Sunrise, Sunset: A Question for Flat-Earthers

[Doctor.Sphinx]

"It cannot"... you proclaim. Without even trying to understand how the system is supposed to work, or providing reasons why it would not work.

Sorry, but this is not very open minded.

I know how the system is supposed to work, but it doesn't. I'm open minded in that if you prove me wrong, I will accept your proof. You haven't.

Yes, the weight of an object does "vary measurably".

Prove it. A change in weight by 0.1% should be easily measurable. Prove that an object's weight changes consistently between day and night, and I'll concede that you are correct on this point.

Weight depends on height above ground, the geological structure of the earth, latitude... a number of factors.

I'm not talking about location change effects which can be put down to atmospheric density, humidity, temperature etc. I want you to prove that an object, in the same location, changes it's weight consistently between day and night, dependent on the position of the sun (and therefore presumed to be due to gravity).

And it is indeed influenced by other celestial objects and their position. It changes by day and night, by summer and winter.

Prove it.

But again, the thing that you are ignoring is scale. The influence the moon alone has on the weight on objects on earth is in the range of a 1 to 300,000 of the influence the earth itself has.
If you consider that the difference in weight due to the above mentioned factors on earth can vary in the range of 1 to 1000... this is rather hard to notice.

It might be hard to notice, but not to measure in an experiment.

There are several factors of adhesive forces involved, but yes, basically you are correct.

You're welcome.

But there is a major flaw in your reasoning here.
The basic Flat Earther argument is "water does not stick to a ball, it drops down, therefore the ball earth is wrong."
But here you admit that water does stick to a ball. There is a force to do that.

The quote is a summary quote - "water does not stick to a ball due to gravity" would be a more complete quote, as gravity is the phenomena under discussion when referring to this example.

The only problem we have to solve now is - again! - that of scale. How large are the adhesive Van der Waals forces? How large is the force of gravity of the earth? What will the resulting motion be?

Different forces, working in opposite ways. They don't equate.

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.

You just want me to believe what you say without you offering any proofs. Won't happen.

Let's return to your ball example. Some water sticks to the ball, because of Van der Waals Forces. So why does the main part of the water still drop down? Why does the ball fall down to earth? Van der Waals Force?

Why can't you show an experiment where gravity holds the water to the ball, if it really happens?

How large is the Van der Waals Force that the earth excerts on water, balls, you? If the ball excerts a Van der Waals Force on the water... do other objects as well? Do you? Does the moon? Why don't the Van der Waals Forces of the moon such the oceans into the air?

These sort of questions seem to imply you are ignorant on the subject.

Your problems remain, regardless of what forces you want to imply... because you misapply them. You are not able to imagine systems with different forces. You would deny that scotch tapes can stick to something, because you can still rip it off.

Then the ripping force would be greater than the sticking force. Not the case with the oceans, as we don't see them pouring into the sun.

You want to see water stick to a ball, based on gravity alone, here on earth? There is a little problem. The gravitational field of the earth. We have that big bad person who keeps ripping the scotch tape from the wall and then claims that sticking is impossible.

That's the theory. But you have no proof.

But let me guess: you don't believe that there have been moon missions?

There were moon landing hoaxes, certainly. But no actually moon missions.

Using the accepted systems for gravity - only adapting your constants - show how the sun moves over the flat earth.

F = G. m1. m2 / (r ^ 2), just G is different to take into account the sun's smaller mass and closer distance.

 

[Freodin]

I know how the system is supposed to work, but it doesn't. I'm open minded in that if you prove me wrong, I will accept your proof. You haven't.

If you still believe that the oceans should be "sucked into the sky" due to gravitational influence from moon or sun, you have very obviously not understood how the system works.

Prove it. A change in weight by 0.1% should be easily measurable. Prove that an object's weight changes consistently between day and night, and I'll concede that you are correct on this point.

I'm not talking about location change effects which can be put down to atmospheric density, humidity, temperature etc. I want you to prove that an object, in the same location, changes it's weight consistently between day and night, dependent on the position of the sun (and therefore presumed to be due to gravity).

Prove it.

It might be hard to notice, but not to measure in an experiment.

