Does the Sun Revolve Around the Earth, or does the Earth Revolve Around the Sun?

originally posted by: SynchronousSnake
a reply to: OccamsRazor04

oh.. well.. the sun factors into your precious time zones.. invented by man

You said you didn't want to talk about time zones, and wanted to talk about gravity.

Now that gravity proves a round Earth you are back to time zones?

a reply to: OccamsRazor04

nothing there supports you are you blind? omg i give up You sir are a troll

originally posted by: SynchronousSnake
a reply to: OccamsRazor04

nothing there supports you are you blind? omg i give up You sir are a troll

I just quoted exactly how gravity necessitates a sphere. Care to refute it? Care to explain how gravity creates a flat paper shaped object?

a reply to: OccamsRazor04
well if I'm not mistaken that can be refuted by whatshape or formation water takes in ZERO G/MICRO GRAVITY environment that it even takes the form of a ball.read that again.. in a zero g environment... is the earth in a zero G environment? does it not have a lot of mass and therefore has a area of gravity influence of it's own? flat earth does not mean things like gravity does not exist nor necessitates it being a ball. OR FLAT AS A SHEET..

originally posted by: SynchronousSnake
a reply to: OccamsRazor04
well if I'm not mistaken that can be refuted by whatshape or formation water takes in ZERO G/MICRO GRAVITY environment that it even takes the form of a ball.read that again.. in a zero g environment... is the earth in a zero G environment? does it not have a lot of mass and therefore has a area of gravity influence of it's own? flat earth does not mean things like gravity does not exist nor necessitates it being a ball. OR FLAT AS A SHEET..

So I ask a question about gravity and you go on and on about ZERO gravity, and then talk about water forming a ball which is EXACTLY the same principle behind why gravity causes spheres. You just proved gravity causes a sphere and don't even understand it. A sphere is the most efficient shape.

Um no It's You how don't understand nor able to follow along with logic...

water will do that in a zero gravity environment. no gravity besides what little mass the water has is responsible for making it form a sphere... inside a 450ton vehicle that should have mass.... so like i said the earth has mass it's not nor never was in a zero g environment . saying the earth is round because of gravity is a false conclusion,

originally posted by: SynchronousSnake
Um no It's You how don't understand nor able to follow along with logic...

water will do that in a zero gravity environment. no gravity besides what little mass the water has is responsible for making it form a sphere... inside a 450ton vehicle that should have mass....

No, you are simply willfully ignorant. It's not gravity that does it, but the principle is the same. There is a constant force acting in all directions holding water together, just like the force of gravity is constant, and in all directions, and holds matter together.

The force is different, the principle is the same. A sphere is the most efficient shape, that's why both turn into a sphere. In both cases every atom is pulling on every other atom, which naturally causes a sphere.

originally posted by: SynchronousSnake
Um no It's You how don't understand nor able to follow along with logic...

water will do that in a zero gravity environment. no gravity besides what little mass the water has is responsible for making it form a sphere... inside a 450ton vehicle that should have mass.... so like i said the earth has mass it's not nor never was in a zero g environment . saying the earth is round because of gravity is a false conclusion,

No, it's not gravity, the Van Der Waals bond is what makes water turn into a sphere in zero G. It's also what allows water to rise above the top of the glass without spilling over.

a reply to: OccamsRazor04

so now your back peddling and saying gravity doesn't make things a ball at all and the electron bonds between atoms are the cause for a spherical shape in space and not that gravity at all caused by the mass of the object is responsible... ok. You refuted Yourself.

a reply to: SynchronousSnake

Never said that. I said the force that makes water form a ball without the need for gravity acts in a very similar way as gravity, which is why you get the same result, a sphere. I am just curious if you really can't understand or you are just trolling.

a reply to: OccamsRazor04

I'll state the question again if Gravity bends light at a distance would this not give the appearance of something that is relativity flat (not perfect flat line) the illusion of appearing round to the observer under said effects of gravity. the light You see from further away is bent by massive objects at a distance from the observer. this does not necessitate the earth be almost ball. not quite, more pear shaped then anything object.

the statement that the earth is massive is true yes?
the statement that light is bent by gravitational fields is also true correct?
the statement that we only see the effects of gravity on earth is also true an d that in LEO there's near zero correct?
none of these statements I purposed necessitates the theory that the earth is round and gravity implies this absolutely.

the simple fact is with in a large area with significant mass and gravity light can and is shown to bend and COULD explain any curved visual effect a observer could see from any vantage point. it allows room for what we know as the known globe could be flat-ish and there could be more beyond what we know and could easily give the illusion of a globe earth just as easily as a "flat" earth

a reply to: SynchronousSnake

When every object is pulling on every other object the shape of a ball must be formed. Rather than say nener nener how about you refute the basic logic. It's impossible for a flat paper shaped object to be formed when objects are pulled to the CENTER of the Earth.

