Topic: Flat Earth - page 189. (Read 1095196 times)

^^^ I'm interested in discussing atmospheric refraction and Eratosthenes experiment using three or more shadow angles. Instead we've got Magellan's Island and a succession of off-topic posts on an unproven theory that received more merit points than I gave Vitalik Buterin and Satoshi Nakamoto combined!

Eratosthenes experiment using three or more shadow angles is touted as proof of the globe by scientists, professors, NASA, PBS and the church. What happens when the recorded angles have atmospheric refraction taken into account?

---

---

Perhaps I believe in some kind of black magic that moves the shadows cast by the sticks; a magic called refraction that magically moves the Sun and Moon? Maybe if we move to ban plastic straws we can help reduce the danger refraction magic poses to people?




^{Source: https://www.businessinsider.com/plastic-straw-ban-why-are-there-so-many-2018-7}

---

---

While you ponder the magic of refraction and why your drink no longer comes with straw, I've got short documentary video about our hero Elon, the man single-handedly building vacation getaways on Mars.

The Mysterious Lineage of ELON MUSK! -- https://youtu.be/yfcprMi82l0

I for one have said nothing because he has been very polite and very giving with his explanation. He did not attack us so I wish not to be perceived as attacking him.  The issue is he has invoked gravity in just about every paragraph of his explanation and has told us that when we ask him to prove gravity he doesn't like it and has a problem with it.  So if we are not to ask him for proof of gravity there is no where else to go but to a pissing match, which I hope we can all agree to is unnecessary at this point.  You cannot prove points with something you cannot show proof of.  He has also assumed that as we raise up further and further there is a vacuum.  I agree there is a gradient but he has proven nothing regarding what is actually up there.  The fact of the matter is we don't know what's up there.  He is also referring to lights in the sky, as far as we can tell, as having a gravitational effect on us.  There is no proof of this.  There is simply nothing provable in his post aside from the fact that we have a pressure gradient to our atmosphere much as their is a pressure gradient with water which I think we all already knew.    

He has beautify and intelligently recited what we have been taught.  You get to the point where it's the equivalent of telling a person that believes in Jesus that Jesus does not exist and you upset them and cause a fight.  There have been bunches and bunches of videos with debates revolving around exactly what his example was.  It's nothing new.  In the end it's a giant pissing match.

The final and most important issue is the entire example has nothing to do with the shape of the earth.  No matter what the answer is it's not getting us any closer to the shape of this place we call earth.  This is most likely why no one is chiming in.  It has nothing to do with the topic.  You actually merited a post that is completely off topic.  

So you claim the Sun and Moon are drunk.
One more so than the other as it still manages to "wobble" uniformly and the other just went way overboard.

I am loving it....

Why am I not surprised that on the rare occasion something actually intelligent is  posted in here
and notnotbatty replies with....

the best experiment would be walking non stop on the same direction, if you go back to where you started then it's round, if you "fill" somewhere at the end of the "flat" earth then you know it was flat, too sad you will not be able to tell us about your findings .

Thank you sir/madam
Great to see intelligent informative posts on this thread.
Hopefully you have educated some folks today.

Examples where bodies of water don't find their level:
1. Water in a container where there is adhesion or cohesion.
2. The Panama Canal where the bodies of water are connected around the South and North American continents.
3. Water on a wet basketball.
4. Drops of water in the air in a rain storm.

Because of the great size of GE, we can't easily see or measure the change in water level. But it can be understood with the horizon.


Yes they do:
1. Water on a wet basketball.
2. The underside of ocean water in the oceans.
3. The underside of water on a wet basketball.


Gravity is a barrier, as is centrifugal force - https://www.quora.com/How-fast-do-you-have-to-spin-a-drum-of-air-for-a-complete-vacuum-to-form-in-the-middle-due-to-centrifugal-force.

So I had an idea for a pressure gradient explanation, I'm going to describe a void or vacuum as just a space that doesn't contain matter, namely air. Its a very simplified version so its not technically absolutely correct, but I'd have to write a thesis paper if I included all of the thermodynamics of the atmosphere, factored in.

So whether our gravitational model is correct or not, we can agree that there is some sort of attractive force that pulls everything towards the ground. We also know that as you get further away from the earth, that attractive force decreases. Stand on a scale at sea level versus on a mountain, and your weight which is your mass * that gravitational force however you want to describe it, will be lower on top of the mountain.  With that, I make the statement that gravitational force decreases as you get further away from the surface of the earth.

