Globe Proof #2

  • 96 Replies
  • 1332 Views
*

wise

  • Professor
  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 15656
  • Backstage
Re: Globe Proof #2
« Reply #30 on: May 11, 2019, 02:20:16 PM »
You are confused. "Space" does not mean a place with nothing. "Space" just means the region more than 100 miles above the surface of the Earth.

You are wrong. Space has to be space. The term of space comes from empty area. It means gap meanwhile. Otherwise people had to use a term anything else.

The place you have determined will be defined as "filled" to define the space instead.

Space term is a perception management. It has ended. Space isn't space.

When you say "Space has to be space" what you are saying is that a thing has to be what you have defined the word to be.

Every noun (including "space") is two things: It is a word that we speak or write, and it is the object or concept we mean when we use the word. Here's an example:

"Chair" is a word, and it is a thing you can sit on. Sometimes the thing can be imaginary: "Unicorn" is a word, and it is an imaginary animal. But often a word has more than one meaning, or different people use the same word to mean different things. "House" is a word, and it is a building that someone can live in. But a poor person in a slum in Buenos Aires might live in a shack made of a few pieces of corrugated metal and call it a house, while a middle-class person in Los Angeles would call that a shack. A noun does not have to refer to a physical object: The space between my house and my neighbor's house is not a thing; it refers to the area separating the two houses. So in this case, "space" is a word, and it is a concept meaning a specific area.

Words often have multiple meanings. And some people use words to mean different things. When that happens we can argue about what a word means. But when we argue about the meaning of a word, that does not have anything to do with whether or not the things exist. When that person in Los Angeles says that the thing the slum-dweller lives in is not a house, he is not saying that it does not exist; he is saying that "house" is the wrong word to describe it.

When you argue that the region between the Earth and the Sun is not "space," you are arguing about the meaning of a word. You are saying that we are using the wrong word for it, and you have a perfect right to present that argument. But here's the important point:

Your argument that the word "space" is the wrong word because there's still stuff in that region, does not mean that there is no such place as we are referring to when we use the word "space." Pick a different word for it if you like, but the region between the Earth and the sun does exist, and when you deny it you are simply making no sense.

Space does exist. Whether the Earth is resting on the backs of four elephants standing on the back of a turtle swimming through space, or whether it is floating freely through space, or whether it's standing still in space while the other heavenly bodies revolve around it, space exists, not as a physical "thing," but as a concept which is a mostly-empty but never completely empty region, like the Atacama desert, where there is sand, but not very much else.

Space exists, though you object to our use of the word "space" to refer to it. Men have walked on the moon. The ISS and the GPS satellites, and thousands of other satellites, exist. And the Earth is Flat. None of these statements contradicts any of the others. And I am baffled as to why anybody would think that the flatness of the Earth would preclude space from existing. It most definitely does exist, because as most people use the word, it simply means the region more than 100 miles above the surface of the Earth. And as I've noted before, since the Sun and Moon are 6,000 miles away, we use a word to refer to the region between them.

Do not confuse your argument about the meaning of the word for an argument about the concept the rest of us mean when we use it.

you've rambled the issue too much. We are talking about existance of space, but not other issues like turtles or iss or nasa landing hoax or other things.

what I'm focusing on here is that the word space is the wrong choice to define the region between the sun and the earth. The space word existed before defining the space we use it today. I'm not an expert on English. therefore I do not want to discuss this issue further. but I'm sure that there could be a more appropriate word other than the word space.

Fine. You'd prefer a different word, even though "space" is the word universally used in English.

Thank you, though, for acknowledging that the region between the Earth and the sun does exist. And this is what English-speakers are referring to when they use the word.

Sure there are a region between earth and sun. We define it as earth dome, which includes a type of water, more than something you think when say "space".
ANNIHILATOR OF JACK'INOZ

ANNIHILATOR OF JOHN TURD DAVIS



Re: Globe Proof #2
« Reply #31 on: May 11, 2019, 03:01:21 PM »
Your name is not magellanclavichord.
Again, I don't care. You have made a claim in a public debate forum and I will address that claim.
If you want a private conversation, have it in PMs.
You also don't seem to give a damn. magellanclavichord is not justaguy, yet you still happily responded to him.
If we go back before that justaguy isn't Unepic Globetard yet you responded to him, and Unepic Globetard isn't turtles and turtles isn't Unepic Globetard.

So cut the crap. You clearly don't care who responds.
It seems you more care about your ability to get out of what they have said. If you can think of some excuse to pretend you are correct, you will use it and happily respond. If you can't, then you just make up an excuse for why you shouldn't respond.



Now again, your strawmanning of space does nothing to address the reality of space and its implications on the shape of Earth with everything we have in space. Appealing to semantics will get you no where.

Your baseless assertions do nothing to disprove a vacuum.

Now going back to your initial claims regarding a vacuum:
You claim that if space was a vacuum it would suck all the air off Earth and then absorb Earth.
Do you have anything at all to back up this insane claim of yours?

If not, do you have anything to refute my counterargument which explains clearly how pressure differentials can exist, including providing an example of such a situation you can verify for yourself?
« Last Edit: May 11, 2019, 03:06:58 PM by JackBlack »

Re: Globe Proof #2
« Reply #32 on: May 12, 2019, 01:55:51 PM »
I'll wait moderation to cut your crap. I clearly care who is the responder. Otherwise you would got a appropriate reply.
Only in the sense of if they have refuted you and you are unable to respond in any way that makes you look good.
If you actually cared like you pretend you do, the only person in this thread you would have responded to was Unepic Globetard. Instead you responded to turtles, justaguy, myself and magellanclavichord. Even when they were quoting a response you made to someone else.

Now going back to your initial claims regarding a vacuum:
You claim that if space was a vacuum it would suck all the air off Earth and then absorb Earth.
Do you have anything at all to back up this insane claim of yours?

If not, do you have anything to refute my counterargument which explains clearly how pressure differentials can exist, including providing an example of such a situation you can verify for yourself?

Re: Globe Proof #2
« Reply #33 on: May 12, 2019, 06:00:40 PM »
You are confused. "Space" does not mean a place with nothing. "Space" just means the region more than 100 miles above the surface of the Earth.

You are wrong. Space has to be space. The term of space comes from empty area. It means gap meanwhile. Otherwise people had to use a term anything else.

The place you have determined will be defined as "filled" to define the space instead.

Space term is a perception management. It has ended. Space isn't space.

When you say "Space has to be space" what you are saying is that a thing has to be what you have defined the word to be.

Every noun (including "space") is two things: It is a word that we speak or write, and it is the object or concept we mean when we use the word. Here's an example:

"Chair" is a word, and it is a thing you can sit on. Sometimes the thing can be imaginary: "Unicorn" is a word, and it is an imaginary animal. But often a word has more than one meaning, or different people use the same word to mean different things. "House" is a word, and it is a building that someone can live in. But a poor person in a slum in Buenos Aires might live in a shack made of a few pieces of corrugated metal and call it a house, while a middle-class person in Los Angeles would call that a shack. A noun does not have to refer to a physical object: The space between my house and my neighbor's house is not a thing; it refers to the area separating the two houses. So in this case, "space" is a word, and it is a concept meaning a specific area.

