[Ask Me Anything] Will explain every observation using round earth model

This is an open challenge. Provide me with any evidence that disproves round earth and I'll give an explanation using mathematics and physics on why it is wrong.

The only assumption I am going to make is that the mathematics and physics I have been taught is true.

Note: Observations must be related to FE/RE models. Arbitrary nonsense won't be appreciated. For example,

Why do men have nipples?

You will like my inverse tangent thread.

Hmm...can you explain me why I see different star constellations at different latitudes while the angular distances between the stars do not change?

Also, why are there 2 celestial poles. And don't tell me there aren't, I live near the equator.

If you are in the northern hemisphere, you cannot see the stars which are below your horizon. You cannot see the north star from the southern hemisphere.



The angular distance changes but you cannot measure it without accurate equipment. The stars are very very far away! Trillions of miles away! The stars are moving and the constellations won't appear the same in a few thousand years. You can google for predicted pictures of famous constellations after thousands of years.

Celestial poles refer to the celestial sphere. This is an imaginary sphere around the earth. As the celestial sphere is a sphere, it has two poles.

Astronomy Introduction Crash Course: https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLX2gX-ftPVXWddG6sGq6H-3cN0IQzfQmG
Astronomy Understanding Night Sky Crash Course: https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLX2gX-ftPVXU3BfWLJfmXfGD08cIit5CI

Understanding celestial sphere:

You will be fully convinced why you see different stars at different latitudes after you go through the crash course.

I am not sure if you are a FEer. If you thought I was fighting for FE, then you were confused. I fixed the very confusing title

Sorry, the title of the thread is a bit misleading and I maybe did not read the OP. I thought you want to disprove RE using physics and math and I really wanted to see how you do that.

Can you? Just for me?

Sorry, the title of the thread is a bit misleading and I maybe did not read the OP. I thought you want to disprove RE using physics and math and I really wanted to see how you do that.

Can you? Just for me?

Other way around - Yashas is a spherical Earth proponent - they're saying any flat earth conjecture can be explained and improved upon to match observations to a spherical model.

In short, give me a Flat Earth scenario and you will get an explanation of how it doesn't work and how the spherical Earth does.

Re: [Ask Me Anything] Will explain every observation using round earth model

Rotational speed of outer section of galaxies?

This is an open challenge. Provide me with any evidence that disproves round earth and I'll give an explanation using mathematics and physics on why it is wrong.

The only assumption I am going to make is that the mathematics and physics I have been taught is true.

Why is there a waterfall on Lake Victoria, Africa, where the said centrifugal forces are bulging the water out to make the earth globe? If the earth's rotation is bulging the water out at the equator, how can it also fall to a lower spot on earth? If the water at the equator is being bulged out to make the globe, why is the large Lake Victoria, sitting at the equator, so level and horizontal across its surface?

http://vizts.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/04/Victoria-Falls-amazing-view.jpg

Quote from: Yashas on April 04, 2017, 08:35:42 AM

This is an open challenge. Provide me with any evidence that disproves round earth and I'll give an explanation using mathematics and physics on why it is wrong.

The only assumption I am going to make is that the mathematics and physics I have been taught is true.

Why is there a waterfall on Lake Victoria, Africa, where the said centrifugal forces are bulging the water out to make the earth globe? If the earth's rotation is bulging the water out at the equator, how can it also fall to a lower spot on earth? If the water at the equator is being bulged out to make the globe, why is the large Lake Victoria, sitting at the equator, so level and horizontal across its surface?

http://vizts.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/04/Victoria-Falls-amazing-view.jpg

Lake Victoria is subject to gravity AND centrifugal force.
We keep coming back to this - why do you think physical forces are mutually exclusive?

And while were at it, have you been there?

Now let's use your reasoning:
How do we know that's a picture of Lake Victoria? We have to take your word for it. There is no way for us to verify that that is what you say it is.
Just another empty assertion with fake pictures.

If you want to use photographic evidence to support your claims, you can't discount any of the photos that have been used to discount yours.

Why do men have nipples?

