There IS no gravity.

[Arius]

You have no observable justification to reach your concluding statement.

Given that the mass of the Earth massively dwarfs both the elephant and the feather ... such that the difference in acceleration due to gravitational attraction between the Earth and the elephant ... and the Earth and the feather ... is negligible (i.e. you can't observe it) ...

yet NASA can come public with a claim to having observed "a fraction of a second blip of gravitational waves millions and billions of light years away?"
Did you read what else I wrote?

Arius said: When NASA talks about trigging distances between two planets seen 2" apart from here on earth, which they say are hundreds of Billions of light years away, .. and CERN talking about quantum particles that make up the protons and neutrons of atoms, the difference between the G-force of the elephant and the feather is tremendous, not something "insignificant".

Look at the math, is something with 7 zeros larger mass "insignificant" to NASA? I think not, unless they are hiding something.

There is nothing 'negligible' when an organization that spent over a trillion dollars since its conception claims to travel to imaginary planets backed up by CGI-cartoons, paintings of sci-fi planets and … Math.

Who said: "when we have math, who needs observation? The proof is in the math, .." etc., remember? The entire BB-universe is based on gravitational math, and I used it to show you that according to their own claims, gravity does not exist.

 

[JacksBratt]

Flat Earth people need to work on promoting a viable Flat Earth model. Until then, they're just promoting the latest urban legend.

And, of course, I was responding to CGI ... because that's all that Flat Earth has got ...

Again, if you think that CGI is all that the FE has.. then my point stands.... You have not investigated their arguments, nor the observations that they have personally made and investigated.

Have you done anything.. anything at all, that you yourself physically investigated, to prove that there is a curve to this earth.... that... is equivalent to 8 inches for every mile.

Have you done anything, personally, at all that proves that the earth is a ball or flat?

Or, are you just reading and forming an opinion based on who you believe has the best argument for what you want to be truth?

 

[Arius]

Actually ... Michio Kaku says that it is oblate like this ...



... and Degrass Tyson says that it is pear-shaped like this ...

Ah yes, I can see the oblate and the pear shapes now. I just had to put on my "fisheye glasses". Thanks.

 

[Arius]

The force exerted by the feather on the Earth is actually identical to the force exerted by the Earth on the feather:

6.67408 × 10^-11 × 5.972 × 10^24 × 0.00001 / 6371000^2 = 0.000098 newtons

(assuming an 0.01 gram feather, and using metric standard metre-kilogram-second units in the formula)

Since F = m a, the feather, while it is falling, will give the Earth an acceleration of 0.000000000000000000000000000016 metres per second per second.

I don't think anybody is going to notice that.

I noticed it, as obvious as a sore thumb. Now multiply this by billions of falling leaf's, Newton-apples, butterflies, birds then planes flying over the earth over billions of years, .. and Huston, we have a problem!"

But what were talking about is the claim that "all mass, no matter the weight will fall towards the earth at the same rate", as shown in the Brian Cox/NASA Vacuum chamber bowling ball/feather drop experiment.
As we start using actual numbers, the mistakes are becoming more and more obvious and "visible" .. in the math.

By the way, I see you're good at math, it's nice to have someone like that in a debate especially on this subject. Thanks, and God bless you.

 

[A_Thinker]

Again, if you think that CGI is all that the FE has.. then my point stands.... You have not investigated their arguments, nor the observations that they have personally made and investigated.

Perhaps I should have said ... as it pertains to proposing their own model.

 

[Arius]

Interestingly, military and private shipping and air-routes use globe-based navigation systems ... and have for millennia.

Show me ONE instance where a Captain of a ship, or a pilot navigating off a paper globe, .. just one?
That's like what NASA-flat earther say: "Flat Earthers around the globe believe the earth is flat", .. lol.

Usually car-jaunts are short enough that you can use flat maps.

OK, so we have flat street maps of the entire US, Canada, and Mexico, all Europe, all Asia, Russia all have flat maps. Why would anyone try to put these together and glue it on a ball, where it obviously just doesn't fit? Why?

And who do you know who worships the globe ? That's like saying someone worships their washing machine ... or garbage disposal ... or indoor plumbing. It's simply understanding the world as it is ... and making the best use of that knowledge.

We understood the earth for 5,500 years, then suddenly these globes appeared in schools and everywhere else, and kids were forced into believing they lived on that, instead of what they and their ancestors always KNEW.
For 5,500 years, how many classrooms had a Flat Earth model of our world, teaching children they lived on a Flat earth? Come on, you know there is religious reasons behind this globe-in-every-classroom, in every TV show especially kids programming, and in movies, .. this along with the word "evolution, evolved over billions of years, showing monkeys to children and telling them these are their ancestors etc. can only mean one thing: "Religious Indoctrination".

 

[A_Thinker]

Have you done anything.. anything at all, that you yourself physically investigated, to prove that there is a curve to this earth.... that... is equivalent to 8 inches for every mile.

Have you done anything, personally, at all that proves that the earth is a ball or flat?

Well ... I've observed a lifetime of sunrises and sunsets, ... observations that the Flat Earth model cannot explain.

And ... I've seen the bases of the skylines of various cities I've traveled to obscured by the curve of the earth ... though I never really thought much about it before now, I'll admit.

And ... I've experienced the effects of what we here call gravity all of my life.

In addition to all of that, I've got a degree in Mechanical Engineering, the obtaining of which included performing various experiments involving motion, speed, acceleration, gravity, and other similar forces (i.e. electromagnetics, friction, etc.) ...

