WHY would the government trick us?

You "defend" these ideas poorly because you poorly understand your own position.

Quite the opposite. We defend it quite well, because we actually understand the model.
On the other hand, you don't give a damn about understanding the model and are happy to repeatedly lie to everyone to pretend there are problems.

I understand what you think is true, but do not accept it. Because it is not true.

You mean you reject it because it doesn't fit your delusional fantasy.
I understand what you think it true, but I reject it as delusional BS, because I understand how it doesn't match reality. I can show the problems with your delusional BS.

Unlike you, that just needs to repeatedly lie and avoid trivial questions that show you are wrong.

So, it hasn't occurred to you that like a trained chimp or puppet, the teacher only refers to a specific example provided by a textbook.

No, it hasn't occurred to you to actually try out the calculations.
Instead, you make bold claims without doing the basic math which shows you are claiming pure BS.

Your delusional BS is like saying a car couldn't possibly transport a person, because as soon as it goes around a corner the car will kill the person form the force.
You don't do anything to show this.
You just assert it as a fake with no justification and expect people to just gobble it up.
Well the only people gobbling up that delusional BS are people like you that don't give a shit about reality and just want an excuse to cling to their fantasy.

If you actually cared about the truth, and actually understood the physics, you would do the math and see your objections are pure BS.

Science tests a method under a variety of conditions.

And the RE model has passed those tests.
Your delusional BS has not.
You can't even predict things with your delusional BS.

And all while repeatedly fleeing from the topic you brought up because you can't defend your bs.

Again:
Zero-g in space is a result of free fall, not low pressure.
Objects in orbit experience zero-g because gravity acts on all of it to accelerate it together so there is no need to transfer force across it.
This also happens in the vomit comet, and is nothing like what happens under water.

Again:
Energy cannot be created or destroyed, it must be conserved.
So once an object is in motion, having kinetic energy, that energy can't just vanish.
Likewise, momentum must be conserved.
This means you need a force to stop an object. It can't just magically stop. That would mean energy magically vanishes.
And that requires an interaction with some object to stop it.
So what is a space craft interacting with to slow it down?

And remember, gravity doesn't take away energy, it coverts between gravitational potential energy and kinetic energy. So you need something else to stop it.
If you want to appeal to gravity, you need the orbit to intersect an object (e.g. a sub-orbital path), with the collision with the object stopping it.

While changes in acceleration (jerk) are felt, what you're truly experiencing is the force needed to change your body's state of motion, which is a result of inertia.

Again, you never feel gravity as it doesn't exist. You feel inertia which at times seems non-sensible so you make up a force (gravity) to explain away why you are taking a non-inertial frame of reference as an inertial one.

No, what you are truly experiencing is a force being transferred through your body.
This is where the molecules of your body need to transmit that force to apply it to another molecule.

This can happen with you stationary with objects pulling you from both sides or pushing you from both sides.
It can happen when you are accelerating with an object pushing you from one side and your body transferring that force to the rest of you.

What you don't feel is if a force is acting on every part of your body to accelerate it at the same rate, such as due to gravity.

All the available evidence shows gravity does exist (unless you are trying to yet again play a semantic game of gravity vs gravitation).
General relativity still has it exist, but as curvature of space-time.

That Earth appears flat because we only see a very smal part of a globe, that we are hanging sideways and/or upside down because of gravity, that Earth is spinning 1000 mph while orbiting at a rate of 66600 mph, that air and water is kept in place by centripetal force and gravity, that the moon controls tides, and that the seasons are due to Earth's tilt.

So it appears that you know the words, but still don't understand what they mean. 

Let's talk about centripetal force.

Why?

https://sciencing.com/centripetal-vs-centrifugal-force-whats-the-difference-why-it-matters-13721035.html

Quote

Centripetal force and centrifugal force are two terms that physics students commonly confuse or misunderstand.
A typical misconception is that centripetal force is directed toward the center of an object's circular path, while centrifugal force is directed outward, as though the two act in opposite directions. However, only one of these is actually a real force!
The only force causing an object's circular motion is centripetal force, which is always directed toward the center of the circular path. If a car is rounding a bend, for example, the centripetal force making it move in a curve rather than a straight line is directed along the radius of the circle the car is tracing out.
Centrifugal force, on the other hand, does not exist. Like "Back to the Future's" flux capacitor, the term was invented to help describe something imaginary, albeit based on some real observations. The effects of moving in a circle tend to make an object feel like it is "flying" outward, and the idea of an inward-directed force causing such an experience can at first seem puzzling.
Centrifugal Force Is a Feeling
When a car makes a hard left turn, passengers might feel "thrown" to the right of the car. Or at the bottom of a loop on a roller coaster, riders may feel pushed down into their seats.

Actually no. You've got it backwards. Professional auto drivers (I know because I watched a video, where drivers talked about early, middle, and later turns at high speed) show in great depth about how there is no such force pulling objects toward the middle of a curve.

