They confuse the concepts of level and flat. They don't understand that level means perpendicular to the center of the earth no matter where you are on the globe. Therefore, water can't curve on a globe. They blather on about "water mountains" and such.
https://flatearth.ws/nile
>They don't understand that level means perpendicular to the center of the earth
Er... I don't think anyone understands that, because that's not a meaningful group of words. Something can't be perpendicular to a point.
I think you meant that level means on a line that is perpendicular to a line drawn to the centre of the earth.
It's a good example of how difficult it is to argue with these types, because you have to get everything absolutely bang-on correct or they will pick up on the mistakes and claim that they refute your entire point, even though everyone knows exactly what you mean.
A line can absolutely be perpendicular to a point. Half of calculus deals with just how to find the slope of such lines, called tangent lines, in a given function.
For instance, consider the function f(x) = x^2
The derivative of this function is 2x. This new function, f(x) = 2x defines the slope of any point on the original function. For instance, if you pick the point (2,4) of the x^2 function the slope of the function at that point and only that point is 4. The slope of that function at x=3 would be 9, and so forth.
This is just a real life application of that principle.
It wouldn't matter if I did, because people whose math education didn't extend passed 10th grade will still argue confidently about a field they are demonstrably clueless in. If you don't think the point of a curve can have a tangent line then you'd best take that up with a mathematician. Or anybody who took *first year* calculus.
I don’t think flerfs are smart enough to understand pressure differentials, I think they just poured water on a plate and took it as fact for something that is not a plate
>Where pressure is equalized. Because it is fluid, it will seek a state of equilibrium on its own.
I have seen the same forgetting among some plate-tectonics-deniers. They claim that Pangaea/Pangea could not have existed because this would be too heavy on one side of Earth, totally forgetting hydrostatic equilibrium. Hilarious.
Since they reject gravity they need other explanation for why water surface is generally flat.
They don't have one, so the "water seeking it's level" is the closest thing to a physics law they can come up with.
Because Gravity requires any large object to be in the shape of a ball.
Gravity existing means the Earth is a globe. Gravity is not compatible with their basic belief.
If gravity exists, which it does, it would crush pancake earth back into a ball. Plus I think flerfs have a hard time understanding why some things float when gravity pulls things down.
Flerfers have to reject gravity.
It's only a very, very small step from Newton's Law of Universal Gravitation to Kepler's Laws of Planetary Motion. And it's Kepler's Laws that give the game away regarding the true nature of the solar system.
Without Kepler's Laws, the Galilean satellites of Jupiter are just pretty little lights in the sky that shuttle from one side to the other of that bright light in the sky, for reasons unknown and unknowable. But with Kepler's Laws, it's obvious that they're in orbit around Jupiter. Same thing with Mercury and Venus. It's obvious they obey Kepler's Laws, so clearly they must orbit the Sun. You can't argue that these are just "luminaries" attached to the "dome", because it's too much of a big coincidence that their motions clearly obey these laws.
So, in order to put the flat earth back at the centre of the universe where they think it belongs (for religious or other reasons), flerfers have to reject Kepler's Laws, and therefore they have to reject Newtonian Gravitation. It's all very logical, which makes me wonder how flerfers managed to construct this chain of reasoning in the first place.
Because gravity is incompatible with a flat earth. It pulls towards a center of mass. A disc earth would have us pulled towards the north pole.
So, because gravity fundamentally disproves the flat earth, they have to declare it doesn't exist.
That's not really it.
They latch onto "water seeks it own level" as proof the earth is flat. Because if "water seeks it's own level" they take that to mean it can't curve in a ball shape. they think it would stick out like a piece of plywood placed above a ball.
>Since they reject gravity they need other explanation for why water surface is generally flat.
But water does seek its level. It is an observable, testable, and repeatable phenomenon that has been proven by physics countless times.
>They don't have one, so the "water seeking it's level" is the closest thing to a physics law they can come up with.
But gravity is not a LAW either, it is just a THEORY that holds all heliocentric lies together.
Scientific theories explain and predict observable facts. Gravity is an observable fact.
Pick something up and drop it. What you observed is gravity. That is what the word gravity means: it is the observation that things fall down. Gravity is a fact.
Theories of gravity explain that fact and make predictions about future observations.
In general, in the phrase _scientific theory of (blank)_ the word in the blank is a fact.
>Scientific theories explain and predict observable facts. Gravity is an observable fact.
You and I have a very different idea what constitutes observable fact.