Good idea. How do you propose to set up such an experiment?

The quote is a summary quote - "water does not stick to a ball due to gravity" would be a more complete quote, as gravity is the phenomena under discussion when referring to this example.

It is? Strange, I though I remembered that you said something about it working exactly the same in your flat earth model, just with adapted values.

So you assume that there is a force of attraction, between objects of mass, dependent on the masses of the two objects as well as the distance between them, where the influence of the masses is linear and the influence of the distance inverse to the squared.

But it isn't "gravity"... it is something else.

I wonder where the difference is.

Different forces, working in opposite ways. They don't equate.

They are not identical in origin or mechanism. They are identical in effect though. A force results in a change of movement state, regardless of what the force is.

So where is the difference?

You just want me to believe what you say without you offering any proofs. Won't happen.

Sorry, I am as limited in my possibilities as you are. But in contrast to you, I don't reject every measurement ever made that contradicts my preconceived ideas.

Why can't you show an experiment where gravity holds the water to the ball, if it really happens?

You say you understand how the system works, but need to ask this question?
The reason is SCALE, of course.
The relation of the oceans on the earth to water on a common soccer ball (at an assumed weight of 500g) would be around 5 drops of water, spread over the whole surface.
Even if you could do this experiement in zero gravity and get rid of the interfering pull of the earth, you simply cannot get rid of all the other forces involved... for example the Van der Waals Force you mentioned, molecular bonding forces, electrostatics, mechanical adhesive forces. And you cannot scale them down in proportion.

If you have any idea of how to circumvent these problems... hey, I am open for input.

These sort of questions seem to imply you are ignorant on the subject.

These questions are meant to make you give some explanations, how you would resolve these problems. But denial is simpler that explaining, I get it-

Then the ripping force would be greater than the sticking force. Not the case with the oceans, as we don't see them pouring into the sun.

Indeed, in this case the sticking force is greater than the ripping force. Does that somehow mean that one of these does not exist?

That's the theory. But you have no proof.

There were moon landing hoaxes, certainly. But no actually moon missions.

No, I don't have proof, if you deny the existence of every proof I might offer.

F = G. m1. m2 / (r ^ 2), just G is different to take into account the sun's smaller mass and closer distance.

That doesn't work.
Using the accepted system of gravity - massive objects and a resulting force between them, with a strength determined by this formula - regardless of what value you assume for G, it would always result in either a parabolic, eliptical or hyperbolic path... never in a "spiral orbit above" type that your Flat Earth model proposes. It would also result in the complete opposite of velocities that your model proposes.

Don't just repeat the accepted formula... you Flat Earthers are so into "use your own mind"... SHOW YOUR MATH!

 

[Freodin]

Here is a video of someone doing the experiment on change of weight due the the rotation of the earth. Consider that the influence of the celestial objects on weight is just a tiny fraction of the amount shown here.

 

[Strathos]

Not to mention that if you accept the equations for gravity you would also have to accept that an object as massive as the earth would be pulled into a sphere(oid) by its own gravity.

 

[46AND2]

But Globalists can't explain what causes gravity. So why do you demand this from Flat Earthers?

I didn't ask you what causes gravity. I asked you what causes your sun to spiral, then I asked you why your gravity works in a different direction on the sun than it does on earth. In other words, I'm asking you for HOW it works, not WHY it works.

I'm not asking you for anything for which we don't explain for ourselves (how the earth orbits the sun).

 

[Justatruthseeker]

Since we are discussing gravity, here's the problem with gravity. Gravity is ALWAYS strongest on the surface, and decreases with an inverse r^2 above and below the surface.

This would mean that as one nears the core, there would now be gravity "pulling upwards and sideways" on rocks. This would make the rocks near the core less dense, not more dense.

Can this be confirmed? Why yes, rocks near the core have a large fraction of themselves containing water. If the weight of material was as great as people assume, all water would be squeezed out of these rocks.