No one said that there is.  If you would read your own citation a little more carefully, you would discover that centripetal force is the force that makes the car car turn.  You do this by applying a force on the car where the force is pointing towards the center of the circle.  The centrifugal force (which everyone acknowledges is a fictitious force) is what you feel when your body wants to keep going straight but centripetal force pushes your car in a different direction.

Having been on a kid's spinning ride with my niece on a playground, I assure you, not only doe I have to hold on to keep momentum from throwing me off, but since I just had eaten, my poor churning stomach had some harsh words to say to me, as did my spinning head.

You probably won't believe this, but it wasn't the speed that made you sick, it was the rate of rotation. Put your head on the top of a baseball bat and spin around it.  You don't have to go very fast to get dizzy.  Now get in a car doing 60 mph around a gentle curve.  Don't feel very queasy, do you?  1000 mph sounds scary, but when its a sphere 7900 miles in diameter, that works out to 15 degrees per hour.  The hour hand on an analog clock spins twice that fast.

Not content with Earth rotating in place, it also moves around in orbit; it also wobbles and tilts; it also trails the sun in a spiral; it also follows the galaxy. This is constant and dramatic change of direction...

Given the unimaginably large scale of the galaxy, what you describe isn't dramatic at all.

Gravity doesn't seem to be observed by birds flying, who would need to fly on the underside of Earth in South America...

*sigh* I'm sorry but I'm just not sure what to say when you say such stupid things.

You "defend" these ideas poorly because you poorly understand your own position.

Again, you may know the words, but you are clearly are the one who doesn't understand even the most basic physics.

This is amazing


Which direction is "down" on the globe model?

Like teachers everywhere, you confuse "education" for the indoctrination you yourself have been given.

Education is for the purpose of cultivating young minds to do their own thinking. An educator who teaches a child to draw, paint, make music, or about literature frees those minds up to one day do their own thinking and make things of their own.

Indoctrination, on the other hand, puts minds into a prison. "You will paint/draw/write/sing only about things that the mass market wants." Like Taylor Swift and her hundreds of songs about some boy leaving her. More importantly, though, is the commandment to think that way.

You, who write only what the likes of George Soros want, have no right to "educate" me about what is right or wrong about the model of this world. You are shills of the highest degree, dependent on the state from cradle and probably will remain so to the grave.

No, you will not "educate" me, and I bemoan the fact that I will likely never be able to free your mind to truly think for itself. Do I expect you to agree with how I think? No, but it would be highly refreshing if you would think at all, rather than just parroting off your so-called education.

a question while you were in South Africa and you were facing the equator the sun rouse to your right , and now from your farm it rises from your left, how sow?

This is amazing

Which direction is "down" on the globe model?

Easy. There is no down.

Officially, down is towards the "center" or "core" of the sphere Earth. But there's a problem with this. Let's open up this spherical Earth, shall we?

If we drill a hole from east to west or from south to north, falling down would be toward the center. Either you drop through the molten core (assuming godmode here), or you just kinda sit there, stuck forever.

In other words, you have either:
1. Down becoming up when you pass the core
2. Down from every possible direction, terminating in a gravity well.

In other words, there is no such thing as down in a RE.

a question while you were in South Africa and you were facing the equator the sun rouse to your right , and now from your farm it rises from your left, how sow?

This is how a propaganda education stifles even basic ability to think logically.

That would be more about the direction I am facing than my location. If I am facing north and a tree is toward my right arm, it is to the right of me. If I turn around to the south, the tree is now toward my left arm, or to my left.

I was probably sleeping in a window facing opposite how I normally sleep.  Nothing more complicated than that. The sun rises in the east and sets in the west. Except in the land of Oz.

Quote from: Themightykabool on August 12, 2024, 04:11:28 PM

This is amazing

Which direction is "down" on the globe model?

Easy. There is no down.

Officially, down is towards the "center" or "core" of the sphere Earth. But there's a problem with this. Let's open up this spherical Earth, shall we?

If we drill a hole from east to west or from south to north, falling down would be toward the center. Either you drop through the molten core (assuming godmode here), or you just kinda sit there, stuck forever.

In other words, you have either:
1. Down becoming up when you pass the core
2. Down from every possible direction, terminating in a gravity well.

In other words, there is no such thing as down in a RE.

Great

"Towards the center"


So why do you continue to insist that things in south pole should fall "up" (towards a universal "down"?)

No one said that there is.  If you would read your own citation a little more carefully, you would discover that centripetal force is the force that makes the car car turn. 

No. If the motion of the wheels were forced toward the center, the car would not be able to move.

The wheels spin at the hub, transferring motion out to the wheel. This is outward motion, not inward motion. Centrifugal force is not a "feeling", but centripetal force is a nice delusion, I suppose.

Repeat after me, "I have been lied to." Relax, it's the first step to getting your life back from the Deep State.

