Will be more Space for this to be Discussed, I guess!So this is serious? There are those who actually believe the earth is flat?
What about the photos of planet Earth taken from space, showing it is a globe?
Will be more Space for this to be Discussed, I guess!So this is serious? There are those who actually believe the earth is flat?
What about the photos of planet Earth taken from space, showing it is a globe?
Flerfs mostly don't believe in gravity.The thing is, the laws of physics dictate that gravitational effects would be (at best) weird on a disc shaped 'flat' earth.
Good point, but the most common flat-earth models have the entire universe in a dome over the Earth. There's nowhere to radiate heat to. It's a closed system.That would depend on the composition of that flat Earth...If there is more water than land, then that flat Earth would radiate less ambient heat than if the flat Earth was composed mainly of earth...so...it is over to a flat Rather to let us know the land/ocean ratio.
Flerfs mostly don't believe in the earth being the shape that it actually is, an oblate spheroid.Flerfs mostly don't believe in gravity.
By definition.Flerfs mostly don't believe in the earth being the shape that it actually is, an oblate spheroid.
What, even when they fall over or something drops on their head?Flerfs mostly don't believe in gravity.
Their obsession with disproving gravity can be perplexing, but it seems to have roots in how essential gravity is for the heliocentric/globe model (or just reality, as most of us call it). There have been different alternatives. Early on, some flerfs claimed the plane of the Earth is accelerating upwards at 9.8m/s². That didn't catch on with most. The most common alternative is density and buoyancy. Things heavier than air fall, things lighter than air rise. If gravity existed, fire and helium balloons would fall. Now, it's tempting to counter this by saying this system still requires a downward force, just because, you know, that's true. But you have to get into the flerf mindset. If the whole universe is above a flat plane of Earth, you can have a universal 'down' and a universal 'up', which you can't have in the globe model. From the point of view of the flerf, up and down are just apparent things that exist. No gravity is required. Up is up and down is down, exactly as your everyday experience tells you.What, even when they fall over or something drops on their head?
Although this is indistinguishable from gravity tbf.Early on, some flerfs claimed the plane of the Earth is accelerating upwards at 9.8m/s².
At ground level, yes. More curious is they have no explanation as to what force is accelerating the world at that speed, yet they find the belief in gravity, an invisible force that pulls things together, completely improbable. However, like I said, I haven't encountered many who found the accelerating Earth theory convincing.Although this is indistinguishable from gravity tbf.
I sometimes wonder - as it's gravity that pulls things together, what is it that sits at the center?At ground level, yes. More curious is they have no explanation as to what force is accelerating the world at that speed, yet they find the belief in gravity, an invisible force that pulls things together, completely improbable. However, like I said, I haven't encountered many who found the accelerating Earth theory convincing.
It's funny that the contorted explanations they are inventing actually introduce extra levels of complexity and improbability.At ground level, yes. More curious is they have no explanation as to what force is accelerating the world at that speed, yet they find the belief in gravity, an invisible force that pulls things together, completely improbable. However, like I said, I haven't encountered many who found the accelerating Earth theory convincing.
You mean in a system of two objects orbiting each other, as the Earth and Moon do? It's an equalisation as you say, with centrifugal force and gravity causing them to orbit the barycentre, the centre of gravity between the two.I sometimes wonder - as it's gravity that pulls things together, what is it that sits at the center?
Is it an equalisation of forces, when push equals pull therefore cancelling out both forces?
Perhaps, but it's hilarious they try to frame things scientifically, taking scientific terms out of context. From 'an air pressure can't exist next to a vacuum' (therefore the Earth's atmosphere should be sucked into space), to 'water always finds a level' (therefore it shouldn't be able to wrap around a sphere), all things that most people with (you'd think) a functional amount of intelligence could understand the flaws of, flerfs have had explained to them numerous times but continue to repeat. I often think the current rise in science denial is because of the inscrutability of modern science by anyone not thoroughly immersed in it; whether because of the complex mathematical world of particle physics, the bizarre phenomena of relativity, or the vast number of data points of complex systems, and the press reporting on small, isolated parts of interconnected research leaving much to be misunderstood or quoted out of context. People just don't like being told what to think when they can't really get a grasp of the full reasons why. All science denial uses the same methods, and I respect none of them, but it's hard not to see flat-earthers as more wilfully ignorant than most.It's funny that the contorted explanations they are inventing actually introduce extra levels of complexity and improbability.