Why is there a waterfall on Lake Victoria, Africa, where the said centrifugal forces are bulging the water out to make the earth globe? If the earth's rotation is bulging the water out at the equator, how can it also fall to a lower spot on earth? If the water at the equator is being bulged out to make the globe, why is the large Lake Victoria, sitting at the equator, so level and horizontal across its surface?

The apparent acceleration due to the apparent centrifugal force is roughly 0.03 m/s^2 (I can do the math again if you want, even showing the derivation of it).
The acceleration due to gravity is roughly -9.8 m/s^2.
This meas the net acceleration is roughly -9.8 m/s^2 and thus the water will fall.

The lake is not horizontal across its surface. If you wish to claim it is you will need to provide evidence it is, evidence which is capable of showing how flat or curved it is and to what degree of uncertainty.

It is level with the apparent gravitational potential, which is a combination of the gravitational potential and the apparent centrifugal force.

Why do men have nipples?

Because they are mutant women.

This is an open challenge. Provide me with any evidence that disproves round earth and I'll give an explanation using mathematics and physics on why it is wrong.

The only assumption I am going to make is that the mathematics and physics I have been taught is true.

OK I know you can answer most problems as you are smart but please tell me this

which come first the chicken or the egg on ball earth  lol

This is an open challenge. Provide me with any evidence that disproves round earth and I'll give an explanation using mathematics and physics on why it is wrong.

The only assumption I am going to make is that the mathematics and physics I have been taught is true.

Serious one - At high alt, right on boundary of space.

What stops small particles escaping? they must be colliding, moving about so whats stopping them just moving that little bit more over that line and floating off?

Could that be happening but they are getting replaced by inbound particles kind of a constant balancing act ?

Mars got me thinking about this.

Quote from: Yashas on April 04, 2017, 08:35:42 AM

This is an open challenge. Provide me with any evidence that disproves round earth and I'll give an explanation using mathematics and physics on why it is wrong.

The only assumption I am going to make is that the mathematics and physics I have been taught is true.

OK I know you can answer most problems as you are smart but please tell me this

which come first the chicken or the egg on ball earth  lol

Egg-laying animals evolved before the chicken - the first chicken as we know it hatched from an egg - the egg came first.
Can we get back to the debate?

Quote from: Yashas on April 04, 2017, 08:35:42 AM

This is an open challenge. Provide me with any evidence that disproves round earth and I'll give an explanation using mathematics and physics on why it is wrong.

The only assumption I am going to make is that the mathematics and physics I have been taught is true.

Serious one - At high alt, right on boundary of space.

What stops small particles escaping? they must be colliding, moving about so whats stopping them just moving that little bit more over that line and floating off?

Could that be happening but they are getting replaced by inbound particles kind of a constant balancing act ?

Mars got me thinking about this.

It's a combination of various things: Gravity, the Earth's magnetic field and the cycles of the dynamic atmosphere.
Watch the flat earth proponents telling me that any source I post is part of the great conspiracy.
However, for those serious about debate:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_wind#Atmospheres
http://sciencing.com/earths-magnetosphere-protects-suns-solar-wind-1955.html - this one actually talks about Mars too
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atmospheric_escape#Dominant_atmospheric_escape_and_loss_processes_on_Earth

Yes, I'm using wikipedia - it's laid out concisely and simply and if you want more information there are countless links to follow. But since I ask more of people coming at this from the other side, I'm also going to explain how I understand what's going on:

The Earth's gravity keeps the atmosphere close to it, just like it does with the moon and the plethora of space junk accruing in orbit - much of which can be observed with nothing more than a pair of binoculars if you know where to look. On top of that, the dynamic centre of the earth produces a magnetic field that keeps us safe from the ravages of the near-vacuum of space. Hot metal spinning fast produces electromagnetic currents - this is a scientific fact you can verify yourself if you really want to (but this isn't a discussion of electrodynamics - go to a physics board if you want to argue that.) Plus, anyone who has used a compass has observed the effect of the Earth's magnetic field.
The most commonly observable consequences of this solar wind hitting the magnetosphere are the aurorae which happen above both the north and the south pole. This does send charged particles into the atmosphere, but this isn't where we get the matter back. Most of the air lost to the solar wind is replenished by the Earth itself. On top of that, oxygen gas is too massive to be stripped away by the solar wind quickly thanks to a combination of the magnetosphere and Earth's gravity. Over astronomical time periods, the atmosphere is being stripped away but due to the size of the Earth, this effect is negligible on human time scales.

