Proof the Earth is round

  • Thread starter Thread starter 311boogieman
  • Start date Start date
A couple of things that anyone can observe in person with their own eyes that would not work on a flat earth.
  • Sunsets. The flat earth model sun revolves around but never actually sets. It would just get smaller and dimmer as night approaches. What we actually observe is the sun stays the same size and disappears cleanly as it drops below the horizon.
  • Flights. Specifically southern hemisphere flights. Actual flight paths and times do not match what is shown on a flat earth model. Example: Flight from Sydney, Australia to Santiago Chile takes 12.5 hours on average. The fastest speed of a passenger jet is 706mph. Flat earth distance - 15,950 miles. The plane would have to go 1275 mph for that to work.
  • Stars. On a flat earth everyone on the planet should see the same set of stars regardless of [the person's] location because they would all be looking in the same direction. What we Observe is seeing a different set of stars depending on if you're in the northern or southern hemisphere.
  • Midnight Sun/Polar Night. On the flat earth model, Antarctica is the ice wall that makes the perimeter of the disc. The sun travels in a circle around the disc. This would mean no area of Antarctica would get ever 24 hours of sunlight or 24 hours of darkness. What we observe is during roughly the months of Sept. to March. Antarctica receive 24 hours of daylight and from June to Aug. 24 hours of night.
 
MadAsAHatter said:
A couple of things that anyone can observe in person with their own eyes that would not work on a flat earth.
  • Sunsets. The flat earth model sun revolves around but never actually sets. It would just get smaller and dimmer as night approaches. What we actually observe is the sun stays the same size and disappears cleanly as it drops below the horizon.
  • Flights. Specifically southern hemisphere flights. Actual flight paths and times do not match what is shown on a flat earth model. Example: Flight from Sydney, Australia to Santiago Chile takes 12.5 hours on average. The fastest speed of a passenger jet is 706mph. Flat earth distance - 1276 miles. The plane would have to go 1275 mph for that to work.
  • Stars. On a flat earth everyone on the planet should see the same set of stars regardless of [the person's] location because they would all be looking in the same direction. What we Observe is seeing a different set of stars depending on if you're in the northern or southern hemisphere.
  • Midnight Sun/Polar Night. On the flat earth model, Antarctica is the ice wall that makes the perimeter of the disc. The sun travels in a circle around the disc. This would mean no area of Antarctica would get ever 24 hours of sunlight or 24 hours of darkness. What we observe is during roughly the months of Sept. to March. Antarctica receive 24 hours of daylight and from June to Aug. 24 hours of night.
Click to expand...

These have all been said throughout the thread, and have gone unanswered. We're way past the obvious, anyways. Professor BB is about to explain to the class how Archimedes' Principal works without gravity. In fact, he's going to write out the equation for us.
 
NowYou'rePlayingWithPower said:
These have all been said throughout the thread, and have gone unanswered. We're way past the obvious, anyways. Professor BB is about to explain to the class how Archimedes' Principal works without gravity. In fact, he's going to write out the equation for us.
Click to expand...
I know those things have been brought up before. But most of the thread has been circular arguments. I figured why not circle back to these points. :LOL:

I'd like to know how buoyancy works without gravity as well.
 
MadAsAHatter said:
I know those things have been brought up before. But most of the thread has been circular arguments. I figured why not circle back to these points. :LOL:

I'd like to know how buoyancy works without gravity as well.
Click to expand...

I would like to know the minimum number of satellites needed to ping any point on Earth from another point at any moment.
Why shadows don't line up with flat earth math?
Like you just said besides the rest of the obvious that has gone unanswered in this thread; what's up with the stars? Mass hallucinations?
Why are penguins guarding Antarctica? What are they hiding?
 
Bad Brain said:
How so? Wood 'floats' in water but 'sinks' in air. Likewise, water, being denser than air, 'sinks' (in air). Helium gas, being less dense than the gases that comprise earth's atmosphere, rise. The theory of gravity is not needed to explain these phenomena.
Click to expand...

Dan Gleesak said:
Yeah, you need gravity to explain those.
Take away gravity and none of those things still occur.
Click to expand...


I mean Dan is right on this one.


We kind of take gravity for granted but its inherent in the math relative to us being on Earth when it comes to these types of equations and principles and how things work here on Earth.


For example if you tried to apply some of these same equations/principles in space they would fall apart as there is no gravity in space and its really that simple. Not all of course but yeah....... especially on equations that depend and are based on gravity on Earth.


