A question for flat earth people

[JacksBratt]

"follow their mandated script"? Ok, you're either a troll or a conspiracy kook, neither of which are open to reason. Good bye.

Bye

 

[JacksBratt]

The Earth has a much stronger hold on the moon, ... because it is much CLOSER ...

So, the earth has a stronger hold on the moon... than the sun... which is how much bigger again?

Also, realize that the sun's pull on the planets ... isn't enough to rip them from their orbits (as you propose that the sun should do to the moon) ... but just to hold them where they are ...

The other planets are orbiting the sun...

The moon, on the other hand is orbiting our earth.. big difference.

 

[A_Thinker]

Did you use the right numbers? The link you posted still gives the numbers I quoted. Probably you didn't convert kilometers to meters.

Force of Earth on 500g mass.

View attachment 239477

Force of sun on 500g mass.
View attachment 239476

Obviously, then you convert back using F = m.a, with 9.81 as the scale constant, to work out that the difference in measured mass of the ~500g object between day and night is 0.6g, as previously stated.

So ... it seems that the difference between our results is the approach to solving the question.

So ... just to be sure ... your question is ... what is the difference between the affect of gravity upon a 500 gram mass at high noon (when the sun is closest) and midnight (when the sun is further away) ? Just for clarity's sake, I recognize that the difference in distance is effected by the rotation of the Earth ...

So ... it seems to me that the effect of the Earth's gravity is a constant for both results.

What needs to be calculated is the following ...

Gravitational force of the sun upon a 500 gram object at noon ... an the gravitational force of the sun upon a 500 gram object at midnight. Where the only difference in the calculation is the diameter of the Earth (i.e. the change in distance between the sun and the object at these two different times).

So ... I get these results ...

gravitational force of the sun upon the 500 grams at noon is .3021427 grams

gravitational force of the sun upon the 500 grams at midnight is .3020907 grams

The difference is .000052 grams

 

[A_Thinker]

So, the earth has a stronger hold on the moon... than the sun... which is how much bigger again?

The other planets are orbiting the sun...

The moon, on the other hand is orbiting our earth.. big difference.

The mass of the sun is 333,000 times as large as that of the Earth, ... but is 93,000,000 miles away (and this distance factor is squared in the force equation).

Do the math ... stop presuming ...

 

[A_Thinker]

Did you use the right numbers? The link you posted still gives the numbers I quoted. Probably you didn't convert kilometers to meters.

Force of Earth on 500g mass.

View attachment 239477

Force of sun on 500g mass.
View attachment 239476

Obviously, then you convert back using F = m.a, with 9.81 as the scale constant, to work out that the difference in measured mass of the ~500g object between day and night is 0.6g, as previously stated.

On a second glance, I think that your approach is more correct than mine, as it posits the sun LIGHTENING the weight at noon, while making the weight HEAVIER at mid night.

However ... I finally found a physical discussion of the question which you may be interested in ...

https://physics.stackexchange.com/q...-day-and-slightly-heavier-at-night-owing-to-t

 

[Paul of Eugene OR]

I have always found that "gravity" and it's "force" is somewhat fickle... it can hold Pluto in orbit... Pluto, which is the size of lake Michigan... it's, how many miles out there... and, yet the sun still hold on....

Meanwhile, two billiard balls can sit on my pool table for a year... only a millimeter apart.. and never get pulled together... One small puff of my breath between them and "click" they touch....

If gravity is strong enough to have a hold on tiny Pluto, from that far away... would it not yank the moon away from us?

It is inconsistent and does whatever the mathematician needs it to do at the time.

Newton's laws of gravity perfectly consistently explained all the motions of the solar system bodies except one small deviation in Mercury's orbit that Einstein's theory explained. Have you heard of the Cavendish experiment?

 

[JacksBratt]

Newton's laws of gravity perfectly consistently explained all the motions of the solar system bodies except one small deviation in Mercury's orbit that Einstein's theory explained. Have you heard of the Cavendish experiment?

No I have not heard of the Cavendish experiment.....And.... to be totally honest... for me... gravity is neither here nor there...

Being stuck, in search of the truth as far as the FE and globe earth is concerned... I'm sure that both models have a reason for why down is down.

It is obvious that objects fall down... Even Neil DeGrasse Tyson cannot explain why.. but we all know that it is a fact of life.... on either model.

 

[Aldebaran]

Like?

Like the ones that have been presented over the past 23 pages of this thread, along with the ones in all the several other threads similar to this one that you participate in. But you've been told this before, so you have no need to ask.

 

[Aldebaran]

Here is a video by a high altitude balloon, that does NOT have a fish eye lens..
Does this make me a FE'er... no.. I am still not convinced of either..

When I have time I will try to find the video of a rocket launched that shows the moon in it..when the moon is over Australia at the time and the rocket was launched in the US.. An impossibility on the globe model.

How can you be sure of what kind of lens it is using? Are you just assuming it's an "honest" video because the caption agrees with what you believe? Notice from 4:00 to 4:50 as the camera is panning, it looks like the horizon is slightly curved upward in a U shape. If it were really shaped like that, it wouldn't stay that way as the camera is panning. Seems that there is sort of a "reverse fish eye lens" being used to eliminate the natural curvature of the earth but is slightly overcompensating.

 

[JacksBratt]

How can you be sure of what kind of lens it is using? Are you just assuming it's an "honest" video because the caption agrees with what you believe? Notice from 4:00 to 4:50 as the camera is panning, it looks like the horizon is slightly curved upward in a U shape. If it were really shaped like that, it wouldn't stay that way as the camera is panning. Seems that there is sort of a "reverse fish eye lens" being used to eliminate the natural curvature of the earth but is slightly overcompensating.