Incidentally, in the Flat Earth model, those aurorae should be visible from everywhere on Earth. This is not the case.

tl;dr - the particles do escape, but it's happening really slowly because the Earth is really big and has a magnetic field

Quote from: Semnomic on April 04, 2017, 06:11:08 PM

Quote from: Yashas on April 04, 2017, 08:35:42 AM

This is an open challenge. Provide me with any evidence that disproves round earth and I'll give an explanation using mathematics and physics on why it is wrong.

The only assumption I am going to make is that the mathematics and physics I have been taught is true.

Serious one - At high alt, right on boundary of space.

What stops small particles escaping? they must be colliding, moving about so whats stopping them just moving that little bit more over that line and floating off?

Could that be happening but they are getting replaced by inbound particles kind of a constant balancing act ?

Mars got me thinking about this.

It's a combination of various things: Gravity, the Earth's magnetic field and the cycles of the dynamic atmosphere.
Watch the flat earth proponents telling me that any source I post is part of the great conspiracy.
However, for those serious about debate:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_wind#Atmospheres
http://sciencing.com/earths-magnetosphere-protects-suns-solar-wind-1955.html - this one actually talks about Mars too
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atmospheric_escape#Dominant_atmospheric_escape_and_loss_processes_on_Earth

Yes, I'm using wikipedia - it's laid out concisely and simply and if you want more information there are countless links to follow. But since I ask more of people coming at this from the other side, I'm also going to explain how I understand what's going on:

The Earth's gravity keeps the atmosphere close to it, just like it does with the moon and the plethora of space junk accruing in orbit - much of which can be observed with nothing more than a pair of binoculars if you know where to look. On top of that, the dynamic centre of the earth produces a magnetic field that keeps us safe from the ravages of the near-vacuum of space. Hot metal spinning fast produces electromagnetic currents - this is a scientific fact you can verify yourself if you really want to (but this isn't a discussion of electrodynamics - go to a physics board if you want to argue that.) Plus, anyone who has used a compass has observed the effect of the Earth's magnetic field.
The most commonly observable consequences of this solar wind hitting the magnetosphere are the aurorae which happen above both the north and the south pole. This does send charged particles into the atmosphere, but this isn't where we get the matter back. Most of the air lost to the solar wind is replenished by the Earth itself. On top of that, oxygen gas is too massive to be stripped away by the solar wind quickly thanks to a combination of the magnetosphere and Earth's gravity. Over astronomical time periods, the atmosphere is being stripped away but due to the size of the Earth, this effect is negligible on human time scales.

Incidentally, in the Flat Earth model, those aurorae should be visible from everywhere on Earth. This is not the case.

tl;dr - the particles do escape, but it's happening really slowly because the Earth is really big and has a magnetic field

Ok so this is the kind of theory that stripped mars a slow decay over time. You did not say if you thought planets could exchange matter in both direction, (billions of mini meteorites, etc entering/exiting) 

I wonder if we are having a mass migration of matter from outer planets to inner planets (suns gravity) we could fix mars if say something smashes into an outer planet freeing a heap of ice, etc. 
When mars was forming it was going through an ACCUMULATION stage, then at some point it started to reverse, it could happen again.

OR is the solar wind pushing everything out ? 

Quote from: Yashas on April 04, 2017, 08:35:42 AM

Re: [Ask Me Anything] Will explain every observation using round earth model

Rotational speed of outer section of galaxies?

Irrelevant to FE or RE models. I could still answer your question but I am not able to understand what you are asking.

Quote from: Yashas on April 04, 2017, 08:35:42 AM

This is an open challenge. Provide me with any evidence that disproves round earth and I'll give an explanation using mathematics and physics on why it is wrong.

The only assumption I am going to make is that the mathematics and physics I have been taught is true.