So why do you continue to insist that things in south pole should fall "up" (towards a universal "down"?)

Let's compare.



There is no quotes for up or down in a Flat Earth. There might be for "north" and "south".

But I do say is the truth of the matter, that such "gravity" makes no sense. I'm referring to position #1 in the "things should fall up in the south pole".

1. Down becoming up when you pass the core

Past the equator, motion continues down when ostensibly this is now "up." This means that buildings fall away from the underside of the equator, as this guy demonstrates when on the underside of a rock.

If the set was real, Stallone letting go would cause him to fall. Everything on the underside of a globe (you can test this out by getting underneath a stone globe model. Go on, I'll wait for you to fall off and get crushed) falls away from it.

Well, what about theory #2?

2. Down from every possible direction, terminating in a gravity well.

Lava or metal at the core would gravitate nearby dirt and rock towards it. Over time, Earth would implode. That hasn't happened in billions of years.

#1 is a fatal flaw in the globe model, and #2 clearly isn't the case.

Meanwhile, in a flat Earth, I can hire a pilot of balloonist to fly me upward, or get a tunneling machine to dig downward. It's universal, and does not require any special considerations about whether I will burrow straight to the other side.

People in australia arent falling off the earth into sky.

Why would you jump to a flat model when discussing the round model?

Easy. There is no down.
Officially, down is towards the "center" or "core" of the sphere Earth. But there's a problem with this. Let's open up this spherical Earth, shall we?

There is no problem at all.
If there was, you would say there is the same problem with north being towards the centre in your FE fantasy.

Instead, you fully recognise it is not a problem, but repeat the same pathetic lies to pretend the RE can't work.

In other words, you have either:
1. Down becoming up when you pass the core
2. Down from every possible direction, terminating in a gravity well.

i.e. just like in your FE fantasy, if you travel north, and cross the north pole, north becomes south.

Again, why accept one, but not the other?

The sun rises in the east and sets in the west. Except in the land of Oz.

Yes, something your model still can't explain. But that's for another thread.

No. If the motion of the wheels were forced toward the center, the car would not be able to move.

Why?

The wheels spin at the hub, transferring motion out to the wheel.

And that is only one part of it.

Repeat after me, "I have been lied to." Relax, it's the first step to getting your life back from the Deep State.

You repeatedly lie to us.
As you are doing yet again in this thread.

But I do say is the truth of the matter, that such "gravity" makes no sense.

Yet you cannot show a single fault with it and instead just repeat the same refuted crap.

I'm referring to position #1 in the "things should fall up in the south pole".

Just like a compass should point south once you cross the north pole?

Again, you have had all this refuted before.

You are demanding your magical universal down which you have absolutely no evidence for will magically apply in reality, and that you magically know the magical orientation of the RE in this magical fantasy of yours.

This means that buildings fall away from the underside of the equator, as this guy demonstrates when on the underside of a rock.

Only in your fantasy, not in reality, where down is still towards Earth.

If the set was real, Stallone letting go would cause him to fall. Everything on the underside of a globe (you can test this out by getting underneath a stone globe model. Go on, I'll wait for you to fall off and get crushed) falls away from it.

Just like I can get a CD and a compass, and show that crossing the "north pole" doesn't make the compass flip, so clearly your fantasy is pure BS.

Lava or metal at the core would gravitate nearby dirt and rock towards it. Over time, Earth would implode. That hasn't happened in billions of years.

And more ignorant stupidity.
Try getting a rock and forcing it together from all sides. You will find there is a limit to how much you can compress it.
If you want Earth to implode, you need to have enough force from all the weight of Earth above, to cause it to collapse into a black hole.

Back in reality, it is just under pressure, and doing fine.

Meanwhile, in a flat Earth, I can hire a pilot of balloonist to fly me upward

Again, focus on north and south in your FE fantasy, as that is what is equivalent.
All your delusional BS works equally well for that.

And you still haven't addressed the problems with your delusional BS:
Again:
Zero-g in space is a result of free fall, not low pressure.
Objects in orbit experience zero-g because gravity acts on all of it to accelerate it together so there is no need to transfer force across it.
This also happens in the vomit comet, and is nothing like what happens under water.

Again:
Energy cannot be created or destroyed, it must be conserved.
So once an object is in motion, having kinetic energy, that energy can't just vanish.
Likewise, momentum must be conserved.
This means you need a force to stop an object. It can't just magically stop. That would mean energy magically vanishes.
And that requires an interaction with some object to stop it.
So what is a space craft interacting with to slow it down?

And remember, gravity doesn't take away energy, it coverts between gravitational potential energy and kinetic energy. So you need something else to stop it.
If you want to appeal to gravity, you need the orbit to intersect an object (e.g. a sub-orbital path), with the collision with the object stopping it.

People in australia arent falling off the earth into sky.

Why would you jump to a flat model when discussing the round model?

 It's called a comparison. Try to keep up.