We can observe that as you continue to go up, the gravitational force will continue to decrease. Gravity is inversely proportional to the square of the distance. A gravitational force will be 1/X^2 or 1/4th of its original at a distance 2X away. That is a bit harder to allow you to prove to yourself, but it would be possible with a high quality scale and a large enough range in height. Regardless of whether we agree at the rate it drops off at, I think we can agree that at a certain point away from the earth, this force of gravity will be so close to zero, that for all practical purposes, we can call it zero.

I'm neglecting the force of gravity from the moon, the sun, all of the other planets, etc because they are typically minuscule because of how far away they are and that inverse square relationship described a minute ago.  All of the atmospheric gases, go from the surface of the earth up to this point where the force of gravity is holding them down to the planet. Typically its referred to as the Karman line. about 100KM above the earth's surface, but that detail isn't important. Around this point, the force of gravity is equal to zero, gravity cannot keep the gases accelerating down towards the planet any further, at this point. Because there are no forces on the gases, and they aren't accelerating towards or away from the planet, they will kind of stay where they are at.

I'm going to explain mathematically with simple integer values, these are more for concept and comparison rather than stating that you have thousands of KG of air resting on your head. Starting from the beach, you have 100KM of distance between the top of your head and all the way up where air is contained. Air has mass ~1Kg/m^3 so say that the surface area of your head is 1m^2, that means that you have 100Km^3 of air on top of your head. If you took the space escalator and went up 50Km above the earth, you'd now only have 50Km^3 of air on top of your head. If we talk about pressure as force over an area, the force is the weight of the air. If you were to get all of the way up to the top, you'd no longer have any air above your head, and no pressure from that air on you. A vacuum is a space without matter (air in our case) where pressure is 0. So you could say that outside of that distance, there is no more air, and the pressure would be 0. In reality, there are gases that escape the earth's atmosphere and drift off into space, but we are speaking relatively here.

A really good example of this without requiring you to travel 100Km up in the air, is if instead of walking up into the air from the beach, instead you walk under water. With the exact same reasoning as before, but now we consider the amount of water on top of your head. Water's density is 1000Kg/M^3 so 1 Meter under water your massive 1m^2 head would feel 1000Kg of water on top of it. Go down to 10m and you have 10,000 Kg of water on top of your head. The pressure increases as you keep going down, and decreases as you get up onto the land. Now the reason I used an easy but absurd value of having a square meter as the surface area of your head, is because it keeps the math simple, but it also helps with the comparison I'm about to make. Lets say you start from 100m under water. Thats only ~360 feet, nothing crazy like 100KM in the previous example. At 100m under water, you'd have 100m^3 of water on top of your head which is 100,000 KG of water. The pressure is astronomically higher than that of 100m above you at the surface. As you swim up, you would feel a difference of 100,000Kg of weight off of your head. If having 100,000Kg of water on top of you was your normal, then not having that 100,000 Kg on top of you would feel like a vacuum. A good example of this is deep sea fish, a lot of deep sea fish like the blobfish, which have evolved to be able to survive crazy pressures like that collapse when they come to the surface of the water, the same way that a human would in the vacuum of space.

Honestly, the conclusion I drew was accurate for an explanation of the concept, but I didn't account for a lot of things like that the air density decreases as you go up, the water density increases as you go down. Gravity isn't the only thing that keeps the air up or down in the atmosphere, etc. But the quantities aside, the idea that there is more substance above your head the lower down you go is correct. That substance has mass that is pushing down on you, creating atmosphere pressure.

So my only real problem with discussing this sort of topic is exactly this:


The definitive proof was found hundreds of years ago. All of the physics today that we know builds on itself. Humanity started by observing phenomena, and then tried to find relations between causation and reaction, until we were able to predict what would happen in any given circumstance by formulating physics models. The proof that gravity is partially responsible for how water flows, is that a measurable change in gravity will cause a predictable change in that particular behavior 100% of the time. Asking to prove that gravity is responsible would take us through hundreds of hours of derivations and proofs until we got back to the Apple falling on Newton's head. We find flaws in models when a situation arises that can't be described by what we know. Admittedly, that happens relatively frequently, however the changes that do occur don't require us to dismiss gravity's relationship on water, but rather look for previously unnoticed terms that provide a small correction factor. We are working in the wrong direction here, you or anyone else is trying to find a way to make the things that we can observe working 100% of the time as predicted, don't start with, alright prove all of this to me. Rather, find a case where water is not behaving the way it should, and ask, why is this? Maybe its because the earth is a shape other than what we've been assuming.

