Pics of Another Sunrise Impossible on Flat Earth

Sorry to disappoint. I'm not being a a troll.

Then why do you keep spouting such dishonest garbage which is trivially refuted?
Why do you keep resorting to such pathetic strawmen?
When you have your garbage refuted, why do you so often just flee or deflect, not even attempting to defend your BS?

You see, there's sonething you should know about that geometry.

You mean there is another blatant lie you will make to pretend the RE has problems?

In math, you could determine the length of sides of a triangle when at least two sides are known. When two sides are unknown, the marh becomes a guess for anything not a perfect 3, 4, 5 triangle. Oh you can try to solve but there is a margin for error. If all three are misding, forget it!

Pure garbage.
If you just have the length of 2 sides of a triangle, the triangle is unconstrained. This means there is a wide range of possible lengths for the third side.
If you understood basic geometry you would likely know of various tests to see if 2 triangles are congruent.
These tests rely upon various facts about triangles which give ways to uniquely identify a triangle.
i.e. if you have the requirements for a congruence tests, there is a single triangle it can be, and from that information you can work out all unknown side lengths and angles.
The simplest test is Side-Side-Side (or SSS). This is because if you have the length of all 3 sides, then there is only 1 possible triangle.
Other tests are:
SAS
ASA
AAS
RHS

And in the case of SSA, there are 2 possible triangles. (The difference between SAS and SSA is that in SAS the angle is between the 2 known sides, while in SSA it is not. In the special case of a right angle, then it is a single solution, as RHS.)

Notice that these typically use angles. Only the SSS does not.
This means you can use angles to help determine side lengths.
If you know a single length, and you know 2 angles, then you have a unique triangle and can determine the lengths of the other 2 sides.

There is also nothing really special about the 3, 4, 5 triangle.
Knowing that it is a 3, 4, 5 triangle, and knowing a side length, will be equivalent to one of the other tests.

But more importantly, you don't need to directly measure the length to be able to use it. You can calculate it from other measurements. Once you do that, you then have a known side.
That means we don't need to directly measure the distance from Earth to the sun to be able to calculate it.

So you are basically wrong in almost every conceivable way.

So right after spouting a load of dishonest, delusional BS; having it entirely refuted, you then entirely ignore the refutation to spout even more BS.

All to avoid the simple issue of a sunrise you can't explain.

You're filling in blanks.

No, people are calculating based upon observations to solve a simple math problem.

Stop lying to yourself and to us.

Follow your own advice.

Quote from: bulmabriefs144 on May 22, 2023, 11:58:16 PM

Sorry to disappoint. I'm not being a a troll.

Then why do you keep spouting such dishonest garbage which is trivially refuted?
Why do you keep resorting to such pathetic strawmen?
When you have your garbage refuted, why do you so often just flee or deflect, not even attempting to defend your BS?

Quote from: bulmabriefs144 on May 22, 2023, 11:58:16 PM

You see, there's sonething you should know about that geometry.

You mean there is another blatant lie you will make to pretend the RE has problems?

Quote from: bulmabriefs144 on May 22, 2023, 11:58:16 PM

In math, you could determine the length of sides of a triangle when at least two sides are known. When two sides are unknown, the marh becomes a guess for anything not a perfect 3, 4, 5 triangle. Oh you can try to solve but there is a margin for error. If all three are misding, forget it!

Pure garbage.
If you just have the length of 2 sides of a triangle, the triangle is unconstrained. This means there is a wide range of possible lengths for the third side.
If you understood basic geometry you would likely know of various tests to see if 2 triangles are congruent.
These tests rely upon various facts about triangles which give ways to uniquely identify a triangle.
i.e. if you have the requirements for a congruence tests, there is a single triangle it can be, and from that information you can work out all unknown side lengths and angles.
The simplest test is Side-Side-Side (or SSS). This is because if you have the length of all 3 sides, then there is only 1 possible triangle.
Other tests are:
SAS
ASA
AAS
RHS

And in the case of SSA, there are 2 possible triangles. (The difference between SAS and SSA is that in SAS the angle is between the 2 known sides, while in SSA it is not. In the special case of a right angle, then it is a single solution, as RHS.)

Notice that these typically use angles. Only the SSS does not.
This means you can use angles to help determine side lengths.
If you know a single length, and you know 2 angles, then you have a unique triangle and can determine the lengths of the other 2 sides.

There is also nothing really special about the 3, 4, 5 triangle.
Knowing that it is a 3, 4, 5 triangle, and knowing a side length, will be equivalent to one of the other tests.

But more importantly, you don't need to directly measure the length to be able to use it. You can calculate it from other measurements. Once you do that, you then have a known side.
That means we don't need to directly measure the distance from Earth to the sun to be able to calculate it.

So you are basically wrong in almost every conceivable way.

So right after spouting a load of dishonest, delusional BS; having it entirely refuted, you then entirely ignore the refutation to spout even more BS.

All to avoid the simple issue of a sunrise you can't explain.

Quote from: bulmabriefs144 on May 22, 2023, 11:58:16 PM

You're filling in blanks.

No, people are calculating based upon observations to solve a simple math problem.

Quote from: bulmabriefs144 on May 22, 2023, 11:58:16 PM

Stop lying to yourself and to us.

Follow your own advice.

SSS and the others can only work if one of the sides can definitely be known. You have closer to two sides unknown and the third based on false information. In other words that triangle is inherently impossible to give you any real information.

Maybe it all sounds dishonest to you because you've been conditioned since birth not to question your overlords.
1. We're gonna dress Jack Black in masculine colors. He's not gonna question ever whether he actually wanted to be a girl.


2. We'll also put him in a carefully constructed prison where he never encounters any Christians or anyone who challenges his RE thinking. Not until he's totally convinced, anyway.
3. Start him off playing with balls, and keep him away from frisbees or vinyl records. Then get him to repeatedly look at a spinning ball in kindergarten until that image fixes in his brain.
4. When he starts to be the age where he might ask why questions tell him that science has all the answers and that one day scientists will even make a vaccine for death (which uhhh won't have any of the nasty side effects that other vaccines are prone to). Also show him lots of pictures from NASA and never teach him about the treachery of images.

5. Above all, don't ever let him listen to bulmabriefs144 until he is fully grown, and totally indoctrinated.

Yup they succeeded.

Sorry to disappoint. I'm not being a a troll.

You see, there's sonething you should know about that geometry.