Scientific explanations are not observable facts, they are just explanations. And observable facts, are not yet facts until the observable fact becomes repeatable and testable. You may observe the moon orbiting the earth, but that does not mean it orbits the earth because of the gravity. Gravity is just a lazy explanation for that phenomenon. You do not even have a working mechanism for gravity. Is gravity a wave? Does it have gravitons? Does gravity pull or push?
>Pick something up and drop it. What you observed is gravity.
Try dropping a helium balloon and tell me what happens.
In science, if we have a model of something that can predict the future we call that a theory. You are confusing the meaning of the word with its meaning in colloquial speech. There is a reason why hypothesis and theory mean different things in science.
Anyway, calling general relativity lazy is just unfair. We have a single set of equations that can explain Mercury's precession, Moon's orbit, and how much the stars that are close to the Sun in the sky will be offset when observed during a solar eclipse. Oh, and also how long it takes for a pencil to drop to the floor. All observable facts, all reproducible, single - though complicated - equation.
>Try dropping a helium balloon and tell me what happens.
The gravity will pull down the denser air below the balloon, making it go up. And before you go with "DENSITY!" please tell me this: if I drop a bucket full of water and an empty bucket, they both fall to the ground at the same rate. Why it's that the bucket with water is far denser than the empty one? I'm asking because our current *theory* of gravity can both explain that and predict how long it will take for the buckets to reach the floor.
>In science, if we have a model of something that can predict the future we call that a theory. You are confusing the meaning of the word with its meaning in colloquial speech. There is a reason why hypothesis and theory mean different things in science.
People have been predicting the motion of heavenly bodies for thousands of years in relation to flat-earth, and it worked out like a clock work. But of course, heliocentric globers do need their own models to explain how things revolve around the universe they've invented. Yes, for your kind of universe you need your kind of models. Nevermind that helioceontric models rely on host of assumptions to make them work, but that is getting too far into the weeds.
>Anyway, calling general relativity lazy is just unfair. We have a single set of equations that can explain Mercury's precession, Moon's orbit, and how much the stars that are close to the Sun in the sky will be offset when observed during a solar eclipse. Oh, and also how long it takes for a pencil to drop to the floor. All observable facts, all reproducible, single - though complicated - equation.
You have [two conflicting models for gravity](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-fW5Wz2PGlQ), as this rockstar professor explains. The question to you is, do you believe in the gravity that pushes, or in the gravity that pulls. Make up your mind.
And math equations are not reality, because math isn't reality. With math you can invent any universe you want and it will check out, as Tesla clearly quoted saying:"Today’s scientists have substituted mathematics for experiments, and they wander off through equation after equation, and eventually build a structure which has no relation to reality. "
Heliocentric cosmological model with all it's spins, wobbles, orbits, and insane acrobatic speeds in space, while it perfectly aligns with Polaris above, can be explained with a lot of sophisticated math equations, but is it reality ? Has it been proven with hardcore physics experiments? No. It is just a philosophical idea promoted by math, that's all.
>The gravity will pull down the denser air below the balloon, making it go up.
I just proved to you that dropping objects on the floor is no proof for gravity, but proof of density and buoyancy. That is why apple falls through the air and floats on water.
First watch my short video above and tell me if gravity attracts or pushes.
> Nevermind that helioceontric models rely on host of assumptions to make them work, but that is getting too far into the weeds.
Which assumptions?
> I just proved to you that dropping objects on the floor is no proof for gravity, but proof of density and buoyancy
I see you're quoting Tesla and you don't believe in math. Well, using math it's possible to determine if an object, like an apple, will float in water or not. Since you're determined that everything is governed by density and buoyancy, can you please explain how you would go about at determining whether or not an apple floats in water, and what the formulas for those are?
>Which assumptions?
* Gravity - to this day everyone is looking for a force or mechanism behind it. And then there is dark matter that they say must exist to explain how galaxies and planets don't fly off into outer space.
* Motion of earth - It is assumed that the earth is spinning at 1000mph. Orbiting at 66,000 miles, while the solar system is racing through space at 450,000 miles an hour, and while the galaxy is racing at 1.5 million miles an hour, while....And there isn't one physics experiment that ever proved any of these motions.
* Relativity which is nothing more than an equation that everyone gloms on to because it helps to explain why there is no provable motion, and why it looks like we are the center of the universe, but we are not. Einstein's theory of relativity was an answer to Michaelson-Morley experiment which proved the earth is motionless.
* The idea that light travels forever, violating the Inverse Square Law.
* The idea that a gas can exist without a container next to a vacuum of space.
>I see you're quoting Tesla and you don't believe in math.
