There IS no gravity.

[Hieronymus]

What would be a formula that describes the curve?
Do you accept 8" per mile squared?

Bare in mind that that's an average.
It would be that number if the Earth was a smooth polished sphere, which it is not.
Btw, it's per mile, not mile squared.
You travel 1 mile in a straight line, you go "down" 8 inches, apparently.
I'm not good with the inches and miles.
I'm used to metric units.
That would be approximately 1.6 kilometers and 20 centimeters, or 1600 meters and 0.2 meters, which is 12.5 cm per kilometer.
Is that right? Sounds like a lot to me. I should look it up.

But it's more accurate to describe it as a very shallow hill.
It's a section of a very large circle.
So you can imagine it as a hill of 1 mile diameter and 4" high, or 1 km and 6.25 cm high.

In reality you will find places where this is less and you will find places where this is more.
It's an average.

 

[rambot]

How on earth would you know if the plane you were on flew a curved path or a straight path... The lines on your map are projected as if it is a globe... it's proof of nothing.

Explain to me why would they draw it that way. That's all. Dont dismiss.

I want to hear from you what logic their is behind the airlines projecting false flight paths.

 

[rambot]

Well, maybe it's because now, with the internet, people who have been observing odd things about this universe can now get together and talk about it and compare notes. Previously, they would have been ridiculed and shunned.... never allowed a voice. But.. now they are united....

1) Your basic assumption is that that hasn't been happenning for the last 500 years. People have been observing the heavens for a long time. Curious scientists who spend ALL DAY doing the math necessary to prove what thye are seeing, have had their eyes glued in telescopes for centuries. You make it sound like now that "everyone can chat together" we are going to get better information. It reminds me of the Michael Scott quote from the office where he's talking about being the best source online because "anyone can say anything on the topic so you know it's going to be good." That is faulty, faulty logic. Dale, the hardware expert with a telescope who did Math 12 IB will say all these thousands of people are lying or mistaken because HE found something that contradicts it.
2) And that is a problem. "They" talk about it together and compare each others notes. So a bunch of confused people with limited scientific knowledge get together and compare notes. That doesn't make sense. Ask a scientist who can answer the questions. But instead their responses (eg:it's light refraction) get eye rolls.
3) When they have a salient point that is a new challenge to accepted theory, they would NOT be ridiculed or shunned, but rest assured, they are both. Very much. The fact that you wrote "Previously they would have been ridiculed and shunned" shows how disconnected you are with astronomers and physicists.

Not only that, but now, people are able to take the photos that NASA puts out and investigate them.. show that they are fake... show cloned cloud formations... duplicates and different sizes

And yet I've never seen anything. Nor have any pictures actually ever been proven fake. And when asked for it, I only get "look it up" but my search engine algorithms won't populate these pages high up because I tend to go to pages informed and written by scientists and people who have training and knowledge. So my searches populate with those. I need to be directed to the sites with people who are less knowledgeable and trained because I can't get there on my own (or at least, I'm not interested goin 300 entries down into my google searches to find the stuff)

And, on top of that, they have access to cameras that can zoom to great amounts and, through digital technology, they don't have to wait to get them developed before they can make adjustments and hone in on high resolution pictures of our heavenly bodies.
One other thing is that they are able to research all the things that they never taught in school.. that are just as real as the things they did teach... or... finding the truth about the things that were taught that were not true... Like Columbus discovering America FALSE....

Just because they can take good pictures, doesn't mean they understand them. There's a world of difference between comparing a flat earth and Columbus discovering America (not counting indigenous folk).
Until such time as evidence was found that Vikings were first to land, there is some sense in teaching that Columbus was the first one here. Of course, now there is ample, ample evidence that the Vikings were first, schools (at least any school i've been at or attended) teach that Vikings landed. So they teach what evidence shows.
Evidence consistently points to a round earth and has for hundreds of years. That's why we continue to teach that model in schools. Evidence that is considered "exception" and "in contradiction to the current model" are easily rebuffed and explained by astronomers and physicists.

Add to that the fact that we can research the different archeological structures that defy modern science and have existed since ancient times...