Not all, but a lot of equations and maths in general work with gravity taken for granted if you think abou it. Sort of like a heartbeat or breathing....... gravity is in the foundation of a lot of maths inherently, its relative and its just taken for granted in some cases not taking this into consideration and factoring it in.
 
Dan Gleesak said:
Yeah, you need gravity to explain those.
Take away gravity and none of those things still occur.
Click to expand...
Yet you need the buoyancy effect to explain why a helium balloon rises. I will have to look at the formulas more closely but it strikes me that the concept of gravity is redundant. Apart from claimed space adventures we don't have a zero gravity environment in which to demonstrate otherwise as you claim.
 
Bad Brain said:
Yet you need the buoyancy effect to explain why a helium balloon rises. I will have to look at the formulas more closely but it strikes me that the concept of gravity is redundant. Apart from claimed space adventures we don't have a zero gravity environment in which to demonstrate otherwise as you claim.
Click to expand...
I ran some questions by Gemini AI. Didn't know AI was a brother but whatver....

Eventually he had to circle back to satellites and other space stuff. We can take high res single shot images of other planets but we haven't "sent a mission" to take a high res pic of earth. That's kind of....interesting. And ten other different reasons why we don't have a single high res image of earth in it's totality.

But according to AI, yes, if I jump in the air technically I am covering ground since the earth is spinning. Going from Austin to San Diego takes longer than going from San Diego to Austin even though the mileage is the same. Figure that one out. A long jumper's best jump would be theoretically in an east-west direction. Then he screwed up the curvature equation before saying yes, it is 8" per mile squared after first denying it was squared. A plane has to make adjustments for coriolis effect. A bridge builder has to take the curvature into account for construction. According to a computer...

I have gigs on flat earth this weekend so I don't have much time for more today. Be well.
 
Bad Brain said:
Yet you need the buoyancy effect to explain why a helium balloon rises. I will have to look at the formulas more closely but it strikes me that the concept of gravity is redundant. Apart from claimed space adventures we don't have a zero gravity environment in which to demonstrate otherwise as you claim.
Click to expand...

We have been to space. We have watched people on live tv in space doing things in zero gravity. Tons of scientific and medical research is done in space because of the lack of gravity.

If you choose to think that is all faked, then it is what it is, but for you to then turn around and use other scientific data to argue your point, it is very disingenuous. I challenge you to find an explanation of buoyant force that does not take gravity into consideration.
 
This is a little older, but it's funny how the same "arguments" are still being used, even by some in this thread.

 
Dan Gleesak said:
We have been to space. We have watched people on live tv in space doing things in zero gravity. Tons of scientific and medical research is done in space because of the lack of gravity.

If you choose to think that is all faked, then it is what it is, but for you to then turn around and use other scientific data to argue your point, it is very disingenuous. I challenge you to find an explanation of buoyant force that does not take gravity into consideration.
Click to expand...
I've suggested numerous times to keep the debate to what we can demonstrate here on flat earth. Otherwise you could simply hold up a NASA pic and say, "See, here's proof it's a sphere."

Archimedes principle and even the mathematical formulas that describe it all came well before space travel or any other input of modern science. His principle states "Any object, wholly or partially immersed in a fluid, is buoyed up by a force equal to the weight of the fluid displaced by the object." Archimedes treated weight as an intrinsic property of matter, not as the result of an external force like gravity.

In fact, you have to appeal to the buoyancy effect to explain why gravity doesn't keep a helium balloon from rising.
 
MadAsAHatter said:
This is a little older, but it's funny how the same "arguments" are still being used, even by some in this thread.

Click to expand...

I'm two minutes in and he is saying buoyancy is not a force even though the formula we're referencing calculates the buoyant force.
 
"The same arguments are still being used"

Yeah, for thousands of years because flat geocentric theories and sphere-heliocentric theories are thousands of years old. None of this is anything new, debate wise.
 
Bad Brain said:
I've suggested numerous times to keep the debate to what we can demonstrate here on flat earth. Otherwise you could simply hold up a NASA pic and say, "See, here's proof it's a sphere."

Archimedes principle and even the mathematical formulas that describe it all came well before space travel or any other input of modern science. His principle states "Any object, wholly or partially immersed in a fluid, is buoyed up by a force equal to the weight of the fluid displaced by the object." Archimedes treated weight as an intrinsic property of matter, not as the result of an external force like gravity.

