Flat Earth

[BADecker]

A mention though, buoyancy doesn't exist without gravity.

Buoyancy can exist without gravity in a cylinder, like a drum, that is spinning fast enough along its axis, so that centrifugal force causes water inside the drum to be forced against the cylindrical wall of the drum.

A lot of the things that FE people say fit the inside of a humongous cylinder better than they fit FE.

Nice, you take the position that a force that's a pull (really what?) isn't the the only possible force knowing that you'll be beat mercilessly but you somehow manage to chimp out in the end and claim there's a globe.

@salty what do you know about the coulomb force?

Actually, when you reduce Einstein's explanation of gravity down to simplicity, gravity is not a pull force. Rather, gravity is a push force. Gravity is the warping of space that attempts to push material out of itself (space) into areas where other material already exists.

[SaltySpitoon]

Nice, you take the position that a force that's a pull (really what?) isn't the the only possible force knowing that you'll be beat mercilessly but you somehow manage to chimp out in the end and claim there's a globe.

@salty what do you know about the coulomb force?

Well, you have to be pretty careful with terminology. Gravity is not a force, its an acceleration. There is a force due to gravity however. The simplest way to put it, is that you are constantly radially accelerating towards the center of the earth. The force felt by gravity is measured as weight.

I'm pretty confident I can answer any electricity and magnetism question you can ask, so feel free to propose your theory and what your justification is for it. I'm interested in the connection between buoyancy, coulombs force, and density, and how that can replace gravity.

Actually, when you reduce Einstein's explanation of gravity down to simplicity, gravity is not a pull force. Rather, gravity is a push force. Gravity is the warping of space that attempts to push material out of itself (space) into areas where other material already exists.

We don't need to get into anything relativity for the context of this discussion. Dealing with a 99.999% accurate model that don't include vague concepts of time and space are good enough when explaining observable phenomena.

I honestly enjoy this, I feel like its helping my understanding of things a lot. The hardest course I took was a course that was solely dedicated to proofs. The hardest thing to explain is why addition works. Certain things we just kind of take for granted, and when someone asks why? Its hard to answer without assuming that they know or agree with all of the preexisting information that you might consider common sense.

[notbatman]

He's already denying Einstein, slippery slope my friend.

[SaltySpitoon]

He's already denying Einstein, slippery slope my friend.

I'm not denying Einstein, Physics with Relativity included is so incredibly misunderstood, you'd be hard pressed to find someone who truly understands most of it. I certainly do not, and have no intention of trying to correct your mistaken interpretation of what Einstein concluded with my mistaken interpretation. If we can't establish common ground on how satellites work, I don't think we need to debate why their clocks are adjusted to make up for time loss.

As I said, I'm not interested in whos wrong and whos right, so I'm not going to stick around to bicker. I'm interested in interesting thoughts. Someone looking for proof of a mundane thing is great. Making claims and then rather than explaining your claims, trying to pick a fight is boring. Inspiring the idea that the current idea of the geometry of the earth does not allow for "X" situation to hold true, is interesting. If you come up with a way to justify your thoughts, please feel free to share. Even if I think you are mistaken, that doesn't mean there isn't a useful overlooked tidbit in what you say.

[Vod]

Density and buoyancy prove that gravity exists.   

[—]

Flat Earth is a psy up by know shills like Eric Dubay, Donald Trump .......
Main proponent and initiator in recent times.


The Earth is 4D.
Geographical any measurement or test will show nothing but flatness into eternity. 
Geometric no flatness can be found and 100% fail with certainty.

Flat Earth shills know this and talk double dutch, as they know they can not be wrong.

Space travel is fake as 3D beings can only move within the 3D realms. Up- down, left-right, forward-backward.
A line does not know about a square (it only knows forward and back) and a square is clueless of cubes (does not know about "up-down").