If you were to keep digging in a flat Earth, you would come to the Depths (Sheol) , where the dead sleep. But in the Marianas Trench, the deepest part of the ocean, where the "scientists" say "Of course we explored this! We've been to space, haven't we?" you'd come instead to Abyss. A totally dark world where the actual demons beg (as in Legion) not to go back. The abyss is so cold and pressurized that very little real life can survive.

If you kept digging in a round Earth, this would happen.

You'd get to the underside, and someone from Australia would need to keep you from falling.

Rmemeber one time you posted a picture of a globe.
And water was falling off the globe?

And you posted a giant stone ball fountain.
And said "see the waters falling off it"




But the globe model, as you note, has things falling towards THE CENTER.

So why then would you inappropriately add in a nonexistent requirement that things also fall to some universal down that is located below the globe earth?

Yes, that's great. But as I pointed out on a previous post, what exactly is there to keep above dirt and rock from compressing, until Earth collapses into a singularity?

On a flat Earth, there is actually something. Heavier objects sink with regard to the lighter surfaces that surround them. Lighter objects float in regard to heavier surfaces around them. Eventually, objects reach equilibrium, as they are in about the same density as their surroundings, or what is above or below them holds them in place.

Round Earth has no such limits, and Earth should be steadily shrinking in size and growing in density. Until it collapses. Like this.

You simply must have realized the truth.

Youve changed subject.
Focus up.



"There is no universal down"


Say it with me please.





this image is INCORRECT


https://www.shutterstock.com/shutterstock/photos/142297522/display_1500/stock-vector-melting-earth-concept-of-global-warming-eps-vector-142297522.jpg
https://www.shutterstock.com/shutterstock/photos/142297522/display_1500/stock-vector-melting-earth-concept-of-global-warming-eps-vector-142297522.jpg

Quote

No one said that there is.  If you would read your own citation a little more carefully, you would discover that centripetal force is the force that makes the car car turn. 

No. If the motion of the wheels were forced toward the center, the car would not be able to move.

FFS!  What do you suppose happens to the wheels when you turn the steering wheel?

I'm sorry, but when you keep saying stupid shit like that, I can't help but to feel that you're trolling.

It's called a comparison. Try to keep up.

No, it's called dishonestly asserting your delusional BS to pretend reality can't work because it doesn't work with your delusional BS.

Your magical universal down doesn't exist in reality. So it has no place in the discussion.

If you want an honest comparison to your flat fantasy, compare down in reality (the RE model) to north in your fantasy.

Don't both saying would would happen if you keep digging down in your fantasy. Tell us what would happen if you keep going north.

If you kept digging in a round Earth, this would happen.

No, it wouldn't.
Assume you can survive the interior of Earth, you would reach the centre, where there is no net force of gravity of Earth acting on you, and every way is up.

Again, the round Earth has no underside.
That is you inserting your delusional BS where it does not belong.

Yes, that's great. But as I pointed out on a previous post, what exactly is there to keep above dirt and rock from compressing, until Earth collapses into a singularity?

You mean as you stupidly proclaimed, clearly without any rational thought?

Dirt and rock do not magically compress themselves.
They need a force to compress them.
And they compressed based upon that force.

If your delusional BS was true, you should be able to pick up a bolder and compress it into a tiny point.
You cannot. Because materials have material properties.
The atoms don't like getting smashed into each other, so they push each other away if you compress them.

So the question for you is what magic is there to compress the rocks beyond the pressure required to make a black hole?

On a flat Earth, there is actually something.

Really?
So what is your FE sitting on?
And then what is that sitting on?
And how about that, and so on?

Heavier objects sink with regard to the lighter surfaces that surround them.

We have been over your delusional BS with buoyancy countless times.
There is a force proportional to mass making things go down.
This causes pressure gradients in fluids which acts to push things up.
If the force from that pressure gradient is greater, the object goes up.
No need for your delusional BS.

We can also see that doesn't work anywhere near as simply as you want to pretend, by placing a lead weight on a table made of aluminium or wood.
The lead is much denser, much heavier, yet it doesn't magically fall through.

Once more, you are spouting delusional BS to pretend your fantasy works and the RE can't.

You simply must have realized the truth.

We have, and the truth is that you are spouting delusional BS, again.

And you still haven't addressed the problems with your delusional BS, and appear to be fleeing at all costs:
Again:
Zero-g in space is a result of free fall, not low pressure.
Objects in orbit experience zero-g because gravity acts on all of it to accelerate it together so there is no need to transfer force across it.
This also happens in the vomit comet, and is nothing like what happens under water.

Again:
Energy cannot be created or destroyed, it must be conserved.
So once an object is in motion, having kinetic energy, that energy can't just vanish.
Likewise, momentum must be conserved.
This means you need a force to stop an object. It can't just magically stop. That would mean energy magically vanishes.
And that requires an interaction with some object to stop it.
So what is a space craft interacting with to slow it down?

