• "Spreading the ideas of freedom loving people on matters regarding high finance, politics, constructionist Constitution, and mental masturbation of all types"

200 Proofs Earth is Not a Spinning Ball

Joe King

Midas Member
Midas Member
Site Supporter ++
Joined
Mar 31, 2010
Messages
9,996
Likes
11,291
Location
Instant Gratification Land
Willis Tower 2265.jpg
 

solarion

Midas Member
Midas Member
Sr Site Supporter
Joined
Nov 25, 2013
Messages
6,364
Likes
9,204
Yawn. Not science. One can make the very same predictions using Lagrangian mathematics and not invent wild theories about "universal forces".

Completely, totally, not necessary. Any comment at all? I mean this has been common knowledge for centuries.

Again...why cling to provably wrong scientific theories? One of them is clearly wrong...so why keep both?

1581441075692.png


Dead for 207 years man...think it may be time to review what we think we know about the universe yet?
 

DodgebyDave

Metal Messiah
Midas Member
Joined
Mar 30, 2010
Messages
12,098
Likes
13,961
Then use your science to explain why half of the sears tower appears to be in lake Michigan
 

solarion

Midas Member
Midas Member
Sr Site Supporter
Joined
Nov 25, 2013
Messages
6,364
Likes
9,204
You wish me to explain what you see in someone else's picture? One picture of thousands that are giving millions of people world wide cause to doubt the official model of Earth? Shall we discuss Dave's problem with every single picture...or will you simply go prove to yourself that Earth is a spheroid 24,901 miles in circumference? What am I saying...you know it is...no reason to question that.

It's about getting people to shut up and stop asking questions that others personally find offensive. Gosh it sounds almost like political correctness now doesn't it?
 

Joe King

Midas Member
Midas Member
Site Supporter ++
Joined
Mar 31, 2010
Messages
9,996
Likes
11,291
Location
Instant Gratification Land
Again...why cling to provably wrong scientific theories?
That's what we been asking you about your provably wrong wacko flat Earth bs.
 

Bottom Feeder

Hypophthalmichthys molitrix
Midas Member
Midas Supporter ++
Joined
Mar 31, 2010
Messages
9,408
Likes
17,727
Location
Clown World
Formulas that have been produced over the years have been impressively accurate and demonstrably correct. Modern engineering would be impossible without them. For all its complexity and weirdness, modern physics works in real life, and the consensus is that we really do live in a weird world, pretty much unfathomable to mere mortals.
Universe of Particles

With the pace of the posts on this subject you would have a hard time thinking that anyone looks at the references others have posted. If yer gonna just blather about your depth of knowledge on the subject and not even investigate what you, in your cognitive dissonance, believe to be bullshitt, then why are y'all wasting time here?

For example;
Newton's law of universal gravitation is usually stated that every particle attracts every other particle in the universe with a force which is directly proportional to the product of their masses and inversely proportional to the square of the distance between their centers.
— • —​
Coulomb's law states that: The magnitude of the electrostatic force of attraction or repulsion between two point charges is directly proportional to the product of the magnitudes of charges and inversely proportional to the square of the distance between them.

It's pretty hard to refute the similarity between the two descriptions, but mathematically stated it becomes even more clear that there is something going on in the macro world very closely resembling what is going on in the micro world.
Coulombs law.JPG
If things on all levels seem to being held together by the same cosmic glue, then why does the universe exist at all?

I think y'all better start reading Bob's TOE post.

JMSO,
BF
 

solarion

Midas Member
Midas Member
Sr Site Supporter
Joined
Nov 25, 2013
Messages
6,364
Likes
9,204
Newton's law of universal gravitation is usually stated that every particle attracts every other particle in the universe with a force which is directly proportional to the product of their masses and inversely proportional to the square of the distance between their centers.
— • —​
Coulomb's law states that: The magnitude of the electrostatic force of attraction or repulsion between two point charges is directly proportional to the product of the magnitudes of charges and inversely proportional to the square of the distance between them.

It's pretty hard to refute the similarity between the two descriptions, but mathematically stated it becomes even more clear that there is something going on in the macro world very closely resembling what is going on in the micro world.
I've actually made this very point on numerous occasions...hopefully it'll be better received from you. One caveat is that Newtonian gravitational theory includes instantaneous propagation while energy appears to be limited in speed. We can call that speed "c" if everyone likes, yet it is not proven to be constant and should not be accepted as a measure of distance...particularly when the medium of travel is not fully understood.
 