[TooQik]

[edit]

As I said, I'm not interested in whos wrong and whos right, so I'm not going to stick around to bicker. I'm interested in interesting thoughts. Someone looking for proof of a mundane thing is great. Making claims and then rather than explaining your claims, trying to pick a fight is boring.

[/edit]

Unfortunately notbatman isn't interested in anything but picking fights with those who don't share his/her views on the shape of the Earth.

You can try and engage him/her in an open discussion but as you've witnessed, you'll get ridiculed, abused, told to go kill yourself, ignored, have the conversation point changes mid discussion or any combination of the aforementioned.

As you've mentioned, the best thing attempting to have this discussion with notbatman is that you get to push your own understandings.

[notbatman]

Density and buoyancy prove that gravity exists.  

How so? The theory of gravity has never been proven, you'll be the first!

*truth is relative*

*notbatman is a big fat meanie*

... this is the point where I can't respond any more. ...

You've justified the heliocentric model in your mind based on images of puppets hanging from wires the government showed you when you were six. You can't even consider a flat Earth model with a close small Sun for the purposes of evaluating Eratosthenes experiment. This is the point where I tell you to go rope yourself.

[BADecker]

Density and buoyancy prove that gravity exists.  

How so? The theory of gravity has never been proven, you'll be the first!

The Theory of Gravity doesn't need proof that it exists. All you have to do is look in thousands of books and thousands of websites to see that the Theory of Gravity exists all over the place.

Same with gravity, only more so. All you have to do is hold your car keys above the table and let them go. They fall to the table. Gravity does it. Gravity is in use all over the world by all people.

And, as some of these recent people have posted right in this thread, gravity proves density exists. And the second proof is centrifugal force, a force which actually opposes gravity.

The two things you are trying to do are:
1. Show a crazy, mixed up FE science that can easily be proven wrong;
2. Use semantics to mix up word meanings just to throw off novice scientists so that they doubt science.

The question is, why are you doing this?
Do you really believe your own nonsense?
Are you trying to form a minority group to get government funding?
Are you simply trying to see how long you can get this thread to go?
Are you trying to start a religious cult of some kind?
Are you trying to prove to yourself that you can actually be so strong that you have no shame?

What are you really all about?

[seoincorporation]

Density and buoyancy prove that gravity exists.  

How so? The theory of gravity has never been proven, you'll be the first!

The Theory of Gravity doesn't need proof that it exists. All you have to do is look in thousands of books and thousands of websites to see that the Theory of Gravity exists all over the place.

Same with gravity, only more so. All you have to do is hold your car keys above the table and let them go. They fall to the table. Gravity does it. Gravity is in use all over the world by all people.

And, as some of these recent people have posted right in this thread, gravity proves density exists. And the second proof is centrifugal force, a force which actually opposes gravity.

The two things you are trying to do are:
1. Show a crazy, mixed up FE science that can easily be proven wrong;
2. Use semantics to mix up word meanings just to throw off novice scientists so that they doubt science.

The question is, why are you doing this?
Do you really believe your own nonsense?
Are you trying to form a minority group to get government funding?
Are you simply trying to see how long you can get this thread to go?
Are you trying to start a religious cult of some kind?
Are you trying to prove to yourself that you can actually be so strong that you have no shame?

What are you really all about?

Some things don't need proof to be real, just like the magnetism we can't see it at all but there it is. About gravity, we already have some theories, but we are not sure if it's a particle or a wave, but time will give us the answer.

The science still searching the gravity as a particle on the CERN, and if they don't find it we can deduct it was a wave all the time. If you want to learn more about the particle, take a look to the next link: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Graviton

I think it will be a thing like Higgs boson, no one believes until they see it.

[BADecker]

The Theory of Gravity doesn't need proof that it exists. All you have to do is look in thousands of books and thousands of websites to see that the Theory of Gravity exists all over the place.

Same with gravity, only more so. All you have to do is hold your car keys above the table and let them go. They fall to the table. Gravity does it. Gravity is in use all over the world by all people.

