d2jsp
Log InRegister
d2jsp Forums > Off-Topic > General Chat > Science, Technology & Nature > Flat Earth Vs Globe Earth > Why Or Why Not?
Prev12345654Next
Closed New Topic New Poll
Member
Posts: 30,432
Joined: Dec 28 2010
Gold: 134.69
Jun 1 2016 08:29pm
Quote (card_sultan @ Jun 1 2016 09:11pm)
So ask yourself what is "Basic" and understand that a A scientific theory is a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world that is acquired through the scientific method and repeatedly tested and confirmed through observation and experimentation.

Like the Sun - if you want the explanation we have evidence for - sure it's fusion - but we simply don't know - because no one has even been close to it as far as we know, nor should they have to show the evidence for nuclear fusion occurring in the sun.

Could we be totally wrong about that theory - 1% yes, but it would have to be some insane piece of evidence that simply flies in the face of astrophysics and chemistry as we know it.


fixed
Member
Posts: 13,231
Joined: Feb 1 2010
Gold: 4.77
Jun 1 2016 10:27pm
Quote (dude_927 @ 1 Jun 2016 20:27)
i watched it, i failed to understand it, yes, if you have some insane half baked idea about how the universe works, you should be expected to explain it.


Duh it's half baked.

There's conflicting information and new information and it's being put together by amateurs who are trying to explain things with evidence instead of just parroting what they were taught before they understood critical analysis.

FE theory isn't complete, the first" rule" of FE is you don't talk about it (yet). thus there are many models and no consensus on any of it except what has been measured.

To dismiss the entirety of the theory because of it's gaps is the same logical process you should be applying to relativity. But you're refusing to.
Therefore you're a shining example of why the world needs people to ask questions.


Member
Posts: 63,097
Joined: Jan 11 2005
Gold: 9,765.00
Warn: 60%
Jun 1 2016 11:36pm
Quote (dude_927 @ Jun 1 2016 09:29pm)
fixed


lol, you don't understand a 5 minute video, but a 100% theory that is just complete guesswork could only be 1% chance of being wrong, I see why some stick to the basic theory.

say Ball
say Gravity

:thumbsup:

anything more than that is to complicated I guess.
Member
Posts: 6,007
Joined: Jul 22 2010
Gold: 337.21
Jun 2 2016 01:26am
you are saying the horizon stays at eye level on a flat earth.

Take any flat object - no matter the size and look over its edge. You see all of the flat area - as far as your eye can see.
Now if you go from directly over the edge to a higher standpoint - and i dont care how high - you cannot see more in the same direction.

If you are standing on something flat (like the windstill ocean is if the earth were flat) you should be able to see as far in any specific direction, as you could see if you were 100 feet above that point.
Indeed since there is more air in between you and the flat area you should be able to see LESS.

The fact that you can see more can only be true if you are standing on a BENT surface, for example that of a globe, or an egg or whatever.

That my friend is evidence. And tell me nothing about air pressure or hot and warm earth or whatever, this applies to both scenarios. Whether you are flat on the ground or higher up doesnt matter.
Member
Posts: 13,231
Joined: Feb 1 2010
Gold: 4.77
Jun 2 2016 02:38am
Quote (Hooo @ 2 Jun 2016 02:26)
you are saying the horizon stays at eye level on a flat earth.

Take any flat object - no matter the size and look over its edge. You see all of the flat area - as far as your eye can see.
Now if you go from directly over the edge to a higher standpoint - and i dont care how high - you cannot see more in the same direction.

If you are standing on something flat (like the windstill ocean is if the earth were flat) you should be able to see as far in any specific direction, as you could see if you were 100 feet above that point.
Indeed since there is more air in between you and the flat area you should be able to see LESS.

The fact that you can see more can only be true if you are standing on a BENT surface, for example that of a globe, or an egg or whatever.

That my friend is evidence. And tell me nothing about air pressure or hot and warm earth or whatever, this applies to both scenarios. Whether you are flat on the ground or higher up doesnt matter.


http://www.askamathematician.com/2012/08/q-if-earth-was-flat-would-there-be-the-horizon-if-so-what-would-it-look-like-if-the-earth-was-flat-and-had-infinite-area-would-that-change-the-answer/
"
Q: If Earth was flat, would there be a horizon? If so, what would it look like? If the Earth was flat and had infinite area, would that change the answer?
Posted on August 14, 2012

Physicist: There’d definitely still be a horizon if the Earth were flat. It would be in almost exactly the same place, and look essentially identical. While the Earth isn’t flat, adherents to that theory are correct in that it’s nearly so, and if you’re standing on the surface of a round something the size of the Earth it’s difficult to tell the difference (in fact, mathematically you can make the argument that a flat Earth acts the same as an infinitely big Earth).



