Topic: Flat Earth - page 188. (Read 1095196 times)

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

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.


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.

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

^^^ 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.

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.

^^^ 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?

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.

^^^ Nice an honest answer, I see you're now willing to admit that you don't know instead of the knee-jerk it's a globe reaction we see from the other users. If you've got the ability to think critically I implore you, spend some time going over the evidence we're on a spinning globe.

---

---

This video goes over some of the math:
   Flat Earth | Globe Earth Mathematically Debunked -- https://youtu.be/bol8vZ7pcu8

So your point is that Neil DeGrasse Tyson's explanation doesn't include how the light is bent because of the index of refraction of the atmosphere? I'm sure it does play a role, how significant that role is I don't know. Much like I was doing earlier, for the sake of explanation to people who haven't spent 8 years researching a particular topic of physics, or to those who don't have 6 hours to hear a lecture, simplifications are used. There are many terms not explained in the video about what is going on when light passes through the atmosphere and shines down a well. I don't think thats being deceptive, thats for the sake of making the concept understandable. Frankly, light confuses the hell out of me, so I can't provide an in depth analysis of what the results you should expect.

My thoughts on the matter:
Does anyone have exact data collected from when this experiment was done? Has it been replicated. All of the explanations and diagrams I see are so heavily rounded that they aren't good for anything besides theory. If you are getting a whole number as a degree, you are shaving off at least 4 significant figures.

I'm not dodging your question, just answering honestly that I don't know. I don't have enough information available to give you a better answer. If I can find some reliable data collected where someone tried this experiment, I can help draw a simple conclusion. The finer details of light are way beyond my understanding, so I may be able to find an answer with a reasonable margin of error, but I wouldn't be able to account for all of the correction factors needed to give you definitive proof. I'm not saying its not out there, just that I'm not qualified to do so.

^^^ The whole argument laid out by Neil deGrasse Tyson. -- https://youtu.be/hLPPE3_DVCw?t=248

I have absolutely no idea what you are talking about, Eratosthenes calculated the circumference of the earth at a single point. Would you mind linking me to the experiment where this one done at different places? If you compare the shadows cast by three separate sticks in different cities, yes you will have to take into account index of refraction as well as the elevation and distance from the earth to the sun at those individual points. That is if those places are far enough apart to make a calculable difference. ~ 100Km for each parallel.

Is this what you are referring to? http://www.k12science.org/noonday/oldbackuppages/cosmos.html

^^^ Thanks for your intellectually dishonest reply.



1. There are three (3) or more separate shadow angle measurement points located in different cities.

2. Shadow angle measurement points are plum vertical sticks or plum vertical wells.

3. The one (1) point directly under the Sun at noon is not measured because its angle and refraction are both known to be zero (0).


You're telling me that because the point directly under the Sun is known, we don't need to account for refraction on the points are being measured and documented? Either you're confused or, you're being dishonest with me and everybody else and you should rope yourself.

Well, my post doesn't actually have anything to do with gravity. I kept calling it gravity for lack of a better term, but I tried to establish the term "gravity" as the measurable quantity of force that can be observed whenever you try to leave the ground. Whether the finer details of gravity apply or not, the only assumption I made were that if you are on the ground, something keeps you there unless you put effort into overcoming it. I also claimed that "gravity" decreases as you get higher and higher up, and there is a point where that force is zero. There are no arguable concepts there. You can witness those for yourself, and don't need to take anyone's word for it.


I'm not familiar with Eratosthenes experiment, but after a quick search I just found that shadows were measured when the sun was directly overhead near the tropic of cancer on the summer solstice, at noon. If there is something I'm missing let me know. In this case, the angle of incidence will be 0 degrees to normal. The ratio of Sin(incident angle) / Sin(refraction) = N. Sin(incident) = 0 so there will be no change in the path the light takes.