In fact, you have to appeal to the buoyancy effect to explain why gravity doesn't keep a helium balloon from rising.
Click to expand...

I’m not really sure what angle you are going at. Buoyancy in a liquid is an object rising from an area of higher pressure to one of lower pressure. We perceive that as “floating upwards” because deeper water has higher pressure because of gravity. It’s that simple and I don’t know how you can even debate that.

You are also talking about buoyancy in air (gas), which in effect is the same principle as water, but on a smaller scale. Water is heavier than air, that’s why it’s easy to lift heavy things underwater. I’ll also add that things only have weight, because of gravity.

Anyways

the principle is still the same. Bouyancy is just an object going from higher pressure to lesser pressure. Lots of things are lighter than water and they float.
Not as many things are lighter than air, but the ones that are, can “float” in air.
Things are lighter or heavier because they have weight.
And Why do things have weight?


All together now….


gravity is stronger near the center of earth and lessens as you travel away from the center. Or another way, pressure is greater near the center of the earth and lessens as you travel away from it.
buoyancy is the act of something traveling from higher pressure to lower pressure.It’s not a coincidence that we perceive that as “going up” or as on a round earth, away from the center
 
And “keeping the debate to what we can demonstrate here on earth” just makes zero sense. What you meant to say is keep it to things you have experienced yourself or something that someone you arbitrarily trust, experienced. It’s a line in the sand that you can draw at the limit of the information you chose to present as evidence.

We’ve never been to China but we are willing to accept that other people have. We’ve also never been to space, but that is where you choose to draw your own personal line
 
Dan Gleesak said:
gravity is stronger near the center of earth and lessens as you travel away from the center. Or another way, pressure is greater near the center of the earth and lessens as you travel away from it.
Click to expand...
So gravity is created by mass. Does this suggest I can create a model-sized earth to scale, place the same relative scale of water on it, and get it to curve the water like it does on our earth if I were theoretically able to experiment in an environment where actual earth's mass wasn't interfering? Has this been demonstrated anywhere in zero gravity conditions? I'm trying to visualize this and it doesn't seem to hold water, pun intended.
 
VonBonfire said:
So gravity is created by mass. Does this suggest I can create a model-sized earth to scale, place the same relative scale of water on it, and get it to curve the water like it does on our earth if I were theoretically able to experiment in an environment where actual earth's mass wasn't interfering? Has this been demonstrated anywhere in zero gravity conditions? I'm trying to visualize this and it doesn't seem to hold water, pun intended.
Click to expand...


theoretically, yes you could. Practically, I don’t see how that could happen though.

You would also have to create an atmosphere to keep the water from freezing or boiling. No atmosphere, no liquid water
 
Dan Gleesak said:
Buoyancy in a liquid is an object rising from an area of higher pressure to one of lower pressure. We perceive that as “floating upwards” because deeper water has higher pressure because of gravity. It’s that simple and I don’t know how you can even debate that.
Click to expand...
The buoyant force doesn't decrease the deeper you go in water. The 'weight' of the water does increase the hydrostatic pressure, but to claim that is because of gravity is a circular argument. As I mentioned Archimedes considered weight to be an intrinsic property of matter. In other words, an external force is not required to explain the phenomena. On the other hand, the buoyant force is required to explain why a helium balloon rises.
Dan Gleesak said:
And “keeping the debate to what we can demonstrate here on earth” just makes zero sense. What you meant to say is keep it to things you have experienced yourself or something that someone you arbitrarily trust, experienced. It’s a line in the sand that you can draw at the limit of the information you chose to present as evidence.

We’ve never been to China but we are willing to accept that other people have. We’ve also never been to space, but that is where you choose to draw your own personal line
Click to expand...
Once I can easily purchase a trip to the moon you'll have a point. Feel free to consider the constraint to be arbitrary, but I don't think your example is equivalent.
 
Last edited:
Bad Brain said:
The buoyant force doesn't decrease the deeper you go in water. The 'weight' of the water does increase the hydrostatic pressure, but to claim that is because of gravity is a circular argument. As I mentioned Archimedes considered weight to be an intrinsic property of matter. In other words, an external force is not required to explain the phenomena. On the other hand, the buoyant force is required to explain why a helium balloon rises.
Click to expand...
gravity is not a circular argument. There is no way to ignore gravity without coming off as, well, ignorant.
You also can’t talk about a dude whose principle is based around the weights of objects, and ignore gravity.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top