So is it that they LITERALLY defy the science OR scientists are shocked that they had the knowledge and skills to build these things. I've heard the latter; NEVER the former.

Yes, the information explosion has opened up a treasure trove of things that would not be known otherwise.. and... it can be spread though the world of inquiring minds.

Fair enough.

Now.. if you want to hang on to the old stand by academic drivel... go ahead.. But all will be exposed.

Here's the thing, giving it the label of drivel is pointless; it simply shows that you don't understand it and you don't trust the people who study it.

 

[rambot]

That only looks curved on a flat map though.
On a globe they would be straight lines, only curved along the global curvature.

exactly.

 

[rambot]

Does anyone have some examples of these magical cameras that take pictures of images 450kms away?

 

[rambot]

David Senesac Visual Line of Sight Calculations dependent on Earth's Curvature

This website gives some nice simple math on how to establish what the curvature of the earth is' provides some example trials to help explain things.


And as a sidenote: I don't understand how one side of the earth can be day and one side can be night on a flat earth. Can someone explain that to me? Or send me a to a website? In addition, not only is it stark "day/night" but there sunsets and sunrises are progressive around the earth; Wouldn't it happen basically simultaneously on a flat earth?

 

[JacksBratt]

Earth Curvature Calculator - Calculate the curve you should see

For all intents and purposes... that calculator is 8 inches per mile squared... the further out you go the further the discrepancy....

 

[JacksBratt]

Does anyone have some examples of these magical cameras that take pictures of images 450kms away?

Watch this vid and tell us what you think

 

[JacksBratt]

Same thing.

The behavior is the same so they cancel each other out.

No, buoyancy works because of gravitational pull.

There is the problem.... there is no proof of "gravitational pull"

It is the "pull" part that is a theory.... The source of this "pull" is the hitch.

The FE needs no mysterious "pull". down is down and things fall there... Straight down.

Only the globe needs it to be a "pull" in order to explain why every thing does not fly off their globe.

It's a PROVEN theory.
In fact, the theory is derived from experiments. Man discovers laws of physics.
It's basic Newtonian physics.
You can prove it every day with simple experiments.
That doesn't mean or require you must know what causes it though.

It is not proven... all they can do is measure the effect.. they have no idea of the mechanics that cause it.. we already went over this.. that part is still a mystery.

Look, if you think buoyancy has nothing to do with gravity, you just lack basic understanding of physics.

I didn't say that... I said that the effects of gravity are the same as buoyancy.

 

[Hieronymus]

The behavior is the same so they cancel each other out.



There is the problem.... there is no proof of "gravitational pull"

Yes there is, obviously.
Put a weight on a spring and the spring will get longer due to the force of gravity.
To eliminate any buoyancy, you can do it in a glass vacuum tube.
What you can also determine in a glass vacuum tube is the gravitational acceleration (g).
Without the drag of air, a feather will accelerate as fast as a bearing ball.
It accelerates with 9.8 m/s² This means that every second the speed increases with 9.8 m/s.
The only force working on the objects in a vacuum tube is gravity.
It pulls the objects towards Earth's centre of gravity.

So the problem is your misconception.

It is the "pull" part that is a theory.... The source of this "pull" is the hitch.

The FE needs no mysterious "pull". down is down and things fall there... Straight down.

Only the globe needs it to be a "pull" in order to explain why every thing does not fly off their globe.

This is ridiculous.
As i said, buoyancy only works with gravity.
Denser objects sink because F (force) pulls harder on them.
It doesn't even matter what shape the earth is, or at least that's not a primary concern.
Fact is that there is buoyancy which depends on gravity.
In a 'weightless' environment there is no buoyancy.
You can simulate weightlessness in a chamber that accelerates towards earth with 9.8 m/s²
They can do this in aeroplanes.
Another way is to put a chamber in earth's orbit.
It will have to spin around or along with the earth fast and / or high enough to make the centrifugal acceleration match the gravitational acceleration.
It's how satellites stay up there and don't fall down.
No buoyancy there either.
Liquids form a ball that floats around in the test chamber.
Gravitational pull is cancelled out inside both examples of test chambers.
This is basic Newtonian physics, tried and tested.