Words often have multiple meanings. And some people use words to mean different things. When that happens we can argue about what a word means. But when we argue about the meaning of a word, that does not have anything to do with whether or not the things exist. When that person in Los Angeles says that the thing the slum-dweller lives in is not a house, he is not saying that it does not exist; he is saying that "house" is the wrong word to describe it.

When you argue that the region between the Earth and the Sun is not "space," you are arguing about the meaning of a word. You are saying that we are using the wrong word for it, and you have a perfect right to present that argument. But here's the important point:

Your argument that the word "space" is the wrong word because there's still stuff in that region, does not mean that there is no such place as we are referring to when we use the word "space." Pick a different word for it if you like, but the region between the Earth and the sun does exist, and when you deny it you are simply making no sense.

Space does exist. Whether the Earth is resting on the backs of four elephants standing on the back of a turtle swimming through space, or whether it is floating freely through space, or whether it's standing still in space while the other heavenly bodies revolve around it, space exists, not as a physical "thing," but as a concept which is a mostly-empty but never completely empty region, like the Atacama desert, where there is sand, but not very much else.

Space exists, though you object to our use of the word "space" to refer to it. Men have walked on the moon. The ISS and the GPS satellites, and thousands of other satellites, exist. And the Earth is Flat. None of these statements contradicts any of the others. And I am baffled as to why anybody would think that the flatness of the Earth would preclude space from existing. It most definitely does exist, because as most people use the word, it simply means the region more than 100 miles above the surface of the Earth. And as I've noted before, since the Sun and Moon are 6,000 miles away, we use a word to refer to the region between them.

Do not confuse your argument about the meaning of the word for an argument about the concept the rest of us mean when we use it.

you've rambled the issue too much. We are talking about existance of space, but not other issues like turtles or iss or nasa landing hoax or other things.

what I'm focusing on here is that the word space is the wrong choice to define the region between the sun and the earth. The space word existed before defining the space we use it today. I'm not an expert on English. therefore I do not want to discuss this issue further. but I'm sure that there could be a more appropriate word other than the word space.

Fine. You'd prefer a different word, even though "space" is the word universally used in English.

Thank you, though, for acknowledging that the region between the Earth and the sun does exist. And this is what English-speakers are referring to when they use the word.

Sure there are a region between earth and sun. We define it as earth dome, which includes a type of water, more than something you think when say "space".

I don't think the dome idea holds water. (I made a pun. :) ) I don't know why so may FE-ers insist on going beyond the obvious (the Earth is flat) to assert the most curious things, like a dome over the Earth, or upward acceleration, or an ice wall. There's no reason why the flat Earth cannot whizz through space flying around the sun as the whole solar system whizzes around the center of the Milky Way. There's no reason it cannot all be governed by gravity. We've known about gravity ever since Newton got bonked on the head by an apple. I'd say, don't make things more needlessly complicated than you have to.

*

wise

  • Professor
  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 15656
  • Backstage
Re: Globe Proof #2
« Reply #34 on: May 13, 2019, 02:30:56 AM »
You are confused. "Space" does not mean a place with nothing. "Space" just means the region more than 100 miles above the surface of the Earth.

You are wrong. Space has to be space. The term of space comes from empty area. It means gap meanwhile. Otherwise people had to use a term anything else.

The place you have determined will be defined as "filled" to define the space instead.

Space term is a perception management. It has ended. Space isn't space.

When you say "Space has to be space" what you are saying is that a thing has to be what you have defined the word to be.

Every noun (including "space") is two things: It is a word that we speak or write, and it is the object or concept we mean when we use the word. Here's an example:

"Chair" is a word, and it is a thing you can sit on. Sometimes the thing can be imaginary: "Unicorn" is a word, and it is an imaginary animal. But often a word has more than one meaning, or different people use the same word to mean different things. "House" is a word, and it is a building that someone can live in. But a poor person in a slum in Buenos Aires might live in a shack made of a few pieces of corrugated metal and call it a house, while a middle-class person in Los Angeles would call that a shack. A noun does not have to refer to a physical object: The space between my house and my neighbor's house is not a thing; it refers to the area separating the two houses. So in this case, "space" is a word, and it is a concept meaning a specific area.

Words often have multiple meanings. And some people use words to mean different things. When that happens we can argue about what a word means. But when we argue about the meaning of a word, that does not have anything to do with whether or not the things exist. When that person in Los Angeles says that the thing the slum-dweller lives in is not a house, he is not saying that it does not exist; he is saying that "house" is the wrong word to describe it.

When you argue that the region between the Earth and the Sun is not "space," you are arguing about the meaning of a word. You are saying that we are using the wrong word for it, and you have a perfect right to present that argument. But here's the important point:

Your argument that the word "space" is the wrong word because there's still stuff in that region, does not mean that there is no such place as we are referring to when we use the word "space." Pick a different word for it if you like, but the region between the Earth and the sun does exist, and when you deny it you are simply making no sense.

Space does exist. Whether the Earth is resting on the backs of four elephants standing on the back of a turtle swimming through space, or whether it is floating freely through space, or whether it's standing still in space while the other heavenly bodies revolve around it, space exists, not as a physical "thing," but as a concept which is a mostly-empty but never completely empty region, like the Atacama desert, where there is sand, but not very much else.

Space exists, though you object to our use of the word "space" to refer to it. Men have walked on the moon. The ISS and the GPS satellites, and thousands of other satellites, exist. And the Earth is Flat. None of these statements contradicts any of the others. And I am baffled as to why anybody would think that the flatness of the Earth would preclude space from existing. It most definitely does exist, because as most people use the word, it simply means the region more than 100 miles above the surface of the Earth. And as I've noted before, since the Sun and Moon are 6,000 miles away, we use a word to refer to the region between them.

Do not confuse your argument about the meaning of the word for an argument about the concept the rest of us mean when we use it.

you've rambled the issue too much. We are talking about existance of space, but not other issues like turtles or iss or nasa landing hoax or other things.

what I'm focusing on here is that the word space is the wrong choice to define the region between the sun and the earth. The space word existed before defining the space we use it today. I'm not an expert on English. therefore I do not want to discuss this issue further. but I'm sure that there could be a more appropriate word other than the word space.

Fine. You'd prefer a different word, even though "space" is the word universally used in English.

Thank you, though, for acknowledging that the region between the Earth and the sun does exist. And this is what English-speakers are referring to when they use the word.

Sure there are a region between earth and sun. We define it as earth dome, which includes a type of water, more than something you think when say "space".

I don't think the dome idea holds water. (I made a pun. :) ) I don't know why so may FE-ers insist on going beyond the obvious (the Earth is flat) to assert the most curious things, like a dome over the Earth, or upward acceleration, or an ice wall. There's no reason why the flat Earth cannot whizz through space flying around the sun as the whole solar system whizzes around the center of the Milky Way. There's no reason it cannot all be governed by gravity. We've known about gravity ever since Newton got bonked on the head by an apple. I'd say, don't make things more needlessly complicated than you have to.

Apple, as an argument again. Maybe Adam's apple has bonked Newton's head. Can not it be?  ??? If there is New'ton, so is it there Old'kilogram? Look how everything is a perception management. Anyways. The flat earth movement does not trust popular science. As a basic argument, scientists are misleading. for example, I think that "all of what they teach us as science can be wrong," because the power that governs the world does not tolerate even our knowing one thing correctly. There are a lot of people who think this way.

something is either acquired, or lost. If the world is flat, it must also be formed in its own sub-sciences. and it obviously does not contain space.
ANNIHILATOR OF JACK'INOZ

ANNIHILATOR OF JOHN TURD DAVIS



Re: Globe Proof #2
« Reply #35 on: May 13, 2019, 09:29:03 AM »
You are confused. "Space" does not mean a place with nothing. "Space" just means the region more than 100 miles above the surface of the Earth.

