The earth is flat

SilverishGoldNova said:

And ever heard of centrifugal force? Dip a ball in water and spin it. The water flies off. But we are told water does not fly off the Earth "CUZ GRAVITUH", which can also be overpowered by a balloon or tiny magnet. Also @Erfisflat I've shown circle time zones can work fine. 

Yes I have heard of centrifugal force, I don't need to dip a ball in water and spin it I understand how gravity works. If you want to try a more realistic test take a magnet and put iron dust around it and spin it and see how fast you need to spin it to get the dust to start flying off. I mean it's cool that you get centrifugal force, but it's not cool that you don't get gravity. The reason a balloon float up is gravity. The balloon is lighter than the air above it so gravity pushes that air down forcing the balloon up. But as the pressure gets less and less the balloon expands more and more then it's too much for the rubber and the balloon pops. (isn't science cool?) As for other things "overpowering" gravity there are many so I'm not going to go into all of them. 

You, nor anyone else, has shown how circle time zones work fine. Stop with the lies.

SilverishGoldNova said:

What about moving faster than light? Which I thought was impossible

The first interesting question of this thread. Hypothetically you wouldn't be able to feel the motion. As for it's impossibility science isn't decided on that, Einstein was brilliant for sure, but he didn't have the knowledge we have today and a few of his theories have since been overturned. On that note Magueijo and Afshordi’s theory contends that some light moves faster than the speed of ... light. So it could be possible to overcome the mass problem and move faster than the speed of light... maybe. Obviously there are also the "cheater moves" to moving faster than the speed of light like a warp bubble and folding space, and there have been several hypotheses about wormholes and blackholes that would allow traveling massive distances faster than the speed of light, but technically speaking with these you wouldn't be moving through space/time you would be warping it around you in various ways. We can't test any of them currently, but the concepts are pretty cool to think about. I know you hate NASA but if you are interested in a warp drive concept. http://www.cnn.com/2014/06/12/tech/innovation/warp-speed-spaceship/index.html We aren't even close to making it a reality right now, but as our knowledge expanse who knows what's possible in 100 years...

"My point has NOT been refuted. 

On a globe time zones are a line."

You have given nothing but diagrams as proof of this. From the sun, towards the earth, the light will hit the earth with a circle

because it is a ball in your model, and this is common sense, a demonstrable fact (as I have shown), and well known by most in even in your model. Time zones work very well in FET, perhaps even better.



You can continue denying this all you want, you're wasted my time at this point. I've explained how "circle become lines" in a way that, as you requested, a six year old can understand. Anyone with at least a middle school education knows what projections are, and how inaccurate they are when mapping a ball out on flat paper (except for the azimuthal equidistant map, which i have shown, and you have dropped), and can identify a terminator line. I'll not respond on this point with you again until you've made a valid point or refutation.

SilverishGoldNova said:

Coveny said:

SilverishGoldNova said:

What about moving faster than light? Which I thought was impossible

The first interesting question of this thread. Hypothetically you wouldn't be able to feel the motion. As for it's impossibility science isn't decided on that, Einstein was brilliant for sure, but he didn't have the knowledge we have today and a few of his theories have since been overturned. On that note Magueijo and Afshordi’s theory contends that some light moves faster than the speed of ... light. So it could be possible to overcome the mass problem and move faster than the speed of light... maybe. Obviously there are also the "cheater moves" to moving faster than the speed of light like a warp bubble and folding space, and there have been several hypotheses about wormholes and blackholes that would allow traveling massive distances faster than the speed of light, but technically speaking with these you wouldn't be moving through space/time you would be warping it around you in various ways. We can't test any of them currently, but the concepts are pretty cool to think about. I know you hate NASA but if you are interested in a warp drive concept. http://www.cnn.com/2014/06/12/tech/innovation/warp-speed-spaceship/index.html We aren't even close to making it a reality right now, but as our knowledge expanse who knows what's possible in 100 years...