No, not really, I was referring to the Earth itself (or any other object) and the centre point.You mean in a system of two objects orbiting each other, as the Earth and Moon do? It's an equalisation as you say, with centrifugal force and gravity causing them to orbit the barycentre, the centre of gravity between the two.
Perhaps, but it's hilarious they try to frame things scientifically, taking scientific terms out of context. From 'an air pressure can't exist next to a vacuum' (therefore the Earth's atmosphere should be sucked into space), to 'water always finds a level' (therefore it shouldn't be able to wrap around a sphere), all things that most people with (you'd think) a functional amount of intelligence could understand the flaws of, flerfs have had explained to them numerous times but continue to repeat. I often think the current rise in science denial is because of the inscrutability of modern science by anyone not thoroughly immersed in it; whether because of the complex mathematical world of particle physics, the bizarre phenomena of relativity, or the vast number of data points of complex systems, and the press reporting on small, isolated parts of interconnected research leaving much to be misunderstood or quoted out of context. People just don't like being told what to think when they can't really get a grasp of the full reasons why. All science denial uses the same methods, and I respect none of them, but it's hard not to see flat-earthers as more wilfully ignorant than most.
Oh, I think I see. Yes, it would be a balance of forces. Gravity is quite weak. I'm getting on, have parkinsons and am not in great shape, but even I can jump a couple of feet in the air in spite of the gravity generated by the entire Earth trying to stop me. So, gravity can't collapse the atomic forces of matter at the Earth's centre, although there are massive pressures down there. There are folk here who can explain it better than I.No, not really, I was referring to the Earth itself (or any other object) and the centre point.
View attachment 56887
*Hope their not these folks who are caught in the CG!Oh, I think I see. Yes, it would be a balance of forces. Gravity is quite weak. I'm getting on, have parkinsons and am not in great shape, but even I can jump a couple of feet in the air in spite of the gravity generated by the entire Earth trying to stop me. So, gravity can't collapse the atomic forces of matter at the Earth's centre, although there are massive pressures down there. There are folk here who can explain it better than I.
Although it's probably not, of course. In fact, I'm sure I've heard recently of some discoveries that suggest Earth's iron core has anomalous irregularities. Perhaps I'll investigate further when I'm not getting drunk and listening to soul music.All the mass around the centre pulls outwards, and (assuming that the Earth is homogenous) this all adds up so that an object at the centre would be pulled in all directions at one equally, cancelling the force of gravity out.
If it were a vacuum, then yeah, sure, but you would have to include air resistance as a drag factor (even this hypothetical hole would need to be subject to the laws of physics and not just gravity alone!)resist the gravity long enough for you to get to the other side.
Absolutely true. The very reason I gave up digging after three feet.If it were a vacuum, then yeah, sure, but you would have to include air resistance as a drag factor (even this hypothetical hole would need to be subject to the laws of physics and not just gravity alone!)
Short, or limited sightedness basically, unless our horizons are wider, or more distantly viewed.I have often wondered why we see always level land when we know the earth is round.
How is the brain tricked into this perspective ?
What do you mean by 'level land'?I have often wondered why we see always level land when we know the earth is round.
How is the brain tricked into this perspective ?
We are small, the planet is huge.I have often wondered why we see always level land when we know the earth is round.
How is the brain tricked into this perspective ?
the horizon is far away.We are small,
Or to see the edge easierOld galleons had a crows nest for a reason...... they knew the earth was round.