Flat Earth

[Sigian]

2. Chicago
Many people have photographed the Windy City from across the lake, usually on beaches where eye height was 5 or 6 feet.
Not only are tall skyscrapers visible, but so are structures close to the horizon, which is where all lines of convergence meet. The vanishing point in our eyesight.

That's interesting, will have to check that out on my travels around the country. Was gonna stop at the Georgia guidestones last year but couldn't due to vandalism right after covid started. Sorry not to derail.

So ocean would be harder to explain than a lake. But just my own opinion, if the earth is a sphere, the land masses on it have plains to mountains, it doesn't necessarily mean they have to follow the curvature exactly right? Even due to sub oceanic crevasses and such could drastically alter the surface of water, really we have no true idea how to measure something here on earth, with something called gravity when we have nothing to really compare it to.

https://www.pivotinteractives.com/b...us-rotating-fish-tank-deriving-the-paraboloid
Was interesting, since the fish altered themselves to their new environment and even swam along the top of the water, even when from our viewpoint it is curved.

 

[grav]

2. Chicago
Many people have photographed the Windy City from across the lake, usually on beaches where eye height was 5 or 6 feet.
Not only are tall skyscrapers visible, but so are structures close to the horizon, which is where all lines of convergence meet. The vanishing point in our eyesight.

That's interesting, will have to check that out on my travels around the country. Was gonna stop at the Georgia guidestones last year but couldn't due to vandalism right after covid started. Sorry not to derail.

So ocean would be harder to explain than a lake. But just my own opinion, if the earth is a sphere, the land masses on it have plains to mountains, it doesn't necessarily mean they have to follow the curvature exactly right? Even due to sub oceanic crevasses and such could drastically alter the surface of water, really we have no true idea how to measure something here on earth, with something called gravity when we have nothing to really compare it to.

https://www.pivotinteractives.com/b...us-rotating-fish-tank-deriving-the-paraboloid
Was interesting, since the fish altered themselves to their new environment and even swam along the top of the water, even when from our viewpoint it is curved.

From your link: "What we mean when we say that water is level is that it is perpendicular to direction of local gravity. When we think about it that way, then the water in the fish tank is level since each part of the water’s surface is perpendicular to its local gravity."

Nope, level means flat. Smooth flat, no. But close enough, like horseshoes and hand grenades.

Einstein knew full well that his theories were poppycock.
To think that oceans bend 8 inches per mile squared -- that's just fallacious and fantastically farfetched -- and not funny.

 

[El Forastero]

Given how Eratosthenes determined the Earth's circumference (North to South) with only a few reference points for measurement. He measured the Earth's radius to about 24,000 miles.

To do so requires the assumption that the Earth is a sphere in the first place.

 

[grav]

Given how Eratosthenes determined the Earth's circumference (North to South) with only a few reference points for measurement. He measured the Earth's radius to about 24,000 miles.

Given he only used a few reference points I have to ask one question of Flat Earth believers. What is the radius of the Ice Wall around Antarctica?

This question takes in account that most measurements of the distance of far off objects only require the observer being in one location and not visiting the other. The distances of major planets and the speed of light were measured before the 20th century.

Eratosthenes measured shadows, right? And somehow he concluded the earth was a globe.

When you say radius of the Antarctic, do you mean circumference of the globe? Estimates are around 60,000 miles. 18th century sailing ships took years to travel what should have taken 6 months or so.

The speed of light? You mean 186,000 mps? And it travels that speed forever??
e=mc^2 = fake science

 

[Sigian]

Nope, level means flat. Smooth flat, no. But close enough, like horseshoes and hand grenades.

But if there were a way for a force that is called gravity to exist, just no one really knows what causes it, then it would take the bubble from a level and have a pull on it that gives you a level mark much like a plumb bob is pulled down and gives a straight vertical line.

If gravity does not exist, then the pull must exist from outside forces that exist that we can explain, such as a large disc that the force of moving thru space at a certain rate of speed, keeps everything stuck to the ground.

So FE seems to be an anti-gravity movement as strange as that term sounds?

Quite a few things have been invented/discovered in just my lifetime, yes it could have been around for eons and just reintroduced little by little. But all of it? Is it all just refurbished tech from the past? So if gravity were one day discovered to be real and provable, would that sway people that believe in a flat earth?

Just wanting an opinion, not stating or trying to push one theory versus another. I find it nice to hear others thoughts on subjects. It's so hard to have a stimulating but non explosive conversation anymore with people because a difference of opinions because it's good to have more information about something than less, even opposing views.