Really? So because of we can hypothetically artifically move faster than light, you refuted my entire argument? If you wanna talk about Star Trek



Anyway, whats your rebuttal to not feeling the faster than light motion the galaxy allegedly takes around a "great attractor"? We can feel ourselves moving at 7 MPH (like on a roundabout) and have to cling on for dear life if we do that, but yet we cannot feel alleged faster than light motion and while were at it dont fly off.

This went from the Earth being flat to us hypothetically moving faster than light. Makes perfect sense

You asked a question about moving faster than light, and I answered it. The earth doesn't "spin" any where near the speed of light (it's about 1 thousand MPH), and although the planet is moving though space fasting than it's spinning (about 66 thousand mph) it's nowhere near the speed of light at 186282 miles per SECOND. (not hours but seconds) The earth isn't even moving close to the speed of light. So you have no argument...

SilverishGoldNova said:

I'm not talking about the motion around the sun, I'm talking about the milky way's alleged faster than light motion. Do you just not understand. Also, considering what you've posted, I think you'd be a wonderful science fiction writer.

Milky way is traveling 515,000 mph where the speed of light is 186,282 mps, or 11,176,920 mpm, or 670,616,629 mph. So again not even 1% of the speed of light. So again there is no argument to refute, we aren't going the speed of light, or even close to the speed of light. Come back when you have something.

SilverishGoldNova said:

Just sayin, you'd be a good sci fi writer with arguments like that. "Warp drive" 

That wasn't an "argument" that was me answering your question. Warping time and space around a ship is theoretically possible even if we don't know how to do it. The term used for this is warp drive even though technically it's more like a warp bubble. Science fiction has foretold many of the technologies that we currently have, and I consider it a compliment to say I would be a good sci/fi writer, even though for some reason you seem to consider it an insult, but whatever. 

I have written a self help book if you're willing to spend $1 for material I'm sure you'll ridicule me about. 
http://a.co/8R9WMeJ

Considering you're using a science fiction concept to address my argumen..... wait, isn'tt that because the Earth being a ball is science fiction? 

Also @Coveny, I'll respond when you atleast try to bring up an argument, but not when you're spouting random insults and acting like you're the king of the world because you called someone online.

Also, even if the galaxy isn't moving faster than light...

Why not explain why a child on a roundabout has to cling on for dear life if they go at 7 MPH, and they can definently feel that, but then we can't feel the Earth spinning faster than sound moving at 66,000 MPH around the sun. If the Earth is really moving this fast, we shouldn't be able to hear sound.

@Erfisflat Ok I'm back. It took me a while to read the whole post, but back to the argument. Can you explain how I made an association fallacy?

Coveny said:

SilverishGoldNova said:

Also @Coveny, I'll respond when you atleast try to bring up an argument, but not when you're spouting random insults and acting like you're the king of the world because you called someone online.

Also, even if the galaxy isn't moving faster than light...

Why not explain why a child on a roundabout has to cling on for dear life if they go at 7 MPH, and they can definently feel that, but then we can't feel the Earth spinning faster than sound moving at 66,000 MPH around the sun. If the Earth is really moving this fast, we shouldn't be able to hear sound.

Ok I'm going to take that as you recanting your argument about using moving faster than the speed of light.

A child on a roundabout hanging on for dear life at 7 mph. A roundabout is on the roadways, and I've taken them at 30 mph and my children didn't have to hold on for "dear life", but you are changing direction so you will "feel" the change. This is why when you stop quickly in your car your coffee spills. We can feel changes in speed and direction, but we can't feel constant speed.

Now maybe you meant merry-go-round but then it couldn't be mph it would have to be rotations per minute or something like that because merry-go-rounds don't go miles... ever. So I answered the question as asked.

Merry go round, roundabout, call it whatever ya want. 

@Erfisflat ;

@SilverishGoldNova There are many other sources other than NASA. I could just say all of your evidence is fabrication. 