Member
Posts: 39,757
Joined: Oct 24 2009
Gold: 11,295.00
Jun 2 2016 08:20am
Quote (card_sultan @ 2 Jun 2016 01:51)
well if you look around , and see that every other guy has black hair - does that mean your hair is black?

also the fact a pen falls to the ground doesn't prove gravtiy, for if you take that same pen and drop it in water does it not float? A pen falling to the ground only does so because it is heavier than the air, nothing else.

well yes there are 1000s of physics students, many dont believe in gravity as a law, many do - probably because they mever really thought about questioningit

http://ncse.com/rncse/27/5-6/gravity-its-only-theory

i know its just copy pasta , but heres what a simple google search turns up, you might want to read it.

Gravity: It's Only a Theory
Reports of the National Center for Science Education
Title:
Gravity: It's Only a Theory
Author(s):
Ellery Schempp
Volume:
27
Issue:
5–6
Year:
2007
Date:
September–December
Page(s):
43–44
This version might differ slightly from the print publication.
[Textbook disclaimers are down, but not out. This satirical look at "only a theory" disclaimers imagines what might happen if advocates applied the same logic to the theory of gravitation that they do to the theory of evolution.]

All physics textbook should include this warning label:

This textbook contains material on Gravity. Universal Gravity is a theory, not a fact, regarding the natural law of attraction. This material should be approached with an open mind, studied carefully, and critically considered.
The Universal Theory of Gravity is often taught in schools as a fact, when in fact it is not even a good theory.

First of all, no one has measured gravity for every atom and every star. It is simply a religious belief that it is "universal".

Secondly, school textbooks routinely make false statements. For example, "the moon goes around the earth." If the theory of gravity were true, it would show that the sun's gravitational force on the moon is much stronger than the earth's gravitational force on the moon, so the moon would go around the sun. Anybody can look up at night and see the obvious gaps in gravity theory.

The existence of tides is often taken as a proof of gravity, but this is logically flawed. Because if the moon's "gravity" were responsible for a bulge underneath it, then how can anyone explain a high tide on the opposite side of the earth at the same time? Anyone can observe that there are two — not one — high tides every day. It is far more likely that tides were given us by an Intelligent Creator long ago and they have been with us ever since. In any case, the fact that there are two high tides falsifies gravity.

There are numerous other flaws. For example, astronomers, who seem to have a fetish for gravity, tell us that the moon rotates on its axis but at the same time it always presents the same face to the earth. This is patently absurd. Moreover, if gravity were working on the early earth, then earth would have been bombarded out of existence by falling asteroids, meteors, comets, and other space junk. Furthermore, gravity theory suggests that the planets have been moving in orderly orbits for millions and millions of years, which wholly contradicts the Second Law of Thermodynamics. Since everything in the Universe tends to disorder according to the Second Law, orderly orbits are impossible. This cannot be resolved by pointing to the huge outpouring of energy from the sun. In fact, it is known that the flux of photons from the sun and the "solar wind" actually tends to push earth away.

There are numerous alternative theories that should be taught on an equal basis. For example, the observed behavior of the earth's revolving around the sun can be perfectly explained if the sun has a net positive charge and the planets have a net negative charge, since opposite charges attract and the force is an inverse-square law, exactly as proposed by the increasingly discredited Theory of Gravity. Physics and chemistry texts emphasize that this is the explanation for electrons going around the nucleus, so if it works for atoms, why not for the solar system? The answer is simple: scientific orthodoxy.

The US Patent Office has never issued a patent for anti-gravity. Why is this? According to natural law and homeopathy, everything exists in opposites: good–evil; grace–sin; positive charges–negative charges; north poles–south poles; good vibes–bad vibes; and so on. We know there are anti-evolutionists, so why not anti-gravitationalists? It is clearly a matter of the scientific establishment elite's protecting their own. Anti-gravity papers are routinely rejected from peerreviewed journals, and scientists who propose anti-gravity quickly lose their funding. Universal gravity theory is just a way to keep the grant money flowing.

