Solution to the creation/evolution debate...?

[Yttrium]

"where g is the acceleration due to gravity"?, I think you have missed my point. Why is it in a vacuum do the objects experience the same acceleration? Seems to me like "gravity" applies a different amount of force depending on the mass of the object (F=ma) which is nonsense.

It's not nonsense, it's very basic physics. The vast majority of teenagers in high school physics classes can figure this stuff out...

 

[TLK Valentine]

Your post says she "WAS very confused," yet you go on to say she hates being uneducated.

How is it that a person who hates being uneducated carries confusion about day/night into her employment years?

It's really quite simple.

In the US, we take education for granted. In other parts of the world, it's an option -- or worse, a luxury.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Plugging in the values give Δf ≈ 0.08g which is a negligible difference.

This is not quite true. If one has a fairly accurate scale one can measure this amount by changing one's latitude. In other words there is evidence that the average person can observe that the Earth is spinning. One needs an accurate scale and a test weight. At a known latitude one puts the test weight on the scale and gets a reading. One takes a trip to another latitude and if the difference in latitude is large enough, and the scale is accurate enough, one can measure the change in weight. Since one is using the same test weight each time we know that its mass does not change, but its weight does. A scale that is accurate to four decimal places should be enough, though at least five would be ideal. My cheap kitchen scale from Amazon is almost that accurate, which leads me to conclude that for about $50.00 one should be able to buy a scale that one could use to measure the spin of the Earth.

 

[Subduction Zone]

"where g is the acceleration due to gravity"?, I think you have missed my point. Why is it in a vacuum do the objects experience the same acceleration? Seems to me like "gravity" applies a different amount of force depending on the mass of the object (F=ma) which is nonsense.

There is a thing called "air resistance". You can feel it yourself when you drive in your car. Stick your hand out in the wind when you are travelling at freeway speeds. You will feel the air pushing quite hard on your hand.

Yes, fake. Have you seen the previous posts?[/qote]

No, real. How would you prove that they are fake? You can't just claim that they are.

Its the effect of the firmament. There was a good video showing how a glass with the shape of the firmament can have similar effect (can't seem to find it now).

Videos are not evidence. You need to be able to properly support your claims. Either with links to proper peer reviewed science or experiments that people can do themselves. Before you propose an experiment you should ask what those who accept the fact that the Earth is a globe would expect to see. Quite often those that believe in a Flat Earth do not understand the globe model. If you have the wrong assumption about how the globe works you will only have a strawman argument and those are false.

You seem to think light has infinite range. You don't think the atmosphere would hinder you from seeing it (try to see through all the air in between)? Furthermore, there is a limitation of the eyes and devices. Try recognizing something represented by 1 pixel for instance.

No, we can make predictions based upon models. You would need to explain and be able to support why we have limited sight distances.

I don't see people selling gold at midnight and buying gold at midday. People would be taking advantage of it if it were true. To test it, you could try something that is 1000kg for instance, that shouldn't be "negligible". How about when you consider mid-summer and mid-winter, still "negligible"?

For most cases a 1,000 kg is negligible. It takes a rather special setup to be able to detect the gravitational attraction by an object that small. But guess what? It has been done. Over a hundred years ago. And it is a fairly standard college level experiment:

Cavendish experiment - Wikipedia

The Cavendish experiment was designed to get a value for G in the formula F = GMm/r^2.

The mass of all of the weights that Cavendish used as a bit under 350 kg. At this time you should be trying to learn a bit more. Learn the basics. Learn some of the math needed. And try to learn what the scientific method and scientific evidence are. There is no scientific evidence for your beliefs. We have plenty and then some for ours.

 

[FullMoon]

There is a thing called "air resistance". You can feel it yourself when you drive in your car. Stick your hand out in the wind when you are travelling at freeway speeds. You will feel the air pushing quite hard on your hand.

"air resistance" in a vacuum? You missed my point again.