You are wrong. Space has to be space. The term of space comes from empty area. It means gap meanwhile. Otherwise people had to use a term anything else.

The place you have determined will be defined as "filled" to define the space instead.

Space term is a perception management. It has ended. Space isn't space.

When you say "Space has to be space" what you are saying is that a thing has to be what you have defined the word to be.

Every noun (including "space") is two things: It is a word that we speak or write, and it is the object or concept we mean when we use the word. Here's an example:

"Chair" is a word, and it is a thing you can sit on. Sometimes the thing can be imaginary: "Unicorn" is a word, and it is an imaginary animal. But often a word has more than one meaning, or different people use the same word to mean different things. "House" is a word, and it is a building that someone can live in. But a poor person in a slum in Buenos Aires might live in a shack made of a few pieces of corrugated metal and call it a house, while a middle-class person in Los Angeles would call that a shack. A noun does not have to refer to a physical object: The space between my house and my neighbor's house is not a thing; it refers to the area separating the two houses. So in this case, "space" is a word, and it is a concept meaning a specific area.

Words often have multiple meanings. And some people use words to mean different things. When that happens we can argue about what a word means. But when we argue about the meaning of a word, that does not have anything to do with whether or not the things exist. When that person in Los Angeles says that the thing the slum-dweller lives in is not a house, he is not saying that it does not exist; he is saying that "house" is the wrong word to describe it.

When you argue that the region between the Earth and the Sun is not "space," you are arguing about the meaning of a word. You are saying that we are using the wrong word for it, and you have a perfect right to present that argument. But here's the important point:

Your argument that the word "space" is the wrong word because there's still stuff in that region, does not mean that there is no such place as we are referring to when we use the word "space." Pick a different word for it if you like, but the region between the Earth and the sun does exist, and when you deny it you are simply making no sense.

Space does exist. Whether the Earth is resting on the backs of four elephants standing on the back of a turtle swimming through space, or whether it is floating freely through space, or whether it's standing still in space while the other heavenly bodies revolve around it, space exists, not as a physical "thing," but as a concept which is a mostly-empty but never completely empty region, like the Atacama desert, where there is sand, but not very much else.

Space exists, though you object to our use of the word "space" to refer to it. Men have walked on the moon. The ISS and the GPS satellites, and thousands of other satellites, exist. And the Earth is Flat. None of these statements contradicts any of the others. And I am baffled as to why anybody would think that the flatness of the Earth would preclude space from existing. It most definitely does exist, because as most people use the word, it simply means the region more than 100 miles above the surface of the Earth. And as I've noted before, since the Sun and Moon are 6,000 miles away, we use a word to refer to the region between them.

Do not confuse your argument about the meaning of the word for an argument about the concept the rest of us mean when we use it.

you've rambled the issue too much. We are talking about existance of space, but not other issues like turtles or iss or nasa landing hoax or other things.

what I'm focusing on here is that the word space is the wrong choice to define the region between the sun and the earth. The space word existed before defining the space we use it today. I'm not an expert on English. therefore I do not want to discuss this issue further. but I'm sure that there could be a more appropriate word other than the word space.

Fine. You'd prefer a different word, even though "space" is the word universally used in English.

Thank you, though, for acknowledging that the region between the Earth and the sun does exist. And this is what English-speakers are referring to when they use the word.

Sure there are a region between earth and sun. We define it as earth dome, which includes a type of water, more than something you think when say "space".

I don't think the dome idea holds water. (I made a pun. :) ) I don't know why so may FE-ers insist on going beyond the obvious (the Earth is flat) to assert the most curious things, like a dome over the Earth, or upward acceleration, or an ice wall. There's no reason why the flat Earth cannot whizz through space flying around the sun as the whole solar system whizzes around the center of the Milky Way. There's no reason it cannot all be governed by gravity. We've known about gravity ever since Newton got bonked on the head by an apple. I'd say, don't make things more needlessly complicated than you have to.

Apple, as an argument again. Maybe Adam's apple has bonked Newton's head. Can not it be?  ??? If there is New'ton, so is it there Old'kilogram? Look how everything is a perception management. Anyways. The flat earth movement does not trust popular science. As a basic argument, scientists are misleading. for example, I think that "all of what they teach us as science can be wrong," because the power that governs the world does not tolerate even our knowing one thing correctly. There are a lot of people who think this way.

something is either acquired, or lost. If the world is flat, it must also be formed in its own sub-sciences. and it obviously does not contain space.

I don't think that all of science is wrong, or that scientists (including NASA) are trying to fool us. I actually think that they have made an honest mistake because so much of the evidence does seem to point to a round Earth, so they have gotten lost in their observations and logic and missed the obvious in all the complications. As the saying goes, they can't see the forest for the trees.

But on the other side, a lot of flat-Earthers are missing the true explanations and have gotten entangled in inconsistent, and therefore incorrect ones. Somehow they've decided that gravity cannot be real, so the Earth needs a dome to keep the air in. But why cannot gravity be real? Just because Newton thought the Earth was round and based his theory of gravity on that mistaken "fact," does not mean that there's no such thing as gravity. It just can't use Newton's math. Gravity is as obviously real as is the flatness of the Earth. Once we understand that gravity is real (just different than Newton's gravity) then we no longer need a dome, because gravity is what keeps the atmosphere from flying away.

There is plenty of evidence that space is real (i.e., an almost-empty region) and that we have satellites, and that men walked on the moon. But because FE-ers have mistakenly rejected the reality of gravity they've been forced to posit a dome, and from that to reject space travel and even space itself. Merely recognize that gravity is real and now we have one less thing to argue about with the globists.

I think that Mr. Robotham sent us off in the wrong direction. He saw that the Earth is flat, but he wasn't able to explain it correctly, so he came up with mistaken explanations that have led to some mistaken ideas, like the dome and the ice wall and the belief that space is not real. And the idea that scientists are intentionally lying to people has created an unnecessarily adversarial relationship between us and them. I do not think they are lying. They have merely followed a mistaken line of reasoning. This will be obvious once we accept that gravity is real, and then we and they can move on to a cooperative search for the true explanations of the observations and how those observations actually lead to a flat Earth and not a round one.

*

wise

  • Professor
  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 15656
  • Backstage
Re: Globe Proof #2
« Reply #36 on: May 13, 2019, 01:25:31 PM »
You are confused. "Space" does not mean a place with nothing. "Space" just means the region more than 100 miles above the surface of the Earth.

You are wrong. Space has to be space. The term of space comes from empty area. It means gap meanwhile. Otherwise people had to use a term anything else.

The place you have determined will be defined as "filled" to define the space instead.

Space term is a perception management. It has ended. Space isn't space.

When you say "Space has to be space" what you are saying is that a thing has to be what you have defined the word to be.