Sorry, again got carried away, bit lengthy.

 

[David Glenney]

While not in itself their best, this Globebusters episode's description alone is a clearinghouse of info on the proposition that electromagnetism between an earth plane anode and firmament cathode--if I have that right--establishes a vector as down, while buoyancy and density do the rest, rather than a Flat Earth Society style discworld forever falling up through NASA (con-artist rendering) space:


View: https://youtu.be/I0gI24pufUA


My jury is still out on this, but I do not feel that we're plummeting anywhere at a million miles an hour while spinning a thousand miles an hour. Maybe it's just my delusions of worldwide slavery that make me amenable to a notion of being pressed down...

 

[NigeWz]

Nope, level means flat. Smooth flat, no. But close enough, like horseshoes and hand grenades.

But if there were a way for a force that is called gravity to exist, just no one really knows what causes it, then it would take the bubble from a level and have a pull on it that gives you a level mark much like a plumb bob is pulled down and gives a straight vertical line.

If gravity does not exist, then the pull must exist from outside forces that exist that we can explain, such as a large disc that the force of moving thru space at a certain rate of speed, keeps everything stuck to the ground.

So FE seems to be an anti-gravity movement as strange as that term sounds?

Quite a few things have been invented/discovered in just my lifetime, yes it could have been around for eons and just reintroduced little by little. But all of it? Is it all just refurbished tech from the past? So if gravity were one day discovered to be real and provable, would that sway people that believe in a flat earth?

Just wanting an opinion, not stating or trying to push one theory versus another. I find it nice to hear others thoughts on subjects. It's so hard to have a stimulating but non explosive conversation anymore with people because a difference of opinions because it's good to have more information about something than less, even opposing views.

Sorry, again got carried away, bit lengthy.

For 'gravity', just think 'density'. Explains everything.

 

[Deleted member 1432]

Look at anything and its the same. Our vision distorts the reality of all that is. Including the sky, the passage o the luminaries etc.

Your examples are images captured by the lens of a camera rather than what the eye actually sees. Your points are equally valid because camera lenses are spherical like the lenses of the eyes, but I think it's important to make the distinction. Also some camera lenses are much more spherical than others, like the typical GoPro wide angle lens, which emphasises the curvature in its images. Aircraft windows (and James May please note, bubble-type cockpits) do the same job.

If you can see curvature in front of you then it follows that there must be the same curvature happening behind you. Does that mean you are standing on a pipe? The same curvature is happening to the left and right of you as well, which makes things even more crazy.

Any image will show the high point of the curvature in the dead centre. If you move the camera or your eye, left or right the resulting image will still show the high point of the curvature in the dead centre of the image, i.e. in a different physical position - which is ridiculous.

This demonstrates that the curvature seen on images or by the eye, is the result of the form of the lens and cannot be given as physical evidence of the curvature of the Earth itself.

 

[Jd755]

All camera lenses indeed all optics are designed to work with the human eye and its geometry save the vertical shift lens. The human eye geometry is designed or built whatever to detect level.

Here's another image showing how it works. Not one of mine but a good one nevertheless. Clock the street lights in particular.

 

[grav]

So FE seems to be an anti-gravity movement as strange as that term sounds?

That's my full name. Auntie gravity.
A spinning globe would actually throw objects off, not hold them down.

I have defined gravity many times as a property of matter. Not a force.
The Electric Universe posits an aether that is a solid mass of dielectricity (positive and negative charges). When dielectric particles form matter in an enclosed area, they become arranged by density. Lighter-than-air air substances rise above those that are heavier-than-air. Clouds,for example, float. If a force called gravity existed, it would pull clouds to the ground.

Can anti-gravity devices exist? Yes, if density is altered.

 

[E.Bearclaw]

Given how Eratosthenes determined the Earth's circumference (North to South) with only a few reference points for measurement. He measured the Earth's radius to about 24,000 miles.

Given he only used a few reference points I have to ask one question of Flat Earth believers. What is the radius of the Ice Wall around Antarctica?

This question takes in account that most measurements of the distance of far off objects only require the observer being in one location and not visiting the other. The distances of major planets and the speed of light were measured before the 20th century.

Given how Eratosthenes determined the Earth's circumference (North to South) with only a few reference points for measurement. He measured the Earth's radius to about 24,000 miles.

To do so requires the assumption that the Earth is a sphere in the first place.

I also always wonder, if how before the knowledge of time zones and electronic instant communication devices, he could be sure he was measuring the suns angle at the same time (it may be I am missing something here).