For example, when you first start learning physics, you learn how objects move when forces are applied to them. You start with a system without friction, and then next lesson you add that friction in. Adding the friction "correction factor" helps to get a more realistic model of how things really work. Now, you add in air resistance, that is another correction factor that makes the model more true to real life. My proof that gravity works the way it does on liquids is that at the moment, as far as I know there aren't any unexplained situations with fluids with relation to gravity (at least not with Newtonian fluids). The last time there was a sizable amount of correction to physics was when Relativity was introduced. Now its like models give 99.999999999999% accurate results, and we are hunting down the fraction of a percent to figure out, oh yeah the light from the sun is producing a measurable amount of force on this ball I'm throwing, neat so thats why my calculation was off by what I thought was a rounding error.



Calculus was invented for Physics. Nearly every math class that you take is just figuring out how some real object is behaving, but they just don't tell you the reason why you are finding an equation. Can I explain to you practically that G = 6.67x10^-^11 m^3/kgs^2 ? Absolutely. If we had a few weeks, some telescopes, calculators, etc. If you have systems of equations, you can solve for unknown variables. The systems of equations are things like the orbit of satellites around the different planets. They are hard to measure, but not impossible.

As you said, just knowing 2x + 2 = 4 isn't very useful. if X equals 1, it could equal 1!, it could equal 1^2, 1^5, 2/2 etc. Each of those numbers would have implications in a real world scenario. if X is some relationship between planets and a combination of variables is what makes up that X = 1, whether its just 1*1 or 2/2 has very different implications. Knowing how something behaves at a single point X is not proof. It has to behave that way when X is any number from negative to positive infinity, as long as that number makes sense. I can't "prove" physically the quantity 6.67x10^-^11 m^3/kgs^2 but I can prove that if we use that constant, and the variables related to it, we can 100% predict how something is going to behave, and then watch it do that. G is used for a lot of things. Off the top of my head, its used for potential energy of falling objects, orbits, forces, etc. If G wasn't 6.67x10^-^11 m^3/kgs^2 then all of the observable phenomena that we can predict with it fall apart.

Light gets super complicated, so I'm going to steer clear of using light for examples regarding earth's properties. I can tell you that if your twin brother is an astronaut and launches off the planet at a speed near the speed of light, when he returns 6 years later, you will be 4 years older than him, but I don't have the means to give you a demonstration.

What I'd recommend doing is looking at classical physics and seeing who first created theories regarding air pressure, gravity, etc. Back before we had fancy electronics, someone got pretty good proof of how these things work with technology that you should have available to you. I am completely on board with people doing whatever experiments that they'd like to prove to themselves whatever they want. I'll let you know if I can think of a good one for air pressure gradients.

1) You can observe yourself.  Look at tides, the recent eclipses, etc.  Look at all the magic that would have to exist for the earth being flat.

2) Read up the facts.  Observe over a thousand years of testing and retesting.

3) Talk to the people who have proved the earth was round through experimentation.  There are millions of them.

4)  Verify it yourself.  Consider everyone and everything to be dishonest and do one of the thousands of experiments to prove it yourself.

Salty, I omitted the original post as things will become very long and hard to follow.  

Nice 411 on the nuclear thing.  Appreciated.

If gravity is being used to say the water is level we must first show definitive proof it is in fact gravity causing the water to behave this way.  Can you prove it is gravity causing this?  A few pages back we went through the Cavendish experiment and how big G was derived.  I for one am not buying the Cavendish experiment which was done in a shed nor do I buy off on teenage girls doing the Cavendish experiment in their door rooms as others have posted.  The entire concept of the Cavendish experiment is preposterous to me.  Also using equations to prove something are a no go for me as well.  Math proves nothing.  Math is a language.  We need to know the axioms that are being used in these equations.  If you're going to plug in Cavendish's numbers for big G we need to discuss how Big G is derived.  We can all agree that the equation of 2x + 2 = 4 if we ASSUME x=1.  I need proof x=1.  We cannot just be plugging in numbers that fit the cause.  

I also appreciate what you say regarding the air pressure gradually tapering off.  The issue I have with this is there is no other vacuum that I have witnessed which has caused this effect of a gradual gradient of pressure when the barrier is removed.  Pressure systems next to vacuums equalize fully when the barrier is removed.  So why would the infinite vacuum of space and our pressurized system not equalize and only cause this gradient?  Repeating what the text book says really does nothing for us at this point.  We need a practical demonstration to the claims that are being made.

