What is a force? Honestly, I have no idea what a force IS, but I think we might agree that whatever it IS, it can be measured as an accelerating object of mass (aka F=ma).

For example, if you take your domestic force measuring device (aka bathroom scales!) and place it on the wall. Now try and get it to register the force you apply by pushing on it as hard as you can. Maybe you get a small blip and it returns back to zero. Perhaps you could take a running jump and throw yourself at it. Even then, I expect you'll get a slightly bigger blip before it returns topi zero.

Now put the scales back on the floor, stand on them, and ponder for a moment what is happening now vs. how much you struggled to get even a small reading when you threw yourself at the wall! Cos right now, the scale is behaving as if your body mass is being accelerated downward at a constant rate.

What does this mean?!

Density is just a ratio of two other properties: some quantity of mass divided by some quantity of volume (like speed is just some quantity of distance divided by soone quantity of time)

And density isn't even given using the actual volume of material you have, but some common arbitrary volume (say cubic cm).

If a substance then is said to have a density of 10g/cm3, all that means is "IF we had 10g of this material, THEN it would take up 1 cubic centimetre volume". How much mass do you actually have? How much volume? With only the density, we don't and can't know.

Density is a relative measurement, to compare one material's density to another.


So, does this make any sense to you: gravity can be explained because some quantity of mass has some quantity of volume?

It’s gravity. Do we know every answer to gravity? No. Do we know enough about it to do amazing feats of ballistics, architecture, space flight, etc, etc, etc? Yes. Is all that knowledge nullified because we don’t yet know everything about gravity? No. In what world are all answers known?

Asking for knowledge about how gravity and density work is fine, nothing wrong with it. But understand you’re asking questions that have been answered. You’re asking people on a forum to reprove things that are taught as basic knowledge in elementary school.

At this point, the scientific community has nothing to prove to you about the shape of the planet- you either avail yourself of the knowledge or prove the earth is flat.

Well when the 2nd law is violated and gravity is the reason you can violate it .. then ya you must be able to prove it in and out without other explanations. No sorry bc it’s taught in school at an elementary level actually helps my point. They can’t prove it yet they are very fast to brainwash the kids and us all with it. It’s interesting and telling.

But ya everything official science ever said was fact and the school system was right 100% of the time. There’s no reason to ever question what youve been taught. Just learn it and repeat it.

People in power would never lie either.. they have your best interest at heart I’m sure of it.

Nobody sees a problem here? Masque is using gravity to say you can violate the 2nd law of thermodynamics because of the pressure gradient caused by gravity.

Therefor you must prove gravity first or I just proved the heliocentric to be what it is absolute bs

There was a video posted upthread--the 'gravity explained on 5 levels' one--where at the end when it was two PhDs talking about it where they pondered if gravity were perhaps an emergent property and about how 'real' matter is.
There is a certain arrogance in thinking that science has everything figured out when they clearly don't. They aren't teaching about how gravity might work with QM in elementary school. And it isn't just some minor problem but one involving the fundamental nature of matter.

The scientific method is by definition limited to natural phenomena. To claim science the phenomenon observed must be naturally occurring, there must be a valid hypothesis and there must be systematic, repeatable experiment. Shining a laser over water isn't a cause and effect relationship, therefore not science.

There could be something here worthy of acknowledging however. If it was managed to be done they will of course claim refraction or other reason.*Sea sparrow - CONSTANT LINE OF SIGHT REQUIRED. They can't get around it.

So television, magazines, newspapers and images uploaded to the internet. Are we to assume that photographs and video is a representation of objective reality always? It is said that NASA leads Hollywood in cinematography. Re 'competing' sources this is rather slippery. Multiple teams may be competing but they are playing the same game. More of a political discussion really, plenty to be gained from faking space.

Observation is the first step in the scientific method (strictly speaking observation of natural phenomena). There is no science in observation alone.
So, what standard of proof is actually being offered here? Not even reaching a threshold of what could be considered any standard of proof I say.