And remember, gravity doesn't take away energy, it coverts between gravitational potential energy and kinetic energy. So you need something else to stop it.
If you want to appeal to gravity, you need the orbit to intersect an object (e.g. a sub-orbital path), with the collision with the object stopping it.

https://youtube.com/shorts/zD8AQB1-BeA?si=xidvgj5SI9pFAPW8


Monkeys being duped...

Or learning

Who knows?!
Bulma knows...

Yes, that's great. But as I pointed out on a previous post, what exactly is there to keep above dirt and rock from compressing, until Earth collapses into a singularity?

On a flat Earth, there is actually something. Heavier objects sink with regard to the lighter surfaces that surround them. Lighter objects float in regard to heavier surfaces around them. Eventually, objects reach equilibrium, as they are in about the same density as their surroundings, or what is above or below them holds them in place.

Round Earth has no such limits, and Earth should be steadily shrinking in size and growing in density. Until it collapses. Like this.

You simply must have realized the truth.

You believe the entire Earth is flat.

You have therefore lost the right to appeal to science in any way, shape, or form, especially in a way to prove the entire Earth is flat.

Stop appealing to science to prove something science has disproved a million different ways already.

Quote from: bulmabriefs144 on August 13, 2024, 07:17:46 AM

Yes, that's great. But as I pointed out on a previous post, what exactly is there to keep above dirt and rock from compressing, until Earth collapses into a singularity?

On a flat Earth, there is actually something. Heavier objects sink with regard to the lighter surfaces that surround them. Lighter objects float in regard to heavier surfaces around them. Eventually, objects reach equilibrium, as they are in about the same density as their surroundings, or what is above or below them holds them in place.

Round Earth has no such limits, and Earth should be steadily shrinking in size and growing in density. Until it collapses. Like this.

You simply must have realized the truth.

You believe the entire Earth is flat.

You have therefore lost the right to appeal to science in any way, shape, or form, especially in a way to prove the entire Earth is flat.

Stop appealing to science to prove something science has disproved a million different ways already.

Glad we got the science police here. If we can't use science in any way shape or form for some arbitrary reason you dreamed up in your globe dazed mind, why don't you go ahead and define science for us in a way that is not inconsistent with its practice and history so we know what to avoid for the Royal Smoke Machine?

Quote from: Username on August 12, 2024, 12:44:18 PM

While changes in acceleration (jerk) are felt, what you're truly experiencing is the force needed to change your body's state of motion, which is a result of inertia.

Again, you never feel gravity as it doesn't exist. You feel inertia which at times seems non-sensible so you make up a force (gravity) to explain away why you are taking a non-inertial frame of reference as an inertial one.

No, what you are truly experiencing is a force being transferred through your body.
This is where the molecules of your body need to transmit that force to apply it to another molecule.

This is somewhat correct but oversimplified. What you feel are forces acting on your body, typically through pressure (like a chair pushing up against you), or tension (like a rope pulling). This force causes changes in motion, which you experience through inertia.

All the available evidence shows gravity does exist (unless you are trying to yet again play a semantic game of gravity vs gravitation).

You are the one playing semantics. You know you can't just be wrong and yell semantics every time. It's a pseudoforce because it is not a force. You want to play semantics, its right there in the name boss.

You believe the entire Earth is flat.
You have therefore lost the right to appeal to science in any way, shape, or form, especially in a way to prove the entire Earth is flat.

Not how science works.
Everyone is free to use it.

And he has made no attempt to use it.

Quote from: bulmabriefs144 on August 13, 2024, 07:17:46 AM

Yes, that's great. But as I pointed out on a previous post, what exactly is there to keep above dirt and rock from compressing, until Earth collapses into a singularity?

On a flat Earth, there is actually something. Heavier objects sink with regard to the lighter surfaces that surround them. Lighter objects float in regard to heavier surfaces around them. Eventually, objects reach equilibrium, as they are in about the same density as their surroundings, or what is above or below them holds them in place.

Round Earth has no such limits, and Earth should be steadily shrinking in size and growing in density. Until it collapses. Like this.

You simply must have realized the truth.

You believe the entire Earth is flat.

You have therefore lost the right to appeal to science in any way, shape, or form, especially in a way to prove the entire Earth is flat.

Stop appealing to science to prove something science has disproved a million different ways already.

Appeal to Obsolescence fallacy.

In case you need this explained, here it is. You believe technology only proceeds in one direction, onward and upward, that there are never mistakes, dead-ends, or products that are worse than what came before.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ancient_Roman_technology
The ancient Romans had an entire society that could be mistaken for modern, only with the wrinkle of complete non-dependence on electricity (that's a good thing, as we spend huge amounts of our income combating fear of the dark). They had Greek Fire, they had solar power and wind power (that worked without toxic rare metals) and in fact used a number of power sources which made their system less difficult to undermine (vs the all in one basket electrical grid which is so interconnected that entire countries are vulnerable to one attack), they had steam power as a theory, they had wood coated to be fireproof (with alum), they cut stone with water pressure

(the above uses electricity, so it is clear they at least understood the idea of local energy), they used cranes for construction work, they used top-grade cement, much of which still exists in the tiny city of Rome and with the Hagia Sophia, they have a waterwork that supplies for 3.5 million people in  modern times! Heated baths, heated houses from undernesth. They were very advanced.