And, as some of these recent people have posted right in this thread, gravity proves density exists. And the second proof is centrifugal force, a force which actually opposes gravity.

The two things you are trying to do are:
1. Show a crazy, mixed up FE science that can easily be proven wrong;
2. Use semantics to mix up word meanings just to throw off novice scientists so that they doubt science.

The question is, why are you doing this?
Do you really believe your own nonsense?
Are you trying to form a minority group to get government funding?
Are you simply trying to see how long you can get this thread to go?
Are you trying to start a religious cult of some kind?
Are you trying to prove to yourself that you can actually be so strong that you have no shame?

What are you really all about?

Some things don't need proof to be real, just like the magnetism we can't see it at all but there it is. About gravity, we already have some theories, but we are not sure if it's a particle or a wave, but time will give us the answer.

The science still searching the gravity as a particle on the CERN, and if they don't find it we can deduct it was a wave all the time. If you want to learn more about the particle, take a look to the next link: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Graviton

I think it will be a thing like Higgs boson, no one believes until they see it.

There is a Higgs Boson theory and there is a gravity theory.

The difference is this.

Up until the time when the Higgs Boson was found, nobody knew that there was one, but everybody knows that gravity exists, and people have known and used gravity for thousands of years.

Presently, few people know that the Higgs Boson exists. And nobody uses the Higgs Boson. But, if people use the Higgs, they don't know that they did so.

Gravity is fun. Some of us have fun searching for a gravity particle on CERN. Some of us have fun with gravity by playing basketball. Everybody knows that gravity exists.

[Vod]

notbatman knows gravity exists.  He won't be stepping off any tall buildings anytime soon.   

[notbatman]

The theory of an invisible magical force doesn't need proof? You're all fucking insane, there's no reason here just mad men pushing a giant lie and conspiracy.

[SaltySpitoon]

The theory of an invisible magical force doesn't need proof? You're all fucking insane, there's no reason here just mad men pushing a giant lie and conspiracy.

What is your definition of proof of existence? If we assume that it exists, all things make sense. If we assume that it doesn't exist, nothing that relies on it existing works anymore. I can say that gravity, however you want to define it, will always do the same thing we expect it to. Whether you want to call it gravity or ytivarg, it doesn't matter, it exists because there is no proof that it doesn't exist. Maybe you are right, and what we call gravity is actually some mysterious force + some effect due to ether or whatever, but those components will equal what we consider gravity. So until a more accurate model is found, we'll call it gravity and it'll be an acceleration of 9.80m/s^2 at the sea level.

I can tell you with 100% certainty, that a 32 mile wide thermonuclear reaction 3,000 miles away would destroy the earth, so that is why I don't believe the sun is the size or distance you claim, not because someone told me. If you set up solar panels, you can get an amount of power from them. That power is very closely related to the ~1400w/m^2 that we get from a sun considered 93 million miles away.


My greater point is, if you are going to claim there is no gravity, or that the sun is 3,000 miles away, please explain how that holds true to what we can observe or predict with some sort of consistency. Put the pieces together for us, and if it holds, it holds. Keep in mind, that if you change assumptions about gravity or the distance from the sun, you can't make the same assumptions that the experiments that prove your point still hold true, so make sure you double check that. Describing something as a function of something else that you claim doesn't exist isn't great math.  I can claim the earth is a triangle, because you can go up. But until I unify that theory with proof, theres nothing to talk about.

On a side note, I mean, you could wait 10 years until a trip to space costs the same as a plane ticket to observe for yourself. Or just launch your own weather balloon with a camera for a whopping ~$300 cost.


*edit* Sorry, I didn't ask the real question here. So if gravity doesn't exist, what does?

[sirazimuth]

You've justified the heliocentric model in your mind based on images of puppets hanging from wires the government showed you when you were six. ....

