Is Earth round or flat❓

[dinsdale]

On 12/23/2024 at 4:21 PM, rattlesnake said:

spinning on its axis at 1,000 mph

The Earth rotates. It doesn't spin. Here a demonstration of how much it rotates in 24 hrs. from the famous flerfer Bob Knodel.

 

[Hummin]

3 minutes ago, Skeptic7 said:

As an American, I'm ashamed of my native country nowadays for myriad reasons. However, can't say I share your experience with weed smokers, unless you're simply referring to just total stoners...of which I've never known any. Tho I don't partake, the long-term casual toker friends I have are rational and reasonable and not into alternative truths. However, most of the psychedelic drug users I've been acquainted with totally fit that description❗🤣 

For my personal experience people who have or had alternative lifestyles, travelling in extreme sports, where at least 50% or more where self medicated on one ore more substances. 

 

And to be true, I have met quite a few expats around in the world who left their country before age retirement to also believe in alternate truths. Might be more to location where there is more layback long term backpacker style, with cheaper accommodation and also easily available drugs. 

 

Well, I can myself agree to some conspiracies that is more related to potus and controlling the empire, where some have been proved right. Some conflicts being triggered, as well convenient happenings leading to conflicts in specific regions and also countries with great resources. 

 

There will always be some doubt about the real truth.

 

 

[Hummin]

Just now, Hummin said:

For my personal experience people who have or had alternative lifestyles, travelling in extreme sports, where at least 50% or more where self medicated on one ore more substances. 

 

And to be true, I have met quite a few expats around in the world who left their country before age retirement to also believe in alternate truths. Might be more to location where there is more layback long term backpacker style, with cheaper accommodation and also easily available drugs. 

 

Well, I can myself agree to some conspiracies that is more related to potus and controlling the empire, where some have been proved right. Some conflicts being triggered, as well convenient happenings leading to conflicts in specific regions and also countries with great resources. 

 

There will always be some doubt about the real truth.

 

 

The dangerous part, is when you dive in to it, and cultivating mixed theories and mixed truths 

[dinsdale]

8 hours ago, rattlesnake said:

 

I don’t give much credence to Newton’s theory of gravity. Density is, I believe, the most probable theory (to the smart*sses: yes,if I jump off a building I will crash to the ground, because my body is denser than the surrounding air).

 

The gravity idea, just as the Earth curvature idea, is riddled with contradictions and absurdities. Newton himself, according to David Wardlaw Scott, confessed that the explanation of the moon's action on the tides did not fit well with his theory of gravitation, which asserts that the larger object attracts the smaller (but the mass of the Moon is only one-eighth of that of the Earth).

 

Why are lakes not affected by tides?

Gravity is strong enough to hold the oceans to a spinning ball, yet weak enough that birds can still fly?

It's great to know we have someone on this thread smarter than Newton. Just saying "I don’t give much credence to Newton’s theory of gravity" is an absolutely worthless comment without a supporting argument. Lakes are not interconnected as oceans are. It is the interconnectivity of oceans that allow tidal movement. As for birds and for that matter anything else that flies this is done due to lift. Gravity is a very weak force.

[gamb00ler]

59 minutes ago, WDSmart said:

If you jump off a building, you will crash to the ground, but not because your body is denser than the surrounding air. It is because your body has much less mass than the Earth below, so the Earth exerts a great attractive force on your body. That force is called "gravity."

Jethro said it best with his album.. Thick as a Brick.

[Skeptic7]

33 minutes ago, Hummin said:

I have met quite a few expats around in the world who left their country before age retirement to also believe in alternate truths.

Yes me too❗Same experience and I've oft wondered about this...as 3 of them were very close friends. On this point, I totally agree. And the one below.

 

33 minutes ago, Hummin said:

There will always be some doubt about the real truth.

Which is healthy, of course, up to a point anyway. But I firmly believe that if Flat Earth was the scientific consensus, then all these FLERFS of the world would be "globe-heads" now and banging that drum. 😁

[Hummin]

4 minutes ago, Skeptic7 said:

But I firmly believe that if Flat Earth was the scientific consensus, then all these FLERFS of the world would be "globe-heads" now and banging that drum. 😁

I find that very likely or plausible 

[save the frogs]

5 hours ago, Evil Penevil said:

Birds use their wings to generate lift, which overcomes gravity and allows them to fly. 

which overcomes gravity or density?

