Absolute Proof the Earth is Round NOT Flat!

originally posted by: OneBigMonkeyToo

The sun sets much more quickly at the equator than at latitudes north or south of it.

Can you elaborate on this? I thought the sun is always moving about .25 degrees in the sky per minute regardless of where you are.

a reply to: neutronflux

We're not even having this conversation.

originally posted by: Out6of9Balance
a reply to: neutronflux

We're not even having this conversation.

Then stop posting.

Or post something intelligent concerning “Absolute Proof the Earth is Round NOT Flat!” related to the opening post.

originally posted by: cooperton

originally posted by: OneBigMonkeyToo

The sun sets much more quickly at the equator than at latitudes north or south of it.

Can you elaborate on this? I thought the sun is always moving about .25 degrees in the sky per minute regardless of where you are.

www.astronomyscope.com...

The latitude of the place has a crucial role to play in the time taken by the sun to set. The closer the place is to the equator, the faster the sun sets

These two sites

www.quora.com...

earthsky.org...

also explain the role of the time of year, which also affects the angle at which the sun descends as well as latitude. The distorted map of the southern hemisphere in the joke FE model should make for completely different sunset times at equivalent times of year in the south, but they match those of the north.

originally posted by: neutronflux
a reply to: turbonium1

Now.

The question was...

Or explain other than gravity why a brick thrown straight up into the air slows down faster than what is attributed to with friction with the atmosphere. Stops. Changes direction to fall back to earth.

That you have no better explanation for gravity than gravity.

No, you have no better explanation than a non-existent 'pulling down/holding down force', to excuse your flying ball-Earth fairy tale. I don't need to invent anything to explain what happens.

Again, the force used to throw the brick up dies off, which caused the brick to slow down, and stop, along with air resistance, of course.

There is NO force 'pulling down' the brick in air, as I said.

The mass and density of the brick, being greater than the mass and density of air, cause it to fall through the air, to the surface. In terms of a force, it comes from the mass of the object itself - the brick - as well as air resistance, acting against that mass, or force, of the falling brick.

You try to twist mass into 'weight', for your fictional 'pulling/holding down force', when it is simply the greater mass of the objects which cause them to fall through the air.

The force used in throwing the brick into air does NOT have infinite energy - everyone else knows that, so why don't you?

originally posted by: dragonridr

Now birds flying have nothing to do with mass or density has to do with lift ,drag and thrust. These 3 things when added together counter weight which is caused by gravity. Starting with the basics air is a fluid like water, however is not a liquid like water. It is called a fluid because the force needed to deform it depends on how fast it is deformed, not on how much it is deformed (try moving your hand quickly, then slowly through a basin of water then do the same in a moving car you'll feel resistance ).

This Is why a bird can fly it is that resistance in a fluid that the bird can gain lift. Two things get a bird off the ground muscles and wingspan this is why penguins can't fly their wings are too small and the muscles too slow to create lift.

I suggest learning about lift before using it in future gravity discussions.

I suggest you learn about mass and density before using it in future discussions.

By the same token, penguins aren’t nearly as concerned about being light as birds that fly through the air. To dive deep, to catch fast-swimming prey, and to survive frigid temperatures, their bodies have huge fat supplies, heavy muscles, and densely packed feathers. There’s no way they could fly with such short wings and heavy bodies.

www.allaboutbirds.org...#:~:text=Well%2C%20in%20a%20sense%20they,cut%20cleanly%20through%20the%20water.&text=In%20fac t%2C%20penguins%20are%20the,unable%20to%20fold%20their%20wings.

Penguins have solid bones, unlike other birds which have hollow bones. While their bones are more dense than solid bones, they have much less overall density, and less mass, compared to other species, with solid bones.

In fact, their structure is what we use in building aircraft - that is, a solid, hollow frame, covered in a lighter, thin material, like aluminum.

Why would they use that structure? Because they understood that mass and density are the main factors which allow birds to fly in air, while their wings are used as 'tools', which allow their flight! Mass, density, and specific structures, are why objects can 'lift' above the ground, into air.