In math, you could determine the length of sides of a triangle when at least two sides are known. When two sides are unknown, the marh becomes a guess for anything not a perfect 3, 4, 5 triangle. Oh you can try to solve but there is a margin for error. If all three are misding, forget it! It would be similar to a fill in the blank English sentence where too many blanks were present. We don't know the depth to Earth center because we haven't actually visited there (the heat and pressure will kill us). You don't know the distance to the poles is accurate or that you even have a south pole. We don't know the distance to the sun, as we have never flown to the sun. You're filling in blanks. You're being told measurements by other people, and you solve the math problem based on that. And if you think a radar's reading is infallible, trust me, I have personally coded math for computers. It's entirely possible to create a logic error. Accurate measurements? No, there are variables and constants that are coded in by programmers. Constants in particular are problematic because they are a hard-coded assumption of the programmer. If I the programmer decide that Venus has 1.59867% oxygen, the readings will always use that for assumptions of Venus. My high school math teacher used to say "Assuming makes an ass out of you and me." She also apparently sang the Chiquita banana song on occasion.But she was right. You can't make math out of unexplored horizontal and vertical dimensions and expect accurate readings.

Stop lying to yourself and to us.

You haven't been to the sun, you only can say its distance from conjecture about the size of the Earth and what other people have told you about the length of ayear. But a year's length is arbitrary. Some countries or religions even have different week lengths (as few as 4 days or as many as 13), to sat nothing of the year length. We like to pretend that years are standardized but actually some calendars have leap weeks, some have as few days as 210.

Why do you think some years have unseasonably early or later spring? It's because our systems were made up! It's all crap.

What does that have to do with the fact of posting pictures of sunrises that would be impossible on a flat earth?


Not a troll you say?  You change subjects and move goal posts like one?


The fact slant range is a thing?

The fact equatorial mounts for telescope would be useless on a flat earth and are highly effective in real life.

You haven’t answered what world’s navy has a tactical advantage because they treat the world as flat?

SSS and the others can only work if one of the sides can definitely be known.

All rely upon a side actually being known.
And guess, what? We have that.

Maybe it all sounds dishonest to you because you've been conditioned since birth not to question your overlords.

Or, maybe it sounds dishonest because you are spouting delusional BS which is contradicted by basic math and basic observations?

And now you run to another pure fantasy of yours because you simple can't handle reality.

Yup they succeeded.

Your are just demonstrating how pathetic your own position is.
You can't deal with people objecting to your delusional BS, so you need to make up excuses about them, inventing a pure fantasy to explain why they recognise the truth and reject your delusional BS.

Yet again, you have your BS refuted entirely, and you just ignore it and go on to spout more delusional BS.
You don't even attempt to defend the BS you spouted before.
Truly pathetic.

Again, how does the sun cast light upwards onto an object below it?

Quote from: bulmabriefs144 on May 22, 2023, 11:58:16 PM

Sorry to disappoint. I'm not being a a troll.

You see, there's sonething you should know about that geometry.

In math, you could determine the length of sides of a triangle when at least two sides are known. When two sides are unknown, the marh becomes a guess for anything not a perfect 3, 4, 5 triangle. Oh you can try to solve but there is a margin for error. If all three are misding, forget it! It would be similar to a fill in the blank English sentence where too many blanks were present. We don't know the depth to Earth center because we haven't actually visited there (the heat and pressure will kill us). You don't know the distance to the poles is accurate or that you even have a south pole. We don't know the distance to the sun, as we have never flown to the sun. You're filling in blanks. You're being told measurements by other people, and you solve the math problem based on that. And if you think a radar's reading is infallible, trust me, I have personally coded math for computers. It's entirely possible to create a logic error. Accurate measurements? No, there are variables and constants that are coded in by programmers. Constants in particular are problematic because they are a hard-coded assumption of the programmer. If I the programmer decide that Venus has 1.59867% oxygen, the readings will always use that for assumptions of Venus. My high school math teacher used to say "Assuming makes an ass out of you and me." She also apparently sang the Chiquita banana song on occasion.But she was right. You can't make math out of unexplored horizontal and vertical dimensions and expect accurate readings.

Stop lying to yourself and to us.

You haven't been to the sun, you only can say its distance from conjecture about the size of the Earth and what other people have told you about the length of ayear. But a year's length is arbitrary. Some countries or religions even have different week lengths (as few as 4 days or as many as 13), to sat nothing of the year length. We like to pretend that years are standardized but actually some calendars have leap weeks, some have as few days as 210.

Why do you think some years have unseasonably early or later spring? It's because our systems were made up! It's all crap.

What does that have to do with the fact of posting pictures of sunrises that would be impossible on a flat earth?

To start with, the assumption that these are impossible on a flat Earth. Like other assumptions you've made over the years.

Not a troll you say?  You change subjects and move goal posts like one?

The only people I've seen move goalposts are you. I give them proof they ask for, they tell me that's not proof and then go on to say they've "refuted" something. Gee, that must have been an event! Why didn't I see it?

As for changing the subject, I happen to be ADD. When people are talking about the same boring thing and haven't learned anything new, my mind gets bored.

The fact slant range is a thing?

The fact equatorial mounts for telescope would be useless on a flat earth and are highly effective in real life.

Highly effective, you say? So yet again, like adjusting bridges and flight patterns, you have some absurd mount that helps to fix a problem that doesn't exist.

You haven’t answered what world’s navy has a tactical advantage because they treat the world as flat?

Why would they have a tactical advantage? You still move through the Earth the same way. You either cut across latitude and longitude or you follow it.

Meanwhile... it's meme time.







Slant range is a funny way you have used to justify curvature, when in fact it was exactly what I've been explaining and what the guy in the movie about why the sun doesn't change size when setting mentioned.



Because I don't have a term for that thing, suddenly I'm ignored but when you say the term, suddenly it's not only valid but proof of RE.

Same phenomenon. You just assigned a curve in this equation, when the actual reason the angle changes is that you are closer or farther. Just as you see the top of a tree at 90° while being a tree hugger, 70° to 80° while socially distancing because we're just friends, and like 45° when you're just not that into that tree anymore. Never was the ground at all curved. You just moved closer or farther.

So forgive me if I think that creating a mount for telescopes near the equator is anything but solving a problem based on your own assumptions.

To start with, the assumption that these are impossible on a flat Earth. Like other assumptions you've made over the years.

You mean the conclusion, based upon simple geometry.

The only people I've seen move goalposts are you. I give them proof they ask for, they tell me that's not proof and then go on to say they've "refuted" something.

There you go projecting again.
You do this all the time.
Sometime you even prime yourself to move the goalposts before we can respond.

you have some absurd mount that helps to fix a problem that doesn't exist.

There is nothing absurd about it, and it isn't a problem to fix for the RE.
It is simply the fact that the round Earth rotates about its axis; and an equatorial mount allows you to cancel out that rotation.

Why would they have a tactical advantage?

Because Earth being flat or round would result in very different results for navies, which traverse the ocean.
If your garbage was true, navies that think Earth is round would be travelling much longer distances, taking much longer to reach a destination.

Meanwhile... it's meme time.

Yes, because you have no rational argument, nor can you address the subject. Instead you can just spam loads of BS.
Yet again you are spouting pathetic lies to pretend your delusional garbage is true; all while fleeing from a simple issue you can't address, how the sun casts light upwards on an object below it.