 

[Radagast]

There is the problem.... there is no proof of "gravitational pull"

There are experiments, which have already been discussed. Two balls will attract each other.

 

[Radagast]

How on earth would you know if the plane you were on flew a curved path or a straight path...

You would look out of the window.

 

[Radagast]

To do that on a flat earth, they would be following a straight latitudinal line. But they don't do that at all. The follow curved travel lines.

Why would airlines travel an extra few hundred kilometers in wasted fuel by going in these archs if the earth was flat?

Airline routes in the Southern Hemisphere (Australia/Africa or Australia/Chile) are even more definitive.

 

[rambot]

Watch this vid and tell us what you think

You're asking me to watch a 58 minute video?
That is not realistic. My problems with this:
1) It's 58 minutes. I rarely watch fact based documentaries that are that long
2) This work is not peer reviewed. I have said that I am not SUPER well versed in gravitational forces so I am very happy to trust people who ARE. And if they are not critiquing this work: Who is.

Now, onto the video:
1) Starts with this guy saying "just started about 6 months ago; watched over 200 videos. No one presented a compelling case". Well thanks guy! That saved me a LOOOOOT of time. And this is supposed to be from a guy who SUPPORTS the theory.
Can't wait to see what comes!
2) Shining Rock....blathering on and on. Talks abouta "Test"...still don't know what test he's talking about or what he's going to do. Explaining his wife is staying in one spot and he's hiking around to another spot. I'm expecting for him to explain what he's doing any second now...

Wait. What are you serious? "I was setting up the camera and the curvature that I should be seeing, simply was not there. It was not there". The next sentence: "The evidence I collected proves the earth is flat". And soon after "I challenge anyone to say that my evidence doesn't prove the earth is flat.
HE DIDN'T EVEN PRESENT ANY BLAHDY BLOODEE BLAH EVIDENCE!!!!!!!
He did nothing. That's akin to me using the following as proof:
"So I walked down to the beautiful river valley where I live and hiked along the river with my dog. And all around me, all I could see was that there was curvature of the earth. It was all there; all the evidence I needed. I challenge you to disprove it". I actually feel a bit insulted, but honestly, I think that's because I expected something a lot more credible from you JackBratt given how you're addressing other issues.

What the heck is going on? I can't be bothered to watch 54 more minutes of a guy saying "I was looking and the evidence was all right there. That's more evidence." That's what an excited grade 4 kid would do with new scientific knowledge.

Could you please give me something in writing instead? Or just a short 3 minute video? That video COULD have got better but it lost me only 6 minutes in.

In the meantime, I have invested a solid 15 minutes into watching and responding to your video.

Would you be willing to take the time to address the math presented in the link I gave just above your last post that explains how the curvature of the earth is measured, how it can be found using trigonometry and noting instances where light refraction affects what is seen?

I've never seen an FE person explain away ANY actual math whatsoever so I would love to hear how one of the most basic premises of a flat earth (the visible curvature) and the math associated with it, could be called into question. NOT by adding "new untested ideas" but by dismissing the already entrenched ones.


So he didn't take any measurements. He used his eyes

 

[rambot]

How on earth would you know if the plane you were on flew a curved path or a straight path... The lines on your map are projected as if it is a globe... it's proof of nothing.

You, you kinda missed my point there hey? The flight paths are projected as if it is a globe because it is. The planes are flying in the most direct path to their destination over a curved globe.

Again I ask, why would airlines fly anything less than the MOST direct route between two destinations? Were they WANTING to burn more fuel?

OR

Why would airlines NOT flight the quickest way between two destinations and LIE to us that they are? Where is the benefit of that?

It's not meant to be proof. It is evidence that you cannot explain away though. I get that 95% of FEers aren't going to be switched back onto mainstream science; partially because it is not understood, but also because you have been convinced by snake oil salesman that "science has betrayed you" and that message is FAR more powerful than a mathematical formula that we can't remember.

 

[rambot]

Or.... buoyancy. We already discussed that it is the source of gravity that is illusive...

And yet we can recognize that the greater the mass, the greater that gravitational forces acting. We can recognize that Jupiter a sphere (I think right?) is much, much bigger than earth has FAR greater gravitational forces acting on it. Ditto the sun and it's greater weight and greater gravitational forces.
We have recognized that greater weights create greater gravitational force.

