Step by step

I would like to start the discussion with a quick introduction about my intentions:
I know the conclusions of the Flat Earth theory and its criticisims against the Round Earth model. This means that -more or less- I am aware about the discussions on these conclusions (horizon amplitudes, star movements, and so on). Hence, my approach is different: I start from the beginning, from a zero level, and by proceeding in small steps I intend to identify at which point in time the two positions (flat/round Earth) start to diverge. Rather than discussing the end divergences, I wish to understand where divergencies start.

Step 1:

Having said that, here my first point: at a very first look, I am standing on a flat earth, and I am standing (as any other object) because there is a reaction form the ground against my weight. Would you all agree that in this environment any object feels a force that we can call weight?

I am not yet interested to understand where the weight force comes from: I experience that a stone in my hand has its own weight, and that every object has a weight which can be counteracted with a hand, or with a wire tied to the object, or by leaving the object on another object.

Would everyone agree to that said? Thank you.

Having said that, here my first point: at a very first look, I am standing on a flat earth, and I am standing (as any other object) because there is a reaction form the ground against my weight. Would you all agree that in this environment any object feels a force that we can call weight?

I am not yet interested to understand where the weight force comes from: I experience that a stone in my hand has its own weight, and that every object has a weight which can be counteracted with a hand, or with a wire tied to the object, or by leaving the object on another object.

Would everyone agree to that said? Thank you.

To start from the beginning I would say no.
I would say I am standing on a rough surface, rather than a flat one. It is only by making assumptions (or additional observations) about what happens at large distances that would lead one to conclude round or flat.
Also, I would say most things have weight, but some things (air) appears weightless, and others (e.g. helium filled balloons and hot air) have negative weight.

I would like to start the discussion with a quick introduction about my intentions:
I know the conclusions of the Flat Earth theory and its criticisims against the Round Earth model. This means that -more or less- I am aware about the discussions on these conclusions (horizon amplitudes, star movements, and so on). Hence, my approach is different: I start from the beginning, from a zero level, and by proceeding in small steps I intend to identify at which point in time the two positions (flat/round Earth) start to diverge. Rather than discussing the end divergences, I wish to understand where divergencies start.

Step 1:

Having said that, here my first point: at a very first look, I am standing on a flat earth, and I am standing (as any other object) because there is a reaction form the ground against my weight. Would you all agree that in this environment any object feels a force that we can call weight?

I am not yet interested to understand where the weight force comes from: I experience that a stone in my hand has its own weight, and that every object has a weight which can be counteracted with a hand, or with a wire tied to the object, or by leaving the object on another object.

Would everyone agree to that said? Thank you.

You've got two treasures in the first discussion thread: Flat Earth and Universal Acceleration ideas.
Amazing.. This is currently a snowing ball among academia all over the world.
FET goes universities.

You've got two treasures in the first discussion thread: Flat Earth and Universal Acceleration ideas.

Maybe it looks flat especially when looking out over the ocean but there are little clues to be seen - I'll leave them till later.

But wherever would the "Universal Acceleration idea" spring from?
I can see no evidence that "Universal Acceleration" was introduced before flat earthers quite recently introduced it to explain away gravity.

The idea of "gravity" predates any "acceleration" ideas by millennia.

The Greek philosopher Aristotle (c. 384 BC to 322 BC) gave one of the earliest and most comprehensive attempts at a scientific explanation of this behavior, by putting forth the idea that objects moved toward their "natural place."

Amazing.. This is currently a snowing ball among academia all over the world.
FET goes universities.

And I find it amazing that you don't know that the idea that the earth is spherical is close to 2500 years old but that is quite irrelevant to the intent of this thread.

This thread is looking at what a person with no prior knowledge of these things might deduce by just "observing" so all the above is quite off-topic.

Step 1:

Having said that, here my first point: at a very first look, I am standing on a flat earth, and I am standing (as any other object) because there is a reaction form the ground against my weight. Would you all agree that in this environment any object feels a force that we can call weight?

I am not yet interested to understand where the weight force comes from: I experience that a stone in my hand has its own weight, and that every object has a weight which can be counteracted with a hand, or with a wire tied to the object, or by leaving the object on another object.

Would everyone agree to that said? Thank you.

The globularists won't agree. Either they have no imagination, or they're only here to stop any interesting conversations from happening.

Step 1:

Agreed.

Do go on.

