A question for flat earth people

[Tom 1]

Really That is impressive! View attachment 239020

Hahaha no, not so far - Derwent Water, not The River Derwent

 

[Tom 1]

Really That is impressive! View attachment 239020

Bassenthwaite is the topmost lake, Derwent Water the one below it

 

[Sam91]

Hahaha no, not so far - Derwent Water, not The River Derwent

Big difference haha.

 

[Tom 1]

Big difference haha. View attachment 239022

Yeah

 

[Tom 1]

Big difference haha. View attachment 239022

You could do that distance with a ham radio set (and a lot further) but, again due to the curvature of the earth, you need repeaters. You’d still need repeaters on flatearth, but not so many.

 

[Sam91]

You could do that distance with a ham radio set (and a lot further) but, again due to the curvature of the earth, you need repeaters. You’d still need repeaters on flatearth, but not so many.

Hmmm that's what they say anyway

Not that I hold an opinion either way. I'm just here for the friendliness. Everyone is so patient with each other here.

 

[Tom 1]

Hmmm that's what they say anyway

Not that I hold an opinion either way.

It’s a way of testing the theory, if anyone really wanted to. You could set up a control by having someone in a tower say talk over radio to someone 20miles away, with clear line of sight, then try the same from ground level, moving closer until line of sight is re-established at around 5 miles or so.

 

[Sam91]

It’s a way of testing the theory, if anyone really wanted to. You could set up a control by having someone in a tower say talk over radio to someone 20miles away, with clear line of sight, then try the same from ground level, moving closer until line of sight is re-established at around 5 miles or so.

But the signal would need to fight against more pollution, and other effects. It helps if you can see someone. How far do these radios work at sea? But there are still massive forces at play... say disturbances from waves (oceanic) etc. It is still remarkable how far these minute waves can travel! Especially photons through space. Absolutely remarkable. How can things so small have such prowess?

 

[Tom 1]

But the signal would need to fight against more pollution, and other effects. It helps if you can see someone. How far do these radios work at sea? But there are still massive forces at play... say disturbances from waves (oceanic) etc. It is still remarkable how far these minute waves can travel! Especially photons through space. Absolutely remarkable. How can things so small have such prowess?

Yeah it’s clever stuff. None of the distances are absolute and fixed, depends on a variety of things amplifying or weakening/blocking/absorbing the signal etc. AM frequency signals can bounce off the upper atmosphere and travel a lot further - like the BBC world service.

 

[Sam91]

It is amazing how everyone takes for granted the things they can not see but scoff at people who do believe in other things that they can not see. Christians experience proofs of their faith, just like those who believe in walky-talkies and radiowaves. Anyway that is digressing again. Sorry @Bordeaux .

To answer the OP yes we can travel passed the horizon else the Earth would be very small.

 

[A_Thinker]

so it's not gravity but buoyancy

Gravity is a factor in bouyancy.

Let's face it ... something pulls you (and everything else on Earth) ... to it's surface (and beyond ... over the seas).

That is what we call gravity. Bouyancy takes in other factors as well, such as temperature and density.

 

[Chinchilla]

Gravity is a factor in bouyancy.

Let's face it ... something pulls you (and everything else on Earth) ... to it's surface (and beyond ... over the seas).

That is what we call buoyancy. Bouyancy takes in other factors as well, such as temperature and density.

You can disprove gravity using spring and slow down camera .
The bottom of the spring is not moving to the floor meaning nothing is pulling it down .

 

[JackRT]

If a balloon is filled with helium, which is lighter than air, it will rise to the point where its mass matches that of the thinner air around it.

Archimedes figured that out well over 2000 years ago. Funny how it took so long to reach some people.

 

[Bordeaux]

You can disprove gravity using spring and slow down camera .
The bottom of the spring is not moving to the floor meaning nothing is pulling it down .

I once attempted to disprove gravity to a friend of mine at university via defenestration from the Radcliffe Cam.
My proof failed, and we are no longer friends.
This experience convinced me to read theology instead of physics though, so it wasn't all a waste.

 

[A_Thinker]

You can disprove gravity using spring and slow down camera .
The bottom of the spring is not moving to the floor meaning nothing is pulling it down .

No, gravity is acting on the base of the spring. However, the tension in the spring is ALSO acting on the base of the spring. There are a multitude of forces which could be acting on the spring at any given time.

You see that gravity wins in the end (when the other forces have been exhausted). The spring falls ... (due to gravity).

 

[Chinchilla]

No, gravity is acting on the base of the spring. However, the tension in the spring is ALSO acting on the base of the spring. There are a multitude of forces which could be acting on the spring at any given time.

You see that gravity wins in the end (when the other forces have been exhausted). The spring falls ... (due to gravity).

It should move slowly to bottom and speeding up gradually as the force from the top travels to the bottom , nothing is holding anything against gravity it should only make the effect faster if gravity was there because these forces would stack

 

[Bordeaux]

It should move slowly to bottom and speeding up gradually as the force from the top travels to the bottom , nothing is holding anything against gravity it should only make the effect faster if gravity was there because these forces would stack

Look up tensile vs compressive forces.

 

[Tom 1]

You can disprove gravity using spring and slow down camera .
The bottom of the spring is not moving to the floor meaning nothing is pulling it down .

? It’s a push/pull dynamic; the force of the spring trying to pull back into its natural shape pulls the bottom of the spring upwards, balancing out the downwood pull of gravity. The effect of gravity on the upper part of the spring leads to it gaining momentum. It’s a simple interplay of opposing forces.

 

[Chinchilla]

? It’s a push/pull dynamic; the force of the spring trying to pull back into its natural shape pulls the bottom of the spring upwards, balancing out the downwood pull of gravity. The effect of gravity on the upper part of the spring leads to it gaining momentum. It’s a simple interplay of opposing forces.

what about this one ?

 

[Tom 1]

what about this one ?

I’m not sure what he is trying to say exactly but he seems to be arguing that other factors, like the level of salt saturation in water, are incompatible with there also being a force of gravity. I don’t know why he thinks that. If water is denser than air, and water highly saturated with salt denser than fresh water, that means that the action of gravity on an object moving through it is impeded. Where the impedance is equivalent to the pull of gravity the object stays where it is. Neither of those things mean there is no gravity.