That was the argument which was given a fallacy.

1Hacker0 said:

@SilverishGoldNova @Erfisflat Ok that makes sense. But what type of fallacy have I made?

Association. 

SilverishGoldNova said:

Coveny said:

SilverishGoldNova said:

Also @Coveny, I'll respond when you atleast try to bring up an argument, but not when you're spouting random insults and acting like you're the king of the world because you called someone online.

Also, even if the galaxy isn't moving faster than light...

Why not explain why a child on a roundabout has to cling on for dear life if they go at 7 MPH, and they can definently feel that, but then we can't feel the Earth spinning faster than sound moving at 66,000 MPH around the sun. If the Earth is really moving this fast, we shouldn't be able to hear sound.

Ok I'm going to take that as you recanting your argument about using moving faster than the speed of light.

A child on a roundabout hanging on for dear life at 7 mph. A roundabout is on the roadways, and I've taken them at 30 mph and my children didn't have to hold on for "dear life", but you are changing direction so you will "feel" the change. This is why when you stop quickly in your car your coffee spills. We can feel changes in speed and direction, but we can't feel constant speed.

Now maybe you meant merry-go-round but then it couldn't be mph it would have to be rotations per minute or something like that because merry-go-rounds don't go miles... ever. So I answered the question as asked.

Merry go round, roundabout, call it whatever ya want. 

Well nothing is fighting against a merry-go-round like gravity fights against the earth. With the earth like when you take a magnet (gravity), attach a metal shavings to it, then spin it around in circles the faster up to a certain speed (which depends on several factors) the shavings stick to the magnet, but if you start cranking up the RPM the eventually centripetal force will overcome the magnet and the shavings will fly off. There are two opposing forces at play unlike the merry-go-round where there is only one.

Coveny said:

SilverishGoldNova said:

Coveny said:

SilverishGoldNova said:

Also @Coveny, I'll respond when you atleast try to bring up an argument, but not when you're spouting random insults and acting like you're the king of the world because you called someone online.

Also, even if the galaxy isn't moving faster than light...

Why not explain why a child on a roundabout has to cling on for dear life if they go at 7 MPH, and they can definently feel that, but then we can't feel the Earth spinning faster than sound moving at 66,000 MPH around the sun. If the Earth is really moving this fast, we shouldn't be able to hear sound.

Ok I'm going to take that as you recanting your argument about using moving faster than the speed of light.

A child on a roundabout hanging on for dear life at 7 mph. A roundabout is on the roadways, and I've taken them at 30 mph and my children didn't have to hold on for "dear life", but you are changing direction so you will "feel" the change. This is why when you stop quickly in your car your coffee spills. We can feel changes in speed and direction, but we can't feel constant speed.

Now maybe you meant merry-go-round but then it couldn't be mph it would have to be rotations per minute or something like that because merry-go-rounds don't go miles... ever. So I answered the question as asked.

Merry go round, roundabout, call it whatever ya want. 

Well nothing is fighting against a merry-go-round like gravity fights against the earth. With the earth like when you take a magnet (gravity), attach a metal shavings to it, then spin it around in circles the faster up to a certain speed (which depends on several factors) the shavings stick to the magnet, but if you start cranking up the RPM the eventually centripetal force will overcome the magnet and the shavings will fly off. There are two opposing forces at play unlike the merry-go-round where there is only one.

Oh, the flat Earth is impossible because of an unproven center that supposedly sticks water spinning faster than sound to the globe? Also, if the Earth were truly spinning faster than sound then moving around the sun at 66,000 MPH, we wouldn't be able to hear sound. Why not address this. 

@Erfisflat I said that because I asked for an explanation of the Russian pictures of the Earth. I was received with an explanation with NASA. Without an explanation that the Russian photo was false I stated that I could say all your evidence is fabrication without evidence, since you did the same. Only after I asked for the third time did I receive an explanation for the Russian pictures. 