Why is there a waterfall on Lake Victoria, Africa, where the said centrifugal forces are bulging the water out to make the earth globe? If the earth's rotation is bulging the water out at the equator, how can it also fall to a lower spot on earth? If the water at the equator is being bulged out to make the globe, why is the large Lake Victoria, sitting at the equator, so level and horizontal across its surface?

http://vizts.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/04/Victoria-Falls-amazing-view.jpg

I have already told you before. If you are ignorant and don't make an attempt to understand, I can't help you.

In fact, you weigh less near the equator but this difference is negligible. Over large scales, the bulge is measurable. It is 26 miles. Still small though. It would be a few pixels wide in a photo of earth from space. Any claim which tells the earth looks like a perfect sphere in NASA's photons is by people who don't understand this simple fact.

/Topic Closed

If you are mathematically disabled, here is an intuitive explanation: The wheel of your vehicle is rotating extremely fast. Why doesn't the rim fly away? It doesn't because it is a rigid body and there are internal forces which keep it together. These internal forces are more powerful than the centrifugal force. If you spin it too fast, you can actually break the wheel apart.

In our case, the gravity is holding the atmosphere together against the centrifugal force. As you can see in my calculations, the centrifugal force is too week. It does cause a bulge but it isn't significant. The gravitational force is much stronger and it keeps the water towards itself.

Variation of the earth's gravity with latitude: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravity_of_Earth#Latitude

Flat earth model cannot explain the above. I won't bother bringing it in here because I don't expect FEers to have a serious mathematical and physics background. There are many other simple things which FE cannot explain.

Things can experience more than one force at a time.

Quote from: Yashas on April 04, 2017, 08:35:42 AM

This is an open challenge. Provide me with any evidence that disproves round earth and I'll give an explanation using mathematics and physics on why it is wrong.

The only assumption I am going to make is that the mathematics and physics I have been taught is true.

Serious one - At high alt, right on boundary of space.

What stops small particles escaping? they must be colliding, moving about so whats stopping them just moving that little bit more over that line and floating off?

Could that be happening but they are getting replaced by inbound particles kind of a constant balancing act ?

Mars got me thinking about this.

We are losing our atmosphere for many reasons. Mainly, solar flares scrape away the upper part of the atmosphere often. Secondly, there are few air molecules which move faster than the escape velocity.

The speeds of the molecules are stastically governed by Maxwell-Boltzmann equation. Given below is a plot known as Maxwell Distribution Curve.



X-axis = speed
Y-axis = probability of a gas having that speed
Area under the curve from [a,b] = total number of molecules having speed between [a,b]

The above picture gives you the total number of molecules with speed <X> . The area under any section of the curve gives you the number of molecules.

While the majority of the molecules have speeds which lie in the center, there are few (tiny bit of them) which have very high velocities. These escape the earth every day.

A tiny fraction of the gasses escape. While there are processes which remove the gas from the atmosphere, there are processes which add new gas to the atmosphere: meteorites? There are 60,000 tons of material added to the earth from meteorites every year. Most of these get burnt up in the atmosphere due to friction (they are traveling pretty fast and they heat up as they decelerate through the atmosphere). Some of them don't get burnt up and they hit the ground creating large craters.

Russian Meteor Explosion:

Our estimates indicate that it would take trillions of years for all the hydrogen in the atmosphere to be depleted. Why am I talking about hydrogen instead of the air as a whole? Hydrogen is the lightest element and it has the highest chance of leaving the earth. The velocity of the air molecules is a function of the temperature and molecular mass. If hydrogen depletes slowly, then other gasses are going to deplete even slower.

If you were on a more silly note, the earth gravity keeps the air together. The air is more dense near the surface and its density decreases as you go higher. The earth's gravity is strong enough to retain majority of its atmosphere.

Mars has a very dense atmosphere. Relatively lighter elements such as CO2 are thought to be removed by the solar winds. Work is still in progress. There are a dozen rovers on the surface of the Mars currently investigating. We don't know everything about Mars yet.

Atmospheric escape: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atmospheric_escape
Maxwell's Distribution: http://ef.engr.utk.edu/hyperphysics/hbase/Kinetic/kintem.html
We lose 50,000 tons of mass every year (good read): https://scitechdaily.com/earth-loses-50000-tonnes-of-mass-every-year/

Serious one - At high alt, right on boundary of space.