 

helium balloons don't have wings. 

 

[Will B Good]

1 hour ago, WDSmart said:

If you jump off a building, you will crash to the ground, but not because your body is denser than the surrounding air. It is because your body has much less mass than the Earth below, so the Earth exerts a great attractive force on your body. That force is called "gravity."

 

Sticking with classical theory.....the jumper exerts an equal and opposite force on the Earth due to his gravitational field. .....Newton's third law.

 

In relativity there is no gravity!!!!

[papa al]

2 hours ago, Skeptic7 said:

Maybe... but were I to use "stupid" or "moron", those are against Forum Rules, so not gonna do that. So how about..."seriously wilfully ignorant"❓

What ever fires your rocket.

Black-belt level name-caller 👍🏼.

[dinsdale]

5 minutes ago, save the frogs said:

which overcomes gravity or density?

 

helium balloons don't have wings. 

 

Helium is lighter than air. Air pushes helium balloons up due to the buoyant force of the air surrounding the balloon.

[Will B Good]

9 hours ago, rattlesnake said:

Why are lakes not affected by tides?

 

They are.

 

You could measure the effects of the moons pull on something as small as a cup of water with a laser interferometer

[Hummin]

3 minutes ago, dinsdale said:

Helium is lighter than air. Air pushes helium balloons up due to the buoyant force of the air surrounding the balloon.

You forgot temperature, 

[WDSmart]

6 minutes ago, Will B Good said:

 

Sticking with classical theory.....the jumper exerts an equal and opposite force on the Earth due to his gravitational field. .....Newton's third law.

 

In relativity there is no gravity!!!!

No, there is no "equal and opposite force." Both the jumper and the Earth exert a force of attraction, but the Earth, with more mass, exerts a stronger force, so the jumper is drawn toward it. If the jumper had more mass than the Earth, the Earth would be drawn toward the jumper. That's my understanding of the force that we call "gravity." 

[Will B Good]

3 minutes ago, dinsdale said:

Helium is lighter than air. Air pushes helium balloons up due to the buoyant force of the air surrounding the balloon.

 

Almost.....the overall density of the helium ballon, plus equipment, is less than the density of the surrounding air.....so the more dense air does push it up due to the slight pressure differential that exists between the top and bottom of the ballon plus kit.

[WDSmart]

5 minutes ago, dinsdale said:

Helium is lighter than air. Air pushes helium balloons up due to the buoyant force of the air surrounding the balloon.

That's true, but if there were no air and only a vacuum, the helium balloons would "fall" to Earth because of what we call "gravity."

[Will B Good]

1 minute ago, WDSmart said:

No, there is no "equal and opposite force." Both the jumper and the Earth exert a force of attraction, but the Earth, with more mass, exerts a stronger force, so the jumper is drawn toward it. If the jumper had more mass than the Earth, the Earth would be drawn toward the jumper. That's my understanding of the force that we call "gravity." 

 

Sadly no.....you must have heard of equal and opposite reactions? There are caveats.

 

If the Earth pulls you down, i.e. your weight, by say 80N, then you pull the Earth up with a force..... precisely equal to 80N.

[Will B Good]

4 minutes ago, WDSmart said:

No, there is no "equal and opposite force."

Newton’s Third Law of Motion states:

 

“For every action, there is an equal and opposite reaction.”

 

Explanation:

• When one object exerts a force on a second object, the second object exerts an equal force in the opposite direction on the first object.

• These forces are always equal in magnitude and opposite in direction but act on different objects.

 

 

[gamb00ler]

On 12/23/2024 at 5:21 PM, rattlesnake said:

 

I understand.

 

121,000 feet is 36 km. From what altitude do you posit the Earth would cease to appear flat and become spherical?

How is your math?  It's not hard to figure it out given the purported diameter of the Earth.

 

Start here: https://www.geeksforgeeks.org/chords-of-a-circle/

Show your work!

[WDSmart]

27 minutes ago, Will B Good said:

 

Sadly no.....you must have heard of equal and opposite reactions? There are caveats.

 

If the Earth pulls you down, i.e. your weight, by say 80N, then you pull the Earth up with a force..... precisely equal to 80N.