By the way, just in case you missed it (I've added it to my previous post):
FLAT EARTH DOME & SOUTHERN STAR TRAILS

 

[AV1611VET]

It's really quite simple.

In the US, we take education for granted. In other parts of the world, it's an option -- or worse, a luxury.

So much for sharing.

I know in the academic world, the smots is nothing more than a game.

Some make a living with it by sweat equity, some make a game [show] out of it, while others use it to degrade others.

Most Technologically Advanced Countries 2022

 

[Subduction Zone]

"air resistance" in a vacuum? You missed my point again.

By the way, just in case you missed it (I've added it to my previous post):
FLAT EARTH DOME & SOUTHERN STAR TRAILS

No, I did not. The point is that there is no air resistance in a vacuum. That is why in a vacuum a feather falls as rapidly as a hammer.

And I am not wasting my time on a video.

Do you think that you have any scientific evidence for your beliefs?

 

[Hans Blaster]

I don't see people selling gold at midnight and buying gold at midday. People would be taking advantage of it if it were true. To test it, you could try something that is 1000kg for instance, that shouldn't be "negligible". How about when you consider mid-summer and mid-winter, still "negligible"?

Wait? Do you think that that discussion about weight on either side of the Earth means there is a change in the amount (mass) of an object (like gold as you seem to imply)?

Weight and mass are not the same thing, even if they are (or rather appear) to be measured with the same units.

 

[FullMoon]

It's not nonsense, it's very basic physics. The vast majority of teenagers in high school physics classes can figure this stuff out...

Please explain it to me then because I must've missed that class. Why? Why is the acceleration due to "gravity" the same for all objects in a vacuum? This implies that each object experiences a different amount of "gravitational force" (remember, with F=ma, keeping "a" the same, and objects of different masses "m" different, means different F for each object).

 

[FullMoon]

Wait? Do you think that that discussion about weight on either side of the Earth means there is a change in the amount (mass) of an object (like gold as you seem to imply)?

Weight and mass are not the same thing, even if they are (or rather appear) to be measured with the same units.

I know weight and mass are not the same, but don't we use mass as weight in everyday language? Just replace what I said with something that has a great mass.
The mass would be the same. He thinks the weight would be different (due to gravity); I say the weight would be the same any time of the day, any day of the year (no gravity).

 

[Shemjaza]

Not sure.

Your exact quote was "Density and buoyancy is sufficient to explain the up and down movements of things.".

You were wrong, because there isn't any explanation within your Flat Earth idea,

With density and buoyancy, in a vacuum, because there is nothing opposing their movement, I think they just fall at maximum rate. Not sure what defines the rate, but its probably independent of the mass and density.
As far as I can tell, gravity doesn't explain this. Why is gravity treated as an acceleration in this case exactly? If gravity is a force, then it should follow F=ma, so the object with more mass should fall slower, so how does falling at the same rate "confirm" gravity is working?

The point is that gravity is a field that exerts force, not the force itself.

Less mass equals less force applied. This has been measured by school children for centuries.

Firstly, earth is special. The things you see above are not earthy things, not made of rocks etc. The moon is transparent. Have you ever seen the other side of the moon? The sun, moon, and the stars are moving clockwise above the earth (center of motion being the north pole - the center of the earth; also there is no south pole), the wondering stars (the "other planets") have the sun as their center of circular motion.
View attachment 314792 View attachment 314793 View attachment 314794
View attachment 314796View attachment 314797
View attachment 314798View attachment 314799

Except those photos are either of more reflective patches on the moon or photographic errors... if they represent real transparency of moon, why can't they ever be demonstrated with a high detail moon image that could be taken with amateur equipment?

Another problem is that the stars move a different direction around the southern hemisphere than the northern hemisphere and different stars are visible.

See my point about gravity in the "same rate in a vacuum" section. Furthermore, the weight of objects do not change between midday and midnight, so how can gravity and the solar system be true? I would expect that objects would weight less at midday compared to midnight because at midday the earth's and sun's gravitational pull would oppose each other on an object (causing it to weigh less), while at midnight, they would work together (causing it to weigh more). Obviously, this does not occur.