 

[Sigian]

Given how Eratosthenes determined the Earth's circumference (North to South) with only a few reference points for measurement. He measured the Earth's radius to about 24,000 miles.

Given he only used a few reference points I have to ask one question of Flat Earth believers. What is the radius of the Ice Wall around Antarctica?

This question takes in account that most measurements of the distance of far off objects only require the observer being in one location and not visiting the other. The distances of major planets and the speed of light were measured before the 20th century.

Given how Eratosthenes determined the Earth's circumference (North to South) with only a few reference points for measurement. He measured the Earth's radius to about 24,000 miles.

To do so requires the assumption that the Earth is a sphere in the first place.

I also always wonder, if how before the knowledge of time zones and electronic instant communication devices, he could be sure he was measuring the suns angle at the same time (it may be I am missing something here).

Sundials? Or who knows what technology existed at the time. According to modern science we have been measuring time for approximately 5000 years. With SH at the forefront of trying to prove history isn't just as the victor painted it but much more and more advanced then we are told, it shouldn't be hard to believe that the exact time of day was able to be figured out only 2300ish years ago. At least that's my take on things, with SH period, KDs love child to the new version, history isn't as we are told, things weren't as backassward as we are led to believe, amazing things took place that we still cannot explain, so telling time shouldn't be hard to believe.

So FE seems to be an anti-gravity movement as strange as that term sounds?

That's my full name. Auntie gravity.
A spinning globe would actually throw objects off, not hold them down.

I have defined gravity many times as a property of matter. Not a force.
The Electric Universe posits an aether that is a solid mass of dielectricity (positive and negative charges). When dielectric particles form matter in an enclosed area, they become arranged by density. Lighter-than-air air substances rise above those that are heavier-than-air. Clouds,for example, float. If a force called gravity existed, it would pull clouds to the ground.

Can anti-gravity devices exist? Yes, if density is altered.

Agreed, a spinning sphere should throw everything off of it. I believe in the Aether as well, of push and pull of forces that we do not understand as of yet, but maybe we did at one time or another. FE doesn't explain how clouds stay in the sky above us either, does it? (Honest question.)

 

[E.Bearclaw]

Given how Eratosthenes determined the Earth's circumference (North to South) with only a few reference points for measurement. He measured the Earth's radius to about 24,000 miles.

Given he only used a few reference points I have to ask one question of Flat Earth believers. What is the radius of the Ice Wall around Antarctica?

This question takes in account that most measurements of the distance of far off objects only require the observer being in one location and not visiting the other. The distances of major planets and the speed of light were measured before the 20th century.

Given how Eratosthenes determined the Earth's circumference (North to South) with only a few reference points for measurement. He measured the Earth's radius to about 24,000 miles.

To do so requires the assumption that the Earth is a sphere in the first place.

I also always wonder, if how before the knowledge of time zones and electronic instant communication devices, he could be sure he was measuring the suns angle at the same time (it may be I am missing something here).

Sundials? Or who knows what technology existed at the time. According to modern science we have been measuring time for approximately 5000 years. With SH at the forefront of trying to prove history isn't just as the victor painted it but much more and more advanced then we are told, it shouldn't be hard to believe that the exact time of day was able to be figured out only 2300ish years ago. At least that's my take on things, with SH period, KDs love child to the new version, history isn't as we are told, things weren't as backassward as we are led to believe, amazing things took place that we still cannot explain, so telling time shouldn't be hard to believe.

So FE seems to be an anti-gravity movement as strange as that term sounds?

True. But the narrative of Eratosthenes is within the version of history that does not have that technology. And thus is a question mark over the legitimacy of the story. As far as I can tell, the main function of the story (at least as its used with reference to this debate) is not for its proof or strength of evidence. But to establish the narrative that - we could have known about this, with the given technology, this far back into antiquity. As such this, to me, is a flaw in that premise.

Personally, I think Eratosthenes falls into the category of fishy characters that quite possibly didn't exist. But I appreciate that is by the by.

I don't see how sundials would work. Forgive me if I am being ignorant. Wouldn't two sundials show it is midday when the sun is at the zenith, yet without the knowledge of time zones, or communication of a more advanced manner, one would still assume it was the same time when there would actually be a time difference? Again, I appreciate my brain may be missing something simple here

 

[grav]

Given how Eratosthenes determined the Earth's circumference (North to South) with only a few reference points for measurement. He measured the Earth's radius to about 24,000 miles.

Given he only used a few reference points I have to ask one question of Flat Earth believers. What is the radius of the Ice Wall around Antarctica?

