Flat Earth

[SaltySpitoon]

Well, I took a minute, and realized that this is actually a pretty easy example to prove, all of the correction factors that I was saying that I couldn't calculate were so infinitesimally small that they don't matter.

The surface to surface distance of the Sun to Earth is 1.496x10^11m. For my "test" wells to the left and right of the well in the center, I placed them 100Km apart (1x10^5m) or about an hour's drive. As we talked about before, while the sun is perpendicular to the earth, the angle of incident is 90 degrees, thats why there is no refraction by the atmosphere. There is a refraction for the cities to the left and right, however its unmeasurably small. In order to get a 1 degree angle of incidence, we'd have to be measuring a city a distance of 2.596x10^9 meters away from the center well. A distance ~65x the circumference of the earth away.  Because of that, the angle of incidence 100 Kilometers away can be expressed as 0.

I've got a picture I drew out for myself while working the problem, but we were making it way more complicated than it needed to be. I can post it if you'd like, but with a triangle with sides 1.489x10^11m and 1x10^5m, you can see it pretty clearly.

[notbatman]

^^^ You claim refraction by the atmosphere is unmeasurably small, but can you prove that?

Keep in mind that during a selenelion eclipse with the Sun and Moon both visible in the sky above the viewer, to claim a globe refraction by the atmosphere has to be so extreme that it takes the Moon from below the horizon and puts it up above your head. Now you want to claim it's effect is so small it can't be measured?

[SaltySpitoon]

^^^ You claim refraction by the atmosphere is unmeasurably small, but can you prove that?

Keep in mind that during a selenelion eclipse with the Sun and Moon both visible in the sky above the viewer, to claim a globe refraction by the atmosphere has to be so extreme that it takes the Moon from below the horizon and puts it up above your head. Now you want to claim it's effect is so small it can't be measured?

Correct, snells law states that the refractions are proportional to the ratios of the angle and the index of refractions of the mediums. Air is ~1.3 and a vaccum is ~1, however the important part is that I cannot calculate any difference in the angles of incidence from the sun with a calculator that only goes to 6 decimal places. The order of magnitudes between the distance from the sun to the earth, and between two different places on earth are too different to make any measurable difference.

Draw a right triangle with one leg as 1.489x10^11m as its length in the vertical direction, and any reasonable distance between two cities. The hypotenuse of the triangle will be nearly identical to 1.489x10^11m, and the angle of incidence will be essentially incalculable.

The angle between those cities 100Km apart is 1.16452x10^-8 degrees by my calculation.

[notbatman]

^^^ It's difficult to interpret your statement, but it looks like you've been honestly confused. I see now why the shills bathed you in merit points for espousing the virtues of gravity.

Okay, the deal is when you measure the distance to the Sun with a sextant it's about 3,000 miles and its diameter is about 32 miles. You've got it in you head that the Sun is 93 million miles away and the rays are hitting us in parallel, they are not. The rays are divergent; the Sun is close, small and in motion over a plane.

[SaltySpitoon]

^^^ It's difficult to interpret your statement, but it looks like you've been honestly confused. I see now why the shills bathed you in merit points for espousing the virtues of gravity.

Okay, the deal is when you measure the distance to the Sun with a sextant it's about 3,000 miles and its diameter is about 32 miles. You've got it in you head that the Sun is 93 million miles away and the rays are hitting us in parallel, they are not. The rays are divergent; the Sun is close, small and in motion over a plane.

Is it just the numbers used, or the concepts in my statement that are the issue? Like I said, I'm not going out of my way to prove that you are wrong to make you change your mind. I'm interested in what valid points of conflict there are. The question about the sun's angle with respect to refraction was interesting, and I got a lot out of it. So just a reminder, I'm not on some crusade against you.

That said, this is the point where I can't respond any more. Up until this point, we've been able to go back and forth discussing points. You claimed that modern physics could not explain a phenomena. I explained how it could. You then said my explanation isn't valid because the sun is significantly smaller and closer than what I'm assuming. We can't have a discussion if you make claims without your own proof, especially if we are changing multiple variables at the same time. The process of disproving the known, is to find a case where the known doesn't make sense, and you have to reevaluate what is known. What is the case where the sun being 93 million miles does not make all of the pieces fit together?

Claiming that the sun is 3,000 miles away is pretty far fetched, I'd be incredibly interested to hear what your justification is for that. 3,000 miles isn't even the distance across the Atlantic ocean. Can you imagine if there was a sun sized nuclear reaction going on in Europe, what your perspective from the East Coast US would be? I do know a handful of ways to justify the size and distance of the sun, however I can't do that if once I do we are going to disagree over what a joule or heat is.

[notbatman]

If you can understand density, buoyancy and the polarizing effects of the coulomb force then you don't need gravity, it's 100% bullshit. Heavy balls in the shed don't prove there are heavy balls in the sky; the nature of electrostatics is such that it renders the Cavendish experiment absolutely inconclusive.

[BADecker]

Just remember, when the sun is 3,000 miles directly overhead at ground zero on a FE, on the ground at 3,000 miles away from ground zero, the sun would only have about 70% of its diameter as seen at ground zero. Crazy FE perspective "laws" will only make it smaller.

[SaltySpitoon]

If you can understand density, buoyancy and the polarizing effects of the coulomb force then you don't need gravity, it's 100% bullshit. Heavy balls in the shed don't prove there are heavy balls in the sky; the nature of electrostatics is such that it renders the Cavendish experiment absolutely inconclusive.

Care to elaborate? I'd consider myself to have a pretty solid understanding of density, buoyancy, and all things electrical from a modern chemistry and physics standpoint. In the post I made previously about pressure gradients I made a point of mentioning that my definition of "gravitational force" was the thing that kept you down on the planet, just in case there was some conflict with our definitions of gravity. I didn't need it to mean what I'd consider gravity, all that matters is its tendency to decrease the further away from the surface of the earth you get.

A mention though, buoyancy doesn't exist without gravity. And still curious about your justification for the sun being the size and distance you claim it is.

[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.

[SaltySpitoon]

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.

Right, but buoyancy that people refer to on earth is a quantity defined by density, acceleration due to gravity, and displaced volume. You would need some sort of unidirectional acceleration. If you reverse the direction of the cylinder's rotation, I believe that'd change the buoyancy unless theres a term thats squared that makes only the magnitude and not direction relevant.

[notbatman]

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?







"... The law was first published in 1785 by French physicist Charles-Augustin de Coulomb and was essential to the development of the theory of electromagnetism. Being an inverse-square law, it is analogous to Isaac Newton's inverse-square law of universal gravitation. Coulomb's law can be used to derive Gauss's law, and vice versa. The law has been tested extensively, and all observations have upheld the law's principle. ..."
-- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coulomb's_law

[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?