@Erfisflat not sure what a slomo video of a bee has to do with the flat Earth

SilverishGoldNova said:

@Erfisflat not sure what a slomo video of a bee has to do with the flat Earth

Trillions of gallons of water held (flat) against the earth, yet allows this.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-1178849/Secret-bumblebee-flight-revealed-Insects-defy-gravity-brute-force.html

Erfisflat said:

You know I kinda wanna call you out for the red herrings but the slow motion video stuff is the most interesting stuff you've posted thus far so I'm a bit torn...

"Why do metal and magnets attract? I know you've seen this in action even if you can't explain it. Gravity works the same way on anything with mass."

What causes gravity and what does gravity look like? Show me a picture of it. If mass is attracted to mass, prove it. You like to demand proof of God, show me some gravity.

Coveny said:

Erfisflat said:

"Why do metal and magnets attract? I know you've seen this in action even if you can't explain it. Gravity works the same way on anything with mass."

What causes gravity and what does gravity look like? Show me a picture of it. If mass is attracted to mass, prove it. You like to demand proof of God, show me some gravity.

Gravity is caused by the mass of an object. Drop anything to see what gravity looks like. A picture of gravity... I can give you picture of gravity being measured, but like many things it's not something you get a visual of. (radio waves, air, radiation, etc)




The first "proof" of gravity was the Cavendish experiment. Given your desire to recreate things, you could recreate this experiment if you wanted to. Here are a couple of other people replicating it

Here is a video of high school students doing it. 


Here is a much more technical version:


There have been numerous proofs of gravity other than this, but they aren't something you can see yourself. I personally like this one 

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2819205/Testing-gravity-world-s-BIGGEST-vacuum-chamber-Watch-Brian-Cox-prove-bowling-ball-feathers-fall-together.html

but who has a At 122 feet high and 100 feet in diameter vacuum chamber.right?

Consider yourself "shown some gravity". Any more science you need me to explain?

I'll get back to you on this have a good Saturday 

"Gravity is caused by the mass of an object."

That sounds pretty plausible, everything have mass, so everything should exhibit an attraction to another, but they don't.

"Drop anything to see what gravity looks like."

Or I could see an object that hasn't reached a point of critical density. The molecules that make up the air under the object are less dense than the molecules that make up the object. Gravity is conjecture, (that has never been conclusively demonstrated or proved) meant to explain a theory that was never proved. Up is really up, down is really down is really down. No magical, selective imaginary force that there is no evidence for. It's like saying "goddunit". Here's a quote from it's expounder.
 
"Tis inconceivable that inanimate brute matter should (without the mediation of something else which is not material) operate upon & affect other matter without mutual contact; as it must if gravitation in the sense of Epicurus be essential & inherent in it. And this is one reason why I desired you would not ascribe {innate} gravity to me. That gravity should be innate inherent & {essential} to matter so that one body may act upon another at a distance through a vacuum without the mediation of any thing else by & through which their action or force {may} be conveyed from one to another is to me so great an absurdity that I believe no man who has in philosophical matters any competent faculty of thinking can ever fall into it. Gravity must be caused by an agent {acting} constantly according to certain laws, but whether this agent be material or immaterial is a question I have left to the consideration of my readers."
Isaac Newton 

https://books.google.com/books?id=lfq4DQAAQBAJ&pg=PA51&lpg=PA51&dq=


"There have been numerous proofs of gravity other than this, but they aren't something you can see yourself. I personally like this one..."

Dropping a bowling ball and a feather in a vacuum doesn't prove that all mass is attracted to other mass. It's proof that up is up and down is down, which contradicts the ball earth model. So, "gravity", in every demonstrable circumstance so far, proves the earth is not a ball. This leads us to the Cavendish experiment. 

"The first "proof" of gravity was the Cavendish experiment. Given your desire to recreate things, you could recreate this experiment if you wanted to."