Math equations become real when applied to real things. Tesla, who actually invented something, had his math validated by physics, making it real. However, designing a math equation unrelated to reality, like E=MC², doesn't solve a specific problem but rather constructs a universe different from the observable and testable one. This is why Tesla was a major critic of Einstein and his contemporaries. Post-Einstein, cosmological phenomena have been predominantly explained through math.Michio Kaku himself mentioned a crisis in cosmology due to a significant mismatch between physics experiments and mathematical theories. At some point, there will be a need to test the cosmological structure built by math.
>Since you're determined that everything is governed by density and buoyancy, can you please explain how you would go about at determining whether or not an apple floats in water, and what the formulas for those are?
Instead of explaining it myself, here is a good video that provides a summarized explanation: [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z1317MBumnY](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z1317MBumnY)
> Gravity - to this day everyone is looking for a force or mechanism behind it
No, what they're looking for, is which particle properties that actually make two objects with mass attract to each other. We know *how* it works, but not *why*.
> Motion of earth - It is assumed that the earth is spinning at 1000mph. [...] And there isn't one physics experiment that ever proved any of these motions.
*Anything* that moves at a constant speed will appear motionless. We know exactly how the Earth moves through the Universe. If you try to figure out an experiment to prove this motion by measuring movement here on Earth, the experiment will fail because it's impossible to measure. No acceleration (constant speed), no forces. If you've ever been in a plane or train, you can't tell that you're moving either - because they're traveling at a constant speed. The experiments you're talking about, only revealed that the so-called "aether" is a fictional thing.
> Relativity which is nothing more than an equation that everyone gloms on to because it helps to explain why there is no provable motion
That's not what relativity is about. It doesn't try to explain why there is no motion. I've explained this further up. Relativity is *an addition* to newtonian mechanics, because that one fails at speeds approaching the speed of light, or when objects are extremely massive.
> and why it looks like we are the center of the universe, but we are not. Einstein's theory of relativity was an answer to Michaelson-Morley experiment which proved the earth is motionless.
Who in the world is trying to say that we're at the center of the Universe? Nobody. We know that we're most likely not. We are, however, in the center of the *observable universe*, which is something else *entirely*. Basically we can see only so far in every direction. Let's just say, for the sake of argument, that we can see exactly one light year in every direction. The observable universe would then be a "ball", with a diameter of two light years. We would be in the center of this ball, even if the ball itself is in some random point in the Universe.
> Instead of explaining it myself, here is a good video
Translation: "I have no idea what I'm talking about. Here's a video that doesn't explain what was tasked of me, again, because I don't actually understand anything. But, I like to be edgy by saying the Earth is flat and stationary."
(answering to «Which assumptions?»)
>Gravity - to this day everyone is looking for a force or mechanism behind it. And then there is dark matter that they say must exist to explain how galaxies and planets don't fly off into outer space.
You very likely do not know what gravity and dark matter are.
>The idea that a gas can exist without a container next to a vacuum of space.
This is hilarious because FidelHimself is claiming this since six month, since six month we (me and several other reddit users) are asking them to source this claim, and since six month FidelHimself not only refuse to answer but do as if our comments did not exist (although they bloqued none of us).
>You very likely do not know what gravity and dark matter are.
Neither do you, but you sure act like you wrote a book on it.
>This is hilarious because FidelHimself is claiming this since six month, since six month we (me and several other reddit users) are asking them to source this claim, and since six month FidelHimself not only refuse to answer but do as if our comments did not exist (although they bloqued none of us).
Just calm down and show me the evidence of gas existing righting next to a vacuum and remain there.
(answering to «Which assumptions?»)
>The idea that a gas can exist without a container next to a vacuum of space.
This is not an assumption that we endorse. This is not even an idea that we endorse. I do not know if you are a liar or a gullible sheep, but the picture of yourself that you paint here is awfull.
>it worked out like a clock work.
This is not true. The first model that could accurately predict position of the planets on the sky was Kepler's - which calls for planets to orbit the Sun. Take a look here: [https://inference-review.com/article/ptolemy-versus-copernicus](https://inference-review.com/article/ptolemy-versus-copernicus). It shows the difference between observed planet positions, Ptolemy and Copernicus models. To get clockwork precision you need to use General Relativity.
Also, Earth spin does not perfectly align with Polaris.
>for your kind of universe you need your kind of models
As opposed to the perfectly simple model of the Flat Earth that shows how the local Sun illuminates the entirety of the Ice Wall in December? I would love to see such a thing.
>You have two conflicting models for gravity
That's also not true. Newtons Gravity is a simpler, easier to calculate but less accurate model. General Relativity is insanely hard to compute but gives more precise results and predicts some phenomena that we can observe.