I would like to start the discussion with a quick introduction about my intentions:
I know the conclusions of the Flat Earth theory and its criticisims against the Round Earth model. This means that -more or less- I am aware about the discussions on these conclusions (horizon amplitudes, star movements, and so on). Hence, my approach is different: I start from the beginning, from a zero level, and by proceeding in small steps I intend to identify at which point in time the two positions (flat/round Earth) start to diverge. Rather than discussing the end divergences, I wish to understand where divergencies start.

Step 1:

Having said that, here my first point: at a very first look, I am standing on a flat earth, and I am standing (as any other object) because there is a reaction form the ground against my weight. Would you all agree that in this environment any object feels a force that we can call weight?

I am not yet interested to understand where the weight force comes from: I experience that a stone in my hand has its own weight, and that every object has a weight which can be counteracted with a hand, or with a wire tied to the object, or by leaving the object on another object.

Would everyone agree to that said? Thank you.

Some more observations:
1. A helium balloon floats because it displaces more weight then the surrounding air.
The same goes for a hot air balloon, the hot air having less density then the cold air surrounding the balloon.
2. Objects that float in a liquid, displaces more weight of the liquid it is floating on.
The question is what is producing this weight.
The answer is gravity: but that's the crux of the debate, what is the calls of gravity (in your case weight)
Mass attracting mass , or universal acceleration, density,
It will take more than just this observation to determine witch is the best, answer.

It’s a step by step thing Mousewalker

I agree with step 1

I would say I am standing on a rough surface, rather than a flat one. It is only by making assumptions (or additional observations) about what happens at large distances that would lead one to conclude round or flat.
Also, I would say most things have weight, but some things (air) appears weightless, and others (e.g. helium filled balloons and hot air) have negative weight.

Yes about the rough surface, but this is irrelevant for now.
Yes about the large distance observations, but this belongs to step 10 or 15. For step 1, the starting point is that the surface looks flat. My intention is to proceed at small steps, by reproducing what could be the considerations of an observer who does not know about. At a certain point in time, which I would like to know, results of experiments, hence conclusions, will diverge between people.
Yes about other things that appear weightless, but my observer is not yet at that stage. Again, step 10 or 15.
If necessary, I would rather go back from step ( n ) to step ( n - 0.5 ), rather than jump too fast forward.

1. A helium balloon floats because it displaces more weight then the surrounding air.
The same goes for a hot air balloon, the hot air having less density then the cold air surrounding the balloon.
2. Objects that float in a liquid, displaces more weight of the liquid it is floating on.
The question is what is producing this weight.
The answer is gravity: but that's the crux of the debate, what is the calls of gravity (in your case weight)
Mass attracting mass , or universal acceleration, density,
It will take more than just this observation to determine witch is the best, answer.

Yes to everything, but, again, this is going too fast. My observer does not know about the cause of this force called weight. He is just experiencing that a stone has weight.
Look: my fictional play roughly repeats the historical path of science. I am not yet arrived to Newton, I am still somewhere before Galileo, or, better, between Aristotle and Galileo.

You've got two treasures in the first discussion thread

I have many treasures, but these belong to step 100 or 150. What I think is the best treasure is hidden somewhere in airplanes, because these are the things that I better know. In effect, I am terribly curious about the meaning of your (quite beautiful) video of a A380 flight.
But not now, please. Not yet: this would be a bottom up approach, and -as I said in my introductory post- I,m going for a top down approach. At least, for this thread: but perhaps you could show me another thread in which the topic is "airplanes flight". I don't promise anything, because I am already struggling to find time for my thread here.   

\
Yes about the large distance observations, but this belongs to step 10 or 15. For step 1, the starting point is that the surface looks flat.  My intention is to proceed at small steps, by reproducing what could be the considerations of an observer who does not know about. At a certain point in time, which I would like to know, results of experiments, hence conclusions, will diverge between people.

Yes I understand that, however I disagree.
Saying it "looks flat" would likewise belong in much later steps.
At the small scale, it doesn't look flat at all.
There are hills/mountains, valleys, buildings, oceans, etc.

Perhaps as an alternative, they assume it is flat over large distances?
That is what the early humans did. They simply assumed Earth was flat over large distances, but not because it looked flat.

Yes about other things that appear weightless, but my observer is not yet at that stage. Again, step 10 or 15.

Then they are not yet at the stage to say all things have weight.
Instead it would be better stated as they observe lots of things to fall.

Look: my fictional play roughly repeats the historical path of science. I am not yet arrived to Newton, I am still somewhere before Galileo, or, better, between Aristotle and Galileo.

Then you are going down the wrong path, at least if your interest is in flat vs round.
Gravity with Newton and co came very long after humanity knew Earth was round (even Aristotle accepted it was round).
You should instead be focusing on other observations, such as that of position of celestial objects varying around Earth and the horizon.