What stops small particles escaping? they must be colliding, moving about so whats stopping them just moving that little bit more over that line and floating off?

Could that be happening but they are getting replaced by inbound particles kind of a constant balancing act ?

Mars got me thinking about this.

There is no sharp boundary of space, it just fades off.
As you get high enough, the gas begins to act as particles.
Some of it does fly off, some comes in from elsewhere. But the main factor is gravity. It is now acting as a particle, not as a gas. The vast majority of these particles are well below the escape velocity (for Earth anyway). This means they will go into various orbits, mostly elliptical orbits resulting in them colliding with the gas below them.

But yes, a small portion will be above the escape velocity and leave. For smaller objects, like the moon, the escape velocity is much smaller, allowing far more to leave.

Quote from: disputeone on April 04, 2017, 02:33:13 PM

Quote from: Yashas on April 04, 2017, 08:35:42 AM

Re: [Ask Me Anything] Will explain every observation using round earth model

Rotational speed of outer section of galaxies?

Irrelevant to FE or RE models. I could still answer your question but I am not able to understand what you are asking.

He is asking why the outer sections of galaxies are rotating at a speed which doesn't match the amount of visible matter in the galaxy.

Quote from: Semnomic on April 04, 2017, 06:11:08 PM

Serious one - At high alt, right on boundary of space.

What stops small particles escaping? they must be colliding, moving about so whats stopping them just moving that little bit more over that line and floating off?

Could that be happening but they are getting replaced by inbound particles kind of a constant balancing act ?

Mars got me thinking about this.

There is no sharp boundary of space, it just fades off.
As you get high enough, the gas begins to act as particles.
Some of it does fly off, some comes in from elsewhere. But the main factor is gravity. It is now acting as a particle, not as a gas. The vast majority of these particles are well below the escape velocity (for Earth anyway). This means they will go into various orbits, mostly elliptical orbits resulting in them colliding with the gas below them.

But yes, a small portion will be above the escape velocity and leave. For smaller objects, like the moon, the escape velocity is much smaller, allowing far more to leave.

Gases are made up of particles? So are liquids and solids?

Good point about the Moon. The moon does not have an atmosphere because its escape velocity is 5 times lesser than that of earth. The moon's gravity isn't powerful enough to retain an atmosphere. The average surface temperature of the moon (100 C) is higher than that of earth (16 C).

Quote from: Yashas on April 04, 2017, 08:09:13 PM

Quote from: disputeone on April 04, 2017, 02:33:13 PM

Quote from: Yashas on April 04, 2017, 08:35:42 AM

Re: [Ask Me Anything] Will explain every observation using round earth model

Rotational speed of outer section of galaxies?

Irrelevant to FE or RE models. I could still answer your question but I am not able to understand what you are asking.

He is asking why the outer sections of galaxies are rotating at a speed which doesn't match the amount of visible matter in the galaxy.

That is an open question. Answer it and you'll win the next nobel prize.

Many hypotheses have been put forward to explain the observations but none have been confirmed. The most popular hypothesis is dark matter.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Galaxy_rotation_curve

This question is irrelevant to the FE-RE discussion. I was asking for observations which FE explains or which debunks RE. Does FE have a solution for this?

You said: Ask any question and I will answer it with the round earth model.

Well we can't really explain the rotational speed of galaxies.

Our knowlege of GR and centrifugal force doesn't adequately explain it. We need to evoke dark matter which is a cool hypothesis but not yet proven to be a theory.

Because GR works so well on a small scale it's hard to say that it's "wrong" however maybe an incomplete understanding would be a good phrase.

A big gripe of mine is that new RE posters come here acting like we understand the entire universe. We don't, I very much doubt we understand 0.1% of it.

We do have some pretty sweet theories that explain observations and can make accurate predictions.

Who said RE people understand everything of the universe? FE does not explain this either and it will never will because its foundation itself is wrong. Well, it isn't even a scientific theory. It does not make predictions nor does it explain.

To anyone with enough commonsense, it is understood that I am referring to observations which are are related to flat and round earth. This had nothing to do with RE or FE.