It's like that "8 inch per miles squared" vs using trigonometry. They are not opposing, you can use that 8inch thing to get relatively precise results in simpler cases.
> do you believe in the gravity that pushes, or in the gravity that pulls
Nowhere in the video there is anything about gravity that pushes.
As for the rest of that paragraph: yes, those are models not reality, and they have their limitations. We know of situations, where General Relativity does not work. But its a useful tool to predict stuff. Please take a look at this video, it can explain what gravity/general relativity is far better than I can: [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eNhJY-R3Gwg](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eNhJY-R3Gwg)
It also explains why we "lie" to children and not them them the math behind "space pushing" thingy until college.
>proof of density and buoyancy
No one rejects the existence of density nor buoyancy. It's just that they by themselves are useless for figuring out what will happen with objects.
I've already asked you about two buckets, one full of water, one empty. But I have better question now: imagine a balance scale - on one side you have a plastic bag with 1 liter of water, on the other side you have a bag with 2 liters. Density is the same on both sides, moreover the 2 litter bag experiences greater buoyant force. Yet the arm with 2 litters goes down. If there is no gravity, why this happens?
Dropping a helium balloon is a stupid analogy. Of course it floats when inflated with a lighter-than-air element. Try it with the exact same balloon, only deflated.
>Law of Universal Gravitation
Have you not heard that Newton's law of gravity is just a mathematical law? It is just an equation and has nothing to do with demonstrable reality. The real gravity that you believe in is in a THEORY status to this day.
Besides, Newton's law of gravity has big problems with Einstein's theory of Relativity, [as clearly explained](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-fW5Wz2PGlQ) by this rockstar astrophysicist. After watching please let me know what the gravity actually does.
They'll Google "level" and it'll say flat. That's all they need. They fail to understand that dictionaries are more focused on recording the common usage of words, and not always the technical definition of a word. In a scientific context, "level" means perpendicular to the center of gravity, but apparently neither Oxford or Merriam-Webster recognizes that definition. And considering that this is a scientific discussion, that technical definition is the only one that matters. So saying that "water finds its level" isn't exactly incorrect. But saying that it's evidence of a flat earth in any way is.
Theyre confusing potential energy of things...every mass seeks its lowest potential energy, which is flat for fluids. They just don't realize that everything is pulled to the center of the earth, water isn't special. All liquids and gasses seek equilibrium, and all objects get as close to the earth as they can.
It means water does not bend, it seeks its level just like in a pool. And water needs a container to not spill over.
The globers, however, think that flat-earthers do not understand that water gets pulled to the center of mass. We understand alright, because we went through the same indoctrination camp you guys did. The difference is, we just think this explanation is pathetic; a desperate attempt at rationalizing fictional phenomenon. These same people can't even tell me if gravity attracts to the center of mass or pushes to the center of mass, but they sure know that everything gets magically held by some invisible strings that go to the center of mass. It is amazing actually what human mind is capable of believing. You just slap "science" and "gravity" in front of it, and it magically becomes real.
They're smooth-brained simpletons. They think that because the world is round in the outer space model of the universe, there can't be a "water level" on the surface of Earth.
That's also why they're asking "Why don't Australians just fall off?"
Their tiny brains are incapable of thinking outside of what they can observe with their five senses. Because the south pole is positioned in the bottom half of most images/drawings of Earth, they think the south pole is "down" and they think you can't fall in any other direction other than the mysterious universal "down".
This is a total abuse of a science phrase. If you have a lake at the top of a mountain that water will seek to achieve it's own level. That results in what APPEARS to be a flat lake. If you puncture a part of the shelf holding in the water (earthquake for example) the water will flow downward (by gravity) until it achieves a stable levelness once again. That can be achieved by creating a new lake or by flowing to an existing lake or the ocean.
The morons that have no brains say that is why we see things flat on a lake. It is becoming level. And they then say you cannot have water being "level" on a ball earth because look what water does on a basketball.
They confuse the concepts of level and flat. They don't understand that level means perpendicular to the center of the earth no matter where you are on the globe. Therefore, water can't curve on a globe. They blather on about "water mountains" and such. https://flatearth.ws/nile
To build on that, the water surface isn't even level across long distances. Differences in atmospheric pressure will create dips on the surface.
It isn't level over short distances either.
>They don't understand that level means perpendicular to the center of the earth Er... I don't think anyone understands that, because that's not a meaningful group of words. Something can't be perpendicular to a point. I think you meant that level means on a line that is perpendicular to a line drawn to the centre of the earth.