DodgebyDave

Metal Messiah
Midas Member
Joined
Mar 30, 2010
Messages
12,098
Likes
13,961
Bwah, at this point it's down to staring at the shoes and mumbles
 

EricTheCat

Gold Member
Gold Chaser
Midas Supporter
GIM Hall Of Fame
Joined
Apr 2, 2010
Messages
1,574
Likes
3,889
Location
Southern MN
The similarities are interesting when it comes to the two equations. However, there is a very real difference between charge and mass at least at the macro scale. Notice something important about the equation. The result is a Force, just saying.
 

solarion

Midas Member
Midas Member
Sr Site Supporter
Joined
Nov 25, 2013
Messages
6,364
Likes
9,204
The macro scale? You mean the part that cannot be tested empirically by anyone...at any time?

Meaning that gravity's "magic" really only happens at planetary scales that nobody can test for themselves?
 

solarion

Midas Member
Midas Member
Sr Site Supporter
Joined
Nov 25, 2013
Messages
6,364
Likes
9,204
Very useful post foolsgold. Thanks. If I'm an idiot and you're not then you should find my questions easy peasy. How about answering them?
I will admit I can't easily prove the theory wrong that gravity is electrical in nature. I can say I am fairly skeptical about the possibility. Just one example, things still fall down in a Faraday cage. Even if the cage is solid (such as a closed metal box) things still fall downward. Do you know of a way of to explain how that would be possible if gravity is electrical in nature?
Why do you suppose you're so comfortable subjecting alternative theories of gravitation to direct experimentation, but you give Newtonian gravitational theory a hard pass on the same level of scrutiny? I appreciate that you freely admit you know very little about it, but why is that okay when you've no trouble pointing out experimentally challenging impediments to electrostatic based theories of gravitation?

Somehow for some reason Newton's gravitational theory gets propagated as fact while the obvious problems with it are completely ignored. How come?

You also failed to respond to my suggestion about Lagrangian mathematics. Why do you think you need Newtonian gravitational theory at all?
 

EricTheCat

Gold Member
Gold Chaser
Midas Supporter
GIM Hall Of Fame
Joined
Apr 2, 2010
Messages
1,574
Likes
3,889
Location
Southern MN
Very useful post foolsgold. Thanks. If I'm an idiot and you're not then you should find my questions easy peasy. How about answering them?

Why do you suppose you're so comfortable subjecting alternative theories of gravitation to direct experimentation, but you give Newtonian gravitational theory a hard pass on the same level of scrutiny? I appreciate that you freely admit you know very little about it, but why is that okay when you've no trouble pointing out experimentally challenging impediments to electrostatic based theories of gravitation?

Somehow for some reason Newton's gravitational theory gets propagated as fact while the obvious problems with it are completely ignored. How come?

You also failed to respond to my suggestion about Lagrangian mathematics. Why do you think you need Newtonian gravitational theory at all?
Again, we use Newtonian gravity because it is simple and useful. No other reason. I can use the equations to make accurate predictions in the real world. I don't know of any simpler equations that can give me as accurate results. If you do I am all ears!

I wasn't avoiding it, I started to reply about Lagrangian and removed that text when my post was getting long and the thread kept going, but here I'll paraphrase the response I had before I cleared it away:
I haven't used Lagrangian filed theory in any of my programs but I can see that it can be used for both Newtonian and Relativistic gravity. I may study up on it some more and possibly even simulate it to see how it varies compared to my current simulator I wrote with simple Newtonian math. Not making any guarantees as that would be purely for my own amusement. It could happen though simply because I like a good mathematical challenge.

To reiterate, I use Newtonian math because it is simple and I can use it to make predictions in the real world. Why should I complicate it further to get levels of accuracy I do not require?

We can throw Newtonian out when we have a simpler method to get results that are as accurate. Until then, I will use it because as I say it is simple and accurate.
 

Bottom Feeder

Hypophthalmichthys molitrix
Midas Member
Midas Supporter ++
Joined
Mar 31, 2010
Messages
9,408
Likes
17,727
Location
Clown World
One caveat is that Newtonian gravitational theory includes instantaneous propagation while energy appears to be limited in speed.
Hummm, how 'bout a 'thought experiment'?

