level and less dense air will rise towards the top of the dome.
Science is what happens when preconception meets verification.
Quote from: Robosteve
Besides, perhaps FET is a conspiracy too.
Quote from: bullhorn
It is just the way it is, you understanding it doesn't concern me.