The ancient Egyptians managed a structure system that we widely believe was built on slavery. But the slaves didn't do the crafting. This was top tier engineering that involved lifting blocks of stone weighting tons roughly a hundred feet. With modern equipment, the structure so baffled people with its seeming anti-gravity architecture that it was proposed that it was helped along by aliens. Nope, but you know what? The older pyramids were better by far than the newer ones. We now think the pyramids were actually built top to bottom (sliding stones in by digging out the area as you push in the stones).

They don't make them like they used to.

We have solar and wind power, but it isn't as good. It's vulnerable to hacking, it's made from toxic materials, and it often shuts off because it violates thermodynamics by trying to get way more out of a system than into it (thanks to the non-local setup, and our enormous electricity usage). We had cement, but while the Pantheon (not the Parthenon, dumbasses, I know you're gonna talk about that because you don't pay attention) has lasted like 1200 years and this bridge has been here since the first century

our modern cement for construction can't be trusted not to fall apart in a heavy rain.

All of this was lost in the Dark Ages, and only replicated through poorly copied manuscripts or rediscovery.

You have no idea how sophisticated older cultures were compared to you. And here's the thing, I'll wager you personally don't have many skills to speak of. So you think you know better than people who came before you, when you probably have nothing to show for it. My college professor's words stuck with me. He said that we have become a nation of button pushers. He meant (as I now agree with him more and more) that we as a society, though heavily educated (indoctrinated) in theories, more or less are just a labor force without even the skill to make things work during an outage.

As a library worker, I was able to make a check-in and check-out list during internet and power outages. The people around me were button pushers, and didn't understand the system... so of course, I gradually got more and more complaints for lost items and late fees, because the others would not bother to enter in my work when power came on off my shift. Name and barcode of items. It's not that fucking difficult. They were all like "No we can't do this" and often tossed away the paper that I'd written this on leaving me stuck with the complaints. Incompetent assholes. Should have etched it in stone, I guess, so that I'd still have a job and those fake librarians would be out. But then I'd have to deal with COVID, and the blind ignorance of humans (shutting down an entire society because of cooties). COVID is pretty damning proof that you can be suckered by false ideas. It is still coming out how much Fauci lied.

No, flat Earthers don't immediately forfeit the argument. Nor is "We debunked this years ago," sufficient argument. You can't even prove that what NASA does is not digital fakery or even low-tech cut and paste imagery, so you have no game. And these "a million ways", I could probably ask you "Oh? Name one," and it would be bad.

The Romans got much of their society from the Greeks before them, including knowing that the earth is round.  Then again, they ate off of lead plates, so what do they know.

Quote from: Smoke Machine on August 13, 2024, 10:10:57 PM

Quote from: bulmabriefs144 on August 13, 2024, 07:17:46 AM

Yes, that's great. But as I pointed out on a previous post, what exactly is there to keep above dirt and rock from compressing, until Earth collapses into a singularity?

On a flat Earth, there is actually something. Heavier objects sink with regard to the lighter surfaces that surround them. Lighter objects float in regard to heavier surfaces around them. Eventually, objects reach equilibrium, as they are in about the same density as their surroundings, or what is above or below them holds them in place.

Round Earth has no such limits, and Earth should be steadily shrinking in size and growing in density. Until it collapses. Like this.

You simply must have realized the truth.

You believe the entire Earth is flat.

You have therefore lost the right to appeal to science in any way, shape, or form, especially in a way to prove the entire Earth is flat.

Stop appealing to science to prove something science has disproved a million different ways already.

Glad we got the science police here. If we can't use science in any way shape or form for some arbitrary reason you dreamed up in your globe dazed mind, why don't you go ahead and define science for us in a way that is not inconsistent with its practice and history so we know what to avoid for the Royal Smoke Machine?

He means like this.

If we call it science (when actually it's just grinding meat and binder grains together, and cooking the crap in the oven), it must be true!
https://www.pawdiet.com/ingredients/hills-science-diet-dog-food-ingredients-review/
It's all branding. Aside from tailored nutrition, this is mostly standard meat meat, veggie, and grain. They didn't make this in a lab.

One Prescription Diet line and five products of the Science Diet line were involved in the 2007 pet food recalls for their inclusion of melamine tainted wheat gluten received from China.

On January 31, 2019, Hill's recalled 25 varieties of its canned dog food, because of elevated levels of vitamin D, due to a supplier error. Vitamin D overdose in animals can cause irreversible kidney damage and eventually death. On February 12, 2019, San Francisco law firm Schubert Jonckheer & Kolbe LLP filed a class action lawsuit in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California against Hill's on behalf of affected owners for distributing dog food which contained potentially toxic levels of vitamin D.