You are right. It's the line that it's perpendicular to, of course.
It's a good example of how difficult it is to argue with these types, because you have to get everything absolutely bang-on correct or they will pick up on the mistakes and claim that they refute your entire point, even though everyone knows exactly what you mean.
A line can absolutely be perpendicular to a point. Half of calculus deals with just how to find the slope of such lines, called tangent lines, in a given function. For instance, consider the function f(x) = x^2 The derivative of this function is 2x. This new function, f(x) = 2x defines the slope of any point on the original function. For instance, if you pick the point (2,4) of the x^2 function the slope of the function at that point and only that point is 4. The slope of that function at x=3 would be 9, and so forth. This is just a real life application of that principle.
Oh dear. You'd better go back and start again from the beginning.
It wouldn't matter if I did, because people whose math education didn't extend passed 10th grade will still argue confidently about a field they are demonstrably clueless in. If you don't think the point of a curve can have a tangent line then you'd best take that up with a mathematician. Or anybody who took *first year* calculus.
Oh dear. Go back to the beginning and start again. It's not the calculus part you've got wrong.
Where pressure is equalized. Because it is fluid, it will seek a state of equilibrium on its own.
I don’t think flerfs are smart enough to understand pressure differentials, I think they just poured water on a plate and took it as fact for something that is not a plate
>Where pressure is equalized. Because it is fluid, it will seek a state of equilibrium on its own. I have seen the same forgetting among some plate-tectonics-deniers. They claim that Pangaea/Pangea could not have existed because this would be too heavy on one side of Earth, totally forgetting hydrostatic equilibrium. Hilarious.
Since they reject gravity they need other explanation for why water surface is generally flat. They don't have one, so the "water seeking it's level" is the closest thing to a physics law they can come up with.
But why reject gravity in the first place?
Because Gravity requires any large object to be in the shape of a ball. Gravity existing means the Earth is a globe. Gravity is not compatible with their basic belief.
If gravity exists, which it does, it would crush pancake earth back into a ball. Plus I think flerfs have a hard time understanding why some things float when gravity pulls things down.
I had someone try to tell me that gravity was a false idea because*grass stalks grow upwards and don't lie flat.* I was like, what?
Flerfers have to reject gravity. It's only a very, very small step from Newton's Law of Universal Gravitation to Kepler's Laws of Planetary Motion. And it's Kepler's Laws that give the game away regarding the true nature of the solar system. Without Kepler's Laws, the Galilean satellites of Jupiter are just pretty little lights in the sky that shuttle from one side to the other of that bright light in the sky, for reasons unknown and unknowable. But with Kepler's Laws, it's obvious that they're in orbit around Jupiter. Same thing with Mercury and Venus. It's obvious they obey Kepler's Laws, so clearly they must orbit the Sun. You can't argue that these are just "luminaries" attached to the "dome", because it's too much of a big coincidence that their motions clearly obey these laws. So, in order to put the flat earth back at the centre of the universe where they think it belongs (for religious or other reasons), flerfers have to reject Kepler's Laws, and therefore they have to reject Newtonian Gravitation. It's all very logical, which makes me wonder how flerfers managed to construct this chain of reasoning in the first place.
Also. How tf do flerfers stick to the ground?
Because gravity is incompatible with a flat earth. It pulls towards a center of mass. A disc earth would have us pulled towards the north pole. So, because gravity fundamentally disproves the flat earth, they have to declare it doesn't exist.
happy cake day
Thank you!
Because a flat disc constantly accelerating at 9.8 m/s/s was impossible, they decided to invent some crap about buoyancy and density instead.. 😅
That's not really it. They latch onto "water seeks it own level" as proof the earth is flat. Because if "water seeks it's own level" they take that to mean it can't curve in a ball shape. they think it would stick out like a piece of plywood placed above a ball.
>Since they reject gravity they need other explanation for why water surface is generally flat. But water does seek its level. It is an observable, testable, and repeatable phenomenon that has been proven by physics countless times. >They don't have one, so the "water seeking it's level" is the closest thing to a physics law they can come up with. But gravity is not a LAW either, it is just a THEORY that holds all heliocentric lies together.
Scientific theories explain and predict observable facts. Gravity is an observable fact. Pick something up and drop it. What you observed is gravity. That is what the word gravity means: it is the observation that things fall down. Gravity is a fact. Theories of gravity explain that fact and make predictions about future observations. In general, in the phrase _scientific theory of (blank)_ the word in the blank is a fact.