The "dip" planes need to do is insignificant and would naturally be corrected for by maintaining stable flight.
Comets do not have a tail that follows them. Instead the solar wind ablates the outer shell of the comet and pushes it away from the sun.
The SHIP is small enough to be hidden by the curve. But the RE is quite large and needs to be seen from a great distance. But that photo looks like the countless ones I have seen where they use a fish eye lens, with Earth below the centre, to have it appear flat.

Slant range is a funny way you have used to justify curvature, when in fact it was exactly what I've been explaining and what the guy in the movie about why the sun doesn't change size when setting mentioned.

Slant range is not a term. If you want to use it, you need to explain what you mean. As for the video, you mean another FE liar, blatantly lying about aspects of reality to pretend the FE garbage can work, with a common tactic being to ignore perspective for the sun, while relying upon it.

Same phenomenon. You just assigned a curve in this equation, when the actual reason the angle changes is that you are closer or farther.

No, it isn't.
If it was due to distance, the apparent size would change. Just like if you were to stand up against a tree, it would take up your entire FOV, and as you move away it appears to shrink.

Changing distance changes the apparent size.
As the sun and moon do not have the apparent size change significantly over the course of a day, that means the distance has not changed significantly over the course of a day. And that means it isn't appearing to drop down due to a change in distance, instead its relative position must have changed.


Now care to stop with all the pathetic deflection and tell us how the light magically shines upwards to illuminate an object from below even though it is above?

You're assuming the the distance is changing. Actually watch the video.

Same altitude moving across means it never gets closer or farther. Especially since it travels i a horizontal arc around us (try not to confused this with the imaginary vertical arc you get from curvature.

It doesn't get closer when it moves past because at all times it is equidistant. Lateral motion never gets closer or farther. But it does reach an angle where you cannot see it.

"watch the video?"

ya
i time stamped it
~15min

his sun gets lower but the clouds don't

BOTH would.

the video is wrong.
be less wrong.










also
seein ght curve on a beach vs seing the curve from high altitude?
you're talking about two different axis of the ball.

one is straight forward toward infinity where the curve is down away from you.
the second is periferally left-rgiht, limited by your eyeballs field of view to the left-right.
so... nice try!

You're assuming the the distance is changing.

Quite the opposite. YOU are claiming the distance is changing.
Conversely, I say the distance remains basically the same.

With the distance remaining basically the same, that means the direction to it is based upon its relative motion.
So as it appears to go down and below Earth, it must actually be doing that and could not possibly remain above a flat Earth.

Same altitude moving across means it never gets closer or farther. Especially since it travels i a horizontal arc around us (try not to confused this with the imaginary vertical arc you get from curvature.

Again, this only applies at the poles, where it appears at the same angle of elevation and appears to circle you.
For the angle of elevation to change, as it is observed to pretty much everywhere, you either need it to get further away and appear smaller with perspective making it appear lower; or you need it to move lower.

This means you need a vertical component to your arc.

"watch the video?"

ya
i time stamped it
~15min

his sun gets lower but the clouds don't

BOTH would.

That's called nitpicking a point because you don't want to accept the whole. As for the clouds, they are on a different level, moving out of sync with the sun. I have gotten clouds to set, largely by driving in a car. But the sky is not moving constantly as your RE delusion would have you believe. In fact, it is relatively still (hmmmmm). The clouds do not set, but the sun does, almost as though the Earth is flat, and the sun is constantly moving yet the sky is not (something that wouldn't be the case in a RE). In other words, you quit watching at 15 minutes because you couldn't accept where the facts led.

That we don't talk about the cloud set, and in fact clouds aren't even an everyday occurrence means the two aren't moving at the same rate, and in fact the clouds are not obligated to go in the same direction, which they would be if there was actual rotation of the Earth. Clouds instead move any way the wind blows (nothing really matters). And with that, we kick off a video montage.



so... nice try!

Yup, nice try.

Meanwhile, you're interested, here are clouds moving straight while the sun travels in an arc. Proving that the sun an clouds are not moving the same way.



They seem to move in a more or less consistent direction over the course of the day, but that direction depends on the day and location, rather than having clouds always move the same way every day (if they did that, we would have the same weather all the time).



Same beach, clouds look to be going a different direction based on where you're standing. Versus sun in a fixed point in the sky, moving in an arc. You can clearly see that sky is not in the process of setting, as the two movements are separate. Now for storms.




As you can see, the clouds are not all moving in the same path, along the sky. They are mixing with each other, which implies being pushed in several directions thanks to wind and their own mass. We have an Earth that produces actual weather, instead of just clouds moving around with the sun (as it would if we had an Earth that rotated, instead of wind that moves as it will). Earth doesn't rotate, or these clouds would move the same way all the time. But this last video especially shows that in the exact same location, even over the course of one day, a storm can make the sky blow in all kinds of ways.

Earth doesn't rotate, or these clouds would move the same way all the time.

Why would a round earth prevent low pressure cells and high pressure cells, the way clouds swirl around these areas of high and low pressure, and how clouds travel between high pressure and low pressure cells / areas. 

Note added.  Or turbulence from cold air sinking while hot air is trying to rise.

Or funnel clouds.

Or the reality typhoons and tropical storms turn opposite directions between the northern and southern hemispheres.  That is a property of spherical earth. 

That's called nitpicking a point

No, that is called demonstrating the dishonest of the video.

I have gotten clouds to set ... The clouds do not set

Great dishonesty you have there.

almost as though the Earth is flat

If Earth was flat, the sun wouldn't set at all.
And as stated repeatedly, if you want the sun to change distance to appear to set, it needs to change appear to shrink as well.

and the sun is constantly moving yet the sky is not (something that wouldn't be the case in a RE).

Why?
Again, you are just asserting whatever dishonest, delusional BS you need to pretend your garbage works and reality doesn't.

In other words, you quit watching at 15 minutes because you couldn't accept where the facts led.

Considering how often you repeatedly lie, and how most FE videos are just full of lies, and you don't even bothering summarising the argument here, why should we waste our time with the video?

the clouds are not obligated to go in the same direction, which they would be if there was actual rotation of the Earth

Why?
Stop just asserting delusional BS.
Try explaining it.
That would only be the case if the clouds weren't, for the most part, moving with Earth.

That is like claiming the parts on a merry go round should all appear to move in the same direction opposite the rotation of the merry go round for someone standing on the merry go round.
It is just dishonest BS spouted to pretend there is a problem for the RE.

And all this dishonest BS about clouds, so you can avoid the actual issues with the video and with your nonsense.