Cause the deaths of animals? Taint meat with melamine?

Science did that!

The Romans got much of their society from the Greeks before them, including knowing that the earth is round.  Then again, they ate off of lead plates, so what do they know.

There's that word again, "knowing".  The Chinese and Egyptians knew the Earth was flat. Didn't stop them from being technological rivals of the Romans, in terms of prolific inventions. Also, if you think technology is developed in a vacuum, then you have a lot to learn. Some things the Romans did were indeed simplifications of Greek technology, but some were refinements.

By the way, round is conflated as "being like a sphere" by moderns. But round as understood by much of that world was round like a plate or like the back of a turtle (with elephants underneath, of course). The ancients weren't dumb enough to think that certain people were on the underside. Habitable life requires that people walk upright and receive full sunlight, and have a steady but not overwhelming source of water. These things are impossible in the downside of a globe.

https://www.grunge.com/186688/how-the-ancient-greeks-figured-out-the-world-was-round/

According to the BBC, "We have known that Earth is round for over 2,000 years." However, that claim comes with a flat asterisk. IFLScience writes that prior to the rise of states, flat Earth theory flourished in different forms. Ancient Egyptians, Greeks, and Mesopotamians pictured Earth as a disc surrounded by water while the ancient Chinese believed in a flat, square Earth with spherical heavens. Meanwhile Norse culture envisioned a flat, circular Earth encircled by serpents.

As a disc surrounded by water. Yes, that sure sounds like the sphere model you've got in your head. Whether the Earth is round or square, if it is flat, does not matter. But when you start talking about a culture believing Earth is "round" when they in fact believed it a disc, you're clearly grasping at any straws you can get.

While they may have eaten on lead plates, your European ancestors used makeup that involved lead paint. And it shows.

Quote from: JackBlack on August 12, 2024, 02:51:01 PM

Quote from: Username on August 12, 2024, 12:44:18 PM

While changes in acceleration (jerk) are felt, what you're truly experiencing is the force needed to change your body's state of motion, which is a result of inertia.

Again, you never feel gravity as it doesn't exist. You feel inertia which at times seems non-sensible so you make up a force (gravity) to explain away why you are taking a non-inertial frame of reference as an inertial one.

No, what you are truly experiencing is a force being transferred through your body.
This is where the molecules of your body need to transmit that force to apply it to another molecule.

This is somewhat correct but oversimplified. What you feel are forces acting on your body, typically through pressure (like a chair pushing up against you), or tension (like a rope pulling). This force causes changes in motion, which you experience through inertia.

Quote

All the available evidence shows gravity does exist (unless you are trying to yet again play a semantic game of gravity vs gravitation).

You are the one playing semantics. You know you can't just be wrong and yell semantics every time. It's a pseudoforce because it is not a force. You want to play semantics, its right there in the name boss.

People have develop amazing ability to autofilter the noninteresting.  The non changing.


We notcie change.


F= ma

The A for change

Quote from: Smoke Machine on August 13, 2024, 10:10:57 PM

Quote from: bulmabriefs144 on August 13, 2024, 07:17:46 AM

Yes, that's great. But as I pointed out on a previous post, what exactly is there to keep above dirt and rock from compressing, until Earth collapses into a singularity?

On a flat Earth, there is actually something. Heavier objects sink with regard to the lighter surfaces that surround them. Lighter objects float in regard to heavier surfaces around them. Eventually, objects reach equilibrium, as they are in about the same density as their surroundings, or what is above or below them holds them in place.

Round Earth has no such limits, and Earth should be steadily shrinking in size and growing in density. Until it collapses. Like this.

You simply must have realized the truth.

You believe the entire Earth is flat.

You have therefore lost the right to appeal to science in any way, shape, or form, especially in a way to prove the entire Earth is flat.

Stop appealing to science to prove something science has disproved a million different ways already.

Glad we got the science police here. If we can't use science in any way shape or form for some arbitrary reason you dreamed up in your globe dazed mind, why don't you go ahead and define science for us in a way that is not inconsistent with its practice and history so we know what to avoid for the Royal Smoke Machine?

Hello Losername. Why don't you tell us all what science officially says about the idea of the entire Earth being flat?

Quote from: Smoke Machine on August 13, 2024, 10:10:57 PM

You believe the entire Earth is flat.
You have therefore lost the right to appeal to science in any way, shape, or form, especially in a way to prove the entire Earth is flat.

Not how science works.
Everyone is free to use it.

And he has made no attempt to use it.

So, equilibrium is not a scientific term?

Got it.

Quote from: Smoke Machine on August 13, 2024, 10:10:57 PM

Quote from: bulmabriefs144 on August 13, 2024, 07:17:46 AM

Yes, that's great. But as I pointed out on a previous post, what exactly is there to keep above dirt and rock from compressing, until Earth collapses into a singularity?