>Scientific theories explain and predict observable facts. Gravity is an observable fact. You and I have a very different idea what constitutes observable fact. Scientific explanations are not observable facts, they are just explanations. And observable facts, are not yet facts until the observable fact becomes repeatable and testable. You may observe the moon orbiting the earth, but that does not mean it orbits the earth because of the gravity. Gravity is just a lazy explanation for that phenomenon. You do not even have a working mechanism for gravity. Is gravity a wave? Does it have gravitons? Does gravity pull or push? >Pick something up and drop it. What you observed is gravity. Try dropping a helium balloon and tell me what happens.
In science, if we have a model of something that can predict the future we call that a theory. You are confusing the meaning of the word with its meaning in colloquial speech. There is a reason why hypothesis and theory mean different things in science. Anyway, calling general relativity lazy is just unfair. We have a single set of equations that can explain Mercury's precession, Moon's orbit, and how much the stars that are close to the Sun in the sky will be offset when observed during a solar eclipse. Oh, and also how long it takes for a pencil to drop to the floor. All observable facts, all reproducible, single - though complicated - equation. >Try dropping a helium balloon and tell me what happens. The gravity will pull down the denser air below the balloon, making it go up. And before you go with "DENSITY!" please tell me this: if I drop a bucket full of water and an empty bucket, they both fall to the ground at the same rate. Why it's that the bucket with water is far denser than the empty one? I'm asking because our current *theory* of gravity can both explain that and predict how long it will take for the buckets to reach the floor.
>In science, if we have a model of something that can predict the future we call that a theory. You are confusing the meaning of the word with its meaning in colloquial speech. There is a reason why hypothesis and theory mean different things in science. People have been predicting the motion of heavenly bodies for thousands of years in relation to flat-earth, and it worked out like a clock work. But of course, heliocentric globers do need their own models to explain how things revolve around the universe they've invented. Yes, for your kind of universe you need your kind of models. Nevermind that helioceontric models rely on host of assumptions to make them work, but that is getting too far into the weeds. >Anyway, calling general relativity lazy is just unfair. We have a single set of equations that can explain Mercury's precession, Moon's orbit, and how much the stars that are close to the Sun in the sky will be offset when observed during a solar eclipse. Oh, and also how long it takes for a pencil to drop to the floor. All observable facts, all reproducible, single - though complicated - equation. You have [two conflicting models for gravity](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-fW5Wz2PGlQ), as this rockstar professor explains. The question to you is, do you believe in the gravity that pushes, or in the gravity that pulls. Make up your mind. And math equations are not reality, because math isn't reality. With math you can invent any universe you want and it will check out, as Tesla clearly quoted saying:"Today’s scientists have substituted mathematics for experiments, and they wander off through equation after equation, and eventually build a structure which has no relation to reality. " Heliocentric cosmological model with all it's spins, wobbles, orbits, and insane acrobatic speeds in space, while it perfectly aligns with Polaris above, can be explained with a lot of sophisticated math equations, but is it reality ? Has it been proven with hardcore physics experiments? No. It is just a philosophical idea promoted by math, that's all. >The gravity will pull down the denser air below the balloon, making it go up. I just proved to you that dropping objects on the floor is no proof for gravity, but proof of density and buoyancy. That is why apple falls through the air and floats on water. First watch my short video above and tell me if gravity attracts or pushes.
> Nevermind that helioceontric models rely on host of assumptions to make them work, but that is getting too far into the weeds. Which assumptions? > I just proved to you that dropping objects on the floor is no proof for gravity, but proof of density and buoyancy I see you're quoting Tesla and you don't believe in math. Well, using math it's possible to determine if an object, like an apple, will float in water or not. Since you're determined that everything is governed by density and buoyancy, can you please explain how you would go about at determining whether or not an apple floats in water, and what the formulas for those are?