Even Isaac Newton, said to be the discoverer of gravity, knew there were problems with the theory. He claims to have invented the idea early in his life, but he knew that no mathematician of his day would approve his theory, so he invented a whole new branch of mathematics, called fluxions, just to "prove" his theory. This became calculus, a deeply flawed branch having to do with so-called "infinitesimals" which have never been observed. Then when Einstein invented a new theory of gravity, he, too, used an obscure bit of mathematics called tensors. It seems that every time there is a theory of gravity, it is mixed up with fringe mathematics. Newton, by the way,was far from a secular scientist, and the bulk of his writings is actually on theology and Christianity. His dabbling in gravity, alchemy, and calculus was a mere sideline, perhaps an aberration best left forgotten in describing his career and faith in a Creator.

To make matters worse, proponents of gravity theory hypothesize about mysterious things called gravitons and gravity waves. These have never been observed, and when some accounts of detecting gravity waves were published, the physicists involved had to quickly retract them. Every account of anti-gravity and gravity waves quickly elicits laughter. This is not a theory suitable for children. And even children can see how ridiculous it is to imagine that people in Australia are upside down with respect to us, as gravity theory would have it. If this is an example of the predictive power of the theory of gravity,we can see that at the core there is no foundation.

Gravity totally fails to explain why Saturn has rings and Jupiter does not. It utterly fails to account for obesity. In fact, what it does "explain" is far outweighed by what it does not explain.

When the planet Pluto was discovered in 1930 by Clyde Tombaugh, he relied on "gravitational calculations". But Tombaugh was a Unitarian, a liberal religious group that supports the Theory of Gravity. The modern-day Unitarian-Universalists continue to rely on liberal notions and dismiss ideas of anti-gravity as heretical. Tombaugh never even attempted to justify his "gravitational calculations" on the basis of Scripture, and he went on to be a founding member of the liberal Unitarian Fellowship of Las Cruces, New Mexico.

The theory of gravity violates common sense in many ways. Adherents have a hard time explaining, for instance, why airplanes do not fall. Since anti-gravity is rejected by the scientific establishment, they resort to lots of hand-waving. The theory, if taken seriously, implies that the default position for all airplanes is on the ground. While this seems true for Northwest Airlines, it appears that JetBlue and Southwest have a superior theory that effectively harnesses forces that overcome so-called gravity.

It is unlikely that the Law of Gravity will be repealed given the present geo-political climate, but there is no need to teach unfounded theories in the public schools. There is, indeed, evidence that the Theory of Gravity is having a grave effect on morality. Activist judges and left-leaning teachers often use the phrase "what goes up must come down" as a way of describing gravity, and relativists have been quick to apply this to moral standards and common decency.

Finally, the mere name‚ "Universal Theory of Gravity" or "Theory of Universal Gravity" (the secularists like to use confusing language) has a distinctly socialist ring to it. The core idea of "to each according to his weight, from each according to his mass" is communistic. There is no reason that gravity should apply to the just and the unjust equally, and the saved should have relief from such "universalism." If we have Universal Gravity now, then universal health care will be sure to follow. It is this kind of universalism that saps a nation's moral fiber. It is not even clear why we need a theory of gravity: there is not a single mention in the Bible, and the patriotic Founding Fathers never referred to it.

Overall, the Theory of Universal Gravity is just not an attractive theory. It is based on borderline evidence, has many serious gaps in what it claims to explain, is clearly wrong in important respects, and has social and moral deficiencies. If taught in the public schools, by mis-directed "educators", it has to be balanced with alternative,more attractive theories with genuine gravamen and spiritual gravitas.

About the Author(s):
Ellery Schempp c/o NCSE PO Box 9477 Berkeley CA tel:94909-047794909-0477[/URL]

Ellery Schempp is a long-time NCSE member and defender of evolution education.


Another thought. you know all the UFOs that pilots,Astronauts and Generals have seen as well as millions of other people - they all have one thing in common - they don't use conventional thrust engines, nor nuclear powered ones, except the ones you see in hollywood movies, but we seem to think that it's the only way to move about. Strange right? What could it be that they know, that we don't?


Next clown...

Will take me probably a 1000+ words report to disprove the amount of bullshit u quoted me on...

Just an advice on future referencing regarding science, websites with ".com", wikipedia and random youtube channels r not credible sources of information.