Begging the question fallacy assuming the outcome of sphere, these are not actual places they are made up lines drawn on a presupposed sphere. Circumference begs the question of sphere and you have no proof of earth radius which is presupposed. Are you applying a false dichotomy - a presupposed sphere vs a presupposed flat disc?

Latitude is a convention, made up lines on a presupposed sphere, ie begging the question. Hemisphere is begging the question of sphere. False dichotomy potentially.

"predicted" sounds possibly you are invoking the scientific method. A scientific prediction is a hypothesis, a statement of cause and effect that is testable. Which is not what you have.

It is either science or it is not science. Is the shape of the earth a cause and effect question ie a how/why question? No, then we cannot apply the scientific method. Earth is observably flat - by our own senses, we don't need television to explain that what we see and experience every day is in fact wrong and we live on a spinning oblate spheroid. We can observe directly for ourselves or using our own cameras that we see much too far into the distance for earth to be anything other than a, roughly, flat plane. Let's use sea level. SEA LEVEL. Level means flat. Maps are flat. Maps are workable models are they not? Do they not demonstrate that a flat earth model works without a need to account for a variation in elevation, ie a drop of 8 inches per mile squared from any and every point on the globe? We don't need science to prove the flat earth. It just is. It is a 'what is' question.

Fundamentalist commitment to the direction of down which derives from assuming the outcome of a spherical earth with an increasing gravitational force toward the centre of said presupposed earth. Then using gravity as the single factor that prevents the loss of the atmosphere to the vacuum. Obvious circular reasoning.

If you want to find out what people who actually know what they are talking about think about gravity, check out the video posted by BeaucoupFish with the high level PhDs. The newtonian gravitational force was DEBUNKED by einstein's theory (not a scientific theory) of general relativity. Yes debunked, trounced, killed off. What "physicists" are now doing is trying to reconcile continuous 4d spacetime quantum mechanics. And they are failing miserably. Wonder why.

From wiki, general relativity

Getting this here demolition of newtonian gravity? DIFFER SIGNIFICANTLY, the MOTION OF BODIES IN FREE FALL specifically referenced.
CONFIRMED in all observations and experiments to date. Ouch.

You don't even know your own pseudo science here. Your 2p2 resident PhD has explained the einsteinian conception of geodesics: THERE IS NO FORCE. Still we get parroting of debunked newtonian/classical. Still we get "can be fairly well modelled by". Not science though is it. If it's wrong it's wrong. Can't then use a concept that DOESNT WORK in EXPERIMENT

And this is before we get to the fact that these "experiments" testing these concepts are not even experiments! How can you vary and manipulate gravity?!!

again from the wiki page

Yes the simplest theory (not a scientific theory) of gravity that is consistent with experimental data. IPSO FACTO the newtonian classical model is BUNK. The SIMPLEST theory is precisely general relativity. That is unless you want to ignore experiments (not experiments) and observations. Which would be a rather silly thing to do when proposing a valid model.

Regarding why things arrange themselves the way they do here on earth, just on earth mind where we can see and experience what is going on without invoking some star trek plot. It is so simple and easily explained by relative densities. If it is more dense than its medium it will go down. Less dense, goes up. Up and down are conventions, we can switch them round and the effect works just the same. We don't have/need a fundamentalist belief in the direction of down. The acceleration of bodies in free fall is dependent on this. 9.8ms^-2 is a convention, this is true only in a vacuum and happens to be the maximum free fall acceleration a body can have. Wonder why, hmm, because the medium of vacuum is the absolute minimum density.