It's only been since I've gotten into the arguments for the flat earth (or not) that I even knew anything about how much the earth should curve per amount of distance traveled. BTW, the 8" per mile is an approximation that is only good for relatively short distances.

 

[A_Thinker]

We understood the earth for 5,500 years, then suddenly these globes appeared in schools and everywhere else, and kids were forced into believing they lived on that, instead of what they and their ancestors always KNEW.

We've known that the earth is a sphere for a long time. From Wiki ...

The earliest reliably documented mention of the spherical Earth concept dates from around the 6th century BC when it appeared in ancient Greek philosophy but remained a matter of speculation until the 3rd century BC, when Hellenistic astronomy established the spherical shape of the Earth as a physical given and calculated Earth's circumference. The paradigm was gradually adopted throughout the Old World during Late Antiquity and the Middle Ages.

 

[A_Thinker]

Show me ONE instance where a Captain of a ship, or a pilot navigating off a paper globe, .. just one?

Of course, ship captains and airline pilots don't have a globe on hand to navigate from.

But the navigation systems/models they navigate from are based upon the globe model.

 

[Radagast]

We've known that the earth is a sphere for a long time. From Wiki ...

The earliest reliably documented mention of the spherical Earth concept dates from around the 6th century BC when it appeared in ancient Greek philosophy but remained a matter of speculation until the 3rd century BC, when Hellenistic astronomy established the spherical shape of the Earth as a physical given and calculated Earth's circumference. The paradigm was gradually adopted throughout the Old World during Late Antiquity and the Middle Ages.

That last sentence is false. With one or two exceptions, every educated Christian knew the earth was round (the main debate was whether the Southern Hemisphere was inhabited).

But your main point stands: we've known for 2500 years that the earth was round.

 

[Radagast]

1. Gravity is the "force" that attracts a body to the center of the earth, or ANY other physical body having mass.
2. This means that anything with mass has a gravitational force.
3. Gravity pulls falling objects to the ground.
4. It applies to objects of all sizes, stating that the more mass an object had, the more it attracted other objects.

Well, (3) should read "to each other," not "to the ground."

And, as I showed, these points imply that all objects fall to earth with the same acceleration, if there is no air resistance.

 

[Radagast]

Umm, .. yes, which is how I said you get Force = acceleration = speed.

No, that is wildly wrong. In fact, they are related as:

F = m a

and

a = ds/dt.

They are also measured in different units.

 

[Radagast]

BTW, the 8" per mile is an approximation that is only good for relatively short distances.

And for visibility calculations, it's not the right formula.

 

[JacksBratt]

Perhaps I should have said ... as it pertains to proposing their own model.

From my opinion, the globe is also just a proposed model and, if one was realistic, it can also be described as "non working" model by those that find observable problems with it.

For me... neither one is without issues.

 

[A_Thinker]

From my opinion, the globe is also just a proposed model and, if one was realistic, it can also be described as "non working" model by those that find observable problems with it.

The point is that there is a globe model ... which agrees with many of the fundamental observations made by people for two and a half millennia ... both scientists and non-scientists.

There is not even one proposed flat earth model ... precisely because of issues with agreement with many of the fundamental observations made by people through the millennia ... and not even agreement amongst its proponents.

 

[JackRT]

The point is that there is a globe model ... which agrees with many of the fundamental observations made by people for two and a half millennia ... both scientists and non-scientists.

There is not even one proposed flat earth model ... precisely because of issues with agreement with many of the fundamental observations made by people through the millennia ... and agreement amongst the proponents.

And the global model is the only model that is in agreement with the known and experimentally well verified laws of physics.

 

[JacksBratt]

The point is that there is a globe model ... which agrees with many of the fundamental observations made by people for two and a half millennia ... both scientists and non-scientists.

Should we say that something is right, just because we have believed it for half a millennia?
Also, the model, like you said, agrees with "many" of the fundamental observations.. but.. not all.

There is not even one proposed flat earth model ... precisely because of issues with agreement with many of the fundamental observations made by people through the millennia ... and not even agreement amongst its proponents.

There is a proposed FE model. It also agrees with "many" of the fundamental observations.

If you really wipe your white board and start from scratch... you will understand this. Those that are presenting this model as fact are not morons. They sat in the same seat you do... doubters, scoffers and deniers...They don't believe because they are gullible and haven't looked into it.

 

[JacksBratt]

And the global model is the only model that is in agreement with the known and experimentally well verified laws of physics.

Actually, there are several experiments that work equally on the globe and FE models.
Others, set out to prove that we move and spin... both failed.

There is no physical measurement that you can use to prove that we are a ball, spin and orbit. None.

Even the Foucault Pendulum has been proven to be a unacceptable proof as it reverses it's direction during eclipses and needs a force to keep it in motion.

Unless the earth stops spinning and reverses it's direction during an eclipse, we must conclude that there is another force controlling the pendulum.

 

[Radagast]

Should we say that something is right, just because we have believed it for half a millennia?
Also, the model, like you said, agrees with "many" of the fundamental observations.. but.. not all.

With all.

And we've known the Earth is round for 2500 years.

There is a proposed FE model. It also agrees with "many" of the fundamental observations.

With almost none.

Those that are presenting this model as fact are not morons.

Sadly, that turns out not to be the case.

 

[Radagast]

There is no physical measurement that you can use to prove that we are a ball, spin and orbit. None.

There are many. Maybe you should do some actual study.

Even the Foucault Pendulum has been proven to be a unacceptable proof as it reverses it's direction during eclipses

This does not happen, in fact.

and needs a force to keep it in motion.

Well, of course.