Suez Canal is nearly perfectly level for 100 miles connecting two major bodies of water. Where is the drop?

Algiers can be seen from Spain over 100 miles away. Where is the drop?

What's hilarious is again I'm quoting your stupidity so you cannot go back and change it.
From the video's description "Time-accelerated, kinematically-accurate Celestia CG simulation of the orbital dynamics of the planet Mars and its two asteroid-sized moons."

The stars rotate with the same angular speed ie same period and the effect can be recreated by rotating the observer so its instantly plausible.

RiverFenix unless you are trolling heavily or into some social mental exercise to see how much people understand their world, enough to not be blindly accepting facts but actually realizing how they connect to each other logically to successfully argue, i see your thread as an opportunity/challenge to offer evidence without excessive technology that is impossible to attain easily. As a minimalist effort to be creative.


The rotation of the earth can be proven with this reasonably easy approach also; The fact that the effect is different as you change geographic latitude is also significant.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foucault_pendulum



Another idea that might convince you is to study cosmic radiation's angular distribution or even neutrinos from accelerators or reactors. You can effectively in principle spy on other countries' nuclear activities that way.

For example look for very energetic particles coming at 1deg angle from the horizontal level (say in the Utah plateau). Those must have entered the earth at such angle as to travel a huge distance inside the atmosphere. If the system was flat that distance is like 1/sin(f) of the effective depth of the atmosphere. If the system is curved you can use the cosine law to find at that angle what the effective length they travel is and at 1 deg the difference is like 2 to 1 already in effective length traveled. So you would be seeing 2 times more particles than the flat earth idea as compared to the vertical 90 deg angle say that is the same for both models there.

If you can find a very accurate way to look for very high energy particles (those that havent interacted) near 0 deg level you can effectively take that number discrepancy to very high levels as you approach 0. The curved earth will see the atmosphere even near 0 deg at nothing more than some effective 300km thing vs the say 10k vertical depth. But the flat earth thing will be seeing it tending to thousands of km at very small angles forcing the chance such particles survive without collision (or decay depending on what you look for) to be much smaller than observed.


I am thinking of other local ways that it can be determined without communicating far away or traveling etc.

The proposal of course has a ton of problems that many have nicely already talked about (although i briefly looked over the thread as its too long) like eg what the sun does and night/day/seasons, what happens at the edge, that the plane projection has geodesic problems too, where is Antarctica etc.

Here is another problem your flat earth has locally. How do you propose g varies with height in flat earth? What happens to the 1/r^2 law for g? The gravitational field of a flat system is different close to the surface. It doesnt drop as 1/r^2. That law (Gauss flux law , Newton 1/r^2 law etc) by the way has been verified to be true at distances down to micrometers anyway. In fact the g of a flat disk system is nearly independent of the height as long as the distance from the edges is massive compared to the height (say at 10km altitude when you have 10000km in all directions in space to move. Gravitational acceleration/strength value (your g) would also change near the edges of the disk. The field would be different than the radially observed unless you started creating some unreal density profiles for inside the crust/mantle etc to avoid this problem. So go up a mountain or in some balloon and see what is going on with g and how your flat model loses because it doesnt predict such g decline with height.


How thick is the flat earth disk by the way?


Here is another way for you to be convinced. There is a beam of neutrinos that is produced at CERN and is detected many km away in Italy. The same happens in Japan also. How would they be able to detect neutrinos traveling inside the crust and then coming again back up at the surface if the system wasnt curved? Its like a "|)" trip inside the crust.