Ah! But that's all relative. You could say the Earth pulls you down, or you pull the Earth up because the direction is relative to whatever object you consider motionless. I say the Earth pulls you down because I, like most humans, assume the largest object in the area is motionless, but that's just a relative assumption that makes us (humans) more comfortable. So, when we think of the Moon orbiting the Earth, we perceive the Earth as being motionless. When we think of the Earth rotating around the Sun, we perceive the Sun as being motionless. When we think of the Sun moving around the Galaxy, we perceive the Galaxy as being motionless. In reality, all are equally moving and motionless. It's just a matter of perception. 

As an example, here is a video of a diagram of the Solar System assuming the Earth is motionless (Geocentric Model) which is just as valid as our usual one which shows the Sun as being motionless (Heliocentric Model): 
 

 

[Will B Good]

7 minutes ago, WDSmart said:

Ah! But that's all relative. You could say the Earth pulls you down, or you pull the Earth up because the direction is relative to whatever object you consider motionless. I say the Earth pulls you down because I, like most humans, assume the largest object in the area is motionless, but that's just a relative assumption that makes us (humans) more comfortable. So, when we think of the Moon orbiting the Earth, we perceive the Earth as being motionless. When we think of the Earth rotating around the Sun, we perceive the Sun as being motionless. When we think of the Sun moving around the Galaxy, we perceive the Galaxy as being motionless. In reality, all are equally moving and motionless. It's just a matter of perception. 

As an example, here is a video of a diagram of the Solar System assuming the Earth is motionless (Geocentric Model) which is just as valid as our usual one which shows the Sun as being motionless (Heliocentric Model): 
 

 

 

 

Nice try....but totally irrelevant.

 

The whole of mechanics is built around Newton's three laws of motion......

[gamb00ler]

43 minutes ago, WDSmart said:

So, when we think of the Moon orbiting the Earth, we perceive the Earth as being motionless

Our perception is just that.... our subjective view of the universe.

 

In the Earth/Moon system, both objects revolve around the system's virtual center of mass, which lies within the Earth's circumference.  The oceans being more "pliable" move more than the solid portion of the Earth.

 

https://www.scienceisart.com/B_Tides/EarthMoonCOG.html

 

[harryviking]

And someone who ask this question should have their brains scanned..🤣..

[WDSmart]

2 hours ago, Will B Good said:

The whole of mechanics is built around Newton's three laws of motion......

That should be, "The human idea of mechanics is built around Newton's three theories of motion." 

[Hummin]

On 12/23/2024 at 5:19 PM, Hummin said:

Just understand the dimensions we are talking about. "120 000" feet is just a flee jump from earth. 

From center of earth to surface 6 371km

 

Spacestation 400km

"Space" starts 100km

Distance moon 384 000km

 

 

 

 

https://www.facebook.com/share/p/1Buuf63gBQ/

 

 

[Scott Tracy]

On 12/23/2024 at 10:21 AM, Hummin said:

On 12/23/2024 at 11:13 AM, NoDisplayName said:

 

oblate spheroid

Agreed.

[Scott Tracy]

On 12/23/2024 at 10:54 AM, rattlesnake said:

"Science says…"

 

I think this is the core issue, coming to terms with the fact that "science", and everything it entails, is just one big hoax. I have presented you with a contradiction in your premise by showing you footage at 121,000 feet where the Earth appears flat.

 

The last guy I had this conversation with, on another forum, had the honesty of actually trying to explain the heliocentric model (rather than just laughing and/or dropping insults and leaving the discussion as most people do). After some time on Google, he finally admitted to me that it was "too vast for the human mind to comprehend" and that was why we have the "NASA experts".

 

Delegating our elementary common sense to authorities who decide for us what is or isn't true, such is, I believe, the greatest issue of the modern age.

How about Newton's Principia? 

 

Elementary common sense says it's round, or sunrise and sunset would the same times over the plate, like Discworld.

[Scott Tracy]

On 12/24/2024 at 4:41 AM, Hummin said:

Came up in my feed now

 

I think the clue is in the name. This is a spirit level. Thus, the portion of ground it covers is level, not necessarily flat, though.

[Scott Tracy]

18 hours ago, papa al said:

disingenuous is defined as  ---  not serious.

So your syllogism fails.

I like deceitful, duplicitous as synonyms....

[Scott Tracy]

And I keep asking myself, why the hell am I engaging in this horse hockey?