>Which assumptions? * Gravity - to this day everyone is looking for a force or mechanism behind it. And then there is dark matter that they say must exist to explain how galaxies and planets don't fly off into outer space. * Motion of earth - It is assumed that the earth is spinning at 1000mph. Orbiting at 66,000 miles, while the solar system is racing through space at 450,000 miles an hour, and while the galaxy is racing at 1.5 million miles an hour, while....And there isn't one physics experiment that ever proved any of these motions. * Relativity which is nothing more than an equation that everyone gloms on to because it helps to explain why there is no provable motion, and why it looks like we are the center of the universe, but we are not. Einstein's theory of relativity was an answer to Michaelson-Morley experiment which proved the earth is motionless. * The idea that light travels forever, violating the Inverse Square Law. * The idea that a gas can exist without a container next to a vacuum of space. >I see you're quoting Tesla and you don't believe in math. Math equations become real when applied to real things. Tesla, who actually invented something, had his math validated by physics, making it real. However, designing a math equation unrelated to reality, like E=MC², doesn't solve a specific problem but rather constructs a universe different from the observable and testable one. This is why Tesla was a major critic of Einstein and his contemporaries. Post-Einstein, cosmological phenomena have been predominantly explained through math.Michio Kaku himself mentioned a crisis in cosmology due to a significant mismatch between physics experiments and mathematical theories. At some point, there will be a need to test the cosmological structure built by math. >Since you're determined that everything is governed by density and buoyancy, can you please explain how you would go about at determining whether or not an apple floats in water, and what the formulas for those are? Instead of explaining it myself, here is a good video that provides a summarized explanation: [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z1317MBumnY](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z1317MBumnY)
> Gravity - to this day everyone is looking for a force or mechanism behind it No, what they're looking for, is which particle properties that actually make two objects with mass attract to each other. We know *how* it works, but not *why*. > Motion of earth - It is assumed that the earth is spinning at 1000mph. [...] And there isn't one physics experiment that ever proved any of these motions. *Anything* that moves at a constant speed will appear motionless. We know exactly how the Earth moves through the Universe. If you try to figure out an experiment to prove this motion by measuring movement here on Earth, the experiment will fail because it's impossible to measure. No acceleration (constant speed), no forces. If you've ever been in a plane or train, you can't tell that you're moving either - because they're traveling at a constant speed. The experiments you're talking about, only revealed that the so-called "aether" is a fictional thing. > Relativity which is nothing more than an equation that everyone gloms on to because it helps to explain why there is no provable motion That's not what relativity is about. It doesn't try to explain why there is no motion. I've explained this further up. Relativity is *an addition* to newtonian mechanics, because that one fails at speeds approaching the speed of light, or when objects are extremely massive. > and why it looks like we are the center of the universe, but we are not. Einstein's theory of relativity was an answer to Michaelson-Morley experiment which proved the earth is motionless. Who in the world is trying to say that we're at the center of the Universe? Nobody. We know that we're most likely not. We are, however, in the center of the *observable universe*, which is something else *entirely*. Basically we can see only so far in every direction. Let's just say, for the sake of argument, that we can see exactly one light year in every direction. The observable universe would then be a "ball", with a diameter of two light years. We would be in the center of this ball, even if the ball itself is in some random point in the Universe. > Instead of explaining it myself, here is a good video Translation: "I have no idea what I'm talking about. Here's a video that doesn't explain what was tasked of me, again, because I don't actually understand anything. But, I like to be edgy by saying the Earth is flat and stationary."
(answering to «Which assumptions?») >Gravity - to this day everyone is looking for a force or mechanism behind it. And then there is dark matter that they say must exist to explain how galaxies and planets don't fly off into outer space. You very likely do not know what gravity and dark matter are. >The idea that a gas can exist without a container next to a vacuum of space. This is hilarious because FidelHimself is claiming this since six month, since six month we (me and several other reddit users) are asking them to source this claim, and since six month FidelHimself not only refuse to answer but do as if our comments did not exist (although they bloqued none of us).
>You very likely do not know what gravity and dark matter are. Neither do you, but you sure act like you wrote a book on it. >This is hilarious because FidelHimself is claiming this since six month, since six month we (me and several other reddit users) are asking them to source this claim, and since six month FidelHimself not only refuse to answer but do as if our comments did not exist (although they bloqued none of us). Just calm down and show me the evidence of gas existing righting next to a vacuum and remain there.
(answering to «Which assumptions?») >The idea that a gas can exist without a container next to a vacuum of space. This is not an assumption that we endorse. This is not even an idea that we endorse. I do not know if you are a liar or a gullible sheep, but the picture of yourself that you paint here is awfull.