Basically they aim their beams inside their ground at some small angle and it comes out of the ground some substantial distance later as you would expect in the other lab. On a disk that cant happen. Neutrinos wont curve to do it! They move in straight lines and rarely interact with matter.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/OPERA_experiment

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CERN_Ne..._to_Gran_Sasso

"A proton beam is taken from the SPS at 400 GeV and is made to collide with a graphite target within the CNGS tunnel. The resulting particles, most importantly kaons and pions among many other particles, are then focused by magnetic lensing and travel 1 kilometre (0.62 mi) down the CNGS tunnel in a vacuum tube. These particles are naturally unstable and as they travel along the tunnel they decay into muons and muon neutrinos. All particles except neutrinos (protons, muons, pion, kaon...) stop near the end of the tunnel. The neutrinos continue their flight unaffected, as they rarely interact with matter. The number of muons is measured at this point, which gives an indication of the beam's profile and intensity. This beam then passes 732 kilometres (455 mi) through the crust of the Earth and it is expected that during flight some of the muon neutrinos convert into other neutrino types such as tau neutrinos.[1] Once the beam arrives at Gran Sasso, the OPERA and ICARUS experiments are used to detect the neutrinos."

http://proj-cngs.web.cern.ch/proj-cn...E/cngsdgve.pdf


Here is also more easily doable experiments people can perform (i mean independent of space agencies) to photograph the horizon from very high altitudes and spot the curvature.




This thing went up to ~30km and there you can see a lot more different field with evident curvature (moreover the wide angle lens effect - i mean on top of that) than if it were all flat.

https://www.youtube.com/results?sear...=mars+rotation

There are hundreds of videos of the rotation. I guess you got me, I picked the wrong one.



Looks like they all rotate and all look like spheres. It's weird. It's all fake though, that's what I'll tell myself.

Why, at the north pole, can you not see both the moon and the sun in the sky all day every day?

What force or "force" creates the pressure that makes air denser at low attitude?

If there is no gravity why do things fall again?

Foucault pendulum is bunk pseudo science that does not prove the Earth's spin. It moves in different directions and at different speeds, there is nothing uniform about it. Why does it need to be started with a push if it was truly moving with the rotation? How come it changes speeds during a solar eclipse, certainly the Earth's speed of rotation isn't changing during an eclipse.

Ive posted videos of flat horizons from space. Assuming my answer to any perceived curvature in your videos is either trickery or camera lens distortion. Can you answer why the horizon rises to the level of the observer holding with the law of perspective on a round earth when it should clearly fall away?

Foucault's Pendulum isn't started with a push. It starts by falling, but you haven't answered why things fall at all.

2 questions.

Why do you use the word orbit, when a) an orbit is the gravitationally curved path of an object around a point in space and b) you don't believe in gravity or a sphere to orbit around?

Could you post a video of the sun "leaping" from winter orbit to summer orbit and also let me know exactly when this leap occurs?

Oh come on RiverFenix now, you are the pro pseudo science guy, next thing you will say is that the age of the earth is 6k years or that the sun is a small fire in the sky and the other side of your disk is hell/the underground? The eclipse has everything including clues about how big the sun is and how far away too. The lunar and solar eclipses and their photography have all the story if you pay attention to even the colors.




See also ;

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravitational_acceleration




"Both these models take into account the centrifugal relief that is produced by the rotation of the Earth, and neither accounts for changes in gravity with changes in altitude. It is worth noting that for the mass attraction effect by itself, the gravitational acceleration at the equator is about 0.18% less than that at the poles due to being located farther from the mass center. When the rotational component is included (as above), the gravity at the equator is about 0.53% less than that at the poles, with gravity at the poles being unaffected by the rotation. So the rotational component change due to latitude (0.35%) is about twice as significant as the mass attraction change due to latitude (0.18%), but both reduce strength of gravity at the equator as compared to gravity at the poles"

Even g tells you the story itself.

But exactly what do you have to say to the neutrino beam experiment? How can you see the beam if they send it into the ground to travel over 700km?



A time lapse trip to space may convince you ?




Horizon drops basically something like h=1/2*R*(d/R)^2. (R=6378 km) at distance d. So for a 48km distant object (eg Toronto/Ontario skyline in the video)it goes to 180m lower (plus some small angle correction of the projection you are observing as eg a building is no longer vertical at that distance, you see the projection of it ).