Again, it really is quite simple:
There are 2 options for why the sun appears to get lower:
1 - Its position relative to the observer has become lower, with the sun travelling in an arc with at least some vertical component - Just like you would expect for the RE - while remaining roughly the same distance away so its angular size remains roughly constant.
2 - It is remaining at the same height, but is over a position further away with the increase in distance causing it to appear lower - Like you would expect for the FE garbage - but this changes the distance to it, so it will appear smaller.

We observe the sun remaining the same size. This rules out option 2.
So the only reason for it to appear to go down, is if relative to the observer, it is going down.
That means there must be a vertical component to its direction, and when set it is below Earth for the observer. Because it is still above Earth for another observer, that means Earth must be round.

And again, the actual topic of this thread is how the sun manages to illuminate an object from below when it is above. Something you are yet to answer honestly.

Why would a round earth prevent low pressure cells and high pressure cells, the way clouds swirl around these areas of high and low pressure, and how clouds travel between high pressure and low pressure cells / areas.

This should be a no duh question.

Earth is spinning 1000 mph. But of course, you get to fiddle with those numbers and tell me that somehow that equates to 1 rotation a day, and that this is totally gentle, even though it would be a constant push of 1000 mph / 60 = 16.666 mi/m. You're doing funny math somewhere, because as far as I see it, clouds should be getting the effects of gravity, clouds should also be getting the effects of rotation, which constantly should push clouds around in a single direction.

Like the very worst limousine liberals, the rules apply only when it's convenient to you.

Make the enemy live up to their own book of rules.

Saul Alinsky as the original leftist globalist who advocated for Marxist revolution. So let's use his rulebook against leftist globalists. Globalists and leftists must explain how their own rulebook works.
You have said that the Earth is constantly rotating. So you tell me, how is it that 1000 mph doesn't affect clouds, droplets of water that by your laws of gravity, massive objects are affecting less massive ones. But instead of wind or turbulence (which I'm going to tell you is subject to God, and therefore impossible for you to use as an explanation), you therefore must explain how any of this works with just rotation of Earth. It should be pushing clouds the same way and same speed every day, resulting in either no weather or the same weather.

You must live up to the rules you have set up.

You can kill them with this, for they can no more obey their own rules than the Christian church can live up to Christianity.

Sorry Saul, but a careful reading of Jesus reveals that he died already for the rules. We don't have to live by those rules anymore. Which is good cuz I kinda like pork. Christianity was established to set people free (priests and fundies get in the way), secularism was set up for this purpose...

Now it was Nimrod who excited them to such an affront and contempt of God. He was the grandson of Ham, the son of Noah, a bold man, and of great strength of hand. He persuaded them not to ascribe it to God, as if it were through his means they were happy, but to believe that it was their own courage which procured that happiness. He also gradually changed the government into tyranny, seeing no other way of turning men from the fear of God, but to bring them into a constant dependence on his power.

Governments everywhere use their hatred of God to turn men from fear of him by creating tyranny. Sorry, but I will take Saul's advice against him and you, and make you globalists follow your own rules until you repent of trying to impose rules on others when you think yourself above the same. Until you repent of making rules, you must explain how these rules don't cause your theory to crumble straight under you.

As for me, I'm tired of your rules, so I'm not gonna play.
To set man free from rules is my goal. So only those who want to rule others must obey rules. So no, Jack and Data, I don't have to answer your questions, because you have weaseled out of mine.

This should be a no duh question.

Earth is spinning 1000 mph. .

Ok?  When you ride in a car sitting there comfortably with the car going 80 mph and not accelerating, are you moving relative to the car?

 While the car is moving forward with you in the front seat, are you unable to hand a drink to a person in the back seat? 


You are in a bus with the bus moving forward.  Are you unable to walk to the back of the bus while the bus is moving?  Then unable to move right or left perpendicular to the bus’s travel to sit down? 


You are on a passenger jet flying a steady 350 mph.  Are you unable to walk to the back of the jet in the opposite direction of the jet’s travel?  Are you then unable to turn right and move perpendicular to the jets travel to enter the bathroom?  Are you unable to flush the toilet?  Does the water stop moving in the pipes?  The hydraulics stop working?  Does the heating and AC units no longer circulate air?  Does hot air stop rising?  Cold air stop sinking? 

This should be a no duh question.

Speaking of.  Did you ever answer what world’s navy has a tactical advantage because they treat the earth as flat? 

This is what the topic of the thread was supposed to be? 

The last photo was at 7:47 am.

The actual sunrise time was 8:00 am.

The brightest spot in each photo was a shaft of light.  Not the actual sun as it was still below the horizon.

Tha shaft of light radiating up from the sun below the horizon was seen in real time.  It’s not from my lens nor cellphone case. 

From the way the clouds are illuminated bottom up.  To the way the lower clouds cast shadows upward.  Just don’t get how a sunrise as seen is a product of FE.  It shows the reality of spherical earth.

This should be a no duh question.

You mean you would like to ridicule the RE model to pretend it should be obvious; while in reality your claims are obviously wrong.

Earth is spinning 1000 mph. But of course, you get to fiddle with those numbers and tell me that somehow that equates to 1 rotation a day, and that this is totally gentle, even though it would be a constant push of 1000 mph / 60 = 16.666 mi/m.

You mean you take the ~ 1 revolution per day rotation, and then fiddle with the numbers to pretend it is some insane speed. And then entirely ignore how motion works to pretend it should be something significant due to that speed.

It is not a constant push.

Again, in a plane, cruising at roughly 1000 km/hr, as long there isn't turbulence, feels just like sitting at a desk.
You DO NOT feel speed.

because as far as I see it

Unless you can explain why, "as far as you see it" is entirely useless.
That is just a way for you to assert whatever delusional BS you want, without even attempting to justify it.
So can you explain why? Without entirely ignoring the laws of motion?

Do you think if you throw a ball up in the air in a plane that it should basically instantly smash out the back of the plane?

So you tell me, how is it that 1000 mph doesn't affect clouds

First you need to explain just what it should be doing, including with a justification.

droplets of water that by your laws of gravity

So you have never seen rain?

which I'm going to tell you is subject to God, and therefore impossible for you to use as an explanation

And I'm going to tell you that is a load of crap, and you can't your imaginary fiend as an explanation.

The wind still exists on a RE.
You trying to boldly proclaim we can't use parts of reality just further demonstrates your dishoensty.

It should be pushing clouds the same way and same speed every day

Why?

Sorry Saul, but a careful reading of Jesus reveals that he died already for the rules. We don't have to live by those rules anymore.

So you are free to go and rape and murder?
Just where did the evil POS you worship say the rules no longer apply and you are free to do as you please?

Christianity was established to set people free

Which is why it works much better with Jesus being Satan or working with Satan, to save humanity from the evil POS God.
But again, this isn't about your imaginary fiend.
It is about how you can't explain the sunrise.

As for me, I'm tired of your rules, so I'm not gonna play.

Then leave.
Otherwise, I will keep calling out your dishonest BS.