Without less mass, density, and 'wings', there'd be no lift, or drag, or thrust, to even talk about!

Birds also have air pockets within their wing bones, which allows them to fly high, over mountains that we'd need oxygen tanks just to climb!

What you are referring to - lift, drag, and thrust - are the three basic aerodynamic principles, for an object, which initiates flight within air from the surface, and continues it's flight in air, until it (hopefully) returns to the surface again.
Air is simply the MEDIUM used for flight, like water is used as a medium for swimming, or sailing on.

Air and water have nothing to do with your magical non-existent 'force', they are mediums used for flight, or swimming, or sailing on, and OF COURSE these mediums require objects to use specific movements, and actions - which we've termed as 'lift', or 'thrust', or 'propulsion' - to travel within these mediums.

It doesn't excuse why birds fly without ANY resistance from a 'force', it only proves, beyond any doubt, that there never WAS any sort of 'force', to begin with!

Insects can fly, but we can hold them down to Earth with a droplet of water, or a strand of hair, which shows - even more - that there IS no 'force' that 'holds/pulls down' all objects to Earth.

Consider what might be the weakest force, that can hold down the smallest, weakest insect on Earth, which can fly above Earth, to 'overcome' your magical 'force' that holds/pulls down all objects to Earth - because after suggesting a strand of hair, or water droplet, it would not even need to be THAT much of a force, simply because it only must hold down a tiny insect to the surface, to prevent flight above Earth.

The problem is trying to find a force that is weaker than a strand of hair, or wool, or whatever, because they're EASILY stronger than your 'force' is!

Let's take a sliver of paper, and attach it to a tiny bird's leg! Make the sliver of paper more and more thin, until the bird can finally 'break free' from it, and fly away! See the bird RESIST this sliver of paper, as it frantically flaps its wings, in its effort to 'break free', and fly above the Earth!

But, of course, you still believe that birds must RESIST your amazing 'force', to fly above the Earth?

It's weaker than a sliver of paper, we already know that, so what else would you suggest that might equate to the 'resistance' shown by your 'force'?

originally posted by: dragonridr
Now lets discuss gravity without it flight becomes impossible Now here is a friend of mine i met attending a lecture at MIT and she is going to talk to you about gravity and you can even replicate her experiment and maybe learn what I was telling you about zero G.

a reply to: OneBigMonkeyToo

The latitude of the place has a crucial role to play in the time taken by the sun to set. The closer the place is to the equator, the faster the sun sets

I can vouch for this.
When I was in Eugene it freaked me out how long twilight lasted as compared to Home.

In the winter, going to work in the dark and coming home in the dark really sucked.

a reply to: neutronflux

I don't believe I'm the problem here.

Continue

originally posted by: dragonridr
Now to set you straight however taught you the bible was misinformed the bible doesnt state the earth is flat. In fact quite the oppisit. While the Bible authors make occasional poetic references which suggests a “flat Earth”, these instances are clearly written in a poetic or observational point of view. Meaning this was how they talked at the time and by the way they would have known the earth is round.

No, they knew it was flat, because they'd already explored and mapped out the entire Earth by then. That's why we still have a few maps of the flat Earth, which are mostly copies of the original maps, of course, as most were searched for, and destroyed by the ball-Earth slime, who were about to sell their ball-Earth maps as the 'real maps of Earth', which omitted the massive circular wall of ice, 200 feet high, which surrounds Earth, because it wouldn't make their ball-Earth story work so well! I'm sure you've seen them, but if not, it's easy to find them online.

They were all drawn by different explorers, at different times, from different countries of the world, yet somehow, they all show there is a great circular barrier around the entire Earth, which is obviously why the ball-Earthers were so desperately trying to destroy every single one of these maps. If the maps didn't show this great barrier around Earth, it would pass for a 'ball-Earth' map, flattened out, just as we have today!

If you compare a flat Earth map, with a ball-Earth map, the only difference, even when one is flat, and one is a ball - is the boundary, shown as a great circle in flat Earth maps, was removed in their ball-Earth maps.