(look at top picture then compare with video and notice also how many smaller buildings are "missing" now)

So watch in the video the 553m http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CN_Tower look like a 370 m thing exactly as expected. Notice the ratio of the segment from the horizon to the bulge (top observation floors?) in the middle in the video (25-30sec) to the total is smaller than it is in this picture below;

You understand that helium is lighter than oxygen, correct?

Even poor Nepal with the devastaing earthquake that happened past 24h (~8 R) offers a chance to see the curvature/sphere geometry.

Global very big earthquakes often produce waves that go around the planet and come back additional times. How do you explain that secondary passes and the waves reinforcement at the antipodes (where they meet) of such global quakes?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2004_In...ke_and_tsunami

"Because of its enormous energy release and shallow rupture depth, the earthquake generated remarkable seismic ground motions around the globe, particularly due to huge Rayleigh (surface) elastic waves that exceeded 1 cm (0.4 in) in vertical amplitude everywhere on Earth. The record section plot below displays vertical displacements of the Earth's surface recorded by seismometers from the IRIS/USGS Global Seismographic Network plotted with respect to time (since the earthquake initiation) on the horizontal axis, and vertical displacements of the Earth on the vertical axis (note the 1 cm scale bar at the bottom for scale). The seismograms are arranged vertically by distance from the epicenter in degrees. The earliest, lower amplitude, signal is that of the compressional (P) wave, which takes about 22 minutes to reach the other side of the planet (the antipode; in this case near Ecuador). The largest amplitude signals are seismic surface waves that reach the antipode after about 100 minutes. The surface waves can be clearly seen to reinforce near the antipode (with the closest seismic stations in Ecuador), and to subsequently encircle the planet to return to the epicentral region after about 200 minutes."

Masque de Z blinding us with science!

Also, how do you explain the shot heard 'round the world?

Sound waves from Krakatoa also detectable as they made their way around the earth 4 times.

http://m.nautil.us/blog/the-sound-so...rth-four-times

micro,

echos bouncing off the ice walls, obv.

FE guy using BUNK PSEUDO SCIENCE. Yes, that makes perfect sense. I do enjoy how selective he is with what scientific things he believes. Density obviously is real, but gravity isn't.

Density doesn't explain why something falls towards the center of the earth, he pulled a fast one there.

You know that gravity thing you don't believe in? Also, how do you explain that the water in a pail doesn't fall out when you spin it around and around?

I thought he already said that the earth is uniformly accelerating up.

I wonder what can produce such constant 1G acceleration of such a huge mass?

Impulse drive is sufficient

Yes of course. I've explained density a lot in this thread already and how it is what is actually at play instead of gravity.

One simple experiment shows there is no gravity. The Helium Balloon. It rises. How is this possible? Classical Mechanics shows that Force equals the Constant of Gravity multiplied by the Mass of Object 1 multiplied by the Mass of Object 2 divided by the Distance between the two
masses raised to the second power. F=GM1M2/r^2 . With this logic, the mass of the Earth is so great that the helium balloon would have no choice but to be attracted to the Earth. We have mass 1 pulling on mass 2 and mass 2 pulling on mass 1. F1= F2 The force of the balloon that pulls the Earth is not equal to the force that the Earth pulls on the balloon. It would not rise. What we see in the experiment that the helium is rising to meet its level of density.

So my point stands about helium rising if gravity was real...

This doesnt answer the question at all, not even close. How does a pail spinning around even replicate the Earth spinning? If you had water in a pail facing outwards from you it would spray everywhere - your example is centrifugal with a barrier for it to push up against.

Can someone tell me how every single day gravity must account for what is a 2,000mph shift between midnight and noon? How we cannot feel said shift but gravity compensates for the difference...?

Because they have orbits that move them out of the line of sight...

The weight of the air stacked above....