The original Cavendish experiment has never been replicated, despite your claim. It was originally performed using 350lb lead balls, and measured through a window with a telescope. The revised experiment is patently ridiculous and ignores factors such as tectonic plate movements, the mass of any nearby objects and even any AC units in nearby proximity. Of course this shows how important the Copernican principle is and proponents substitute science with pseudoscience. 



Here’s an article by Scientific American stating that the Cavendish Experiment is the basis of measuring planetary weight.

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/how-do-scientists-measure/

Quoted:
"Because we know the radius of the Earth, we can use the Law of Universal Gravitation to calculate the mass of the Earth in terms of the gravitational force on an object (its weight) at the Earth’s surface, using the radius of the Earth as the distance. We also need the Constant of Proportionality in the Law of Universal Gravitation, G. This value was experimentally determined by Henry Cavendish in the 18th century to be the extremely small force of 6.67 x 10-11 Newtons between two objects weighing one kilogram each and separated by one meter. Cavendish determined this constant by accurately measuring the horizontal force between metal spheres in an experiment sometimes referred to as “weighing the earth.”"

But yet here’s

http://mathforum.org/kb/thread.jspa?messageID=7657321&tstart=0

  an article that totally destroys the Cavendish experiment and says;

"Every one can witness, that no matter how large and massive of two balls, of steel you make and place them close together, that there never, ever was a perceptible attraction by Newtonian gravity of one for the other. But everyone can build the tiniest of bar magnets and notice that as you bring the two closer together, that the snap at one another in attraction.

 Also, the asteroid Ida and its moon Dactyl. Anyone doing the Cavendish Experiment and believing it, should look at the asteroid belt, that all the asteroids should have moons based on Cavendish Experiment, but the fact is, that gravitational bonding is a rare phenomenon, because, well, gravity is not Newtonian and that gravity is EM-gravity.

 So the Cavendish Experiment is a fairy tale experiment, and not physics. Physicists should be ashamed of that experiment, not proud."

 From Universe Today:

“The Moon presented a special math problem for the construction of the heliocentricity model. The only way to make the Moon fit in with the other assumptions was to reverse its direction from that of what everyone who has ever lived has seen it go. The math model couldn’t just stop the Moon like it did the Sun, that wouldn’t work. And it couldn’t let it continue to go East to West as we see it go, either at the same speed or at a different speed. The only option was to reverse its observed East to West direction and change its speed from about 64,000 miles an hour to about 2,200 miles an hour. This reversal, along with the change in speed, were unavoidable assumptions that needed to be adopted if the model was to have any chance of mimicking reality.” -Bernard Brauer

“They want you to believe that the Moon’s rotation is perfectly synchronized with its orbit so that’s why we only ever see one side of the Moon, rather than conclude the obvious – that the Moon is simply NOT rotating. Moreover, they had to slow down the Moon’s speed by 58,870 mph AND reverse its direction to West-East to successfully sell their phony heliocentricity system to a gullible public. I don’t think there is one person in many, many thousands – regardless of education – who knows that the Copernican Model had to turn the Moon’s observable direction around and give it a new speed to accommodate the phases and eclipses.” -Marshall Hall

SilverishGoldNova said:

Coveny said:

So now we are discussing sound are we? Ok if you are in a car doing 50 mph and you shoot a gun the bullet starts out 50 mph faster right? Do you need me to go further down this path or can you figure it out from here?

Im pretty sure sound moves faster than a car. 

I guess you do need me to go further down this path. If you are moving at the speed of sound and you fire a bullet does the bullet go faster than if it had been fired from a non-moving vehicle?

SilverishGoldNova said:

Km/Hr... ROFL That's where you got that from, and you repeat it on the planet. (with the wrong number too boot) 

Interesting fact the shocks on your car hold up 1,000s of pounds, and you can still move them up and down with your hand even though you only weight 100 or so pounds. Isn't the things science figures out cool?