Every noun (including "space") is two things: It is a word that we speak or write, and it is the object or concept we mean when we use the word. Here's an example:

"Chair" is a word, and it is a thing you can sit on. Sometimes the thing can be imaginary: "Unicorn" is a word, and it is an imaginary animal. But often a word has more than one meaning, or different people use the same word to mean different things. "House" is a word, and it is a building that someone can live in. But a poor person in a slum in Buenos Aires might live in a shack made of a few pieces of corrugated metal and call it a house, while a middle-class person in Los Angeles would call that a shack. A noun does not have to refer to a physical object: The space between my house and my neighbor's house is not a thing; it refers to the area separating the two houses. So in this case, "space" is a word, and it is a concept meaning a specific area.

Words often have multiple meanings. And some people use words to mean different things. When that happens we can argue about what a word means. But when we argue about the meaning of a word, that does not have anything to do with whether or not the things exist. When that person in Los Angeles says that the thing the slum-dweller lives in is not a house, he is not saying that it does not exist; he is saying that "house" is the wrong word to describe it.

When you argue that the region between the Earth and the Sun is not "space," you are arguing about the meaning of a word. You are saying that we are using the wrong word for it, and you have a perfect right to present that argument. But here's the important point:

Your argument that the word "space" is the wrong word because there's still stuff in that region, does not mean that there is no such place as we are referring to when we use the word "space." Pick a different word for it if you like, but the region between the Earth and the sun does exist, and when you deny it you are simply making no sense.

Space does exist. Whether the Earth is resting on the backs of four elephants standing on the back of a turtle swimming through space, or whether it is floating freely through space, or whether it's standing still in space while the other heavenly bodies revolve around it, space exists, not as a physical "thing," but as a concept which is a mostly-empty but never completely empty region, like the Atacama desert, where there is sand, but not very much else.

Space exists, though you object to our use of the word "space" to refer to it. Men have walked on the moon. The ISS and the GPS satellites, and thousands of other satellites, exist. And the Earth is Flat. None of these statements contradicts any of the others. And I am baffled as to why anybody would think that the flatness of the Earth would preclude space from existing. It most definitely does exist, because as most people use the word, it simply means the region more than 100 miles above the surface of the Earth. And as I've noted before, since the Sun and Moon are 6,000 miles away, we use a word to refer to the region between them.

Do not confuse your argument about the meaning of the word for an argument about the concept the rest of us mean when we use it.

you've rambled the issue too much. We are talking about existance of space, but not other issues like turtles or iss or nasa landing hoax or other things.

what I'm focusing on here is that the word space is the wrong choice to define the region between the sun and the earth. The space word existed before defining the space we use it today. I'm not an expert on English. therefore I do not want to discuss this issue further. but I'm sure that there could be a more appropriate word other than the word space.

Fine. You'd prefer a different word, even though "space" is the word universally used in English.

Thank you, though, for acknowledging that the region between the Earth and the sun does exist. And this is what English-speakers are referring to when they use the word.

Sure there are a region between earth and sun. We define it as earth dome, which includes a type of water, more than something you think when say "space".

I don't think the dome idea holds water. (I made a pun. :) ) I don't know why so may FE-ers insist on going beyond the obvious (the Earth is flat) to assert the most curious things, like a dome over the Earth, or upward acceleration, or an ice wall. There's no reason why the flat Earth cannot whizz through space flying around the sun as the whole solar system whizzes around the center of the Milky Way. There's no reason it cannot all be governed by gravity. We've known about gravity ever since Newton got bonked on the head by an apple. I'd say, don't make things more needlessly complicated than you have to.

Apple, as an argument again. Maybe Adam's apple has bonked Newton's head. Can not it be?  ??? If there is New'ton, so is it there Old'kilogram? Look how everything is a perception management. Anyways. The flat earth movement does not trust popular science. As a basic argument, scientists are misleading. for example, I think that "all of what they teach us as science can be wrong," because the power that governs the world does not tolerate even our knowing one thing correctly. There are a lot of people who think this way.

something is either acquired, or lost. If the world is flat, it must also be formed in its own sub-sciences. and it obviously does not contain space.

I don't think that all of science is wrong, or that scientists (including NASA) are trying to fool us. I actually think that they have made an honest mistake because so much of the evidence does seem to point to a round Earth, so they have gotten lost in their observations and logic and missed the obvious in all the complications. As the saying goes, they can't see the forest for the trees.

But on the other side, a lot of flat-Earthers are missing the true explanations and have gotten entangled in inconsistent, and therefore incorrect ones. Somehow they've decided that gravity cannot be real, so the Earth needs a dome to keep the air in. But why cannot gravity be real? Just because Newton thought the Earth was round and based his theory of gravity on that mistaken "fact," does not mean that there's no such thing as gravity. It just can't use Newton's math. Gravity is as obviously real as is the flatness of the Earth. Once we understand that gravity is real (just different than Newton's gravity) then we no longer need a dome, because gravity is what keeps the atmosphere from flying away.

There is plenty of evidence that space is real (i.e., an almost-empty region) and that we have satellites, and that men walked on the moon. But because FE-ers have mistakenly rejected the reality of gravity they've been forced to posit a dome, and from that to reject space travel and even space itself. Merely recognize that gravity is real and now we have one less thing to argue about with the globists.

I think that Mr. Robotham sent us off in the wrong direction. He saw that the Earth is flat, but he wasn't able to explain it correctly, so he came up with mistaken explanations that have led to some mistaken ideas, like the dome and the ice wall and the belief that space is not real. And the idea that scientists are intentionally lying to people has created an unnecessarily adversarial relationship between us and them. I do not think they are lying. They have merely followed a mistaken line of reasoning. This will be obvious once we accept that gravity is real, and then we and they can move on to a cooperative search for the true explanations of the observations and how those observations actually lead to a flat Earth and not a round one.

You may be wrong about that. To understand this, we need to look at who represents science. science can only be represented by free thought. today's science highlights only those who accept and defend themselves in the best possible way. the best example of this in our time is brian cox. she was an artist and dedicated herself to the lies of NASA and went on TV at a young age and became a professor. it is clear that an ordinary person cannot succeed. it's not about intelligence or work, it's more about lying. as much as easy and frequent you say lies, (so called) science so glorifies you.

It is clear that it is not an honest approach to send false photos to the world as if they were landing on the moon. Did they make the most possible thing to support the lies of the moon landing, by sending the photos of world as round, or did they make the fake moon landing to support the earth's being round. We can not be sure of which one as true until we achieve the original inside NASA dialogs.

It is true that we object to the theory of gravity in a prejudiced way because it supports the theory of the round world. but when we take into account the general deceptiveness of science, it is more likely that it would be false. So much so that, the masses do not attract each other in nature, but push each other. laboratory experiments confirming gravity have never taken place. this theory is one of the infinite options that can come to our minds. If we consider false science based on false information, not believing in this theory is more logical than believing it.