So when we look at ball-Earth maps from the 1800's, or earlier, they do NOT show any sort of 'continent' called Antarctica on them. They show the Antarctic Sea, and something called the 'Icy Sea', directly at the 'South Pole', in and 1816 map. Other maps show nothing but a Southern Sea, others have some variation on it, but none of them show land, or a continent, on the ball-Earth maps.

I guess a continent about the size of America was far too difficult to 'find', back then!

Even if it starts a few hundred miles off southern tip of South America, too!

They mapped this area as an "icy Sea" in 1816, and NOT a massive continent - because if there WAS a massive continent at this area, they'd have obviously put in on their map!

Anyway, it was well known that the Earth was flat, encircled by a great circular wall of ice, of many sections joined together as one great barrier around the Earth. They didn't know how to 'replace' the great barrier around Earth, they only knew that maps which showed it, must be destroyed, and that it must be removed from all of their new ball-Earth maps!

They somehow 'discovered' that the Earth was a ball, but didn't 'discover' there was an 'unknown' massive continent, nearly the size of America, for another 400 years or so! That's a good one!

quote]originally posted by: dragonridr
You want to claim the bible says the earth is flat? First, I just want to make a brief comment as to how ridiculous this claim is. What if the Bible said this: “Thus saith the Lord God: The Earth is flat. I created a flat Earth on a Turtles Back. I also made the sun rotate around the Earth. This is how I did it, and this is how it works.”Nowhere do you see this why? Simple because the bible was never about science it was from the point of view of the apostles.

I didn't claim the Bible said the Earth was flat. The Bible didn't say it was a ball, either!

And you're also wrong in claiming the Bible does not support the flat Earth argument....

It describes how Earth is fixed in place, and immovable, several times...

1 Chronicles 16:30: “He has fixed the earth firm, immovable.”
Psalm 93:1: “Thou hast fixed the earth immovable and firm ...”
Psalm 96:10: “He has fixed the earth firm, immovable ...”
Psalm 104:5: “Thou didst fix the earth on its foundation so that it never can be shaken.”
Isaiah 45:18: “...who made the earth and fashioned it, and himself fixed it fast...”

The Bible repeatedly describes the firmament above Earth, which holds the waters above Earth, and below it, are all the stars, the Sun, and the Moon...

Genesis 1:6
And God said, Let there be a firmament in the midst of the waters, and let it divide the waters from the waters.

Genesis 1:7
And God made the firmament, and divided the waters which were under the firmament from the waters which were above the firmament: and it was so.

Genesis 1:8
And God called the firmament Heaven. And the evening and the morning were the second day.

Genesis 1:14
And God said, Let there be lights in the firmament of the heaven to divide the day from the night; and let them be for signs, and for seasons, and for days, and years:

Genesis 1:15
And let them be for lights in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the earth: and it was so.

Genesis 1:17
And God set them in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the earth,

Genesis 1:20
And God said, Let the waters bring forth abundantly the moving creature that hath life, and fowl that may fly above the earth in the open firmament of heaven.

Psalms 19:1
(To the chief Musician, A Psalm of David.) The heavens declare the glory of God; and the firmament sheweth his handywork.

The Bible makes it very clear that Earth is fixed in place, is covered by the firmament, which holds the waters within it, which is the REAL reason the sky is blue, because it IS water we see above Earth, in the firmament. And the Bible also makes it clear that stars, the Sun, and Moon, are beneath the Earth's firmament.

Where you get this idea that the Bible doesn't support the flat Earth argument, is beyond me.

quote]originally posted by: dragonridr
The Hebrew word "chuwg" means either circle or sphere the hebrew did not have a separate word for them.


Wrong again!

Here's a good explanation I found, and you need to read....

In fact, the Hebrew word used in this verse [Isa. 40:22] is “khoog” (pronounced chug). The word literally means, circle, circuit, and compass. In all of these words, none of them conjure up a picture of a ball. Furthermore if the earth were a ball, and God wished to communicate that here, then it would have required using the Hebrew word “dure” (pronounced dur).

