I love how you guys think there is no proof for a flat earth

Wait...Bullhorn, even if we accept your "fact" that enough foreign matter enters the earth's atmosphere and alters it's weight to such a degree that gravity would be affected over billions of years, your logic is still flawed.

Even if we accept your hypothesis (Oh no! Science! Run awaaaaaay) that the theory of gravity being related to mass would mean that gravity would have to increase over billions of years, evolution explains why people can still move.  Are you saying that you don't believe in evolution bullhorn?  Please do...

See, humans would adapt to this gradual increase in gravity, as it's completely unreasonable to believe that tonnes of meteorites enter our atmosphere every year, meaning this increase MUST be gradual.  So, not surprisingly, you can still move, unfortunately for all of us, as you can type these ridiculous "proofs".

Wait...Bullhorn, even if we accept your "fact" that enough foreign matter enters the earth's atmosphere and alters it's weight to such a degree that gravity would be affected over billions of years, your logic is still flawed.

Even if we accept your hypothesis (Oh no! Science! Run awaaaaaay) that the theory of gravity being related to mass would mean that gravity would have to increase over billions of years, evolution explains why people can still move.  Are you saying that you don't believe in evolution bullhorn?  Please do...

See, humans would adapt to this gradual increase in gravity, as it's completely unreasonable to believe that tonnes of meteorites enter our atmosphere every year, meaning this increase MUST be gradual.  So, not surprisingly, you can still move, unfortunately for all of us, as you can type these ridiculous "proofs".

Read the last 10 Dec post please. I beat you to it. No offense of course. ¦)

The promised proof is still not forthcoming. We have been astray by bullhorn: he says he will prove that the Earth is flat; when his counter-examples have flaws he is unable to correct them satisfactorily; a flawed counter-example is not a proof.

Ergo: no proof.

I do wish people would make good on their promises: every time an argument from someone supporting flat-Earth theory gets a good challenge, the challenge goes unanswered; yet round-Earthers tend to follow up on challenges to their arguments remarkably well.

It's kind of rude to start something and then not finish it.

Ooop, sorry Lykos, didn't catch that.  But wait, is it just me or does the extent of this conversation (and all other conversations with bullhorn) go like this:

Bullhorn: Ridiculous claim about there eing no evidence against a flat earth
Anyone else: Competent rebutal, pointing out one, or several proofs
Bullhorn: Restes his original statement, ignoring yours
Anyone else: Angerly responds that bullhorn has yet failed to produce an argument that defeats his
Bullhorn: Ingnores person's statement, and says the only reason you believe the facts you brought up are true is because you've been brainwashed, and still fails to present a valid argument.

Mundi: Yes. That is indeed how this thread goes.

Bullhorn needs to make good on his promises . . . one might lose what respect one had for someone who doesn't even attempt to do what he says he will.

I enjoy debating the subject with you Mundie.

So: let's have it. Where's the proof? Your examples haven't worked, and we're waiting.

The quest for proof is fruitless since proof is a lofty goal that cannot ever be achieved (as the philosophical tennets of science show us-remember Hume).  Evidence is of course another matter, but however the evidence mounts it can never be 100% conclussive.  The forum is interesting since it shadows more than one basis for the attainment of knowledge.  To this end we witness attempts to falsify and attempts to prove either of the two standpoints.  As I have previously stated the principle of falsification is the most sound mode of   questioning since this implies that an experimenter will deliberately choose tests that may challenge their theory whilst at the same time adhering to the principles of logic.  The alternative road, choosing tests to prove a theory, is historically frought with problems due to some well studied innate facets of the human psyche.  By this I refer to the phenomena of "confirmation bias" (Evans is a good starting point here) which is a problem solving pathology well documented by cognitive psychologists.  Human fallibility besides.  Even if we adopt the principle of falsifiability one has to ask the question of how much evidence do we need before we concede to the alternative hypothesis ( at the same time realising that this is indeed a concession and not proof!).  If I were to take a supposedly unbiased coin and flip it a number of times with your bet being on the tail, just how many consecutive heads would it take before you questioned the supposed bias free nature.  2, 4, 1000?  The higher this value the more "proof" you are seeking.  Regardless of this value however, the coin may still be unbiased.  This may be the crux of the problem facing opposers to the flat earth hypothesis.  Whereas they are looking for proof of a flat earth, flat earthers are merely waiting for conclusive falsification. By awaiting falsification the flat earth posse are adopting the more biased free approach  to science since it removes the postulation from the confirmation bias pathology.  Whether one considers that the asking of so many "coin flips" before a concession is made is unreasonable or not is subjective and therefore unscientific in itself.  