Mr. Many of Robotham's theories are in need of observation. For example, we should test the material quantity and frequency at each altitude. this knowledge will show us, which theory is more accurate. it will also allow us to find the appropriate height for the dome. so much so that the last of these experiments will take place on the dome. before we do it, we cannot be sure of the presence or absence of a dome.

if there will be cooperation, this should be based on mutual trust. Our representative friends in politicans, sportsman, media  in the media, are geting lynching instantly by the media that has a relationship with popular science. Due to the pressures, the majority of these people are obliged to say that after a while they do not believe in the flat world, that they are joking or that they mean something else. It is obvious that there is a serious problem of trust between the flat-earthers and globalists. this can only happen after some steps of the globalists those we can define as jest, who so far mocked and pressured the world of flat-earthers for years.
ANNIHILATOR OF JACK'INOZ

ANNIHILATOR OF JOHN TURD DAVIS



Re: Globe Proof #2
« Reply #37 on: May 13, 2019, 02:14:41 PM »
You may be wrong about that. To understand this, we need to look at who represents science. science can only be represented by free thought. today's science highlights only those who accept and defend themselves in the best possible way.
That isn't surprising and is what you expect.
If you don't accept your own ideas, it will be quite hard for you to defend them.
If your ideas can't be defended and you keep promoting it, then you aren't being a scientist.
Scientists care about the truth. This means they will accept ideas which are rational and justified by evidence/logical arguments. It means they wont accept ideas which are just baselessly asserted.
That is what you expect for free thought, at least rational free thought.

If you see someone repeating promoting and trying to defend an idea while failing miserably, especially when they ignore or try and shut down objections, they aren't interested in the truth or free thought and are not being a scientist in any way.


the best example of this in our time is brian cox. she was an artist and dedicated herself to the lies of NASA and went on TV at a young age and became a professor.
Stop lying. He didn't dedicate himself to the "lies of NASA", you are yet to show these "lies of NASA" even exist.
You completely left out a large portion of his life which is actually the work he put in to get his title.

It is clear that it is not an honest approach to send false photos to the world as if they were landing on the moon.
That's right. But you have no evidence they did that and there is literally no reason to think that.
It is also quite clear that it is an extremely dishonest approach to just dismiss everything which shows you are wrong as fake/lies.

but when we take into account the general deceptiveness of science, it is more likely that it would be false.
You mean when you take into consideration that science repeatedly shows you are wrong, you will dismiss it as fake.
Again, you have no actual justification for your insane claims of science being deceptive or gravity being fake.
It is entire because science repeatedly shows you are wrong.
You are the one being deceptive here.

laboratory experiments confirming gravity have never taken place.
Stop lying. Plenty have. Plenty of high schools do it.
You rejecting these experiments because they show you are wrong doesn't magically mean they haven't taken place.

Mr. Many of Robotham's theories are in need of observation.
i.e. all of them. And they aren't theories  but more wild speculation to try and pretend a FE works.

if there will be cooperation, this should be based on mutual trust.
Which is impossible with you as you trust no one.
Anytime something shows you are wrong you dismiss it as fake or lies.
You cannot build a trusting relationship like that as you have no trust for anyone.
So yes, there is an obvious problem of trust between FEers and sane people as FEers do not trust anyone and have been shown to lie repeatedly.

Now again, care to try justifying your claims regarding a vacuum or refuting the counterarguments?
It is also quite hypocritical to reject actual science, but then use pretend science which you pretend is real science to claim that something should be some way.
Why don't you reject your "vacuum science" as fake as well? Is it because it agrees with you?
Or do you admit it isn't science at all?

Re: Globe Proof #2
« Reply #38 on: May 14, 2019, 01:46:34 PM »
Quote
It is true that we object to the theory of gravity in a prejudiced way because it supports the theory of the round world. but when we take into account the general deceptiveness of science, it is more likely that it would be false. So much so that, the masses do not attract each other in nature, but push each other. laboratory experiments confirming gravity have never taken place. this theory is one of the infinite options that can come to our minds. If we consider false science based on false information, not believing in this theory is more logical than believing it.

Actually, laboratory experiments have been done and do show that masses attract each other. And the experiment is simple enough that an intelligent and reasonably capable high-school student can repeat it. Okay, well, an extremely smart high-school student.



Gravity is real. And since gravity is real, the Earth does not need a dome to keep the air in. And since the Earth does not need a dome, there's no reason at all to reject the existence of space. And if space exists, there's no reason to doubt that Neil Armstrong and others walked on the moon.

Gravity does not prove the Earth is round. Maybe one of the biggest mistakes we have made as flat-Earthers was to reject gravity just because the globists insisted that it did.

The Earth is flat. Gravity is real. And in the English language, "space" is the word used to refer to the region more than 100 miles above the surface of the Earth, in which there is very little stuff; so little that it's almost a vacuum. Object to the word if you like, but that's the word in this language.

And Neil Armstrong walked on the moon. (Trivia: He flubbed his line: Armstrong upon stepping onto the surface of the moon, said "One small step for man, one giant leap for mankind." What he was supposed to say was "One small step for a man, one giant leap for mankind." He left out the word "a" which changed the whole meaning of the phrase.)

*

Greg's Frog

  • 325
  • Administrator
Re: Globe Proof #2
« Reply #39 on: May 14, 2019, 08:40:40 PM »
Gravity is real. And since gravity is real, the Earth does not need a dome to keep the air in. And since the Earth does not need a dome, there's no reason at all to reject the existence of space. And if space exists, there's no reason to doubt that Neil Armstrong and others walked on the moon.
I'm kind of blown away that you are not denying the existence of gravity, space, and the moon landing even though you are a flat Earth. If you do believe in gravity, then the closer you get to the outer edges of the flat earth, it would feel like you are climbing up a hill, because you are being pulled to the center of mass. If you were on coordinates 0,0 you wouldn't feel any difference.
Old Name: Unepic Globetard. Changed 5/22/2019
https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=81539.0

*

wise

  • Professor
  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 15656
  • Backstage
Re: Globe Proof #2
« Reply #40 on: May 15, 2019, 12:40:20 AM »
Quote
It is true that we object to the theory of gravity in a prejudiced way because it supports the theory of the round world. but when we take into account the general deceptiveness of science, it is more likely that it would be false. So much so that, the masses do not attract each other in nature, but push each other. laboratory experiments confirming gravity have never taken place. this theory is one of the infinite options that can come to our minds. If we consider false science based on false information, not believing in this theory is more logical than believing it.

Actually, laboratory experiments have been done and do show that masses attract each other. And the experiment is simple enough that an intelligent and reasonably capable high-school student can repeat it. Okay, well, an extremely smart high-school student.



Gravity is real. And since gravity is real, the Earth does not need a dome to keep the air in. And since the Earth does not need a dome, there's no reason at all to reject the existence of space. And if space exists, there's no reason to doubt that Neil Armstrong and others walked on the moon.

Gravity does not prove the Earth is round. Maybe one of the biggest mistakes we have made as flat-Earthers was to reject gravity just because the globists insisted that it did.

The Earth is flat. Gravity is real. And in the English language, "space" is the word used to refer to the region more than 100 miles above the surface of the Earth, in which there is very little stuff; so little that it's almost a vacuum. Object to the word if you like, but that's the word in this language.

And Neil Armstrong walked on the moon. (Trivia: He flubbed his line: Armstrong upon stepping onto the surface of the moon, said "One small step for man, one giant leap for mankind." What he was supposed to say was "One small step for a man, one giant leap for mankind." He left out the word "a" which changed the whole meaning of the phrase.)