This question takes in account that most measurements of the distance of far off objects only require the observer being in one location and not visiting the other. The distances of major planets and the speed of light were measured before the 20th century.

Given how Eratosthenes determined the Earth's circumference (North to South) with only a few reference points for measurement. He measured the Earth's radius to about 24,000 miles.

To do so requires the assumption that the Earth is a sphere in the first place.

I also always wonder, if how before the knowledge of time zones and electronic instant communication devices, he could be sure he was measuring the suns angle at the same time (it may be I am missing something here).

Sundials? Or who knows what technology existed at the time. According to modern science we have been measuring time for approximately 5000 years. With SH at the forefront of trying to prove history isn't just as the victor painted it but much more and more advanced then we are told, it shouldn't be hard to believe that the exact time of day was able to be figured out only 2300ish years ago. At least that's my take on things, with SH period, KDs love child to the new version, history isn't as we are told, things weren't as backassward as we are led to believe, amazing things took place that we still cannot explain, so telling time shouldn't be hard to believe.

So FE seems to be an anti-gravity movement as strange as that term sounds?

That's my full name. Auntie gravity.
A spinning globe would actually throw objects off, not hold them down.

I have defined gravity many times as a property of matter. Not a force.
The Electric Universe posits an aether that is a solid mass of dielectricity (positive and negative charges). When dielectric particles form matter in an enclosed area, they become arranged by density. Lighter-than-air air substances rise above those that are heavier-than-air. Clouds,for example, float. If a force called gravity existed, it would pull clouds to the ground.

Can anti-gravity devices exist? Yes, if density is altered.

Agreed, a spinning sphere should throw everything off of it. I believe in the Aether as well, of push and pull of forces that we do not understand as of yet, but maybe we did at one time or another. FE doesn't explain how clouds stay in the sky above us either, does it? (Honest question.)

Clouds mos def work in a closed system.
They are aerosolized water particles which are lighter-than-air.

The GE model places the spinny ball in a total vacuum.
All gas laws (which the Ideal gas law represents) require a contained space and all equations use Volume to derive air pressure.
Any science teacher or physicist who preaches heliocentrism is either a liar or a goof.

Wiki:
law is often written in an empirical form:


Isotherms of an ideal gas. The curved lines represent the relationship between pressure (on the vertical axis) and volume (on the horizontal axis) for an ideal gas at different temperatures: lines that are farther away from the origin (that is, lines that are nearer to the top right-hand corner of the diagram) represent higher temperatures.
P V = n R T {\displaystyle PV=nRT}

where P {\displaystyle P}

, V {\displaystyle V}

and T {\displaystyle T}

are the pressure, volume and temperature; n {\displaystyle n}

is the amount of substance; and R {\displaystyle R}

is the ideal gas constant. It is the same for all gase

 

[grav]

The sun and moon are not solid objects.
They are plasma light effects, probably inside the crystalline dome.
Stars are also embedded in the dome/firmament.

Planets are different. They do not circle overhead in a fixed pattern, unlike how the constellations move in unison. They may be in front of the dome. Or else the dome has multiple layers on top of each other. Like the 7 heavens.

 

[fega72]

I don't understand how a planet would throw things off of it. We're not on a little ball that Flat Earth videos try to compare Earth to.

Centrifugal force is the answer.

 

[El Forastero]

I don't understand how a planet would throw things off of it. We're not on a little ball that Flat Earth videos try to compare Earth to. But you are right about clouds. This expands to the sun and moon. Are they solid objects? What's causing them to stay in the sky?

The size does not matter in the slightest. Centrifugal force dictates so.

Also, what is this "little ball" that flat earth videos compare the earth to? Sounds made up and absurd.

Clouds "stay" in the sky due to density.

Btw, what is this quoting system? It's madness.

 

[El Forastero]

You're right it doesn't matter about size, but rotational speed does. Earth rotates once per day. The Centrifugal force isn't fast enough to overcome gravity.

Can you demonstrate this rotation? Can anyone?

 

[Sigian]

View: https://youtu.be/G8cbIWMv0rI


Easiest way I have seen it explained. And no, not where I have heard about Eratosthenes.

Has it been looked into that the "lighter than air" atoms have less electrons? Could ionization be going on in the magnetosphere or ionosphere? Less electrons, lighter atoms? Meh just an idea.

 

[fega72]

Easiest way I have seen it explained. And no, not where I have heard about Eratosthenes.

Only works if the sun is far far away (as it was mentioned in the video).