mbe

answers on a postcard

None of my proofs will make you happy because you will always find something wrong with them.  The fact that the Earth looks flat doesn’t phase you.   All your evidence for a round earth can just as easily be thrown down as a lie.  Please provide some evidence for a round earth and I will tell you what is wrong with it. And I did give you some evidence in my first statement.

Uh, uh: no you don't! There are plenty places on the boards where round-Earthers are putting forward reasons/evidence/arguments for a round Earth. This thread is your opportunity to do the same (and was titled in that way by yourself, as I recall: that's really the only reason I'm pressing the point). If we find flaws in your argument, that's too bad; we don't have to present our case if you are the one with the burden of proof (which you are in this thread). If that's frustrating to you, I'm sorry: that argument can be made in other threads you're posting in, not here: stay on topic, please.

Logic, as far as I am aware, is only a tool for deciding how propositions relate to one another. As far as pure (mathematical) logic goes, I'm aware of only one version (but posters may be able to enlighten me as to more: there are fuzzy logics, of course). So far, logically, your two examples have plenty o' holes.

So, to restate: really, any flaw in your argument, where what you propose does not match up with what we observe, negates the whole example. But in the case of your examples, they are so flawed there's not even anything to salvage, because there just is no basis for the claims that you've made (excessive gravity from meteorites which don't have enough mass to make a difference; friction in space from material which isn't there). It's not just that there is a small flaw with these examples: they are totally baseless: they don't even match up with what we observe, let alone with what we know from experience.

Proof (unless it's mathematical proof) is, as has been pointed out above, about gathering enough evidence to convince the people you're talking to that you are correct, or that there might at least be something in your theory. A claim by you that turns out to be even slightly flawed, let alone very flawed, is really not worth anything, so you have to come up with another if you want to convince us. I would be more inclined to take seriously anything you might have to say if you were to provide examples which at least match up with experience, or which have some logical truth in them, but this is not the case so far. It's really easy to be illogical; but this does not convince many, since you're presumably using reasoned argument to do so. If you're not, then you're just spouting what you happen to think without any evidence to back you up, and that, my friend, is just dogma and belief: if this is the case then you have convictions which are rooted in something more like religion than fact.

Remember that you were supposed to be convincing us, not the other way around. If you want me to believe, then you'll have to come up with something that doesn't collapse the moment you think about it logically (not even necessarily scientifically).

If I can find something wrong with your example, then that should be a sign it's not very good. It's not nit-picking: you have to make your theories match up with reality, otherwise you might as well put forward any idea at all and claim it's the truth. We're talking about what is real here, not philisophical ideas; you are attempting to present what is true about the world, not theories about what could be true.

And, finally: the evidence which you presented in your first statement didn't hold up very well when we looked at it a little closer: you'll have to find something more difficult to counter if you want to convince me.

I will try to help you understand my point of view. You believe that space is empty. It is not. It is not a vacuum. Space contains asteroids and comets, it contains small amounts of gas not a lot but it is not completely devoid of substance. My argument is over millions of years wouldn’t the earth as you say flying in space be impacted at all by this.  Because even if there is a very very small amount of material in space and there is more than I say. That will have an impact or should on the Earths velocity.

Friction can be casued in space Mundi, and I have backed my facts up very well.

All true. I don't dispute the facts of the above.

Your original point, I believe, was that gravity couldn't exist. You used the following argument to "prove" your case, which is an argument based on the principle of "reductio ad absurdum", that is to say, you assume that the opposite of what you want to prove is true, and show that there is a contradiction in the process. It then follows that what you wanted, that gravity doesn't exist, is true after all:

1. Suppose gravity exists.
2. A phenomenon called friction causes things to slow down.
3. Friction arises from the drag produced by a gas or liquid acting against the motion of a travelling object through that medium.
4. There is gas in space.
5. The Earth is travelling through space.
6. It therefore follows that drag acts upon the Earth.
7. The conclusion: the Earth is slowing down.
8. The Earth is not slowing down.
9. This is a contradiction: it therefore follows that our assumption, that gravity does exist, is false.
10. Therefore gravity does not exist.