You would be wrong as the Earth is in orbit around the sun so we are not directly by the Sun's gravity, effectively falling around the Sun. It's the same effect that causes freefall for a diving plane or in a space station around the Earth.

(I know you don't believe in space stations).


Ultimately you have an explanation that doesn't explain what you introduced it to explain... or even basic concepts like sun rises and visible objects.

 

[Yttrium]

Please explain it to me then because I must've missed that class. Why? Why is the acceleration due to "gravity" the same for all objects in a vacuum? This implies that each object experiences a different amount of "gravitational force" (remember, with F=ma, keeping "a" the same, and objects of different masses "m" different, means different F for each object).

Yes, there is a different force on each object, proportional to the mass of the object. If M is the mass of the Earth, and m is the mass of the object, then in a vacuum:

F = GMm/r^2 = ma

The m on each side of that equation cancel out. So:

a = GM/r^2

In other words, the acceleration of the object toward the Earth in a vacuum doesn't depend on the mass of the object at all.

 

[FullMoon]

No, I did not. The point is that there is no air resistance in a vacuum. That is why in a vacuum a feather falls as rapidly as a hammer.

No, the point is why the same acceleration?

 

[Subduction Zone]

No, the point is why the same acceleration?

Because the force between two objects is determined by the formula F = GMm/r^2.

 

[Shemjaza]

No, the point is why the same acceleration?

It's a field, more mass more force.

 

[Hans Blaster]

No, the point is why the same acceleration?

It was literally in the post just before this one of yours. Look up at #912.

 

[FullMoon]

Because the force between two objects is determined by the formula F = GMm/r^2.

From wikipedia:
Newton's law of universal gravitation - Wikipedia
Newton's law of universal gravitation: This is a general physical law derived from empirical observations by what Isaac Newton called inductive reasoning.
Inductive reasoning - Wikipedia
Inductive reasoning: Inductive reasoning is a method of reasoning in which a body of observations is synthesized to come up with a general principle. It consists of making broad generalizations based on specific observations. Inductive reasoning is distinct from deductive reasoning. If the premises are correct, the conclusion of a deductive argument is certain; in contrast, the truth of the conclusion of an inductive argument is probable, based upon the evidence given.

So, its "probable".

Yes, there is a different force on each object, proportional to the mass of the object. If M is the mass of the Earth, and m is the mass of the object, then in a vacuum:

F = GMm/r^2 = ma

The m on each side of that equation cancel out. So:

a = GM/r^2

In other words, the acceleration of the object toward the Earth in a vacuum doesn't depend on the mass of the object at all.

Cavendish experiment:
Cavendish experiment - Wikipedia
The Cavendish experiment, performed in 1797–1798 by English scientist Henry Cavendish, was the first experiment to measure the force of gravity between masses in the laboratory and the first to yield accurate values for the gravitational constant. Because of the unit conventions then in use, the gravitational constant does not appear explicitly in Cavendish's work. Instead, the result was originally expressed as the specific gravity of the Earth, or equivalently the mass of the Earth. His experiment gave the first accurate values for these geophysical constants.

"the result was originally expressed as the specific gravity of the Earth", interesting.

How convenient to have things cancel out. I don't see much use for this equation. I suppose they would have used it to work out the supposed mass of the fake planets.

It's a field, more mass more force.

Gravitational field:
Gravitational field - Wikipedia
In physics, a gravitational field is a model used to explain the influences that a massive body extends into the space around itself, producing a force on another massive body. Thus, a gravitational field is used to explain gravitational phenomena, and is measured in newtons per kilogram (N/kg). In its original concept, gravity was a force between point masses. Following Isaac Newton, Pierre-Simon Laplace attempted to model gravity as some kind of radiation field or fluid, and since the 19th century, explanations for gravity have usually been taught in terms of a field model, rather than a point attraction.

"In its original concept, gravity was a force between point masses"

Sounds like the science is not "settled" yet.