And guess what? It is demonstrable and provable WITHIN the scientific method because the PRESUMED CAUSE, relative density, can be varied and manipulated by the RESEARCHER (yes not by legging it to Mars and the moon to see the impact of other gravitational accelerations hogwash - loving the NASA slow down footage of the moonwalks) which has the precise effect PREDICTED by our HYPOTHESIS. And what is more, we don't need to claim force in contradiction to modern scientific thinking, we have AN ACTUAL FORCE, that which is caused by the input of energy into a system for example by moving and releasing a ball to fall in the air disrupting the equilibrium state of the system which then tends towards an equilibrium state in direct accordance with relative densities. And that force is consistent with modern physics (unlike gravitation) as a consequence of the fundamental interactions of matter. Yes, testable and provable and consistent with the most validated scientific theory of all time, the standard model.

I'll have to continue to respectfully disagree and continue to claim that all phenomenon deserve an explanation whether they are "natural" or not. A phenomenon is a phenomenon.
If someone sets up a laser 3 feet above the surface of the water and shined it out across the ocean for 100 miles and it hit a target that was 3 feet above the water, then you are going to use that as evidence that the water is not curving. Likewise if they find that the laser is now miles high, then that's a big problem for you.
Similarly with the Foucault pendulum--whether it technically meets your definition of science or not is irrelevant. It's a phenomenon that deserves an explanation. It isn't about establishing a cause-effect relationship but about fitting phenomena into paradigms.

You cropped my quote, so you know I said that we don’t know everything about gravity in the paragraph you left out. Do we really need to know how gravity works on a quantum level to know why denser liquids separate from less dense ones, or how an orb in a vacuum maintains an atmosphere? No. It’s easy to conceptualize because we know, and can predict, how gravity works on the macro scale. It’s not ambiguous- we land vanishingly small craft on vanishingly small objects millions of mile away.

Do we even need to know much about gravity to prove the earth is round?

No.

Why?

Because we already know its round. It’s self evident in the space age. This idea that somehow gravity is this big obstacle to our knowledge of the planet’ shape is ridiculous. People like Billy need to question gravity precisely because it answers the questions he raises and makes his alternate reality collapse.

A foucault pendulum is an actual deviation of the plane of oscillation. For the coreolis effect, which is what they claim it is, there must be an apparent deviation caused by the pendulum bob moving in a straight line while the earth turns underneath. According to this (courtesy to PairTheBoard for this excellent reference I have bookmarked) people were too stupid to understand basic trig so they, er, manipulated the set up:

https://www.geophysik.uni-muenchen.d...cault-pendulum

Which makes the entire pursuit redundant. It is the same effect as looking at the stars, seeing rotation and claiming this means earth must be rotating. It is now obvious that we have an actual deviation caused by the device itself.

But there is more, this kills the spinning ball dead. Where is the earth based coreolis effect as it would apply to every object moving in a straight line its own inertial frame: planes, bullets, balls, birds, whatever you want?Show us the coreolis deviations. Where is the mountain of data that absolutely should exist? Hmm? No, just 'foucault' it is then. If anyone still not convinced then it is just pure cognitive dissonance, grasping to hold on to a belief system. I get it, it is hard to let go and scary and ruins space too much. Space is good. We all love space. Watching episode 4 right now in fact, Alec Guinness what a guy.

Re phenomena, while you may be correct in a colloquial context, our context here is science, no question about that, specifically the bastardizing of it by globers.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/bitesize/guide...pbk/revision/1

https://chem.libretexts.org/Bookshel...entific_Method

https://www.oakton.edu/user/4/billto...ificmethod.htm

Etc

You don’t need gravity, or any real science, to prove the earth is round. There are thousands of pictures of earth, the moon, the sun, and other planets available online.

Also, again, the onus is on you to prove the earth is flat. That is the real take away from this discussion.

Proof, to me at least, that one of the characteristics of our universe is that it creates life

https://www.sciencedaily.com/release...0927074934.htm

I promised a song up thread and here it is; relevant and fun and an overall tribute to this thread and the perpetual trolls it attracts, Enjoy! What's He Building, by Tom Waits. (Great Lyrics)

You have no explanation for why there's an actual deviation of the plane of oscillation for the Foucault Pendulum, according to you. If such a deviation were caused by a built in bias in the pendulum then copies of the pendulum should have the same rates of precession wherever they are placed. Or if the copies are not perfect the rates of precession should vary randomly. However, not only does a spinning Earth explain the precession without violating the laws of inertia for the plane of oscillation, but the spinning Earth model precisely predicts how the rate of precession varies according to the latitude where the pendulum is placed. And not only is that prediction correct (and verified by experiment) but the calculation yields a surprising result. The rate varies as the sine of the latitude, something you would never suspect unless you looked at the spinning Earth model and applied some geometry.