 

[JacksBratt]

There are experiments, which have already been discussed. Two balls will attract each other.

Really?

I can set two snooker balls on a smooth table.. so close that you can just see daylight between them... If I leave them there of a month....they will still be in the exact same positions when I check them again.

 

[JacksBratt]

You would look out of the window.

So looking out the window.. you can tell that you are flying in path that is straight on one model and curved on another? That the plane is flying a slow arch?

If the shortest distance between two places is a straight line.. I hardly think that airlines are flying a horizontal arch.

 

[Hieronymus]

Really?

I can set two snooker balls on a smooth table.. so close that you can just see daylight between them... If I leave them there of a month....they will still be in the exact same positions when I check them again.

I challenge you to use your grey cells.
How would you conduct an experiment to show if 2 objects attract eachother?

 

[JacksBratt]

You're asking me to watch a 58 minute video?
That is not realistic. My problems with this:
1) It's 58 minutes. I rarely watch fact based documentaries that are that long
2) This work is not peer reviewed. I have said that I am not SUPER well versed in gravitational forces so I am very happy to trust people who ARE. And if they are not critiquing this work: Who is.

Now, onto the video:
1) Starts with this guy saying "just started about 6 months ago; watched over 200 videos. No one presented a compelling case". Well thanks guy! That saved me a LOOOOOT of time. And this is supposed to be from a guy who SUPPORTS the theory.
Can't wait to see what comes!
2) Shining Rock....blathering on and on. Talks abouta "Test"...still don't know what test he's talking about or what he's going to do. Explaining his wife is staying in one spot and he's hiking around to another spot. I'm expecting for him to explain what he's doing any second now...

Wait. What are you serious? "I was setting up the camera and the curvature that I should be seeing, simply was not there. It was not there". The next sentence: "The evidence I collected proves the earth is flat". And soon after "I challenge anyone to say that my evidence doesn't prove the earth is flat.
HE DIDN'T EVEN PRESENT ANY BLAHDY BLOODEE BLAH EVIDENCE!!!!!!!
He did nothing. That's akin to me using the following as proof:
"So I walked down to the beautiful river valley where I live and hiked along the river with my dog. And all around me, all I could see was that there was curvature of the earth. It was all there; all the evidence I needed. I challenge you to disprove it". I actually feel a bit insulted, but honestly, I think that's because I expected something a lot more credible from you JackBratt given how you're addressing other issues.

What the heck is going on? I can't be bothered to watch 54 more minutes of a guy saying "I was looking and the evidence was all right there. That's more evidence." That's what an excited grade 4 kid would do with new scientific knowledge.

Could you please give me something in writing instead? Or just a short 3 minute video? That video COULD have got better but it lost me only 6 minutes in.

In the meantime, I have invested a solid 15 minutes into watching and responding to your video.

Would you be willing to take the time to address the math presented in the link I gave just above your last post that explains how the curvature of the earth is measured, how it can be found using trigonometry and noting instances where light refraction affects what is seen?

I've never seen an FE person explain away ANY actual math whatsoever so I would love to hear how one of the most basic premises of a flat earth (the visible curvature) and the math associated with it, could be called into question. NOT by adding "new untested ideas" but by dismissing the already entrenched ones.


So he didn't take any measurements. He used his eyes

So sorry... you cannot watch a 58 minute video that shows mountains in different places, all viewed from one spot, while being different distances away... show no proof of diminishing elevations, as would be necessary for proof of a curve?

This, after requesting photos that show that we can see farther than we should and objects are in view that should not be?

Here is your request:
"Does anyone have some examples of these magical cameras that take pictures of images 450kms away"

Since you have no time to view something that you requested... I have no time to read your entire post.....

I think that you don't want to watch it.... because you will then have to accept what it proves.

So.... go back to sleep.

A word of advice... if you ask for someone to search for something... and they take the time to find it and post it for you..... Have the respect, selflessness and integrity to watch it.

I don't have the time to do your research for you in the first place... let alone post something that you are just going to ignore for fear of it proving you wrong.