The Hebrew definition for dure is, a circle, pile, or ball. If the shape of the earth was intended to be conveyed as a “ball” then the Hebrew word “dure” would have been the word used as found in Isaiah 22:18, “He will surely violently turn and toss thee like a BALL into a large country: there shalt thou die, and there the chariots of thy glory shall be the shame of thy lord’s house.” It wasn’t used there. What we were given instead was the Hebrew word “khoog.”

Of course, you believed someone who said there wasn't a word for 'sphere' in Hebrew, so now you now better. The Bible even uses BOTH of these terms, for a circle, and for a ball, and the circle described the Earth. The ball was described as an actual ball, in a different verse.


Don't pretend you know the Bible, if you really don't have a clue. That's MY advice to you...

I've yet to hear anyone answer why a rocket would need to fly 25,000 mph to 'break free' from Earth's 'gravity', when it flies off the surface of Earth at less than 1000 mph, proven by the time it takes a rocket to reach the altitude of any sort of clouds nearby. It certainly doesn't go close to 25,000 mph, when it's still visible for about 3 or 4 minutes, either.

If a rocket really DID fly into 'orbit', it would not need to fly any faster than it does to launch from Earth, and it would continue to fly straight up, away from Earth's 'gravity'.

NASA says....

Gravity also gets weaker with distance. So, the closer objects are to each other, the stronger their gravitational pull is.

spaceplace.nasa.gov...

Another source for you...

The farther apart two objects become, the weaker the pull between the two becomes. Further, the relationship between distance and gravitational pull is not a simple one, but rather what we call an inverse square relationship. If, for example, we triple the distance between two objects, the gravitational force between them drops, not by three times, but by three times three times, or nine times.

Newton summarized the relationship between the strength of gravitation pull and these three factors in this equation:

Fg = G M1 M2 / (D12)2

where M1 and M2 are the masses of the objects, and D12 is the distance between the centers of the two objects. G is a number called Newton's Universal Constant of Gravitation, which varies with the system of units we are using.


www.austincc.edu...


They all claim that 'gravity' weakens with distance, and if you want, you can (apparently) calculate it with the formula shown above.

They certainly do NOT claim that 'gravity' becomes STRONGER at a distance, that's for sure!


This is yet another perfect example of what happens to people who keep lying, in order to support their other lies, which were done to support ever more lies - eventually, the lies cannot hold up anymore, because they begin to completely CONFLICT with one another.

And that's the case here, with 'gravity', and rockets. They have always claimed 'gravity' gets weaker with distance, but if so, it would be weaker at higher altitudes above Earth, according to their very own argument on 'gravity', and their own equation supports this, as well.

However, they claimed all of this about 'gravity', years before we had rockets, and claimed they flew into 'orbit'.

But they had a big problem with rockets - they do not fly into 'orbit' (which doesn't exist either, but that's another matter).

Why is this a problem? Because rockets burn away all their fuel within MINUTES, no matter how large a rocket, or how much fuel it holds - they are ALL fuel burners, almost like huge 'roman candles'! They both look very impressive, and powerful, at the start. But they both die out very quickly, as well.

So what they decided to do, was impress everyone with rocket launches, which make them look very powerful, something that 'could fly to the moon'. That's exactly what they wanted to do - make people think they can fly to the moon, no problem, with so much 'power' on display, when they launch from the Earth.

But rockets are simply flashy-looking 'roman candles', and burn all their fuel within minutes. So they needed an excuse, to fly their rockets out of all view, before they dropped like a dead buzzard and crashed to Earth. So the first thing they did, was claim that all rockets must be launched by the ocean, and fly over the ocean, for our 'safety'. And they also claimed rockets MUST veer off in a horizontal path soon after launching, not mentioning that planes fly much higher to save fuel, since rockets would burn all their fuel away if they went any higher than than after launch. And nobody thinks about it, anyway, so it's all good to go!

But it's a lie, to support another lie, where they claim fuel is precious for rockets, while they veer off and WASTE fuel at lower altitudes than planes fly at.