Now again, how does the sun illuminate an object from below, when it is above it?

How does the sun appear lower, while remaining roughly the same distance away, without any relative vertical motion?

Quote from: bulmabriefs144 on May 27, 2023, 06:43:34 AM

This should be a no duh question.

Speaking of.  Did you ever answer what world’s navy has a tactical advantage because they treat the earth as flat?

It must be hard to remember things when you go around ignoring what doesn't fit your worldview. No wonder I have to repeat things.

Yes, I answered. "Why would there be a tactical advantage?" Seriously why? You get most tactical advantage from slopes and being either behind a hill (concealment) or range (length of arc for shots). You yourself showed me a picture of a battleship and that they supposedly adjust an arc to weapons to make them go farther because curvature.

Actually it's because our weapons suck. Arrows only travel a few hundred yards. Bullets for all the claims of their power (sounds like male posturing to me) don't tend to hit people miles from battle. Objects have mass, and as they lose momentum, that mass takes over. About the only decent weapon we have is a guided missile (land/air) and torpedo (water) Even so, most of what the US seems to use are planes with bombs, rather than a guided shot that could theoretically hit a bird or plane instead if guidance isn't 100%.

The video thinks the Earth is a globe, but you can clearly see otherwise from the missile trajectory.

So there is no tactical advantage of the Earth being flat. Well, I suppose I could rephrase that. Because there is no curvature, guided missiles have one less thing to worry about. Because there is no orbit or roation, missiles don't have calculation hell if US wants to bomb Russia.

There is also no monetary advantage to me telling you the Earth is flat. But I do anyway. Why? Because it's true. A bunch of people ganging up on me is not going to convince me otherwise. It's going to convince me that alot of ignorant people are convinced of something that isn't so. But do I get rich from it? No ummm, not hardly.

Ok?  When you ride in a car sitting there comfortably with the car going 80 mph and not accelerating, are you moving relative to the car?

 While the car is moving forward with you in the front seat, are you unable to hand a drink to a person in the back seat?


You are in a bus with the bus moving forward.  Are you unable to walk to the back of the bus while the bus is moving?  Then unable to move right or left perpendicular to the bus’s travel to sit down?

What determines whether motion is felt is not increase/decrease but change in motion.

You could be moving on a bullet train going over 100 mph in a straight line, and not feel a thing. Or you could be going 35 mph on a winding and bumpy road, and be getting heavy whiplash. I was nauseous two days ago from too much sweets. Riding in the car, my stomach churned even worse from my mom making multiple turns.

This doesn't help the case of the supposed path of Earth, which involves tilt, orbit, rotation, precession, eccentricity, and other things. This is constant change in direction, and despite lies that the Earth being unable to feel this because of constant speed, I have noticed that even on cruise control, change in direction still is felt. Besides, the rationale that Earth is able to maintain constant speed because it is in space doesn't fit together, as Earth is constantly pulling an atmosphere around it. By your own rules, that atmosphere should create drag on the object within it.

People feel changes in speed.
Accelleration.

Your change is in speed is 360degrees divided by 24hrs.

It must be hard to remember things when you go around ignoring what doesn't fit your worldview.

Is that why you don't seem to remember anything?

The video thinks the Earth is a globe, but you can clearly see otherwise from the missile trajectory.

How?
What part indicates that Earth isn't a globe?

There is also no monetary advantage to me telling you the Earth is flat. But I do anyway. Why?

Because you can't handle reality. Instead you need to set up an elaborate fantasy to cling to.
There is no monetary advantage to me exposing your BS, but I do anyway; because I care about the truth.

What determines whether motion is felt is not increase/decrease but change in motion.

Which means your appeal to 1000 miles per hour is pure garbage.
What you need to so is appeal to the acceleration.
But you don't care, because all you care about is pretending there is a problem with the RE model.

But even that isn't technically true.
What you actually feel is a force being applied through your body.

You could be moving on a bullet train going over 100 mph in a straight line, and not feel a thing.

And that could be turning a corner at a rate of 1 revolution per day and you still basically don't feel a thing.

This doesn't help the case of the supposed path of Earth

Actually, it does. Imensly.
Because it is effectively an admission by you that your appeal to 1000 miles per hour is dishonest BS.
You know you are lying to everyone when you bring it up.
You know that appealing to the angular velocity is a much more honest presentation, yet you try and reject it when you first bring up your linear velocity.

It demonstrates that you are knowingly lying to everyone to pretend there is a problem.

It means the 1000 miles per hour rotation is useless for demonstrating a problem.
It means the 30 km/s orbit is useless for demonstrating a problem.

So then the question is what should you actually feel?
If we ignore how it actually works (where you feel force) and instead pretend you feel change in motion, i.e. acceleration, then what is the acceleration involved?

This is really quite easy to do for circular motion, and there are a few different equivalent formulae.
a=v^2/r=w*v=w^2*r=(2*pi/T)^2*r=4*pi^2*r/T^2

So looking at the equator, where it is the largest, we have
r=6 378 000 m.
T=86164 s (the length of a sidereal day).
a=0.034 m/s^2
Quite slow.

And this would be upwards, so it would be felt as a slight reduction in weight.
As a comparison, the downwards acceleration due to gravity is roughly 9.8 m/s^2, so this would be a mere 0.3%, so you aren't likely to feel that. But you most certainly can measure it.

At other points on the globe, it is more complex, with the downwards force from gravity and the apparent centrifugal force combining to slightly change which way "down" is, with Earth not being a perfect sphere.

What about the orbit?
Well that has the period = 1 sidereal year, which is 20 minutes longer than a normal year.
But I'm going to be lazy and put it in as 1 year.
And the radius is 150 million km
That gives a=0.006 m/s^2.
Even less.

And in this case, you wouldn't feel it at all, because you have gravity acting on Earth and your body to accelerate it so there is no force transmitted through your body.

Eccentricity would just be a slight variation of this acceleration, which again wont be felt.
Precession is an even slower process with an even slower acceleration involved.
Axial precession has a period of 25772 years. That means for Earth, that acceleration (just putting in the equator for simplicity) gives:
a=0.0000000000000004 m/s^2.

As for tilt, just what is meant to be felt there other than then the change which you have already covered as precession? We don't tilt back and forth over a year. That is only an apparent result if you view the solar system in a frame which keeps Earth and the sun mainly fixed. What actually happens is Earth orbits the sun, so we point in a different direction relative to the sun, but not relative to the background stars.

I have noticed that even on cruise control, change in direction still is felt.

And did you bother calculating the acceleration expected? Also, did you try a banked turn such that the change would just feel like being pushed down?

Here in Aus, our highways have a maximum speed of 110 km/hr. The minimum radius for such a speed is 540 m, and that is with a bank of 6%. If you want it flat, you need a bend radius of 3 km.
So lets put in a 3 km bend, at 110 km/hr.
That gives an acceleration of 0.3 m/s^2.
Or roughly 10 times what is expected for the rotation of Earth.