If you wanted to be after Aristotle, then it isn't everything having weight.
Instead, nature is composed of various materials. Some are like Earth, which naturally go down towards Earth, others are like fire which ascend.
These objects merely move towards their natural place, and if something stops them it results in a force on that object. When they are in their natural place then there is no force and no motion of the object.

Alien says: "I am terribly curious about the meaning of your (quite beautiful) video of a A380 flight."

The airplane headed curvedly to the south west direction, not *west* as globe theory's supposed to claim.
The sun was visible in front of the cockpit.
This evidence only fits with South Polar Centered FE Map AKA Phew FE Map.

This is the link related to airplane and (unbelievable) "speed" and "distance".
I believe the real speed and distance is much faster & more far. An airplane speed must not be under motor GP's which goes 300s kph.
No, the airplane is not so slow as described.

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=75661.msg2057145#msg2057145

I'm not sure, at this rate, I'm going to have the patience for 150 steps. So, for the sake of brevity and expeditiousness:

"Would you all agree that in this environment any object feels a force that we can call weight?"

Let's stick with the rock. Yes, it has "weight".

Step 2?

these are the things that I better know.

Sorry, I think I made a mistake in English language: I meant "these are the things I know best".

The airplane headed curvedly to the south west direction, not *west* as globe theory's supposed to claim.

No. It took off and was heading north west and curved, heading south west.
There is no reason to go southwest on your nonsense model.

So no, that fits with the globe, not your nonsense.

And this has nothing to do with the topic at hand.

This has little to do with the topic, "Step by step". Make a thread of your own on air-routes if you want more details.

Alien says: "I am terribly curious about the meaning of your (quite beautiful) video of a A380 flight."

The airplane headed curvedly to the south-west direction, not *west* as globe theory's supposed to claim.
The sun was visible in front of the cockpit.
This evidence only fits with South Polar Centered FE Map AKA Phew FE Map.

The aircraft took off from Seoul International Airport (ICN at Incheon) then headed for a short distance in an SW direction, turned towards Tianjin and then headed NW.
Presumably, it took this route over Tianjin and Beijing because that is the route demanded by the PRC.

The aircraft then took very close to the Great Circle route to Frankurt (FRA), Germany as would be expected on the Globe.

The route for one such flight shown on FlightRadar24 (Lufthansa flight LH713) looks like this:And that general route fits with the guessed path on the Globe:
The reported distances do not match as closely as I would like but FlightRadar24 has only reported the Great Circle distance, not the actual flight distance overflying Incheon.

The flight I showed seemed to follow the same route as yours and fits the Globe perfectly, so I fail to see your problem.

Yes I understand that, however I disagree.
...
Then you are going down the wrong path, at least if your interest is in flat vs round.
...
When they are in their natural place then there is no force and no motion of the object.

I ask you to bear with me, because I cannot repeat all observations and experiments and reasoning that form part of the history of science. I am selecting only those that can help me in understanding where the basic mistake starts. It's a mistake, because I can see from conclusions (flat Earth) that there is a mistake somewhere. The path line that I am selecting is deliberately summarised by treating only those aspects that are relevant to the identification of that divergent point. All the rest (what you said), even if perfectly correct, belongs then to other paths that I would simply postpone.
The exception is your last line: on a stone, resting on the ground, there is definitely acting a force called weight. The force is simply counteracted by the ground. My observer understands this because the same happens when the stone is in his hand (he has to perform some effort to keep it) or hanged to a wire.

So, for the moment, my step 1 (and soon I'll go to step 2, because, correctly, some people cannot guarantee to wait for step 150: I will stop much before step 150 because the mistake will arise), on which I think the majority agree, simply states that a stone, or another solid object, has a force called weight and this force is vertical.

Thanks again to everyone.

The interesting discussion on the A380 flight can be generalised, but it's definitely off topic here, I think.
As I said, there is a very strong argument in airplanes (and not only) which demonstrates the need to cope with a round Earth. But this is part of the final conclusion of my approach, because the main divergence is upstream any flight/airplane considerations.
Airplanes are my job since 35 years, and therefore you can imagine I am very much keen to enter the discussion...  but it's too early!   

Step 2

When a stone, or an iron ball, is tied to a wire, it is in equilibrium under the action of two forces, equal and opposite: weight and wire tension. If I shift the stone from its position, by maintaining the wire tension, and I release it, then it oscillates around the equilibrium position, which is the vertical wire configuration (for convenience, let's call this point the zero position).