The main lie, however, is when they claim rockets must fly around Earth, and gain enough speed to 'break free' from Earth's 'gravity'. That is their second excuse for why rockets veer off sideways, instead of flying straight up, into 'space', or 'orbit'. This is called 'escape velocity', which is 25,000 mph.

Nobody knows HOW rockets would ever be able to fly faster than they already are, for 3-4 minutes, but they have another excuse for that, of course - 'gravity' is the reason they can fly so fast!

But 'gravity' is also their excuse that rockets must reach such speeds, to 'break free' from it, or 'escape' from it, before going into 'orbit', or 'space'!

And that is the lie which cannot be excused. Because they claim gravity 'weakens with distance', then we know, without any doubt, that rockets would NOT need to gain more speed to 'break free' of it. Rockets would be at the most DISTANT point of Earth's 'gravity', it's 'pulling' force, and would obviously be much WEAKER, at that distance. Not stronger!

If any of you wish to dispute this, I'd like to see how two entirely conflicting claims of yours do NOT conflict - it'd be a real treat to hear a few more desperate excuses!

a reply to: turbonium1

Yea, you would expect gravity to be less strong further from earth.

originally posted by: Out6of9Balance
a reply to: turbonium1

Yea, you would expect gravity to be less strong further from earth.

That's what they all claim - that 'gravity' is weaker with distance, and they even have a specific equation for it, too.

They've always loved to hold up their equations, and claim it 'proves' something, but it seems this equation has blown up in their faces. And I find it so very deserving!

originally posted by: turbonium1
I've yet to hear anyone answer why a rocket would need to fly 25,000 mph to 'break free' from Earth's 'gravity', when it flies off the surface of Earth at less than 1000 mph, proven by the time it takes a rocket to reach the altitude of any sort of clouds nearby. It certainly doesn't go close to 25,000 mph, when it's still visible for about 3 or 4 minutes, either.

You've had the explanation, and you know what it is: because that's teh speed required to exceed arth's gravitational pull. Your figure of 1000mph is pulled from nowhere. They start at 0, then continue to accelerate as long as the rocket is firing.

If a rocket really DID fly into 'orbit', it would not need to fly any faster than it does to launch from Earth, and it would continue to fly straight up, away from Earth's 'gravity'.

Citation required. You also know full well that rockets do not fly straight up, they perform a gravity turn to get them into a traectory that will put them into orbit.

...snip...

They all claim that 'gravity' weakens with distance, and if you want, you can (apparently) calculate it with the formula shown above.

Then why don't you?

They certainly do NOT claim that 'gravity' becomes STRONGER at a distance, that's for sure!


This is yet another perfect example of what happens to people who keep lying, in order to support their other lies, which were done to support ever more lies - eventually, the lies cannot hold up anymore, because they begin to completely CONFLICT with one another.

And that's the case here, with 'gravity', and rockets. They have always claimed 'gravity' gets weaker with distance, but if so, it would be weaker at higher altitudes above Earth, according to their very own argument on 'gravity', and their own equation supports this, as well.

Weaker is not non-existent. The pull of a HUGE body of mass on a very very small body of mass does not change significantly over a couple of hundred miles.

However, they claimed all of this about 'gravity', years before we had rockets, and claimed they flew into 'orbit'.

But they had a big problem with rockets - they do not fly into 'orbit' (which doesn't exist either, but that's another matter).

They do. They are seen to do. They can be observed in orbit. Prove otherwise.

Why is this a problem? Because rockets burn away all their fuel within MINUTES, no matter how large a rocket, or how much fuel it holds - they are ALL fuel burners, almost like huge 'roman candles'! They both look very impressive, and powerful, at the start. But they both die out very quickly, as well.

And as they burn fuel they get lighter, which means they can continue to accelerate.

So what they decided to do, was impress everyone with rocket launches, which make them look very powerful, something that 'could fly to the moon'. That's exactly what they wanted to do - make people think they can fly to the moon, no problem, with so much 'power' on display, when they launch from the Earth.