Besides, the rationale that Earth is able to maintain constant speed because it is in space doesn't fit together, as Earth is constantly pulling an atmosphere around it. By your own rules, that atmosphere should create drag on the object within it.

No, that is not by our own rules. That is yet another dishonest misrepresentation by you.

Earth is not pulling the atmosphere behind it.
The atmosphere, just like Earth, is attracted to the sun due to gravity and will accelerate towards it maintaining an orbit.

To have drag you would need to have at atmosphere magically kept it place throughout Earth's orbital path, which is stationary and Earth moving through it.

That nonsense of yours is like saying a car should slow down because of the air inside it.
The drag comes from the air outside the car, not inside. As the air inside is moving with the car, so there is no relative velocity, so no drag.

Now again, care to explain how the sun casts light on an object from below when it is above the object?

People feel changes in speed.
Accelleration.

Your change is in speed is 360degrees divided by 24hrs.

And motion!

I want you to get in a car driving in in a parking lot, and practice doing hairpin turns. Never change speed from 15 mph. Lemme know if you feel violently ill. You wouldn't even be going that fast, but you can sure feel it when doing sharp changes in direction even at the same speed.

Actually, this is more profound if you're a passenger. Let a student driver do this. Next, have him go up and down multiple hills maintaining 40 mph (without braking). You can get used to uphill, you can get used to downhill, but a massive series of up and down can be felt.

Speed never changes in either of these, but the slope or direction changes. Changes in motion can be felt.

In real physics, not the RE kind that ignores ideas because they are inconvenient, this is called rebound. Speed and momentum is unchanged, direction changes. A tennis ball hits a wall and bounces back. Just as sudden changes in acceleration cause whiplash, the same is true of direction.

Because we are talking about velocity (which involves speed and direction) not acceleration.

This is what the topic of the thread was supposed to be? 

And we discussed that earlier. Conversations naturally progress to topics. You're trying to force the conversation back because you're uncomfy with the implications of where this is leading. Which is that despite you saying that
those sunrises are impossible on FE (I don't see why not), not onlt are they possible, but the mechanics for RE sunrise (how it relates to topic) are completely wrong. If the sun rose the  way RE people said, we ought to feel change in motion. We don't.

Doing a hairpin turn at the rate of 24hr?
Sure
But it wouldnt be a hairpin...


Shoildnt be surprised you dont know how clocks work sicne you also dont believe circles exist.



Also
To change the direction requires acceleration in that dirdction.
Soo... accelleration.

Quote from: Themightykabool on May 29, 2023, 07:15:00 AM

People feel changes in speed.
Accelleration.

Your change is in speed is 360degrees divided by 24hrs.

And motion!

I want you to get in a car driving in in a parking lot, and practice doing hairpin turns. Never change speed from 15 mph. Lemme know if you feel violently ill. You wouldn't even be going that fast, but you can sure feel it when doing sharp changes in direction even at the same speed.

Actually, this is more profound if you're a passenger. Let a student driver do this. Next, have him go up and down multiple hills maintaining 40 mph (without braking). You can get used to uphill, you can get used to downhill, but a massive series of up and down can be felt.

Speed never changes in either of these, but the slope or direction changes. Changes in motion can be felt.

In real physics, not the RE kind that ignores ideas because they are inconvenient, this is called rebound. Speed and momentum is unchanged, direction changes. A tennis ball hits a wall and bounces back. Just as sudden changes in acceleration cause whiplash, the same is true of direction.

Because we are talking about velocity (which involves speed and direction) not acceleration.

So you think acceleration excludes direction?

I want you to get in a car driving in in a parking lot, and practice doing hairpin turns.

Why?
For more dishonesty?
I want you to go to a large open plane, and practice doing turns at 100 km/hr, with a bend radius of 3 km.

Or, for simplicity, I want you to go to a large open plane, and use all the space to try turning around in a circle once in 24 hours.
And more importantly, keep doing it constantly. Don't turn then go straight then turn the go straight and so on. Just stay turning, the entire time.

Speed never changes in either of these, but the slope or direction changes. Changes in motion can be felt.
In real physics, not the RE kind that ignores ideas because they are inconvenient, this is called rebound.

Almost entirely wrong.
Again, it is forces being transferred through your body which can be felt.
Changes in motion are typically felt due to it involving a transfer of force through your body.

The RE accepts real physics, but you hate it because it means you can't show a problem with the RE.
It isn't called rebound either. Rebound is where you bounce against a wall; or where some value drops and then comes back up.

Speed and momentum is unchanged, direction changes.

Wrong again. Just like velocity, momentum is a vector quantity.
That means it includes the direction. If the direction changes, the momentum does as well.

Because we are talking about velocity (which involves speed and direction) not acceleration.

You are talking about changes in velocity, which is acceleration, as acceleration also includes a direction.

And we discussed that earlier. Conversations naturally progress to topics.

This didn't naturally progress.
This was your repeatedly failure to justify how this works in your fantasy, so you resorted to lashing out against the RE.

You're trying to force the conversation back because you're uncomfy with the implications of where this is leading.

This is leading to you demonstrating just how dishonest you are and how pathetic and desperate your position is.

You are yet to show a single fault for the RE, instead resorting to so many pathetic lies and false comparisons.
You have had them refuted, yet you keep on making them.

those sunrises are impossible on FE (I don't see why not)

Because you choose to pretend they are possible, because you don't want to admit your fantasy doesn't work.

Again, it truly is simple, how can the sun, which is claimed to be above the clouds, illuminate the clouds from below?

but the mechanics for RE sunrise (how it relates to topic) are completely wrong.

Yet you are unable to show a single fault with it, and instead just repeat the same refuted dishonest BS.

Quote from: bulmabriefs144 on May 30, 2023, 05:48:39 AM

Quote from: Themightykabool on May 29, 2023, 07:15:00 AM

People feel changes in speed.
Accelleration.

Your change is in speed is 360degrees divided by 24hrs.

And motion!

I want you to get in a car driving in in a parking lot, and practice doing hairpin turns. Never change speed from 15 mph. Lemme know if you feel violently ill. You wouldn't even be going that fast, but you can sure feel it when doing sharp changes in direction even at the same speed.

Actually, this is more profound if you're a passenger. Let a student driver do this. Next, have him go up and down multiple hills maintaining 40 mph (without braking). You can get used to uphill, you can get used to downhill, but a massive series of up and down can be felt.

Speed never changes in either of these, but the slope or direction changes. Changes in motion can be felt.

In real physics, not the RE kind that ignores ideas because they are inconvenient, this is called rebound. Speed and momentum is unchanged, direction changes. A tennis ball hits a wall and bounces back. Just as sudden changes in acceleration cause whiplash, the same is true of direction.