As far as the luminaries go I feel as though it is a logical fallacy to use them to prove the shape of earth.  It's akin of saying the lights above the pool table are round so the pool table must be round.  

For this to be science and not pseudoscience the claims must be practically demonstrated, they must be observable, they must be measurable and they must be repeatable.  If we cannot prove our claims through experimentation, that we can all do, we will simply be talking our book.  

Once again the only claims I am making are the following.  

Bodies of water finds their level.
Bodies of water do not take the on the exterior of a shape
Vacuums cannot exist next to pressurized systems without a barrier.  They will fully equalize.  

Any other beliefs I may have are just that, beliefs.  I would not attempt to convince you of any of them.  They are simple beliefs I have based on what makes the most sense to me based off the 3 claims I have made above.  The only claims I make to you are the above 3.  You can experiment and test these on your own.  If we are to believe what goes against our direct reality and believe the globe earth claims we must be given concrete proof.

If no observable, measurable, repeatable proof can be given regarding the shape of the earth I am ok with that.  My main gripe is if this claim of a oblate spheroid as Tyson DeGrasse claims we live on is true I would like to see definitive proof.  As the claim goes against my reality.

Well, you are right. The earth isn't a sphere, its an oblate ellipsoid. If you do ever get around to launching a balloon, make sure you consider the effect on the image from the lens.  The formula for bodies of water finding level is derived from the equation for gravitational potential energy which relies on the distance of the object being 1 radius from the earth's center away (at the earth's surface). Admittedly, fluid dynamics aren't my forte, there's too much chemistry going on for my liking, so I use the, good enough to get an idea of whats going on models, not the, I trust my rocket to this man's models.

The vacuum of space doesn't really exist right next to our pressurized environment, its a gradient.Pressure decreases as you get higher and higher up. On top of a mountain the pressure is lower than at sea level. It continues like that all the way up until you reach a point that is "virtually" a void or vacuum. Space isn't always an ideal vacuum, it gets closer and closer to ideal as you get further and further away from all other planets.

To me, there is a lot of observable proof, which I can justify to myself either with a telescope, observing the periodic motion of celestial bodies, etc. You are fine not taking  anyone's word for it if you don't really want, but if you are going to be a skeptic against the mainstream opinion, you should first get a definitive grasp of what you believe to exist. Then see if your predictions based on what you believe hold up 100% of the time. If your models don't hold up 100% of the time, but 50% of the time instead, try and figure out why. There is still a lot you can learn or figure out for yourself from that.

With regards to the link, to avoid dragging the thread off topic, please don't respond to the part about nuclear power, if you'd like we can chat about it more in another thread or shoot me a PM.


Yes, the nuclear scare scam is a thing. There have only been a handful of incidents, and they've been caused by negligence and greed. The problem with nuclear power as people see it now is the perceived danger, and that the waste needs to be contained, however that isn't necessarily the case forever. There are a lot of useful products that come out of spent fission materials. Something that I've spent a fair amount of time researching is a zero net sum reactor that uses catalytic processes to influence the makeup of fission products to point them in the direction of those with short half lives, or towards valuable materials like rare earth metals. The perceived danger is completely disproportional. Ask someone how many coal plant related accidents there have been, and they can't name one. I had to do a google search myself to see for myself, and there have been plenty, lots of mine related accidents as well. I just stole this chart from wikipedia, so don't take any of the numbers as definitive, but there is certainly a trend you can notice. On top of that, who is in charge of counting the effect of air contamination by gases related to fossil fuel combustion and coal burning particulate? Go ask the older generation of people from Pittsburgh how they are holding up.



Comparing a coal burning plant to a nuclear power plant, a power plant that uses 10 kilograms of fuel per day will produce the same amount of power as a coal burning plant that burns 30,000 tons of coal in that same day. We worry about the three major nuclear incidents (Chernobyl, Three Mile Island, and Fukushima) but not what it means that there have been three incidents in 40 years. On top of that, Chernobyl was from a poorly designed and crudely built Soviet plan with people that weren't trained. Three Mile Island same deal, the employees weren't trained, and Fukushima was the result of plant operators not wanting to scare people by telling them there was a problem, so they missed their window to protect people because they didn't want to get sued. All of those were the results of human problems, not anything inherently to do with nuclear power.