The 'flat-earthers' first task is to debunk the work of Eratosthenes around 200BC. This greek scholar of many disciplines measured the circumference and axial tilt of the earth proving it was spherical way back then before flat-earth and geocentric theories were proposed.

Eratosthenes

a reply to: SynchronousSnake
Is it just earth that is flat or are all planets flat, or are all planets globular and Earth the exception?

originally posted by: SynchronousSnake
the statement that the earth is massive is true yes?
the statement that light is bent by gravitational fields is also true correct?
the statement that we only see the effects of gravity on earth is also true an d that in LEO there's near zero correct?

Yes the earth is massive, well compared to the closest object (the moon) it is at least. Compared to the sun's mass the earth is insignificant so the earth orbits the sun and has virtually zero effect on the sun's motion.
Gravity is everywhere including in space and it's what holds things together (planets, solar systems, galaxies). The earth's gravity in LEO (I assume you mean low earth orbit) is virtually the same as it is at sea level. The zero G effect is produced by orbiting at speed where the -ve G produced by centrifugal force is precisely equal to the planet's gravitational effect at that altitude. That required speed is around the 7miles/sec mark or better known as 'escape velocity'.

a reply to: Pilgrum

Those are facts, he won't accept it. You need logic.

originally posted by: SynchronousSnake
the statement that the earth is massive is true yes?
the statement that light is bent by gravitational fields is also true correct?

The sun is over 300,000 times more massive than Earth and it barely bends light at all. The telescopes a century ago could barely measure the bending resulting from the very massive sun's gravity, the bending was so small. If the bending of light by the sun was 1/3 as much as it was I'm not sure they could have measured it with their technology a century ago. Now what you are suggesting is that we should see some bending of light from an object over 300,000 times less massive than the sun? That makes no sense when the bending from an over 300,000 times more massive object can barely be observed.

the simple fact is with in a large area with significant mass and gravity light can and is shown to bend and COULD explain any curved visual effect a observer could see from any vantage point.

Even with modern technology I haven't heard of such small deflections of light being measured, from a mass as small as the Earth's mass. Relativity not only says light can bend, it predicts exactly how much depending on mass. If you do the calculations for how much light bends from Earth's mass you'll find it would be such a small amount of bending you probably couldn't measure it, and it certainly wouldn't bend enough to make visible curvature effects.

a reply to: Arbitrageur

He picks and chooses what facts he accepts. So while you are right he has decided to ignore it.

a reply to: Arbitrageur

I've already provided that the the view the sun is 300,000 times more massive is a false conclusion and thus we Can not see the light bend around the sun or the sun cause any other light to bend as it's too small as it is,is not doing so. it's not as big as the model You are regurgitating. without thinking outside the box You will never see this. the source of light that I'm saying you are seeing ,cuasing the illusion of a round earth and is bending is due the effect of gravity. which is ONLY known and testable verifiable by every single person on earth environment to have gravity is on the earth.

since we're into regurgitating facts and what not here is a rather contradicting brain teaser for you

According to Newtonian gravity, light is not affected by gravity, as light is massless. Einstein's law E = mc2, immediately suggests that light is affected by gravity. This is indeed the case and has experimentally be observed via gravitational lensing and other effects.

Hypothetically speaking like i said if the idea that the earth is many times more massive then the globe model even predicts any math You do reference is off about the ESTIMATES of the size of planets,galaxies, and any celestial object that the model is propped up by.

originally posted by: OccamsRazor04
a reply to: Arbitrageur

He picks and chooses what facts he accepts. So while you are right he has decided to ignore it.

No it is You that is cheery picking here.

a reply to: SynchronousSnake
OK so back to the question in the opening post,
-How do you explain parallax observations?
-How do you calculate Lagrangian points?

Let me guess, you don't have all the answers?
Those are the questions put forth in the opening post this thread, so if you really want to post on topic, please answer those questions.

And if you don't want to answer my questions, that's your choice but then you're proving my point that nobody with a geocentric view has a viable model.