Because we are talking about velocity (which involves speed and direction) not acceleration.

So you think acceleration excludes direction?

The term acceleration is a remnant (I think) of Newtonian physics. Newton was actually wrong. We can tell he is wrong because objects in motion do not stay in motion. He was also wrong about what comes up must come down (objects fall, but not because of a force, but because their own mass is greater than the air's mass). All objects lose momentum because either their mass changes or their velocity changes.

If I were to run for seven days straight, would I stay in motion? No, my body would give out. My mass would have changed (lost weight) but my muscles and such wouldbe torn up, my lungs would be totally exhausted, and my heart would probably be beating out of my chest. Momentum loses for several reasons, but one of the key ones is entropy. As any trying to use Newton's "law" eventually figures out, it just doesn't work. Either velocity decreases or the mass decreases as the object/being breaks down. Momentum always reduces.

The idea that acceleration is somehow part of all this, and that momentum can carry objects infinitely is deeply naive.  By the natural physical laws, the Earth as a mass of rock spinning around at speed would last a year. It is only by invoking the supernatural that we get a world (not a planet) that has lasted centuries, millennia, and eons. It didn't do so by constantly moving. A rolling stone gathers no moss is a nice expression but neither does it mean that constant movement is the key to immortality. On the contrary, such a stone instead smashes into something, reaches level ground (angular momentum = zero), or grinds itself to rubble.

I think momentum includes velocity (which it does)
p = mv
And I think acceleration isn't part of this, which it isn't (do you see an 'a' here?). And I think Newton was a crackpot who made alot of pronouncements and spread alot of dogma, and that modern science is now based on dogma and not scientific method.

Acceleration has some goofy equation dividing velocity by time. Uhhhh guys? Time is an abstraction created by humans. That things like a watch being fast happen mean it is not an accurate measure. As is the fact that our entire notion of time is based on unproven RE theory. That is the theory that sun has the Earth rotate around it. Bur time is not actually a measure of the sun's orbit, Earth's orbit, or even of the ticking of seconds. It's just something we humans use to make sense of decaying matter. And to force trains to get there at a certain point of daylight.

https://theconversation.com/time-might-not-exist-according-to-physicists-and-philosophers-but-thats-okay-181268

What does exist is causation. But you can't measure causation with a stopwatch. What matters is the relative speed of an object. We say mph out of convention, but it doesn't actually mean anything, just as m/s or rpm.

What matters is the change in mass or velocity means change in push (momentum). If direction suddenly changes, you feel it. No acceleration change, but you should feel several factors of direction change. Yet we can't.



Real science adjusts theory when new evidence shows otherwise (assuming it's real). "Science" sweeps ideas under the rug, as contradictions to moving Earth were done.

A change in velocity is what accelleration is.
Youre not dividing time by time.


And in your lingo, the 'momentum' changed at a rate of 24hr.
And per jackb that direction is down and always there.
So you just feel the same.
Like if you always wore a workboots.
Theyd just be always the same heavy.
Vs continuously swapping to flippyfloppies boots runners socks

Quote from: NotSoSkeptical on May 30, 2023, 06:11:29 AM

Quote from: bulmabriefs144 on May 30, 2023, 05:48:39 AM

Quote from: Themightykabool on May 29, 2023, 07:15:00 AM

People feel changes in speed.
Accelleration.

Your change is in speed is 360degrees divided by 24hrs.

And motion!

I want you to get in a car driving in in a parking lot, and practice doing hairpin turns. Never change speed from 15 mph. Lemme know if you feel violently ill. You wouldn't even be going that fast, but you can sure feel it when doing sharp changes in direction even at the same speed.

Actually, this is more profound if you're a passenger. Let a student driver do this. Next, have him go up and down multiple hills maintaining 40 mph (without braking). You can get used to uphill, you can get used to downhill, but a massive series of up and down can be felt.

Speed never changes in either of these, but the slope or direction changes. Changes in motion can be felt.

In real physics, not the RE kind that ignores ideas because they are inconvenient, this is called rebound. Speed and momentum is unchanged, direction changes. A tennis ball hits a wall and bounces back. Just as sudden changes in acceleration cause whiplash, the same is true of direction.

Because we are talking about velocity (which involves speed and direction) not acceleration.

So you think acceleration excludes direction?

The term acceleration is a remnant (I think) of Newtonian physics. Newton was actually wrong. We can tell he is wrong because objects in motion do not stay in motion. He was also wrong about what comes up must come down (objects fall, but not because of a force, but because their own mass is greater than the air's mass). All objects lose momentum because either their mass changes or their velocity changes.

If I were to run for seven days straight, would I stay in motion? No, my body would give out. My mass would have changed (lost weight) but my muscles and such wouldbe torn up, my lungs would be totally exhausted, and my heart would probably be beating out of my chest. Momentum loses for several reasons, but one of the key ones is entropy. As any trying to use Newton's "law" eventually figures out, it just doesn't work. Either velocity decreases or the mass decreases as the object/being breaks down. Momentum always reduces.

The idea that acceleration is somehow part of all this, and that momentum can carry objects infinitely is deeply naive.  By the natural physical laws, the Earth as a mass of rock spinning around at speed would last a year. It is only by invoking the supernatural that we get a world (not a planet) that has lasted centuries, millennia, and eons. It didn't do so by constantly moving. A rolling stone gathers no moss is a nice expression but neither does it mean that constant movement is the key to immortality. On the contrary, such a stone instead smashes into something, reaches level ground (angular momentum = zero), or grinds itself to rubble.

I think momentum includes velocity (which it does)
p = mv
And I think acceleration isn't part of this, which it isn't (do you see an 'a' here?). And I think Newton was a crackpot who made alot of pronouncements and spread alot of dogma, and that modern science is now based on dogma and not scientific method.

Acceleration has some goofy equation dividing velocity by time. Uhhhh guys? Time is an abstraction created by humans. That things like a watch being fast happen mean it is not an accurate measure. As is the fact that our entire notion of time is based on unproven RE theory. That is the theory that sun has the Earth rotate around it. Bur time is not actually a measure of the sun's orbit, Earth's orbit, or even of the ticking of seconds. It's just something we humans use to make sense of decaying matter. And to force trains to get there at a certain point of daylight.

https://theconversation.com/time-might-not-exist-according-to-physicists-and-philosophers-but-thats-okay-181268

What does exist is causation. But you can't measure causation with a stopwatch. What matters is the relative speed of an object. We say mph out of convention, but it doesn't actually mean anything, just as m/s or rpm.

What matters is the change in mass or velocity means change in push (momentum). If direction suddenly changes, you feel it. No acceleration change, but you should feel several factors of direction change. Yet we can't.



Real science adjusts theory when new evidence shows otherwise (assuming it's real). "Science" sweeps ideas under the rug, as contradictions to moving Earth were done.