But rockets are simply flashy-looking 'roman candles', and burn all their fuel within minutes. So they needed an excuse, to fly their rockets out of all view, before they dropped like a dead buzzard and crashed to Earth.

The only thing that crashes back are spent stages. You have no evidence of anything different happening, and rockets crashing into the ocean would nto be flying over my house 10 minutes after launch now, would they,

So the first thing they did, was claim that all rockets must be launched by the ocean, and fly over the ocean, for our 'safety'.

False. There are several rocket launch sites that are nowhere near oceans. Show me where anyone has said they 'must'.

And they also claimed rockets MUST veer off in a horizontal path soon after launching, not mentioning that planes fly much higher to save fuel, since rockets would burn all their fuel away if they went any higher than than after launch. And nobody thinks about it, anyway, so it's all good to go!

They don't 'veer off', they follow a specific trajectory to get them to orbit, as opposed to your perfectly sensible notion that they should go straight up and turn left.

But it's a lie, to support another lie, where they claim fuel is precious for rockets, while they veer off and WASTE fuel at lower altitudes than planes fly at.

Exxcept this doesn't happen. Your eyes are again proving yourself incapable of processing the information with which they have been presented.

The main lie, however, is when they claim rockets must fly around Earth, and gain enough speed to 'break free' from Earth's 'gravity'. That is their second excuse for why rockets veer off sideways, instead of flying straight up, into 'space', or 'orbit'. This is called 'escape velocity', which is 25,000 mph.

Nobody knows HOW rockets would ever be able to fly faster than they already are, for 3-4 minutes, but they have another excuse for that, of course - 'gravity' is the reason they can fly so fast!

They get lighter as fuel gets burnt. Pay attention.

But 'gravity' is also their excuse that rockets must reach such speeds, to 'break free' from it, or 'escape' from it, before going into 'orbit', or 'space'!

And that is the lie which cannot be excused. Because they claim gravity 'weakens with distance', then we know, without any doubt, that rockets would NOT need to gain more speed to 'break free' of it. Rockets would be at the most DISTANT point of Earth's 'gravity', it's 'pulling' force, and would obviously be much WEAKER, at that distance. Not stronger!

If any of you wish to dispute this, I'd like to see how two entirely conflicting claims of yours do NOT conflict - it'd be a real treat to hear a few more desperate excuses!

The only lie here is the one where you pretend you have the slightest understanding of the subject.

25,000 mph is fast

Why is it you want us to think of your claims as you present them for us to parrot it all around the globe?

It doesn't cook my dinner.

a reply to: turbonium1

You

No, you have no better explanation than a non-existent 'pulling down/holding down force',

That Earth’s gravity pulls down on objects, and that force can be measured. And assigned a rate of acceleration.

What is the acceleration due to density.


A brick thrown up straight in the air will change direction and fall back to earth.


But a brick slid across a table will simply stop. With less dense air all around it’s topside.

Why does the brick simply stop, and not change direction like a brick thrown straight up in the air?

There is less dense air all around the top side of the brick. Why doesn’t the less dense air above the brick cause the brick to accelerate up?

Because of gravity. And gravity is the driving force of objects settling out by density.


You

The force used in throwing the brick into air does NOT have infinite energy - everyone else knows that, so why don't you?

I never said it had infinite energy .

Newton's Three Laws of Motion

Newton's three laws of motion may be stated as follows:

Every object in a state of uniform motion will remain in that state of motion unless an external force acts on it.
Force equals mass times acceleration [ $ f(t)=m,a(t)$ ].
For every action there is an equal and opposite reaction.

Now the question was. Why does the brick change direction when thrown straight in the air to fall back to earth if there is no gravity.

a reply to: turbonium1

Funny.

Meteorites, comets, man made satellites that provide real services like satellite TV proves you are grossly wrong and ignorant.

a reply to: neutronflux

What goes up must come down.

a reply to: neutronflux

Do stationary satellites move in space?

originally posted by: Out6of9Balance
a reply to: neutronflux

Do stationary satellites move in space?

Like the diarrhea of the brain caused by your trolling.