Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
No I didn't. With magnification, you can see the space between the boat and the horizon, without magnification, the relative distance is too small to see.
Which shows that regardless of height, the "horizon" is always level with your eyes......
And hence the "horizon" with your naked eye is not the same "horizon" as under magnification.No I didn't. With magnification, you can see the space between the boat and the horizon, without magnification, the relative distance is too small to see.
Research horizon line and perspective. Regardless of your height, the horizon is "ALWAYS" level with your eyes and is equal to the vanishing point....um...wut?
I THINK I know what you are talking about...but, it's hard to imagine you'd make the mistake of not realizing that he changed the angle of the camera (ever so slightly) to...you know, line up the picture.
Err... you are aware that a picture including a horizon doesn't say anything about the "eye level" of an observer, are you?Because wherever your eyes look to the vanishing point, that is also where the eyes are level....
Look at a picture from a weather balloon, the horizon is level with the "eye" level....
View attachment 237527
And so in and of itself can not prove a round earth.... or a flat earth.....
Because wherever your eyes look to the vanishing point, that is also where the eyes are level....
Look at a picture from a weather balloon, the horizon is level with the "eye" level....
View attachment 237527
And so in and of itself can not prove a round earth.... or a flat earth.....
Yeah, but it's barking mad. No Flat-Earther in his right mind would use that argument.Perhaps, but I have seen flat earthers use that argument.
I agree with the globalists on this one. Either you didn't state exactly what you meant, or you've got the wrong idea.Perspective is fine , same can be used for moon and it's craters upside down , you wouldn't see upside down craters in south if moon was such far away .
I agree with this, and it is consistent with the theory. But how then does gravity cause the tides? It cannot, without the oceans being uplifted into the skies, by whatever is overcoming the gravity of the Earth.There is a gravitational pull on every object with mass. A "force" will result in the acceleration of an object... proportional to its mass.
So the sun excerts a force on both the dirt-earth, as well as the water layer on earth. (And the humans, and the birds and the clouds and everything else.)
Let's assume for simplicities sake that there no other massive bodies around... only the sun and the earth. So both the water and the earth are pulled towards the sun. Equally. There is no additional force that would pull the water away from the earth.
Quite the opposite, in fact. Earth itself has a mass, excerts a gravitational pull, and thus pulls the water down to the ground, keeping the whole system together.
I'm aware of the numbers, but they don't add up. Were the numbers accurate and the theory correct, the weight of an object would vary measurably and repeatably between day and night, Summer and Winter. As weights do not vary in this way, either the theory, or the numbers, or all of it, is incorrect. In the absence of evidence to the contrary, I posit the latter.The sun has about 333,000 times the mass of the earth. The earth has about 12 x 10^24 times the mass of a soccer ball. The ball is also, in relation, a lot closer to the earth than the earth is to the sun. In relation, the gravitational pull of the earth on the ball - and the water - is a lot higher than the pull of the sun on the earth system.
You used scale to explain why water on the ball in the experiment could be used to justify gravity allegedly keeping water on the 'bottom' of the ball-Earth. The force keeping droplets of water on the ball is not gravity, but Van der Waals' forces. These forces work on a small scale, and do not scale up. There is no consistent way you can scale up the attractive Van der Waals' forces from the water on the ball and proclaim "Aha. Hence how gravity keeps water on Earth."Why should I believe that you can lift a toy truck, when you cannot do that to a real 40-tonner? Maybe because of SCALE? That the real truck is a lot bigger and heavier in relation to the toy?
So you cannot lift the real truck. Why should I believe that you can use a crane to lift it? Maybe because of SCALE? Because the crane is capable of excerting a lot more force than a single human can?
Scale is important.
Why is it important to you that I explain this? Perhaps it's anti-gravity, or a different type of gravity? Perhaps it's gravity fairies? What difference does it make? Globalists don't explain why there is gravity, they just accept there is. The same with Flat-Earth gravity.Why is the the gravity exerted on the sun in a different direction than the gravity exerted on things on earth?
Well, they're all the same as yours, naturally, but G, the Universal Gravitational Fudge Factor... errr... I mean Constant... is different, to take into account the much closer, much smaller sun.And can you come up with mathematical formulas which consistently describe your gravity like we have done for our gravity?
Why is it important to you that I explain this? .
But Globalists can't explain what causes gravity. So why do you demand this from Flat Earthers?Because I'm curious to see if FE have any sort of a coherent theory; I have not looked into it much. But I think it's important to understand both sides of an argument. And, I have a FE friend who is rather intelligent; he doesn't quite fit the mold of what I had in mind when considering flat-earthers.
When things don't make sense to me, I ask questions.
Who, do you think, are the people enlightening you with Flat Earth theory knowledge?Do such people exist?
This shouldn't be that difficult to understand. In fact, it is extremely difficult for me to understand how someone who claims to have "an open mind" can make such uninformed statements.I agree with this, and it is consistent with the theory. But how then does gravity cause the tides? It cannot, without the oceans being uplifted into the skies, by whatever is overcoming the gravity of the Earth.
And again, you make an absolute statement without providing any evidence that you understand the topic at hand.I'm aware of the numbers, but they don't add up. Were the numbers accurate and the theory correct, the weight of an object would vary measurably and repeatably between day and night, Summer and Winter. As weights do not vary in this way, either the theory, or the numbers, or all of it, is incorrect. In the absence of evidence to the contrary, I posit the latter.
There are several factors of adhesive forces involved, but yes, basically you are correct.You used scale to explain why water on the ball in the experiment could be used to justify gravity allegedly keeping water on the 'bottom' of the ball-Earth. The force keeping droplets of water on the ball is not gravity, but Van der Waals' forces. These forces work on a small scale, and do not scale up. There is no consistent way you can scale up the attractive Van der Waals' forces from the water on the ball and proclaim "Aha. Hence how gravity keeps water on Earth."
No, sorry, that is not open minded. In order to claim that, you would need to admit to ALL the involved factors and adjust the experiment to that.I'm open minded. If you can suggest an experiment where gravity (not other forces) can keep a layer of fluid suspended evenly over the surface of a suspended ball, I'll admit to you possibly having a point with this being a valid mechanism by which gravity can keep the oceans and water bodies on ball-Earth. Until then, I'll keep referring it to magic-gravity, because it has no observational basis in science.
Well... if they are all the same as ours... then you shouldn't have any problems to show your math.Why is it important to you that I explain this? Perhaps it's anti-gravity, or a different type of gravity? Perhaps it's gravity fairies? What difference does it make? Globalists don't explain why there is gravity, they just accept there is. The same with Flat-Earth gravity.
Well, they're all the same as yours, naturally, but G, the Universal Gravitational Fudge Factor... errr... I mean Constant... is different, to take into account the much closer, much smaller sun.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?