If Netwon was wrong, how does the sun stay in motion above your flat earth.  What's keeping it moving?

Notice how yet again, you have had your delusional BS entirely refuted, so you run off on yet another tangent?
Who gives a damn about Newton. Your hatred of him doesn't make the word acceleration wrong.

The term acceleration is a remnant (I think) of Newtonian physics.

And you think wrong.
Acceleration existed long before Newton.

The term was initially used to describe speeding up.
But it describes a change in velocity.

We can tell he is wrong because objects in motion do not stay in motion.

We can tell he is likely correct, because objects in motion do stay in motion.
We can also look at relative motion and see how a force acts to slow them down.
We can see how different forces slow objects down at different rates.

Objects don't just magically slow down.

He was also wrong about what comes up must come down

I don't think he ever said that. But escape velocity shows that is wrong.
We have sent objects up, without them coming down.

objects fall, but not because of a force, but because their own mass is greater than the air's mass

Wrong again.
Objects fall because a downwards force acts on them.
Being heavier than the air (by which you really mean denser) provides no reason to move in any direction.

All objects lose momentum because either their mass changes or their velocity changes.

Their mass changing is really just the object splitting into multiple or multiple combining.
The velocity changing requires a force.

If I were to run for seven days straight, would I stay in motion?

And what does running involve? You have to move a foot forward, only to stop it. Then move the next one forwards, only to stop it.
You are continually applying a force to accelerate your legs.

Again, a simple bicycle demonstrates your claim is BS.

If your BS was true, then riding a bicycle would take far more effort than walking. Because now you need to make more mass move, and keep more mass moving.
And it should be no different walking carrying your bike than riding it.

But back in reality, we see a massive difference.
Walking while carrying a bike is quite tiresome, far more so than just walking.
But riding a bike is much less tiresome (at least if you aren't going up hill).

This is because the motion of your feet back and forth is much less, even more so when you consider the gear ratio and various diameters to determine how far you actually move for a given motion of your foot. And the bike has nice low friction bearings allowing it to keep going for quite some time.
This allows people to go faster, and longer, before getting tired.
Clearly demonstrating your BS is BS.

Momentum loses for several reasons, but one of the key ones is entropy.

You don't just magically lose momentum due to entropy.
You lose momentum due to a force acting, and that is just transferring momentum.

As any trying to use Newton's "law" eventually figures out, it just doesn't work.

Only to those who have no idea what they are doing, that apply these laws entirely incorrectly, and as a result end up with garbage.
To those applying it correctly, it works fine.

The idea that acceleration is somehow part of all this, and that momentum can carry objects infinitely is deeply naive.

Why? Because it means your arguments against the RE are garbage?

By the natural physical laws, the Earth as a mass of rock spinning around at speed would last a year.

Entirely wrong.
By the actual natural physical laws (not your delusional BS), unless there is something to stop it Earth will continue spinning forever.

But notice how yet again, you just assert delusional BS with no justification at all.
Why should it last a year?
Why not a day?
Why not 1 million years?

You are just making up whatever delusional BS you need to pretend that the RE model can't work.

But do you know the biggest issue with this delusional BS of yours?
All you do is change what is moving.
You instead have tiny stars moving around.
And all sorts of different tiny stars, and planets and the sun and moon.

It is only by invoking the supernatural

Your need to invoke the supernatural just means your model is BS which can't work in reality.
It doesn't mean everyone else needs to invoke it.

I think momentum includes velocity (which it does)
p = mv
And I think acceleration isn't part of this, which it isn't (do you see an 'a' here?).

Not seeing it there doesn't mean it isn't involved.
I don't see any position there.
Does that mean position isn't involved at all, and more importantly, this doesn't relate to position?
Would it allow me to claim that velocity and momentum don't have any impact on the position of an object.

The way it relates is that:
F=ma
and dv/dt=a
We can also go:
dp/dt = m dv/dt = m a = F
i.e. the change in momentum with respect to time, is a force.

And I think Newton was a crackpot

And you thinking all sorts of BS doesn't make it true.

Acceleration has some goofy equation dividing velocity by time.

Not quite.
It is differentiating.
dv/dt = a
Just like dx/dt = v (or vx depending on context, where you can have dP/dt for the full vector, with P being position).

Time is an abstraction created by humans.

So you are saying velocity (the time rate of change of position) isn't real?

As is the fact that our entire notion of time is based on unproven RE theory.

No it isn't.
The most basic notion of time was based upon simple observation and cycles.
The fact that the RE can explain it so simply is just a benefit of the RE model.

What matters is the change in mass or velocity means change in push (momentum).

Not quite.
A change in velocity (momentum) means a push/acceleration (force). A change in the acceleration needs a change in mass or force.

If direction suddenly changes, you feel it.

Wrong again.
Once more, what you feel is a force being applied across you, not merely a direction change.
And even then, it needs to be large enough to feel.

And if this is smooth, it is easy to just tune it out.

No acceleration change, but you should feel several factors of direction change.

As I have asked countless FEers, just what are you expecting to feel?
Clearly explain what you think you should feel, with a justification of why you think you should feel that.

Again, for the rotation, what you feel is a quite small change in your apparent weight, with things weighing less at the equator than the poles. And that is measured.
So it clearly can't be that which you are appealing to, as that is "felt" by instruments sensitive enough to feel it.

Again, for the orbit, as gravity is acting on all of you, no force is transmitted through your body, so there is nothing for you to feel except the absolutely tiny tidal force.
Even if we did want to pretend that is only acting on your feet, and then transferring through your body, the force is tiny. You will not feel it.

Real science adjusts theory when new evidence shows otherwise (assuming it's real).

Which is why your delusional BS is not real science.
Because you cling to the BS idea that Earth is flat, and try to force everything to fit.

Real science accepts the mountains of evidence that demonstrates beyond any sane doubt that Earth is round and rotating and orbiting the sun.
There are mountains of evidence supporting that, and NOTHING to demonstrate otherwise.

Real science accepts that the distance to the sun and moon are roughly constant due to their roughly constant angular size, so it accepts them appearing to rise and set is due to relative vertical motion.
Real science accepts that the sun illuminating an object from below means it is below (in that reference frame).
But not you.

Netwon.

Certainly not gravity. Gravity is supposedly something that makes things fall. It was never a sufficient reason for anything's orbit. Goofy assholes did alot of creative bullshit to come up with this idea of Earth falling in orbit. In actuality, if gravity existed and the sun is more massive, the Earth and all planets should immediately all into the sun. All the circular physics in the world can't change the fact that your own theory indicts you.

But let me answer a question with a question.

Suppose someone were to draw an animation of the moon moving in the sky. They're like a godlike painter or something, and they paint a whole animation on a CGI screen of some sort. Is it relevant to talk about what force moves that moon in the sky? Or is it more relevant to say that no force moves the moon at all? The same goes for the sun.