Dafuk is wrong with you?
An intelligent poster engages you in a cordial manner and that's the best you can do?
God forbid he shoots your retarded FE nonsense to hell.
I  know your MO though....
Much easier just to post  bizzare shit like this....

.... This is the point where I tell you to go rope yourself.

... You're all fucking insane, there's no reason here just mad men pushing a giant lie and conspiracy.

...and hopefully make him go away, yeah?
.... Jeeezus dude, you are such an asshat.

[notbatman]

Objects fall because they're more dense than the air they've displaced and get pushed down. Gravity is only needed if you're lying or confused about the shape of the Earth and the nature of the heavens.

[BADecker]

Objects fall because they're more dense than the air they've displaced and get pushed down. Gravity is only needed if you're lying or confused about the shape of the Earth and the nature of the heavens.

Objects fall because they're more massive than the air they've displaced and get pushed down by gravity. Lack of gravity only exists when you're lying or confused about the shape of the Earth and the nature of the heavens.

Poor notbatman. I feel for you. Your cult is crumbling.

[joerogers8]

The theory of an invisible magical force doesn't need proof? You're all fucking insane, there's no reason here just mad men pushing a giant lie and conspiracy.

What is your definition of proof of existence? If we assume that it exists, all things make sense. If we assume that it doesn't exist, nothing that relies on it existing works anymore. I can say that gravity, however you want to define it, will always do the same thing we expect it to. Whether you want to call it gravity or ytivarg, it doesn't matter, it exists because there is no proof that it doesn't exist. Maybe you are right, and what we call gravity is actually some mysterious force + some effect due to ether or whatever, but those components will equal what we consider gravity. So until a more accurate model is found, we'll call it gravity and it'll be an acceleration of 9.80m/s^2 at the sea level.

I can tell you with 100% certainty, that a 32 mile wide thermonuclear reaction 3,000 miles away would destroy the earth, so that is why I don't believe the sun is the size or distance you claim, not because someone told me. If you set up solar panels, you can get an amount of power from them. That power is very closely related to the ~1400w/m^2 that we get from a sun considered 93 million miles away.


My greater point is, if you are going to claim there is no gravity, or that the sun is 3,000 miles away, please explain how that holds true to what we can observe or predict with some sort of consistency. Put the pieces together for us, and if it holds, it holds. Keep in mind, that if you change assumptions about gravity or the distance from the sun, you can't make the same assumptions that the experiments that prove your point still hold true, so make sure you double check that. Describing something as a function of something else that you claim doesn't exist isn't great math.  I can claim the earth is a triangle, because you can go up. But until I unify that theory with proof, theres nothing to talk about.

On a side note, I mean, you could wait 10 years until a trip to space costs the same as a plane ticket to observe for yourself. Or just launch your own weather balloon with a camera for a whopping ~$300 cost.


*edit* Sorry, I didn't ask the real question here. So if gravity doesn't exist, what does?

Whats up Slaty

How do you know it's the earth rotation which causes things to fall at that rate?  I think we all agree that things fall at 9.81 m/s^2.  That's the how.  I think the why is being questioned.  Is it the spinning earth or something else?  I feel like we are getting caught up in the word gravity.  The more appropriate question is can it be proven that things are falling at that rate due to earths spin?

I don't think you can just launch a weather balloon to see the curve.  I have seen amateur footage that got to 120k feet.  The horizon raised to eye level and was flat.  I'm fairly certain you would need one hell of an elaborate setup to get to say double that height.  I for one would love to see if we could get a balloon up higher than say 300k feet.  Not sure if it would be high enough to see the curve or prove shape.  I would love to see the proof in this fashion as it would seal the deal for humanity.  I'm talking amateur scientists and enthusiasts replicating the experiment 1000's of times over not NASA or a govt space program.  

How do you know the sun is a thermonuclear reaction and not something else?

It's the same basic issue with the pressure gradient.  We know the pressure is there we can test it.  Why is the pressure there?  Can we prove it is the earths spin which allows us to have this pressure with no container?