Do you really believe this so called experiment? you have got to be kidding. And you are using it as an argument, right? If I prove its not being true so will you agree the gravity isn't exist and the earth is flat? No. We know you'll not admit anything it and find another lie.
ANNIHILATOR OF JACK'INOZ

ANNIHILATOR OF JOHN TURD DAVIS



Re: Globe Proof #2
« Reply #41 on: May 15, 2019, 08:51:08 AM »
Gravity is real. And since gravity is real, the Earth does not need a dome to keep the air in. And since the Earth does not need a dome, there's no reason at all to reject the existence of space. And if space exists, there's no reason to doubt that Neil Armstrong and others walked on the moon.
I'm kind of blown away that you are not denying the existence of gravity, space, and the moon landing even though you are a flat Earth. If you do believe in gravity, then the closer you get to the outer edges of the flat earth, it would feel like you are climbing up a hill, because you are being pulled to the center of mass. If you were on coordinates 0,0 you wouldn't feel any difference.

Gravity is real, but that does not necessarily mean that Newton's math for it is correct. We observe that everywhere on the surface of the Earth gravity is perpendicular to the surface. "Center of mass" is a useful concept only in the globist picture of the Earth. In the planar picture of the Earth, "center of mass" is not a useful concept. We need different math. Sadly, I'm not a mathematician, and even if I were, I'm not as smart as Newton, to invent a whole new field of math to explain an original problem. But we need a math that shows gravity not as directed toward the "center of mass," but directed perpendicular to the surface.

Note that in the Cavendish experiment, repeated for us on YouTube by that really brilliant young girl, a globist might say that the direction of force is toward the center of mass, but it's also (I would say actually) perpendicular to the surface at the nearest point. Cavendish and our YouTube girl used round masses, but to conclude from this that the Earth must be round is assuming your conclusion.

Re: Globe Proof #2
« Reply #42 on: May 15, 2019, 09:14:01 AM »
Quote
It is true that we object to the theory of gravity in a prejudiced way because it supports the theory of the round world. but when we take into account the general deceptiveness of science, it is more likely that it would be false. So much so that, the masses do not attract each other in nature, but push each other. laboratory experiments confirming gravity have never taken place. this theory is one of the infinite options that can come to our minds. If we consider false science based on false information, not believing in this theory is more logical than believing it.

Actually, laboratory experiments have been done and do show that masses attract each other. And the experiment is simple enough that an intelligent and reasonably capable high-school student can repeat it. Okay, well, an extremely smart high-school student.



Gravity is real. And since gravity is real, the Earth does not need a dome to keep the air in. And since the Earth does not need a dome, there's no reason at all to reject the existence of space. And if space exists, there's no reason to doubt that Neil Armstrong and others walked on the moon.

Gravity does not prove the Earth is round. Maybe one of the biggest mistakes we have made as flat-Earthers was to reject gravity just because the globists insisted that it did.

The Earth is flat. Gravity is real. And in the English language, "space" is the word used to refer to the region more than 100 miles above the surface of the Earth, in which there is very little stuff; so little that it's almost a vacuum. Object to the word if you like, but that's the word in this language.

And Neil Armstrong walked on the moon. (Trivia: He flubbed his line: Armstrong upon stepping onto the surface of the moon, said "One small step for man, one giant leap for mankind." What he was supposed to say was "One small step for a man, one giant leap for mankind." He left out the word "a" which changed the whole meaning of the phrase.)

Do you really believe this so called experiment? you have got to be kidding. And you are using it as an argument, right? If I prove its not being true so will you agree the gravity isn't exist and the earth is flat? No. We know you'll not admit anything it and find another lie.

The experiment is real and it is correct. I do not know why you would call that girl in the YouTube video a liar. She is doing what a thousand other kids have done in high-school physics classes. And if you are good enough at building very delicate equipment, you can do the experiment yourself. And if you are good enough at calculus, you can do the math yourself. Calling her a liar is not a valid argument. It's just name-calling, and I would hope that we are above such childish things.

An experiment that's been done once may be wrong, or may even have been falsified, and can be proven wrong if further attempts at replication fail, as was the case with Pons & Fleischmann and their supposed "cold fusion." The more times an experiment is repeated with the same results, the more certain we can be of it. The Cavendish experiment has been repeated so many times that there is no longer any doubt of it.

We flat-Earthers only discredit ourselves if we deny the truth of well-established facts and go around calling girls liars. Our girl here has none of the characteristics of a liar, and she is repeating an old experiment for the millionth time and showing the same result. The Cavendish experiment clearly demonstrates that gravity is real. There is no reason to believe it is not. And even though it means that there does not have to be a dome or UA, it does not disprove that the Earth is flat. It is consistent with RET, but it is also consistent with FET, and therefore is irrelevant to the argument about the shape of the Earth.

FWIW, I don't believe that scientists and high-school girls are all conspiring to hide the true shape of the Earth for nefarious reasons that nobody has ever explained. I believe they are merely misinterpreting the evidence. If anything, high-school girls would be incapable of keeping so huge and complex a conspiracy secret.

Re: Globe Proof #2
« Reply #43 on: May 15, 2019, 02:53:06 PM »
Gravity is real, but that does not necessarily mean that Newton's math for it is correct. We observe that everywhere on the surface of the Earth gravity is perpendicular to the surface.
Not really.
The simple counterexamples of that taken literally are mountains and cliffs and the like, basically any slope. In this case the direction of gravity is definitely nor perpendicular to the surface. So don't worry, we don't need to focus on making gravity perpendicular to the surface.
It is only a level surface that it is perpendicular to, and that is because a level surface is perpendicular to it.

We have also verified Newton's math on reasonable scales and know limitations with it.

"Center of mass" is a useful concept only in the globist picture of the Earth. In the planar picture of the Earth, "center of mass" is not a useful concept. We need different math.
Only if you want to just force it to work on a FE rather than do it honestly.
We can use the same math by treating the FE as a collection of points.


Cavendish and our YouTube girl used round masses, but to conclude from this that the Earth must be round is assuming your conclusion.
Not in the slightest. It is simply taking the simplest and most honest approach. Sure, it leaves open the possibility for a infinite FE, which is effectively the same as an infinite RE.

I do not know why you would call that girl in the YouTube video a liar.
It is quite simple. It shows he is wrong. He has no rational or even slightly rational counterargument against it, nor any excuses to dismiss it, so he needs to dismiss it as a lie to pretend he is correct.

Re: Globe Proof #2
« Reply #44 on: May 16, 2019, 10:00:56 AM »
Of course gravity is not perpendicular to the side of a mountain. But this is just stating what we already know: Flat Earth does not mean the Earth is perfectly, uniformly flat. There are bumps (i.e., mountains) and gashes (i.e., valleys) and even the sea is lumpy (i.e., waves). So when I say that gravity is perpendicular to the surface, I mean the average surface: the surface we get when we smooth out all the bumps and gashes and lumpiness.

The girl in the YouTube video used round masses because that was the most convenient way to perform the experiment. An unfortunate side-effect of that choice is that it suggests to the casual viewer that the Earth also is round. Wise might actually believe that she is lying, and it saddens me that a fellow FE-er would so malign an obviously brilliant young student, as name-calling can only alienate people. I could not perform such an experiment myself, nor do the math. Rather than alienate her by name calling, I would like to befriend her, because smart people are fun to talk to, and because as a friend she would be more likely to be willing to re-assess the conclusions of the experiment and maybe one day, like Einstein and Newton before him, develop the math needed to correctly interpret the experiment as proof that the Earth is flat rather than round.