The problem is with the magnitude of step 7: by how much is the Earth actually slowing down? The question then becomes: is there enough matter in space to cause such a massive amount of drag that the Earth noticably slows down, perhaps in our lifetimes? That is, the flaw in your argument is in the magnitude of the phenomena discussed (the same flaw with your gravity/meteorites argument).

Merely because something is true in theory says nothing as to whether it is noticable in practice. For example: dust falls onto everything. Left long enough, it accumulates. The dust falls everywhere, so it must fall on people as well. I could argue that the dust falling on people should become so heavy that people are weighed down by it, but that would be ridiculous, because during a day there isn't enough dust to fall on someone to make them any noticably heavier. Are they actually heavier: yes. But does it make a difference in a short period of time like one day: no.

To observe any effect that drag caused by (a very small amount of) space dust has on the Earth we'd have to be around for plenty longer than even our lifetimes to notice it: you in fact point out that the effect would only be noticable after billions of years. Your argument therefore relies upon the fact that space dust should be causing a drag on the Earth which would slow it down; but of course you acknowledge that it would have to be observed over billions of years, which we haven't had the time to do.

It follows that your argument is invalidated at step 8, not on a yes/no question over whether the phenomenon is or is not happening; your argument is invalidated simply because we wouldn't be able to observe the effect even over several lifetimes anyway. And who knows if the Earth used to go around the Sun faster than now, perhaps, five billions years ago? I don't know, but it's possible. We just can't see the effect you claim should be there in the kind of magnitude you'd need to disprove that gravity exists.

Because your argument therefore is invalidated at step 8, the whole argument is invalidated. A faulty proof is no proof at all, as I have said several times before. You complain that I have pointed out flaws in your proofs, but that's what we're supposed to be doing: if you're proving something and part of your argument is faulty, so is the whole thing.

It follows that you haven't actually managed to prove anything yet. You'll need some evidence which is not satisfactorily explained in order to prove anything using reductio ad absurdum.

But you did do your best, I suppose. Never mind.

Well said, it does address the point I was making.  I just finished working and I have thought about what you said. I admit that my theory needs further work, but in all fairness, I do wonder why we have not seen the effects of the impact of debris from space. My point is that there should be some noticeable affect over time that could possibly be measured.  I will l have to do further investigation to determine why that is as it is.  You seem to be the one with the most scientific knowledge on the forum so I would like to say it is good discussing with someone who knows an argument. You should also understand that my argument has some validity. I am working against a curve that has its proofs and heavy research to support the round earth theory. I try to use science to explain why the earth cannot be round. I have pointed contradictions to you guys on the forum and, I am glad Mundi does the investigation to attack it.

The only reply I would make to the preceding remarks is that my scientific knowledge is quite probably less than some on this forum. While I have studied science, my field is math, and it was on a logical basis that I found fault with some of your proposals.

I do appreciate your point of view, but without a sound logical basis for your arguments, they hold less weight (no pun intended) than they might. I await the next response.

No my point is not mute. The earth is flat so my point is VERY VALID.  The fact that the more mass something has the more gravity force it presents simmilar to why the Sun has intense gravity. THE sun is all gas as my example of the comets and asteroids breaking up in the atmosphere of the earth it All contributes to the overall mass of the planet, YOU have not shown why it cannot be true

How... how did you come upon this theory?
This ice wall you speak of - have you ever come into contact with it?
Also - until you have been up high enough to see this 'flat earth', I should think that this theory is void. That means that, until someone has truly proved the ideal of our earth being flat, the thory should be put on the shelf for a while.
Do you have any hard evidence? Photographs? I wopuld like to see some hard evidence, not just theories. Look at the evidence for the fact that the Earth is round. We have satellites maintaining a steady orbit around the Earth. How do I know this? I have seen them with my own eyes. The Earth is curved. I know this, as well, because I have been in an aeroplane, and the earth from above looks curved (although, this may be ingrained into your theory as well, curved but not totally rounded? Explain-is it totally flat or a little curved?).
These arew some of my ideas. Prove them wrong. Show me some hard evidence. I am all for a good discussion over this.

ok Bullfrog, keep in mind that the earth, round or flat, is also slowing it's spin. Also I would like to know what you think the stars are. Do you think that they are flat aswell??? Are we like a boomerang wooshing around the sun??? if so, it pretty much nullifies your theory that the un flag is an acurate representation of the earth's surface.