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=22&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=2ahUKEwi_tfqj8eXcAhVo9YMKHfQeDpcQFjAVegQIAxAB&url=https://www.extremetech.com/extreme/184564-scientists-discover-an-ocean-400-miles-beneath-our-feet-that-could-fill-our-oceans-three-times-over&usg=AOvVaw2ef5nZiNMOqnkuYVq2kGxz

Also the Russian bore hole experiment found less dense material the deeper they went, not more dense. As well as unexpectedly finding hydrogen gas in such quantities that the mud literally boiled outwards.

https://www.atlasobscura.com/places/kola-superdeep-borehole

"Also unexpected was a decrease in rock density after the first 14,800 feet. Beyond this point the rock had greater porosity and permeability which, paired with the high temperatures, caused the rock to behave more like a plastic than a solid and made drilling near impossible."

Why was it unexpected? Certainly people are aware that gravity decreases below the surface, not increases. That the deeper one goes the more mass is now above one, not all beneath. The less dense rock should have been an expected find, not an unexpected find. But geologists and physicists themselves never really understood the physics of gravity and came up with density profiles that would never match reality.....

 

[Justatruthseeker]

I didn't ask you what causes gravity. I asked you what causes your sun to spiral, then I asked you why your gravity works in a different direction on the sun than it does on earth. In other words, I'm asking you for HOW it works, not WHY it works.

I'm not asking you for anything for which we don't explain for ourselves (how the earth orbits the sun).

Why does it work in a different direction on their sun than on their earth? If you were standing on their sun you wouldnt fall off of it...

I'd suggest perhaps it works by known science.

http://farside.ph.utexas.edu/teaching/302l/lectures/node73.html

 

[46AND2]

Why does it work in a different direction on their sun than on their earth? If you were standing on their sun you wouldnt fall off of it...

I'd suggest perhaps it works by known science.

http://farside.ph.utexas.edu/teaching/302l/lectures/node73.html

No...I asked why it works in a different direction on their sun, than it does on our earth. Their orbit is affected by...something..which causes it to expand or contract its orbit. What causes its orbit to expand or contract?

 

[Doctor.Sphinx]

Here is a video of someone doing the experiment on change of weight due the the rotation of the earth. Consider that the influence of the celestial objects on weight is just a tiny fraction of the amount shown here.

Very interesting experiment. To summarise for those who don't want to waste time viewing, a 500g weight was measured in Perth, Canberra, Perth, then Broome in Australia (places of varying latitude). In Perth, it weighed 500.00g, Canberra 500.16g, Perth again 499.99 (from memory), and Broome 499.44.

The author of the video ascribes the difference in apparent weight to be due to differences in apparent gravity due to the Earth's alleged spin (although Earth's motion was disproved long ago by the "Airy's failure" and "Michelson and Morley" experiments). Therefore, the supposed gravity effects are more likely due to altitude, temperature, humidity etc. (changes in environmental conditions at the different places).

However, what is interesting is what was not observed in the experiment - the change in weight of the mass over time, due to the sun being overhead (mid-day), or underneath (mid-night) - presuming, obviously, a ball-Earth. If the theory of gravity were true (F = G. m1.m2 / r^2), there would be a difference in this weight between these times of approximately 0.60g. This is not mentioned at all, likely because it wasn't observed. If this did or does not occur on a routine day/night cycle, the theory of gravity is falsified, at least for this weight and the commonly accepted numbers for sun/Earth masses, distance and radius.

 

[Freodin]

Very interesting experiment. To summarise for those who don't want to waste time viewing, a 500g weight was measured in Perth, Canberra, Perth, then Broome in Australia (places of varying latitude). In Perth, it weighed 500.00g, Canberra 500.16g, Perth again 499.99 (from memory), and Broome 499.44.

The author of the video ascribes the difference in apparent weight to be due to differences in apparent gravity due to the Earth's alleged spin (although Earth's motion was disproved long ago by the "Airy's failure" and "Michelson and Morley" experiments). Therefore, the supposed gravity effects are more likely due to altitude, temperature, humidity etc. (changes in environmental conditions at the different places).