Cool physics teacher and lesson here about air pressure.  (ignore the flat earther comments and enjoy the video and science)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=spQ4d-0Q9-A

[suchmoon]

How do you know it's the earth rotation which causes things to fall at that rate?

Aside from minuscule centrifugal force Earth's rotation doesn't have much effect on how things fall. Things would still fall if Earth was not rotating.

[SaltySpitoon]

Whats up Slaty

How do you know it's the earth rotation which causes things to fall at that rate?  I think we all agree that things fall at 9.81 m/s^2.  That's the how.  I think the why is being questioned.  Is it the spinning earth or something else?  I feel like we are getting caught up in the word gravity.  The more appropriate question is can it be proven that things are falling at that rate due to earths spin?

I don't think you can just launch a weather balloon to see the curve.  I have seen amateur footage that got to 120k feet.  The horizon raised to eye level and was flat.  I'm fairly certain you would need one hell of an elaborate setup to get to say double that height.  I for one would love to see if we could get a balloon up higher than say 300k feet.  Not sure if it would be high enough to see the curve or prove shape.  I would love to see the proof in this fashion as it would seal the deal for humanity.  I'm talking amateur scientists and enthusiasts replicating the experiment 1000's of times over not NASA or a govt space program.  

How do you know the sun is a thermonuclear reaction and not something else?

It's the same basic issue with the pressure gradient.  We know the pressure is there we can test it.  Why is the pressure there?  Can we prove it is the earths spin which allows us to have this pressure with no container?

Cool physics teacher and lesson here about air pressure.  (ignore the flat earther comments and enjoy the video and science)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=spQ4d-0Q9-A

Well earth's rotation doesn't cause things to fall, earth is just an inertial reference frame for when that matters. Gravity is described as a force of attraction between any two objects with a distance between them and mass. Your chair is exerting a gravitational force on you, you are exerting a gravitational force on your dining table. As we talked about before, this force can be modeled by the equation F=-GMm/r^2 where G is that tiny constant, and M and m are the masses of the two objects, r is the distance between them. When we talk about gravitational forces, because G is 6.67x10^-11, the calculable force is essentially 0 if the product of your masses aren't on an order of magnitude to make up for multiplying by such a small constant, or if your radius is sufficiently large.

the moon, the sun, all of the other planets in the solar system, halie's comet, that 7-11 down the street, they all exert gravitational forces on you. However, 1) The moon/sun/other planets are far enough away that the force is negligible. The 7-11's mass is small enough that the force is negligible.

I didn't actually know the height you needed to be to witness the curvature of the earth, apparently the answer is just a little over 10km, and you can see it from an airplane on a relatively nice day. Thats just what a google search result yielded, so I wouldn't stake my life on it. But the answer should be easy enough to prove just by taking a look the next time you have a nice flight.

There are a lot of products from nuclear fusion that we get here on earth from the sun. Heat, light, EM and other types of radiation. The reaction on the sun is the same as the fusion reactions that we've created on earth. We can measure the products that are reaching the earth, such as light/heat, radiation/neutrinos, and observe the electromagnetic radiation that causes solar flares and other neat things.

"It's the same basic issue with the pressure gradient.  We know the pressure is there we can test it.  Why is the pressure there?  Can we prove it is the earths spin which allows us to have this pressure with no container?"

Sorry if I'm misunderstanding, but where is there? We do have a container so to speak. Our container is the atmosphere around the earth. Various forces including gravity keep the atmosphere around the earth.

For the sake of transparency, I'm mostly working off of Newtonian physics. Newtonian physics is accurate enough to launch a space ship, but if you get a room full of physics nerds together, someone will mention that there are other factors in play. Newtonian physics still holds true, it'll get you 99.999% accurate results in almost all cases. When people wondered where the .001% error was coming from, that's when Modern physics with relativity comes into play. I don't mind including that, but it'd take a lot more time than I may need to if we are just talking about observable things.