Somewhere else you said that the sea level would not be constant if there was a round earth. SURPIRSE!!! it isn't. Did you ever hear of a tide? It occurs because of the gravity from our round moon.

No my point is not mute. The earth is flat so my point is VERY VALID.  The fact that the more mass something has the more gravity force it presents simmilar to why the Sun has intense gravity. THE sun is all gas as my example of the comets and asteroids breaking up in the atmosphere of the earth it All contributes to the overall mass of the planet, YOU have not shown why it cannot be true

ok im tired of your fucking bullshit.  lets assume that all these meteorites "Are" hitting the planet just like for us. they are hitting your "flat earth"  and your flat earth is flying upward in space and making it seem as if gravity is there right?  so the added weight of all of your asteriods would eventually become to much for the flying earth to handle and we would experience less and less resistence over time and soon would be stuck with an earth that is no longer flying "upward" and we would all be buttfucked into oblivion. make sense?

On the topic of gravity existing or not:

Hey kids. Lets play: Use the scientific method. Ready? Ok.

Stand up.

Walk outside.

Pull out your handy-dandy science notebook and jot down the fact that your feet fall to the ground after each step.

Now, the big experiment.

Jump, a few times if necessary.

Did you float away?

If you didn't float away into oblivion, and you fell back to the earth, that means that you just proved gravity existed.

Gravity is the pull and/or force of a massive object's (like the earth's!) effect on a much smaller object (like you!).

And you just got to experience it! Congratulations! Now wipe the dirt off of your rear, wipe the tears out of your eyes, and suck it up. You just got disproven, and you did it all by yourself.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Seriously, overthink much? All you had to do was walk around and prove this to yourself. Given, obviously out there in space the effects are far more epic in scope and scale, and therefore that much more impressive, but come on.

Another thing: If the earth is just a flat disc in space, and it gets hit by a meteor or asteroid, or what have you, what happens? Objects aren't bolted into the nothingness. Taking a note from another post about one of your comrades, "Believe," who, by the way, you took the time to immediately bow down to the "wisdom" of here ( http://theflatearthsociety.org/forums/viewtopic.php?t=777 ), apparently the lot of you is of the belief that the sun, moon, and stars just hang in the sky in place where they are no matter what. Well, given that you are privy to the notion of objects being able to move around in space, and taking your example of the "tons of [matter]" hitting the earth, eventually this "disc" of which you speak would begin to spin like a coin being flipped. This would explain the rotation of the sun, moon, and stars in the sky, true. However, given the factual notion that there have been instances in which one person on this planet has seen the sun/moon/stars while another person on the opposite end could not see the same celestial objects, and given that the whole basis of your belief is that the entire earth rests on one side of a disc-shaped object (lest we fall off the "bottom," according to your own belief system, so don't try and pull any mystical "dark-side-of-the-disc-dwellers" jazz here), this is a paradoxical situation.

Given that, in reality, no instance in which a paradoxical flaw exists is true, we can very simply conclude that, since I have shown that your belief contains at least (although I doubt this is the only) paradoxical flaw, we may conclude that it is false.

Good game.

Indeed, if gravity really were how scientist say it is, we would be crushed to death by all the weight of the meteorites!

and also, if the world were round we would just slip off!  

And don't tell me anyone here thinks that a spinning earth will somehow keep us on!  That's  NONSENSE!

No, it's just COMMON SENSE: THE EARTH IS FLAT!

Please don't respond to the guy above me. He is trolling, just like that Ass clown Bullhorn. No one can be this stupid.










Stop responding to this shit, it fuels these hoes.

Indeed, if gravity really were how scientist say it is, we would be crushed to death by all the weight of the meteorites!

Ummm . . . do you read all of the posts before you start replying to them? Or do you just read the ones on the last page, think that's all there is to it, and then start writing? This question has been answered to death, and not in the positive, either. Sorry.

Point by point again? Alrighty.

Indeed, if gravity really were how scientist say it is, we would be crushed to death by all the weight of the meteorites!