However, what is interesting is what was not observed in the experiment - the change in weight of the mass over time, due to the sun being overhead (mid-day), or underneath (mid-night) - presuming, obviously, a ball-Earth. If the theory of gravity were true (F = G. m1.m2 / r^2), there would be a difference in this weight between these times of approximately 0.60g. This is not mentioned at all, likely because it wasn't observed. If this did or does not occur on a routine day/night cycle, the theory of gravity is falsified, at least for this weight and the commonly accepted numbers for sun/Earth masses, distance and radius.

What is indeed interesting is the complete lack of scientific approach that you show here.

Attributing measurements to different factors? Totally legit. I even grant you that "altitude" can be a factor here. But with "temperature, humidity, etc", you only show your desperate grasp for straws.

It is not only that these factors do not play a role in "weight" in the standard physical models. It is not only that these factors do not play a role in YOUR model, when you claim that your solar model works with the same formulas, just a different constant.

No, the real problem is shown here: "This is not mentioned at all, likely because it wasn't observed. If this did or does not occur on a routine day/night cycle, the theory of gravity is falsified..."

Temperature and humidity do change with the "routine day/night cycle". So such a change would have been observed , even under your assumptions.

What you say is basically: "If these changes are there, your model is false. If these changes are not there, your model is false. Head, I win, tail, you lose."

If your conclusion is not influenced by the observations IN ANY WAY... you are not doing science.

 

[Freodin]

If the theory of gravity were true (F = G. m1.m2 / r^2), there would be a difference in this weight between these times of approximately 0.60g.

I would like to see your math.

I can show you my calculations, and you seem to be off by about a factor of 10.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

No...I asked why it works in a different direction on their sun, than it does on our earth. Their orbit is affected by...something..which causes it to expand or contract its orbit. What causes its orbit to expand or contract?

I gave you the answer.

http://farside.ph.utexas.edu/teaching/302l/lectures/node73.html

The electric and magnetic fields are not constant, hence the orbit shifts, but still stays mainly circular.....

The same reason electrons expand or contract in orbits depending on the energy input.... Electrons also change levels of orbits.....

A simplified answer...

http://scienceprimer.com/bohr-atom

https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/46801/how-do-electrons-jump-orbitals

You realize I do not accept FE, but I can't prove it wrong....

 

[Justatruthseeker]

Here is a video of someone doing the experiment on change of weight due the the rotation of the earth. Consider that the influence of the celestial objects on weight is just a tiny fraction of the amount shown here.

Here is someone doing an experiment which said more about gravity then people realize.

Just remember, in reality there is no "voltage off" just a temporary increase in voltage in a small area of space.....

 

[Steve Petersen]

I gave you the answer.

http://farside.ph.utexas.edu/teaching/302l/lectures/node73.html

The electric and magnetic fields are not constant, hence the orbit shifts, but still stays mainly circular.....

The same reason electrons expand or contract in orbits depending on the energy input.... Electrons also change levels of orbits.....

A simplified answer...

http://scienceprimer.com/bohr-atom

https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/46801/how-do-electrons-jump-orbitals

You realize I do not accept FE, but I can't prove it wrong....

You can't prove it wrong?! Watch a live feed from the ISS. You can easily see that it is a sphere.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

Very interesting experiment. To summarise for those who don't want to waste time viewing, a 500g weight was measured in Perth, Canberra, Perth, then Broome in Australia (places of varying latitude). In Perth, it weighed 500.00g, Canberra 500.16g, Perth again 499.99 (from memory), and Broome 499.44.

The author of the video ascribes the difference in apparent weight to be due to differences in apparent gravity due to the Earth's alleged spin (although Earth's motion was disproved long ago by the "Airy's failure" and "Michelson and Morley" experiments). Therefore, the supposed gravity effects are more likely due to altitude, temperature, humidity etc. (changes in environmental conditions at the different places).

However, what is interesting is what was not observed in the experiment - the change in weight of the mass over time, due to the sun being overhead (mid-day), or underneath (mid-night) - presuming, obviously, a ball-Earth. If the theory of gravity were true (F = G. m1.m2 / r^2), there would be a difference in this weight between these times of approximately 0.60g. This is not mentioned at all, likely because it wasn't observed. If this did or does not occur on a routine day/night cycle, the theory of gravity is falsified, at least for this weight and the commonly accepted numbers for sun/Earth masses, distance and radius.