That's funny... a reverse fish eye lens... Developed specifically to take high altitude photos and conceal the curve of the earth.

I'm sure that these amateurs were on a tight enough budget without trying to fund something like that.

A fish eye lens will show images curved at the edges of the view.... a flat surface will appear convex at the top and concave at the bottom.. This is observed in many of the high altitude videos that propose a curved horizon...
Now, as the horizon line passes mid frame... it will be the true image... which, is why, in most cases, they only show the horizon near the top of the frame...

Note that in the balloon footage... the horizon is mid frame and flat...

Not that this is concrete proof... but it does conflict with any Curve that is said to be proof of the globe..

Do you understand what I am saying?

 

[JacksBratt]

Like the ones that have been presented over the past 23 pages of this thread, along with the ones in all the several other threads similar to this one that you participate in. But you've been told this before, so you have no need to ask.

Oh, for goodness sake... we did this before...

 

[Aldebaran]

That's funny... a reverse fish eye lens... Developed specifically to take high altitude photos and conceal the curve of the earth.

Is that what I said?

Do you understand what I am saying?

Yes. You're saying (while denying) that you believe in the flat earth because you're only willing to accept what others of the same belief say. I've understood that for months now.

 

[JacksBratt]

Is that what I said?



Yes. You're saying (while denying) that you believe in the flat earth because you're only willing to accept what others of the same belief say. I've understood that for months now.

Every time I ask you to give me one of these solid proofs, you just tell me to pick one of the ones from the past...

I am different than you... I am not convinced of the globe, but I have yet to be convinced of the FE... So... until someone presents me with a solid proof of the globe, without using NASA, the military or any government source.... I will still search for the truth...

If you believe that you have found the truth... to a satisfactory level, for yourself... good for you.

I'm willing to bet that I have watched far more videos by people talking for and against the FE...
I have seen things that are impossible on the globe... that is... if it is the size that they say it is..

So, until someone can tell me, without the "smoke and mirrors" it was a "mirage" or the "go to" statement of "It's refraction"... I will continue to believe solidly that we can see too far..

Or, show me some scripture that states anything close to it being a ball and spinning and orbiting.... I will continue to believe that the bible does not support it.

Even if Gravity was what they say.... the water, in all the oceans, should be concentrated around the equator..

Pictures from the only source that has been there, NASA, would not need to be CGI and Photo Shopped.

The horizon should drop away as you gain altitude... and.. amateurs photographs would not show a flat horizon from 100,000 feet when we are told that it should be visible at 70,000...

There is too much bafflegabb and double talk and just plain lies to those who believe everything that the are told.

 

[A_Thinker]

Even if Gravity was what they say.... the water, in all the oceans, should be concentrated around the equator..

Why would that be the case ?

If gravity works the way it is theorized, everything is pulled to the (internal) center of the Earth.

 

[SPF]

I am different than you... I am not convinced of the globe, but I have yet to be convinced of the FE... So... until someone presents me with a solid proof of the globe, without using NASA, the military or any government source.... I will still search for the truth...

 

[JacksBratt]

Why would that be the case ?

If gravity works the way it is theorized, everything is pulled to the (internal) center of the Earth.

Except, we know what happens when you spin a wet tennis ball... right?

Is this not why Neil The Grass Dyson calls the shape of the earth an Oblate Spheroid? It bulges a bit at the equator... Or is the centrifugal force of the earth, spinning , deemed negligible?

 

[JacksBratt]

Nice video... like his accent...

I gave my comment on this in an earlier post.

Maybe you should post the one by Myth Busters, as well... they show the earth curved... well below their peak of 70,000 feet.. they show it while they are on the runway..... Not convincing.... sorry.

 

[SPF]

Nice video... like his accent...

I gave my comment on this in an earlier post.

Maybe you should post the one by Myth Busters, as well... they show the earth curved... well below their peak of 70,000 feet.. they show it while they are on the runway..... Not convincing.... sorry.

So what you’re suggesting is that James May, a normal citizen in England and host of a car show was brought into the secret of a flat earth by the United States and was told to lie to people about what he saw?

Really? That’s what you think?! Complete lunacy.

 

[SeventyOne]

So what you’re suggesting is that James May, a normal citizen in England and host of a car show was brought into the secret of a flat earth by the United States and was told to lie to people about what he saw?

Really? That’s what you think?! Complete lunacy.

When you see numerous sources of footage from much higher with the earth totally flat and even see the horizon fluctuating in that video indicating a normal lens wasn't being used, it's reasonable to conclude the curve we are shown in that video doesn't exist as it's presented. It's already deceptive on purpose. As to why he's saying what he's saying, only he can answer that, but he makes it a point to point out the shape, so it's easy to conclude it was purposely on his mind.

No one here has to try to figure out why he said what he said, but only need to realize what he said doesn't match reality.

 

[SPF]

When you see numerous sources of footage from much higher with the earth totally flat and even see the horizon fluctuating in that video indicating a normal lens wasn't being used, it's reasonable to conclude the curve we are shown in that video doesn't exist as it's presented. It's already deceptive on purpose. As to why he's saying what he's saying, only he can answer that, but he makes it a point to point out the shape, so it's easy to conclude it was purposely on his mind.

No one here has to try to figure out why he said what he said, but only need to realize what he said doesn't match reality.

My point is that at this point the number of people, governments, private companies, public companies, is so vast to be absurd to think at this point that they are all in cahoots and keeping the nature of the shape of the earth a secret. It’s the height of lunacy to be at such a conspiracy theorist level as that.

Again, nobody on the FE side has ever actually been able to explain why all these people, governments, public companies, private companies, etc... are actually all in on deceiving the everyday person. It makes utterly no sense.