On a flat Earth, there is actually something. Heavier objects sink with regard to the lighter surfaces that surround them. Lighter objects float in regard to heavier surfaces around them. Eventually, objects reach equilibrium, as they are in about the same density as their surroundings, or what is above or below them holds them in place.

Round Earth has no such limits, and Earth should be steadily shrinking in size and growing in density. Until it collapses. Like this.

You simply must have realized the truth.

You believe the entire Earth is flat.

You have therefore lost the right to appeal to science in any way, shape, or form, especially in a way to prove the entire Earth is flat.

Stop appealing to science to prove something science has disproved a million different ways already.

Appeal to Obsolescence fallacy.

In case you need this explained, here it is. You believe technology only proceeds in one direction, onward and upward, that there are never mistakes, dead-ends, or products that are worse than what came before.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ancient_Roman_technology
The ancient Romans had an entire society that could be mistaken for modern, only with the wrinkle of complete non-dependence on electricity (that's a good thing, as we spend huge amounts of our income combating fear of the dark). They had Greek Fire, they had solar power and wind power (that worked without toxic rare metals) and in fact used a number of power sources which made their system less difficult to undermine (vs the all in one basket electrical grid which is so interconnected that entire countries are vulnerable to one attack), they had steam power as a theory, they had wood coated to be fireproof (with alum), they cut stone with water pressure

(the above uses electricity, so it is clear they at least understood the idea of local energy), they used cranes for construction work, they used top-grade cement, much of which still exists in the tiny city of Rome and with the Hagia Sophia, they have a waterwork that supplies for 3.5 million people in  modern times! Heated baths, heated houses from undernesth. They were very advanced.

The ancient Egyptians managed a structure system that we widely believe was built on slavery. But the slaves didn't do the crafting. This was top tier engineering that involved lifting blocks of stone weighting tons roughly a hundred feet. With modern equipment, the structure so baffled people with its seeming anti-gravity architecture that it was proposed that it was helped along by aliens. Nope, but you know what? The older pyramids were better by far than the newer ones. We now think the pyramids were actually built top to bottom (sliding stones in by digging out the area as you push in the stones).

They don't make them like they used to.

We have solar and wind power, but it isn't as good. It's vulnerable to hacking, it's made from toxic materials, and it often shuts off because it violates thermodynamics by trying to get way more out of a system than into it (thanks to the non-local setup, and our enormous electricity usage). We had cement, but while the Pantheon (not the Parthenon, dumbasses, I know you're gonna talk about that because you don't pay attention) has lasted like 1200 years and this bridge has been here since the first century

our modern cement for construction can't be trusted not to fall apart in a heavy rain.

All of this was lost in the Dark Ages, and only replicated through poorly copied manuscripts or rediscovery.

You have no idea how sophisticated older cultures were compared to you. And here's the thing, I'll wager you personally don't have many skills to speak of. So you think you know better than people who came before you, when you probably have nothing to show for it. My college professor's words stuck with me. He said that we have become a nation of button pushers. He meant (as I now agree with him more and more) that we as a society, though heavily educated (indoctrinated) in theories, more or less are just a labor force without even the skill to make things work during an outage.

As a library worker, I was able to make a check-in and check-out list during internet and power outages. The people around me were button pushers, and didn't understand the system... so of course, I gradually got more and more complaints for lost items and late fees, because the others would not bother to enter in my work when power came on off my shift. Name and barcode of items. It's not that fucking difficult. They were all like "No we can't do this" and often tossed away the paper that I'd written this on leaving me stuck with the complaints. Incompetent assholes. Should have etched it in stone, I guess, so that I'd still have a job and those fake librarians would be out. But then I'd have to deal with COVID, and the blind ignorance of humans (shutting down an entire society because of cooties). COVID is pretty damning proof that you can be suckered by false ideas. It is still coming out how much Fauci lied.

No, flat Earthers don't immediately forfeit the argument. Nor is "We debunked this years ago," sufficient argument. You can't even prove that what NASA does is not digital fakery or even low-tech cut and paste imagery, so you have no game. And these "a million ways", I could probably ask you "Oh? Name one," and it would be bad.

You certainly do fancy yourself the wordsmith, don't you?

So, you will love it when I say the idea the entire Earth is flat, does not meet the threshold of being verifiable. There must be current reliable and independent sources to verify the entire Earth is flat, and there are none.

If, around 600 bc, the popular opinion was the earth was flat, as you make out, it would have been the popular opinion without qualification at that time.

Unfortunately for you who wishes this was still 600 bc, we now have the international space station which depicts the sphericity of the Earth in almost every video. As it flew over Australia the other day, there the sphericity was for everybody to see. What a surprise, Bulma! What a surprise!

Meanwhile, you just keep trying to make the circle shape fit in the square hole, little fella, just like you used to do when you were 2.