Noone is forcing u to believe in physics and chemistry as we know it. Why do u feel u need to share ur belief with others and trying to change their perspective? Thats the same as religion... Preaching to people and for what? U know those writes of the science fiction u call flat earth and UFO sitings live off stupid and ignorant people like urself that buy their books and follow them around for no apparent reason other than braindamage...

Keep living under the rock u've been living and contradicting theories just to make urself feel better cos u r a minority and u know or have realised something that millions havent... Keep believing that :zzz:

Hope u dont have kids or if u do some day, u wont be brainwashing them with this crap and just let them believe in w/e they want.

Member
Posts: 63,097
Joined: Jan 11 2005
Gold: 9,765.00
Warn: 60%
Jun 2 2016 12:12pm
Quote (luckspin @ Jun 2 2016 09:20am)
Next clown...

Will take me probably a 1000+ words report to disprove the amount of bullshit u quoted me on...

Just an advice on future referencing regarding science, websites with ".com", wikipedia and random youtube channels r not credible sources of information.

Noone is forcing u to believe in physics and chemistry as we know it. Why do u feel u need to share ur belief with others and trying to change their perspective? Thats the same as religion... Preaching to people and for what? U know those writes of the science fiction u call flat earth and UFO sitings live off stupid and ignorant people like urself that buy their books and follow them around for no apparent reason other than braindamage...

Keep living under the rock u've been living and contradicting theories just to make urself feel better cos u r a minority and u know or have realised something that millions havent... Keep believing that :zzz:

Hope u dont have kids or if u do some day, u wont be brainwashing them with this crap and just let them believe in w/e they want.


Thanks for admitting you just say BS.
Nice ad hominem attacks of the medium not the message.
Why do you need to share your beliefs and perspective with others? Oh thats right - thats what web forums are all about - you know people "talking" - but yeah your right - we should outlaw that shit - I mean it's crazy right?
Keep living under a rock? Whatever, keep being blind and blaming others for trying to make you see.
If your totally outraged by anyone's other opinion but your own, you should probably get offline soon and stop talking to people because there's a lot of them and they all have some different vision of things, people are people and I wouldn't attack them personally over things they say or belief, there are people out there killing babies and murdering people, but whatever I guess.
Member
Posts: 13,231
Joined: Feb 1 2010
Gold: 4.77
Jun 2 2016 12:24pm
Quote (card_sultan @ 2 Jun 2016 13:12)
Thanks for admitting you just say BS.
Nice ad hominem attacks of the medium not the message.
Why do you need to share your beliefs and perspective with others? Oh thats right - thats what web forums are all about - you know people "talking" - but yeah your right - we should outlaw that shit - I mean it's crazy right?
Keep living under a rock? Whatever, keep being blind and blaming others for trying to make you see.
If your totally outraged by anyone's other opinion but your own, you should probably get offline soon and stop talking to people because there's a lot of them and they all have some different vision of things, people are people and I wouldn't attack them personally over things they say or belief, there are people out there killing babies and murdering people, but whatever I guess.


This is what science and intellectualism has been masquerading as for the last couple hundred years.
Member
Posts: 63,097
Joined: Jan 11 2005
Gold: 9,765.00
Warn: 60%
Jun 2 2016 12:34pm
Quote (MaliceMizer @ Jun 2 2016 01:24pm)
This is what science and intellectualism has been masquerading as for the last couple hundred years.


I know right, just attack them personally if you don't like the message, call them idiots for questioning dogmatic theories, believe you were taught all the correct information, and know that resistance of the elite is futile.

This post was edited by card_sultan on Jun 2 2016 12:43pm
Member
Posts: 7,324
Joined: Dec 22 2002
Gold: 1,261.00
Jun 2 2016 03:28pm
Quote (MaliceMizer @ May 31 2016 07:08pm)
I'm putting on a $1000 dollar contest on the second for anyone who can prove the world is a sphere without citing NASA or gravity.

Circumnavigation is possible on FE models and for are the phases of the moon. Astrolabe calculators can effectively account for almost all the positions of stars and moon.

Trig shows flat and there is no 24hour live Sat feed, it's only 3 hours at a time with huge inconsistent breaks.


How is circumnavigation possible? If you went in a straight line, you would eventually hit the edge. We can travel in any direction in a straight line and end up where we started, this is impossible with a flat earth.
Go Back To Science, Technology & Nature Topic List
Prev12345654Next
Closed New Topic New Poll