"We do have some pretty sweet theories that explain observations and can make accurate predictions."
That is what I am looking for. Quote those and I'll tell you why it is wrong using mainstream science and mathematics. I don't invoke bullshit such as accelerating earth or atmosphere stringency or whatever.

Any observation which has nothing to do with earth being round or flat is irrelevant to this discussion.

I very much doubt we understand 0.1% of it.

And the more we learn, that number will not change much.

Someone once said, (something like), "understanding the intricacies the atom is like dropping a grand piano down a flight of stairs and understanding Beethoven from the pieces."

Quote from: physical observer on April 04, 2017, 02:34:43 PM

Quote from: Yashas on April 04, 2017, 08:35:42 AM

This is an open challenge. Provide me with any evidence that disproves round earth and I'll give an explanation using mathematics and physics on why it is wrong.

The only assumption I am going to make is that the mathematics and physics I have been taught is true.

Why is there a waterfall on Lake Victoria, Africa, where the said centrifugal forces are bulging the water out to make the earth globe? If the earth's rotation is bulging the water out at the equator, how can it also fall to a lower spot on earth? If the water at the equator is being bulged out to make the globe, why is the large Lake Victoria, sitting at the equator, so level and horizontal across its surface?

http://vizts.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/04/Victoria-Falls-amazing-view.jpg

Lake Victoria is subject to gravity AND centrifugal force.
We keep coming back to this - why do you think physical forces are mutually exclusive?

And while were at it, have you been there?

Now let's use your reasoning:
How do we know that's a picture of Lake Victoria? We have to take your word for it. There is no way for us to verify that that is what you say it is.
Just another empty assertion with fake pictures.

If you want to use photographic evidence to support your claims, you can't discount any of the photos that have been used to discount yours.

"Lake Victoria is subject to gravity AND centrifugal force."

Water can't obey both forces at the same time. Water in this bucket is being controlled by centrifugal forces, notice none of the water is trying to fall to a lower point on earth, it is being forced away from the container that holds it, the bucket. Water cannot be controlled by both forces at the same time. 



You said you could disprove the evidence for flat earth with math and physics, all you could do was dismiss a picture of LV as being an actual photo. Go figure, another failure by an RE-ers. Typical!

Water can't obey both forces at the same time. Water in this bucket is being controlled by centrifugal forces, notice none of the water is trying to fall to a lower point on earth, it is being forced away from earth. Water cannot be controlled by both forces at the same time.

Yes, it can.
It can't be dominated by both.

Planes fly by a balance of a multitude of forces.
When it increases the lift on one wing to bank right, it doesn't magically just get controlled by that one force.

Do you have a rational objection, or can you just repeat the same nonsense?

You said you could disprove the evidence for flat earth with math and physics, all you could do was dismiss a picture of LV as being an actual photo. Go figure, another failure by an RE-ers. Typical!

No. I pointed out why your claim is false, and that water will obey both forces, and that results int the equator bulging.
What was your refutation? Just repeating the same refuted crap.

So no, another fail by you FE-ers.

Quote from: physical observer on April 05, 2017, 03:49:15 AM

Water can't obey both forces at the same time. Water in this bucket is being controlled by centrifugal forces, notice none of the water is trying to fall to a lower point on earth, it is being forced away from earth. Water cannot be controlled by both forces at the same time.

Yes, it can.
It can't be dominated by both.

Planes fly by a balance of a multitude of forces.
When it increases the lift on one wing to bank right, it doesn't magically just get controlled by that one force.

Do you have a rational objection, or can you just repeat the same nonsense?

Quote from: physical observer on April 05, 2017, 03:49:15 AM

You said you could disprove the evidence for flat earth with math and physics, all you could do was dismiss a picture of LV as being an actual photo. Go figure, another failure by an RE-ers. Typical!

No. I pointed out why your claim is false, and that water will obey both forces, and that results int the equator bulging.
What was your refutation? Just repeating the same refuted crap.

So no, another fail by you FE-ers.

"It can't be dominated by both."

I see you offered no evidence to support your claim. I offered visual evidence to support my claim. You are the one with the crap! Fact, you are not even good enough to have any crap. In order to have crap, you have to ingest something of substance. Your Mickey Mouse intelligence doesn't register on the intelligence scale of substance.