I have no doubt in my mind that she is presenting an honest experiment and analysis. Gravity is real, and she has demonstrated that. The next step is to understand why and how gravity supports a flat rather than a round Earth. Perhaps this girl will be the one to discover the Unified Field Theory that unites Relativity with QED, and when she sees that her UFT points to a flat Earth, what a tragedy it would be if she rejected her own discovery merely because so many of us had called her a liar that she took it for granted that we are all jerks and so FET had to be wrong.

I call on all flat-Earthers to stop calling scientists and science students liars, and instead show that we respect them, so that in the future they will be more inclined to develop the real theories explaining the flat Earth. We cannot let the explanations offered in a 19th century book hold us back from adopting more legitimate explanations for the physics of what we know to be the true shape of the Earth.

Re: Globe Proof #2
« Reply #45 on: May 16, 2019, 02:36:58 PM »
Of course gravity is not perpendicular to the side of a mountain.
Which destroys your idea of gravity being perpindicular to the surface.
Instead you want to idealise it to some idealised plane when there is no reason to do so.

If the direction of gravity was based upon the surface, why wouldn't it be based upon the actual surface?

I could not perform such an experiment myself, nor do the math.
Don't doubt yourself so much. While the math is difficult, the experiment is more just tedious with getting rid of sources of error.

Re: Globe Proof #2
« Reply #46 on: May 16, 2019, 04:48:54 PM »
Of course gravity is not perpendicular to the side of a mountain.
Which destroys your idea of gravity being perpindicular to the surface.
Instead you want to idealise it to some idealised plane when there is no reason to do so.

If the direction of gravity was based upon the surface, why wouldn't it be based upon the actual surface?

I could not perform such an experiment myself, nor do the math.
Don't doubt yourself so much. While the math is difficult, the experiment is more just tedious with getting rid of sources of error.

Experimental science requires a steady hand. In high school I got A's in chemistry while my lab partner got C's. He was a very good experimentalist so I got credit for our joint experiments, which basically he did and I merely assisted. But we had to do our analysis as individuals. I was good at math back then (high-school level) but my lab partner was not. Unfair, but it was one indication of many in my life that I lack a steady hand.

The math in the video is way beyond me.

By "surface" I guess I really mean the underlying "essential" surface of the flat Earth. It should be obvious that building a wooden ramp would not tilt the direction of gravity. But thank you for the correction. I probably need to come up with better phrasing for the concept I wish to convey. The Earth is not perfectly flat because of the bumps and gashes and lumps. But underneath it's flat, and if you average out the irregularities it's flat. Gravity is perpendicular to the flatness of the Earth.

*

Greg's Frog

  • 325
  • Administrator
Re: Globe Proof #2
« Reply #47 on: May 16, 2019, 07:57:29 PM »
Gravity is perpendicular to the flatness of the Earth.
If gravity exists on a flat earth, all the planets, stars, celestial bodies will fall to Earth.
Old Name: Unepic Globetard. Changed 5/22/2019
https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=81539.0

Re: Globe Proof #2
« Reply #48 on: May 16, 2019, 09:33:40 PM »
By "surface" I guess I really mean the underlying "essential" surface of the flat Earth. It should be obvious that building a wooden ramp would not tilt the direction of gravity.
Why?
If it is based upon the surface, changing the surface (such as by putting on a ramp or a hill) should change the direction.
Without that it is instead just based upon the mass, at which point it shouldn't have anything to do with the surface.

Re: Globe Proof #2
« Reply #49 on: May 17, 2019, 08:56:16 AM »
Gravity is perpendicular to the flatness of the Earth.
If gravity exists on a flat earth, all the planets, stars, celestial bodies will fall to Earth.

They don't fall to Earth because they are very far away and the Earth is tiny by comparison, and everything else out there has its own gravity as well.

By "surface" I guess I really mean the underlying "essential" surface of the flat Earth. It should be obvious that building a wooden ramp would not tilt the direction of gravity.
Why?
If it is based upon the surface, changing the surface (such as by putting on a ramp or a hill) should change the direction.
Without that it is instead just based upon the mass, at which point it shouldn't have anything to do with the surface.

Gravity clearly is based on mass. Cavendish and the YouTube girl demonstrated that. We just have yet to find the missing piece of the equation that settles its direction, when very near the surface, to the plane of the Earth. The only thing I can say for certain about that math is that I will not be the one to find it, though perhaps the YouTube girl will, if we do not completely alienate her by calling her a liar.

Science is a process that slowly gets closer and closer to the truth. At some point scientists will discover the missing piece of the puzzle that shows the Earth to be flat.

*

Greg's Frog

  • 325
  • Administrator
Re: Globe Proof #2
« Reply #50 on: May 17, 2019, 11:11:09 AM »
Gravity is perpendicular to the flatness of the Earth.
If gravity exists on a flat earth, all the planets, stars, celestial bodies will fall to Earth.

They don't fall to Earth because they are very far away and the Earth is tiny by comparison, and everything else out there has its own gravity as well.
Earth has the most mass out of anything else on the flat earth. Which means it would have the strongest gravity. The stars are maybe only ~10,000 miles away (surely the dome isn't THAT large) so it would most definitely fall to Earth.

Quick question: What do you think the depth of the flat earth is? I'm asking this because there is an equation to use to calculate the mass of earth. Since we already know rate of acceleration (9.8m/s^2), the gravitational constant (6.673 x 10^-11), all we need is the radius (in this case it would be how close to the center of mass). Once we find the mass, we can calculate the force between the two objects (Earth and a celestial body). That being said, there would have to be a stronger force that can keep the celestial bodies circling above Earth if it can counteract gravity and not fall to the Earth.

Gravity is impossible on a flat earth.
Old Name: Unepic Globetard. Changed 5/22/2019
https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=81539.0

Re: Globe Proof #2
« Reply #51 on: May 17, 2019, 02:25:26 PM »
Gravity is perpendicular to the flatness of the Earth.
If gravity exists on a flat earth, all the planets, stars, celestial bodies will fall to Earth.

Science is a process that slowly gets closer and closer to the truth. At some point scientists will discover the missing piece of the puzzle that shows the Earth to be flat.

How overly complicated is it to determine the earth is flat?

Re: Globe Proof #2
« Reply #52 on: May 17, 2019, 04:05:26 PM »
They don't fall to Earth because they are very far away and the Earth is tiny by comparison, and everything else out there has its own gravity as well.
But the current FE model needs them to be quite small compared to Earth and quite close.
But that is a different argument to gravity being directed towards the surface.

Gravity clearly is based on mass. Cavendish and the YouTube girl demonstrated that.
Which means it should be based upon the direction to that mass, not the orientation of the surface.
Again, if it was based upon the surface you should fall into the side of a cliff rather than being able to stand beside it just fine.

There is no missing piece.

Science is a process that slowly gets closer and closer to the truth. At some point scientists will discover the missing piece of the puzzle that shows the Earth to be flat.
No it wont. Thousands of years ago it discovered the missing piece that shows it isn't flat. FEism goes directly against science to discard that progress.

Re: Globe Proof #2
« Reply #53 on: May 17, 2019, 04:50:29 PM »
Gravity is perpendicular to the flatness of the Earth.
If gravity exists on a flat earth, all the planets, stars, celestial bodies will fall to Earth.

They don't fall to Earth because they are very far away and the Earth is tiny by comparison, and everything else out there has its own gravity as well.
Earth has the most mass out of anything else on the flat earth. Which means it would have the strongest gravity. The stars are maybe only ~10,000 miles away (surely the dome isn't THAT large) so it would most definitely fall to Earth.