Why would it remain the same? The composition and densities under the different places are not the same. Gravity varies over the entire surface of the earth....

 

[Justatruthseeker]

You can't prove it wrong?! Watch a live feed from the ISS. You can easily see that it is a sphere.

Sigh.... How many times must I explain. In order to prove a theory wrong, you must work from within the framework of the theory. Within the framework of the theory those videos are fake, so how can I use fake videos to prove it wrong??????

It doesn't matter if you or I believe they are not.....

 

[Aman777]

Recall your geometry lessons in school: the angle of a straight line is 180 degrees. If the earth is flat, sunrise and sunset should be 180 degrees apart. But sunrise and sunset aren't 180 degrees apart as observed on most places on earth at various times of the years.

At 45 degrees north of the equator, on December 22 the sun rises at 123 degrees (roughly SE) and sets at 237 degrees (roughly southwest.) This is only a 114 degree difference.

On June 20, the numbers are 55 degrees (a change of 68 degrees to the north) and 305 degrees (68 degrees farther north.) This is a difference of 250 degrees.

If the sun is travelling in a straight line across the sky, the only explanation for the differences between the differences of 114 and 205 degrees is that the earth is not flat but a sphere.

Even more revealing is that at the poles, at certain times of the year the sun never goes below the horizon.

You have confused Adam's flat Earth with the present Earth. Adam's Earth was only 22.5 ft high on its highest mountains.

Gen 7:18 And the waters prevailed, and were increased greatly upon the earth; and the ark went upon the face of the waters. Gen 7:19 And the waters prevailed exceedingly upon the earth; and all the high hills, that were under the whole heaven, were covered. Gen 7:20 Fifteen cubits upward (22.5 ft) did the waters prevail; and the mountains were covered.

Adam's Earth had only 4 Rivers whereas Texas has thousands, showing that Adam's small Earth (less than 75 miles in diameter) was flat within the firmament. It would have to be flat since the ground was put on top of WATER. Gen 1:10 Amen?

 

[Freodin]

Here is someone doing an experiment which said more about gravity then people realize.

It does? What does it say?

Just remember, in reality there is no "voltage off" just a temporary increase in voltage in a small area of space.....

So... there is a "voltage" that is responsible for the attractive force between masses? A "voltage" that is, demonstrably, independent of charge, but dependent on mass?

Well, as I said before: the origin and mechanism of the force is irrelevant for its results. An electromagnetic force would still result in motion paths that are incompatible with a Flat Earth.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

It does? What does it say?


So... there is a "voltage" that is responsible for the attractive force between masses? A "voltage" that is, demonstrably, independent of charge, but dependent on mass?

Well, as I said before: the origin and mechanism of the force is irrelevant for its results. An electromagnetic force would still result in motion paths that are incompatible with a Flat Earth.

really, and what motions would they be?????

http://farside.ph.utexas.edu/teaching/302l/lectures/node73.html

 

[Freodin]

really, and what motions would they be?????

http://farside.ph.utexas.edu/teaching/302l/lectures/node73.html

View attachment 237682

Nice picture.

And now please provide one showing the magnetic field that would result in the proposed path of the sun over the Flat Earth... that is, a circular path with a variable radius and a constant angular velocity.

[ETA: Hope this gets read before I get a response]
You will find that this is not possible.
Let's look at the lecture you linked.
The radius (p) of the path is based on the mass of the object (m), its charge (q), linear velocity (v) and the strength of the magnetic field (B)
p= mv/qB
The angular velocity (or frequency) (w) depends only on the mass, the charge and the magnetic field strength.
w = qB/m

In order to change the radius of the circle, to get the change of seasons on the Flat Earth, you need to adjust the factors.
There is no proposed mechanism to cyclically change the charge of the sun, its mass or its linear velocity. You could adjust the magnetic field strength though.

But if you do that, you change the angular velocity... and that contradicts the observations of an unchanging length of a full circle orbit (one day).

The only way you could change the radius and keep the day constant would be to speed up and slow down the sun.

Now how would you propose to do that?