I just love how you back all your opinions up with proof...oh no, wait...Apparently your understanding of how scientists explain gravity is somewhat lacking, in fact it's so lacking that it would have required you to not read the first two pages of this thread (as stated by Mundi).  The added mass of meoteorites to the planet are neligible, and would make no noticeable difference in gravity's pull.

the world were round we would just slip off!

Again, this simply serves to show how lacking your understanding of gravity is.  This should be required reading before posting: http://theflatearthsociety.org/forums/viewtopic.php?t=691
Go educate yourself before posting such tripe.

And don't tell me anyone here thinks that a spinning earth will somehow keep us on! That's NONSENSE!

Congratulations, you don't understand gravity.  Hurray!!
Any given mass exerts a gravitational pull on every other mass.

No, it's just COMMON SENSE: THE EARTH IS FLAT!

Uh oh Horus, that statement doesn't prove anything! It has nothing to substantiate it, and the thread you made about it was blown apart (http://theflatearthsociety.org/forums/viewtopic.php?t=896), so kindly don't say anything you can't back up.

ok im tired of your fucking bullshit.  lets assume that all these meteorites "Are" hitting the planet just like for us. they are hitting your "flat earth"  and your flat earth is flying upward in space and making it seem as if gravity is there right?  so the added weight of all of your asteriods would eventually become to much for the flying earth to handle and we would experience less and less resistence over time and soon would be stuck with an earth that is no longer flying "upward" and we would all be buttfucked into oblivion. make sense?

To support oblivion: even if we assume gravity does not exist, we can still believe that without a doubt, through experiments, force = mass * acceleration. If the force of the earth is a constant "upward" motion, rushing at 9.81 m/s/s, then adding mass would decrease the acceleration. Which, in turn, would decrease the feel of "gravity." If the accleration is constant and the mass is forever growing, then the force would be forever growing. if that is the case, then the planets, the sun, and the moon, would constantly be changing their distances with respect to the earth, assuming that they don't all receive space matter at the same rate, because it would be very improbable for EVERYTHING to be attaining the same amount of mass at the same time, over many many eons. Another thing, bullhorn, stop stating that your argument is valid. just accept the fact that others are more learned than you. Yes, learned is a word. it's pronounced Lur-ned. pick up a book.

To be fair to their theory, if they don't believe in gravity, they could, hypothetically state, that somehow (magic most likely), as the mass on a planet, or the earth (because they don't think it's really a planet), it gains a proportional amount of force, to keep it at a constant rate of acceration with all the other bodies in space.  It makes about as much sense as their other theories...

Or, even better, you're right, and we're getting gradually closer to the sun, explaining global warming!  Wow, I'm a better flat earther than anyone else on this forum...kinda sad really...

I was not going to respond to this as Mundi has it well in hand but I cannot contain my rage.

Bullhorn I have realized why its pointless to argue with you and your flat-earther comrades. Your not trolling (the stupidity of people is unlimited) but due to your conspiracy theory all evidence of the earth being round (photos atlases math gravity etc) you assume are merely proof of the elaborateness of the conspiracy.

However I feel obligeded to point out you must have INTERNAL CONSISTENCY IN YOUR ARGUMENTS. All your arguments so far focus on one aspect of the real (or as you view it round earther) univers. However our view of the univers as its reflective of the actual universe has other factors you dont take in to consideration so your so called flaws are torn to shreds.

You can keep doing this ad nauseum.

What I would like to see is you and your fellow fools (freudian slip) to present an complete flat earther view of the univers.

See sometimes you guys (or gals) say their can be no gravity other times you point out that a round earth is absurd as it would mean people stay on the bottom side of the earth without falling. Bullhorn if their is no gravity why would we not float off a flat earth? See NO INTERNAL CONSISTENCY

So what I and many other people you seek to enlighten about the earths shape would like is for you to present a concise INTERNALLY CONSISTENT model of the flat earth and its univer. This must be able to take into account all the observable phenomenones we cant throw at it.