 

[Subduction Zone]

From wikipedia:
Newton's law of universal gravitation - Wikipedia
Newton's law of universal gravitation: This is a general physical law derived from empirical observations by what Isaac Newton called inductive reasoning.
Inductive reasoning - Wikipedia
Inductive reasoning: Inductive reasoning is a method of reasoning in which a body of observations is synthesized to come up with a general principle. It consists of making broad generalizations based on specific observations. Inductive reasoning is distinct from deductive reasoning. If the premises are correct, the conclusion of a deductive argument is certain; in contrast, the truth of the conclusion of an inductive argument is probable, based upon the evidence given.

So, its "probable".

Correct. All science is "probable". That is infinitely more than what you have. Science is evidence based and there are clear definitions of what qualifies as evidence. People that believe as you do could follow the scientific method and find evidence for their beliefs, if they were right, but they refuse to do so.

Cavendish experiment:
Cavendish experiment - Wikipedia
The Cavendish experiment, performed in 1797–1798 by English scientist Henry Cavendish, was the first experiment to measure the force of gravity between masses in the laboratory and the first to yield accurate values for the gravitational constant. Because of the unit conventions then in use, the gravitational constant does not appear explicitly in Cavendish's work. Instead, the result was originally expressed as the specific gravity of the Earth, or equivalently the mass of the Earth. His experiment gave the first accurate values for these geophysical constants.

"the result was originally expressed as the specific gravity of the Earth", interesting.

How convenient to have things cancel out. I don't see much use for this equation. I suppose they would have used it to work out the supposed mass of the fake planets.

There is nothing "convenient" about them. It is rather simple mathematics. How much math have you had?

Gravitational field:
Gravitational field - Wikipedia
In physics, a gravitational field is a model used to explain the influences that a massive body extends into the space around itself, producing a force on another massive body. Thus, a gravitational field is used to explain gravitational phenomena, and is measured in newtons per kilogram (N/kg). In its original concept, gravity was a force between point masses. Following Isaac Newton, Pierre-Simon Laplace attempted to model gravity as some kind of radiation field or fluid, and since the 19th century, explanations for gravity have usually been taught in terms of a field model, rather than a point attraction.

"In its original concept, gravity was a force between point masses"

Sounds like the science is not "settled" yet.

What? No, it is more than settled. How many millions of experiments confirming those findings do you need?

By the way, there is no "proof" in the sciences. There is only evidence. Proof is a mathematical concept. There is "proof" that the math used in physics works. We can prove that for a point mass what the gravitational force would be. We can also prove for various shapes and distributions of mass what the force would be. That can be confirmed by experiment.

What do you have that supports your claims?

 

[FullMoon]

Correct. All science is "probable".

What? No, it is more than settled.

So with science, "probable" things are "settled", okay. I'm not happy with "probable" things being "settled".

You should really check out the video I shared on the previous post. It's really interesting.

 

[Subduction Zone]

So with science, "probable" things are "settled", okay. I'm not happy with "probable" things being "settled".

You should really check out the video I shared on the previous post. It's really interesting.

Of course it is and you just confirmed it. How do you think that you are able to communicate here? Science is what makes it possible. You rely on "probable".

Are you familiar with the legal standard of finding a person guilty? A person is never actually proven guilty. If that is the case no trial would ever be overturned. The standard for finding someone guilty is "Proven beyond a reasonable doubt". That does not mean absolutely proven as in math. It means that with the evidence available that it would be unreasonable to think that the person was innocent. If you ever agreed with a guilty verdict of someone then you by the same standard would have to accept gravity.

Gravity is proven far beyond a reasonable doubt. There is only unreasonable doubt against it. You cannot come up with a rational reason that it is wrong. "I do not understand" is not a rational reason to doubt something that is supported by massive evidence.

Why don't you try to learn a little math and a little science. It is not that hard to understand.

EDIT: As to the video, what if it is utter garbage? How are you going to recompense me for my time?