The sine factor for how the rate of precession varies according to latitude actually makes the spinning Earth explanation much more compelling. The fit is surprising and convincing. The fact Foucault looked for a similar phenomenon that some people would find easier to understand takes nothing away from the convincing evidence of the pendulum. However the gyroscope is also convincing. You have no explanation for why the gyroscope precesses. Once again, the laws of inertia say the gyroscope should not precess unless there is a built in bias to it. But if that's the explanation, why does every well built gyroscope have exactly the same bias and why does that bias just happen to cause a rate of precession of once a day? The spinning earth model predicts the precession with no such problems.


PairTheBoard

Show the 'experiment' with verified results.

Show a demonstration of a gyroscope that precesses once a day or any degree of precession relating to latitude.

You do realize the word round is ambiguous.. pizzas and pancakes are round.

Saying the earth is round because it’s self evident is laughable. Go look at the horizon and tell me it’s not perfectly flat.

Just be honest for two seconds and tell me you feel movement of 1000mph of spinning earth.

These are two self evident proofs for flat earth. The horizon looks flat and we feel no motion. To me that’s self evident. Thus you need to prove it’s moving and it’s not flat bc neither are self evident.

Just because you saw pictures that’s not self evident. That’s a faith in the pictures you saw are actually real and not faked or distorted using cgi.

Why are mods allowed to derail threads like this?

Why does anyone have enough time on their hands to post stuff like this?

Do mods have any integrity for what they do or they’re just the most high trolls on the site?

When you're in a plane going 500mph you don't feel yourself going 500mph. You don't "feel" constant movement. You "feel" acceleration.


PairTheBoard

It's quite a bit faster than that. Possibly light speed due to the expansion of space due to dark matter/energy. You get used to it.

Why is it when you're in a plane going 500mph east to west at a constant altitude you weigh more than when you're in a plane going 500mph west to east at a constant altitude?


PairTheBoard

Do you have a cite for this one? Incidentally in one hour I'll be headed east at 500 mph +/- C

That's what the spinning Earth model predicts if you think about it. This should be a very doable experiment to conduct with an adequately sensitive scale. There should be a great incentive for flat earthers to conduct it. If it shows there is no difference in weight it would falsify the prediction of the spinning Earth model and make you famous. That's what the flat earth model predicts.

I also suggested upthread an experiment whereby you put a sensitive accelerometer on a plane flying at constant speed and altitude flying due north from Lima Peru to Washington DC. The spinning Earth model with its Coriolis effect predicts the plane must vector right south of the equator and vector left north of the equator to stay on a due north heading. That vectoring should show up on a sensitive accelerometer. I think that's a doable experiment a flat earther with resources could conduct that if duplicated would disprove another prediction of the spinning Earth model.

With all the flat Earth authors and flat Earth conventions there should be plenty of resources to conduct these types of experiments. Why don't they do them? Are they afraid the experiments would disprove the predictions of the flat Earth model and put them all out of their jobs as expert trolls?

We who are satisfied with all the verifications of the predictions of the spinning Earth model have little incentive to conduct such experiments. Flat Earthers should have tremendous incentive to conduct them - if they really had the courage of their convictions.


PairTheBoard

Revision list, report early for class:

Definitions of speed and velocity
How changing direction at constant speed is an acceleration

Luckbox, here is a laser "experiment" by FE core

https://fecore.org/project/laser-experiment/

And mechanical gyro:

https://fecore.org/mechanical-gyro-update-august-2019/

Globers got some explainin to do.