This is because, at any position out of zero, the two forces acting on the stone are no longer opposite: while the weight force still acts vertically, the wire reaction is no longer vertical. The result is a third resultant force which acts towards the zero point, and accelerates the stone.

Would anyone agree to this simple observation and consequent reasoning?

With you so far.
Step 3?

Go faster.
This beyond slower than any "Explain like im 5."

I wonder if we can skip to the step that says, "Ergo, the shape of the earth is...".

I can sincerely appreciate that most of people is curious to go directly to the conclusions in step n, but I absolutely need to go slowly and seek for agreement at each step.
Otherwise, I would not understand what I wish to understand, ie to identify the exact point in time where disagreement starts.
OK, I'll go soon to step 3, by assuming that silence about agreement equals to agreement.

PS: I beg pardon to everybody, but I have not yet exactly realised which of you stands on which side of the flat-round competition....   

I can sincerely appreciate that most of people is curious to go directly to the conclusions in step n, but I absolutely need to go slowly and seek for agreement at each step.
Otherwise, I would not understand what I wish to understand, ie to identify the exact point in time where disagreement starts.
OK, I'll go soon to step 3, by assuming that silence about agreement equals to agreement.

PS: I beg pardon to everybody, but I have not yet exactly realised which of you stands on which side of the flat-round competition....   

I don't know the best order for these might be from a historical perspective and remember that one person in one location has no idea of the size of the earth:

• Over land the horizon is broken by hills and valleys so that gives no clue as to the shape of the earth and it could easily be flat.
  Those living large flat regions, such as Mesopotamia, saw that the earth look quite flat, so assumed it was flat.
  And when some looked out to sea they still saw the horizon looked quite flat, so again this fitted with the earlier ideas of a flat earth.
  
  
• Then they noticed that the sun, moon and stars appeared to rise from behind the horizon and to set behind the horizon so various ideas could be proposed.
  Maybe they rose and disappeared underground (Hades), came and went through "portals" in the "firmament"
  

So, for a person or group of people, living in a limited region it seems that the earth could be flat with just the question of where the sun, moon, stars and finally planets (wandering ones) go when they not seen.

The ancient Sumerians, Babylonians, Hebrews, Greek and Chinese (till the 17th century AD) did hold to various versions of these ideas.
It appears though that the ancient Indians may have had quite different ideas but we'll look at them later.

And next post I'll try to work out what these people might see when they start to travel thousands of (our) kilometers.

I have many treasures, but these belong to step 100 or 150...

According to my calculations, at the rate this is going, posting a step every 3 days, we'll get to Step 100 on Tuesday, July 16, 2019 and Step 150 on Friday, December 13, 2019.

Just suggesting that you may want to speed things up a smidge.

Don't let the angry globularists rush you. We're with you to step 3.

Quote from: Alien on September 15, 2018, 02:05:23 AM

I have many treasures, but these belong to step 100 or 150...

According to my calculations, at the rate this is going, posting a step every 3 days, we'll get to Step 100 on Tuesday, July 16, 2019 and Step 150 on Friday, December 13, 2019.

Just suggesting that you may want to speed things up a smidge.

1) Why do you think 100 or 200 steps might be needed?
2) What's the hurry anyway?
      It took 2000 years for us poor Westerners to get from a flat earth to a rotating earth .
    The Indians with their Vedic cosmology got there much sooner.

Don't let the angry globularists rush you. We're with you to step 3.

Guilty as charged.

Yes, ready for step 3.

Just suggesting that you may want to speed things up a smidge.

You are right... but, please, consider that for what I have to say there is no need to reach step 150. 
However, when you are having fun, aren't you trying to stretch time by slowing down?

Don't let the angry globularists rush you. We're with you to step 3.

That's perfectly ok for me.
Actually, a couple of days ago I was not able to login.

Yes, ready for step 3.

Thanks everyone, now I'll go on ... 

Step 3

Now we (or better, our observer who doesn't know very much about Earth), are facing what is called a "pendulum". He is observing a bob (let's use this name), which swings back and forth around its neutral position.
He sees that every time the bob is left, some oscillations start, and these oscillations always remain in the same plane. He can understand why this happens: just referring to his (our) steps 1 and 2, he knows that, for some reason yet to be understood, the weight force, which is always vertical, lies in a geometrical plane together with the reaction force in the rope.

Now, sorry, but I need to stop because I have to throw again the periodic and fundamental question to everybody:

would you all agree that the pendulum oscillates constantly in the same geometrical plane when left free? 

(I've got a bad feeling that, despite my intention to accelerate, here in step 3 I will be forced to slow down and reply to several objections... ok, I decided to go this way)