As guidelines unless you can explain how and why it works in your univers mode and under your rulesl you cannot use it (ex atmospheric phenomenones.) Unless you can do it just admit the earth is round and shut up

Dont imply I'm a naive trusting sap either. I questiopn things but science makes sense cause it has internal consistency and its rules explain all oberservable phenomenones I have observed. I joined this forum because I love truth and wont  permit you to murder her and replace her with whoeres like illogic and ignorance who seel themselves to the lowest commen denominator.
I shall not permit you to say Vichi Veritas. Truth shall instead  say Veni Vidi flat earthers Vichi Flat earthers

PS IF you say I only believe this cause textbooks have brainwashed me and then dodge my demand I shall devote the rest of my life to tracking you down and punching you in the face

An enraged
Cinlef

Bullhorn, are you Foxtrot Uniform Charlie Kilo India November high? The earth was created by the devil in 6 days, 6 nights and 6 dead whores. In the Anton Lavey bible it says that the earth is a square and that we all were created in the image of the 4th whore's bottom.

Don't you see every day is blessed by the fires of hell. The reason there is day and not only night is because our lord Lucifer is so kind to us. He is SHARING his fires with us so that we can tan, read and grow genetically modified fruits in the garden.

By saying the earth is flat you are breaking one of the 431 commandments and that is a sin. Read your bible more carefully and you will see - we are all build up of square particals. The fact that the devils says it can only proof it - so it's true.

I'm detecting a slight note of sarcasm here, but I'll say it anyways:
Religious text is not viable proof purely because there are other religions that exist that are just as viable.

Two things that must be said before I say anything relevant to the topic:

1.) Sorry for the revival of such an old topic

2.) I didn't notice whether or not this was mentioned earlier in the topic, so I'm trying it now.

That said, let's proceed.





The round earth model states that the earth has a mass of 5.98x10^24kg, and an average radius of 6.38x10^6m.  The force of gravity is given by F=GMm/R^2, where G=6.67x10^-11 (with units N m^2/kg^2) is a constant that can be measured with a torsion balance M is the mass of the earth, m is the mass of an object on the earth (say, a person), and R is the radius of the earth.

Still with me?  Good.  Now suppose we have a man with a mass of 68.182kg (150lbs.) standing on the surface of the earth.  The force of gravity acting on him is:

(6.67x10^-11)(5.98x10^24)(68.182)/(6.38x10^6)^2 = (68.182)(9.8; acceleration due to gravity) = 668.1836N.

Now suppose we also have a 68.636kg (151lbs) man as well.  The force on him would be:

(68.636)(9.8) = 672.6328N.  So now the question is:

How much would the mass of the earth have to increase by for the 150lb man to suddenly feel like he weighs 151 lbs (or how much mass must be added to the earth for the force on the 150lb man to become 672.6328N)?

Well, let's say M = the mass added to the earth.  Then we have F=G(M+M)m/R^2.  Now we can solve the equation for M.  It becomes:

M = F(R^2)/(Gm) - M

Where F is our target force of 672.6328N.  Then:

M = [(672.6328)(6.38x10^6)^2]/[(6.67x10^-11)(68.182)] - 5.98x10^24 = 4.0379x10^22kg

So the mass of the earth must increase by 4.0379x10^22kg in order for the 150lb man to suddenly feel as though he weighs 151lbs, just one pound more.

What does this result mean?  It means that if the earth were hit by 1,000,000,000kg (10^9kg) of debris per day, it would only take:

 4.0379x10^22kg/(10^9kg/day) = 4.0379x10^13 days

or simply

4.0379x10^13 days/(365.25 days/year) = 1.1055x10^11 years

Or 110.5 billion years.

CONCLUSION:

The earth would have to be bombarded by 1 billion kg of debris per day every day for over 100 billion years in order for a 150lb man to suddenly feel as though he weighs 151 lbs.


And that is why you don't notice any difference.

Notice I also didn't take into consideration the volume that such great amounts of mass would add, which would help to decrease the force of gravity.

Regarding the idea that gravity doesn't exist in the form round earth believers see it .. try the http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cavendish_experiment. Done with very simple means, you can see the pull a great, heavy ball of iron has on a small ball of iron. I've done this experiment myself, the results corresponded to the pre-calculated results. Gravity exists, anyone interested in seeing this can try it out on his/her own.

Some comets and asteroids from space ar the size of golf balls and they could be smaller as well even the shabe of sand, but the constant bombardment of matter into the planet should effect it in some way, what im saying is I have not noticed any change in my day to day life.

The planet loses atmospheric gas at a constant level. Asteroid strikes can't and don't make up for that - if anything, Earth is getting lighter by the day.