Quick question: What do you think the depth of the flat earth is? I'm asking this because there is an equation to use to calculate the mass of earth. Since we already know rate of acceleration (9.8m/s^2), the gravitational constant (6.673 x 10^-11), all we need is the radius (in this case it would be how close to the center of mass). Once we find the mass, we can calculate the force between the two objects (Earth and a celestial body). That being said, there would have to be a stronger force that can keep the celestial bodies circling above Earth if it can counteract gravity and not fall to the Earth.

Gravity is impossible on a flat earth.

Sure, Earth has the most mass of anything ON the Earth, but the stars and other planets are not on the Earth. They are way out in space. The nearest star is about 26,455,500,000,000 miles away. The farthest galaxy is very, very far away. About 849,188,888,888,888,888,888 miles. There is no dome.

I don't know how thick the Earth is.

Gravity must be possible because we observe it, and because experiments demonstrate it.

Gravity is perpendicular to the flatness of the Earth.
If gravity exists on a flat earth, all the planets, stars, celestial bodies will fall to Earth.

Science is a process that slowly gets closer and closer to the truth. At some point scientists will discover the missing piece of the puzzle that shows the Earth to be flat.

How overly complicated is it to determine the earth is flat?

The difficulty is that there are some indications that seem to suggest a round Earth. The ancient Greeks thought so and our resident globists here on FES can cite such indications all day long. They are not lying, merely confused. And the fact that so many people are taken in by these misleading indications makes it clear that determining that the Earth is flat is not a trivial matter.

They don't fall to Earth because they are very far away and the Earth is tiny by comparison, and everything else out there has its own gravity as well.
But the current FE model needs them to be quite small compared to Earth and quite close.

There is no "current FE model." There are very many FE models, as you can see from all the different ideas of FE expressed right here on FES. Right on this thread several FE-ers believe there is a dome, which is clearly impossible. Some people believe there's an ice wall, some don't. Some believe the Earth is infinitely wide and/or infinitely thick, some don't. I seem to be in a minority in believing in gravity.

Flat-Earth is a name for a very large number of theories all of which have one thing, and sometimes only one thing, in common: that is, that the Earth is approximately flat rather than approximately spherical. The FET that I subscribe to acknowledges that the stars are huge and very far away, and that some of the planets are far larger than the Earth, and some are smaller, but still very big if we were to see them up close.

*

Greg's Frog

  • 325
  • Administrator
Re: Globe Proof #2
« Reply #54 on: May 17, 2019, 05:14:11 PM »
Gravity is perpendicular to the flatness of the Earth.
If gravity exists on a flat earth, all the planets, stars, celestial bodies will fall to Earth.

They don't fall to Earth because they are very far away and the Earth is tiny by comparison, and everything else out there has its own gravity as well.
Earth has the most mass out of anything else on the flat earth. Which means it would have the strongest gravity. The stars are maybe only ~10,000 miles away (surely the dome isn't THAT large) so it would most definitely fall to Earth.

Quick question: What do you think the depth of the flat earth is? I'm asking this because there is an equation to use to calculate the mass of earth. Since we already know rate of acceleration (9.8m/s^2), the gravitational constant (6.673 x 10^-11), all we need is the radius (in this case it would be how close to the center of mass). Once we find the mass, we can calculate the force between the two objects (Earth and a celestial body). That being said, there would have to be a stronger force that can keep the celestial bodies circling above Earth if it can counteract gravity and not fall to the Earth.

Gravity is impossible on a flat earth.

Sure, Earth has the most mass of anything ON the Earth, but the stars and other planets are not on the Earth. They are way out in space. The nearest star is about 26,455,500,000,000 miles away. The farthest galaxy is very, very far away. About 849,188,888,888,888,888,888 miles. There is no dome.

I don't know how thick the Earth is.

Gravity must be possible because we observe it, and because experiments demonstrate it.
With no dome, the oceans would fall out. If you believe gravity is possible on a flat earth, then we would be spaghettified by the sun. The sun would require extreme pressures to create energy in a nuclear fusion process, which requires gravity. Since this sun is local, we would be pulled to the sun, as well as the moon.
Old Name: Unepic Globetard. Changed 5/22/2019
https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=81539.0

*

boydster

  • Illegal Alien
  • Planar Moderator
  • 11280
  • May I have 55 words with you?
Re: Globe Proof #2
« Reply #55 on: May 17, 2019, 05:21:08 PM »
The sun is fundamentally different in the disc-world models with or without a dome. It's not a giant fusion reactor ball, and it wouldn't have nearly the same gravitational pull.
Let me explain this in a way you can understand. What you just wrote sounds exactly like something that a gay rights Portuguese Samurai would write.

*

rabinoz

  • 19895
  • Real Earth Believer
Re: Globe Proof #2
« Reply #56 on: May 17, 2019, 06:00:49 PM »
The sun is fundamentally different in the disc-world models with or without a dome. It's not a giant fusion reactor ball, and it wouldn't have nearly the same gravitational pull.
So would the small sun and moon have enough gravitational pull to cause the tides, as Jane claims.

*

boydster

  • Illegal Alien
  • Planar Moderator
  • 11280
  • May I have 55 words with you?
Re: Globe Proof #2
« Reply #57 on: May 17, 2019, 07:11:34 PM »
The sun is fundamentally different in the disc-world models with or without a dome. It's not a giant fusion reactor ball, and it wouldn't have nearly the same gravitational pull.
So would the small sun and moon have enough gravitational pull to cause the tides, as Jane claims.
Maybe! But I don't know. It's not something I would claim to be well-versed in.
Let me explain this in a way you can understand. What you just wrote sounds exactly like something that a gay rights Portuguese Samurai would write.

*

Greg's Frog

  • 325
  • Administrator
Re: Globe Proof #2
« Reply #58 on: May 17, 2019, 08:35:56 PM »
The sun is fundamentally different in the disc-world models with or without a dome. It's not a giant fusion reactor ball, and it wouldn't have nearly the same gravitational pull.
This is sort of a contradiction. According to "Celestial Gravitation" it causes a very insignificant extra gravitational acceleration at the poles to cause 9.82m/s^2 rather than 9.78m/s^2 at the equator. Yet, it is supposed to cause tides, even though that would require a stronger gravitational force.

[Sun] is not a giant fusion reactor ball How would the Sun generate energy then? The spectrum of the Sun matches the spectrum of elements. Though, this is getting off topic so I will have to talk about it in another thread.
Old Name: Unepic Globetard. Changed 5/22/2019
https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=81539.0

*

Macarios

  • 1201
Re: Globe Proof #2
« Reply #59 on: May 17, 2019, 09:24:42 PM »
wiki is forbid in our country but...

Sorry to hear that.
I would recommend Tor Browser, free to use and free to download from their site.
If your country blocks their site too, I uploaded it on Zippy Share for you, and for other friends in restricted countries:

TorBrowser.rar

If Zippy Share is also blocked, then try to find someone to email it to you.
The archive is 72 MB long and might require to be split into smaller chunks.

Good luck.

EDIT: I am careful about viruses, I think I don't have them, but still scan the archive, just in case...
« Last Edit: May 17, 2019, 09:26:56 PM by Macarios »
I don't have to fight about anything.
These things are not about me.
When one points facts out, they speak for themselves.
The main goal in all that is simplicity.