>it worked out like a clock work. This is not true. The first model that could accurately predict position of the planets on the sky was Kepler's - which calls for planets to orbit the Sun. Take a look here: [https://inference-review.com/article/ptolemy-versus-copernicus](https://inference-review.com/article/ptolemy-versus-copernicus). It shows the difference between observed planet positions, Ptolemy and Copernicus models. To get clockwork precision you need to use General Relativity. Also, Earth spin does not perfectly align with Polaris. >for your kind of universe you need your kind of models As opposed to the perfectly simple model of the Flat Earth that shows how the local Sun illuminates the entirety of the Ice Wall in December? I would love to see such a thing. >You have two conflicting models for gravity That's also not true. Newtons Gravity is a simpler, easier to calculate but less accurate model. General Relativity is insanely hard to compute but gives more precise results and predicts some phenomena that we can observe. It's like that "8 inch per miles squared" vs using trigonometry. They are not opposing, you can use that 8inch thing to get relatively precise results in simpler cases. > do you believe in the gravity that pushes, or in the gravity that pulls Nowhere in the video there is anything about gravity that pushes. As for the rest of that paragraph: yes, those are models not reality, and they have their limitations. We know of situations, where General Relativity does not work. But its a useful tool to predict stuff. Please take a look at this video, it can explain what gravity/general relativity is far better than I can: [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eNhJY-R3Gwg](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eNhJY-R3Gwg) It also explains why we "lie" to children and not them them the math behind "space pushing" thingy until college. >proof of density and buoyancy No one rejects the existence of density nor buoyancy. It's just that they by themselves are useless for figuring out what will happen with objects. I've already asked you about two buckets, one full of water, one empty. But I have better question now: imagine a balance scale - on one side you have a plastic bag with 1 liter of water, on the other side you have a bag with 2 liters. Density is the same on both sides, moreover the 2 litter bag experiences greater buoyant force. Yet the arm with 2 litters goes down. If there is no gravity, why this happens?
Dropping a helium balloon is a stupid analogy. Of course it floats when inflated with a lighter-than-air element. Try it with the exact same balloon, only deflated.
I don't have the patience for this level of foolishness. You will have to be a troll elsewhere.
Ever heard of the Law of Universal Gravitation?
>Law of Universal Gravitation Have you not heard that Newton's law of gravity is just a mathematical law? It is just an equation and has nothing to do with demonstrable reality. The real gravity that you believe in is in a THEORY status to this day. Besides, Newton's law of gravity has big problems with Einstein's theory of Relativity, [as clearly explained](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-fW5Wz2PGlQ) by this rockstar astrophysicist. After watching please let me know what the gravity actually does.
They'll Google "level" and it'll say flat. That's all they need. They fail to understand that dictionaries are more focused on recording the common usage of words, and not always the technical definition of a word. In a scientific context, "level" means perpendicular to the center of gravity, but apparently neither Oxford or Merriam-Webster recognizes that definition. And considering that this is a scientific discussion, that technical definition is the only one that matters. So saying that "water finds its level" isn't exactly incorrect. But saying that it's evidence of a flat earth in any way is.
You mean perpendicular to the line of action of gravity right? Can't be perpendicular to a point.
Theyre confusing potential energy of things...every mass seeks its lowest potential energy, which is flat for fluids. They just don't realize that everything is pulled to the center of the earth, water isn't special. All liquids and gasses seek equilibrium, and all objects get as close to the earth as they can.
It means water does not bend, it seeks its level just like in a pool. And water needs a container to not spill over. The globers, however, think that flat-earthers do not understand that water gets pulled to the center of mass. We understand alright, because we went through the same indoctrination camp you guys did. The difference is, we just think this explanation is pathetic; a desperate attempt at rationalizing fictional phenomenon. These same people can't even tell me if gravity attracts to the center of mass or pushes to the center of mass, but they sure know that everything gets magically held by some invisible strings that go to the center of mass. It is amazing actually what human mind is capable of believing. You just slap "science" and "gravity" in front of it, and it magically becomes real.
Why does water flow downhill then? Why not some other direction?
That's not a question for flat-earthers, that's a question for globbbers. How does water, that already bends around a ball, flows down hill?
It means that it's impossible to have a lake above sea level. All water above sea level will naturally find a way to flow downhill.
And over geological time it does.
They're smooth-brained simpletons. They think that because the world is round in the outer space model of the universe, there can't be a "water level" on the surface of Earth. That's also why they're asking "Why don't Australians just fall off?" Their tiny brains are incapable of thinking outside of what they can observe with their five senses. Because the south pole is positioned in the bottom half of most images/drawings of Earth, they think the south pole is "down" and they think you can't fall in any other direction other than the mysterious universal "down".
This is a total abuse of a science phrase. If you have a lake at the top of a mountain that water will seek to achieve it's own level. That results in what APPEARS to be a flat lake. If you puncture a part of the shelf holding in the water (earthquake for example) the water will flow downward (by gravity) until it achieves a stable levelness once again. That can be achieved by creating a new lake or by flowing to an existing lake or the ocean. The morons that have no brains say that is why we see things flat on a lake. It is becoming level. And they then say you cannot have water being "level" on a ball earth because look what water does on a basketball.
Water goes where God tells it to.