[/thread hijack]

I'm not trying to prove you wrong I'm asking you to prove your claims of a globe.  Something which you cannot do.  If you could, you wouldn't be making bone headed comments like you do about going with consensus and authority.  You really showed your true colors with that one.  It wasn't a misquote as if you typed it in wrong.  You slipped up and showed us all you have not the slightest bit of hard evidence to back up your beliefs.  Then you attack anyone who thinks differently from you.  This all now makes perfect sense.  You are fearful of this because it shatters your preconceived notion of where you live.  You lash out and attack because you are not confident in your beliefs and they are being challenged.  Why else would someone hang around this thread for 3 years.  You said you are hoping to help people by acting like this.  How can you help them if you cannot prove your own beliefs to them?  Do you really think you're helping them by telling them to follow the authority?

Run along now little sheep.  The herd is waiting for you.  Funny you claim to be attempting to help people in this thread and you have not the first clue as you cannot prove your points.  Your just trying to usher people back into your belief system.  

If you come up with some proof let us know.  

Here are you potential answers:
-  Listen to the government and scientists they know what's good for us.
-  I don't have to prove shit to you
-  You can go with the lie and say you already proved it (I know you like to use this one)
-  start name calling (also a personal favorite when you get called out on your bullshit)

Whatever you do don't say I can't prove it.  Don't simply say I believe the earth is round and you can believe it's flat and then leave the conversation like most normal people would do.  Make sure you stay here and try to "help" the people by telling them to follow the authority.

im curious to know about this truth too, how would still a lot believer earth is flat, im neutral opinion, wondering

I'm glad you have such great faith in your FE cult. Just think of how powerful your character will be when you step out of your cult into reality!

An entire page of NPCs trash MoBs making pre-programmed noises.

I'm not a flat earther.  I'm more of a sphere denier.  

The deepest hole I have heard about is in Russia, approx 8 miles deep.  I have no idea how deep the earth is.  I would say at least 8 miles.  

Sending a balloon up is a great idea and I would love to do this.  This was my first thought actually when I discovered the flat earth discussion.  I have seen amateur balloons go to 120k feet.  The horizon was flat and rose to eye level.  It seems the balloons top out around that altitude.  Would be interesting to attempt the creation of a more robust balloon that could get up higher.  The balloon seems more practical than a rocket (for me to pull off).  I live in a remote area so I have that working in my favor.

I go off my direct reality which is bodies of water find level, cannot conform to the exterior of a shape and a pressure system cannot exist next to a vacuum without a barrier.  

I don't believe in satellites as mainstream science suggests due to the issue of the vacuum existing next to our pressurized environment with no barrier.  This goes against every experiment I have seen in which a vacuum is used.  

I'm a practical person so the proof would have to be measurable, repeatable, demonstrable.  The globe claims fall to pseudoscience for me as these claims are not measurable, repeatable or demonstrable.  The globe claims also go against my direct reality.  I would need to see definitive proof in order to put my reality on the shelf.  I have yet to see this proof in my searches.  

Your credentials are impressive.  Interested if you can show practical proof of a spherical earth that can be measured, demonstrated and is repeatable.


As a nuclear physicist I would love to hear your opinion on one of your fellow nuclear physicist Galen Windsor. 
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YmcJXniibK4

I do that a lot.  :/

Doesn't forgive you for being a flattard in my misquote though....  lol

May have misquoted that one friend  

Flat earth theory works relatively well in some regards even with a professional/science background because transformation of spherical objects into circles, or points for that matter are the basis for simplifying physics to get a "pretty good" approximation. You don't see people explaining how a flat earth would work by applying the full physics formulas. They use idealized versions for people who don't have 4 hours to work out all of the correction factors. My background is in nuclear physics, so I'm not the authority on astrophysics (thought it is my minor) but the geometry of whats going on at a subatomic level and at a planetary level are so incredibly similar, that until grad school, you use the same equations to describe interactions between particles and interactions between planets. Rather than dealing with angry people having an ideological debate, its a lot more fun to discuss the physics and math implications of what happens when you assume the earth is flat vs a oblate ellipsoid. Its like a religious debate but instead of people dying, you can find some lost monuments or something neat by comparing religious texts.

In my last post, I asked about how "deep" the earth is in a flat earth model, because it'd be interesting to compare location of center of mass and moments of inertia in a sphere vs rectangular earth. Never know, might find some nice simple transform equation that could help people avoid polar coordinates.