Let's say the sun suddenly evaporated. What's that, 9½ minutes before the light stops hitting earth, right? So with your understanding of gravitational magic, the earth would fly right off into space the instant the sun disappeared, while the light from the now gone sun, would continue to shine on for nine more minutes?

Ya think if the sun suddenly appeared that the gravity would instantaneously reach Pluto way, way way before the light does? And when two remote stars collide the gravity wave they produce is instantaneously present at earth?

Ya better think that 'no speed limit' for gravity through a bit, sol.

BF
 

solarion

Midas Member
Midas Member
Sr Site Supporter
Joined
Nov 25, 2013
Messages
6,364
Likes
9,204
Again, we use Newtonian gravity because it is simple and useful. No other reason. I can use the equations to make accurate predictions in the real world. I don't know of any simpler equations that can give me as accurate results. If you do I am all ears!

I wasn't avoiding it, I started to reply about Lagrangian and removed that text when my post was getting long and the thread kept going, but here I'll paraphrase the response I had before I cleared it away:
I haven't used Lagrangian filed theory in any of my programs but I can see that it can be used for both Newtonian and Relativistic gravity. I may study up on it some more and possibly even simulate it to see how it varies compared to my current simulator I wrote with simple Newtonian math. Not making any guarantees as that would be purely for my own amusement. It could happen though simply because I like a good mathematical challenge.

To reiterate, I use Newtonian math because it is simple and I can use it to make predictions in the real world. Why should I complicate it further to get levels of accuracy I do not require?

We can throw Newtonian out when we have a simpler method to get results that are as accurate. Until then, I will use it because as I say it is simple and accurate.
So essentially you're okay with disregarding the problematic portions of Newtonian gravitational theory due to expedience. That's awesome...for you, but it's not very scientific. As soon as the problems with it are mentioned you immediately jumped to general relativity...but you don't use that instead? How come? I mean it's newer, it's allegedly more accurate. Why not?

...why keep pretending as though Newton had gravitation correct AND pretend that general relativity doesn't disprove Newtonian gravitational theory?

In your computer models, at what speed does gravity propagate? Does it push or does it pull? If you model the sun and Neptune, does it take gravity a ponderous 4 hours and 10 mins for gravity to reach Neptune? ...or does it happen instantanously?

Surely we can agree that gravity CANNOT possibly function as Newton proposed AND travel at the snails pace known as "C".
 

EricTheCat

Gold Member
Gold Chaser
Midas Supporter
GIM Hall Of Fame
Joined
Apr 2, 2010
Messages
1,574
Likes
3,889
Location
Southern MN
So essentially you're okay with disregarding the problematic portions of Newtonian gravitational theory due to expedience. That's awesome...for you, but it's not very scientific. As soon as the problems with it are mentioned you immediately jumped to general relativity...but you don't use that instead? How come? I mean it's newer, it's allegedly more accurate. Why not?
How many times do I have to tell you? It is simpler not to include relativity. I did not require the accuracy that relativity would require. Also for simplicity I allow gravity to travel at an infinite speed. Again, for simplicity. I did not need that kind of accuracy.

When cutting a board do you try to get the length accurate down to the atom? Why not?

If I did not need that level of accuracy why would I take the time to make it more complicated and slower to run? The only reason I can see doing so, and I very well may some day, is to compare the two. I saved some precious time by not making my program more accurate than it needed to be.

You're practically asking me why I don't measure with a micrometer when I am marking with a chalk and cutting with an ax.

Sure it may be more scientifically accurate if I used relativity and that would be cool. I may do that some day. The reality though is in my simulation, I don't need anything more accurate than 1 pixel at a given display scale.
 

solarion

Midas Member
Midas Member
Sr Site Supporter
Joined
Nov 25, 2013
Messages
6,364
Likes
9,204
You told me...it's simpler and not scientific...got it. Now would you mind answering the questions I asked?
In your computer models, at what speed does gravity propagate? Does it push or does it pull? If you model the sun and Neptune, does it take gravity a ponderous 4 hours and 10 mins for gravity to reach Neptune? ...or does it happen instantanously?
I mean if you're going to model the universe on Newtonian gravitational theory, then clearly you must ignore general relativity and it's "universal speed limit", so I'm curious if gravity has a speed limit in your not scientific models.
 

EricTheCat

Gold Member
Gold Chaser
Midas Supporter
GIM Hall Of Fame
Joined
Apr 2, 2010
Messages
1,574
Likes
3,889
Location
Southern MN
You told me...it's simpler and not scientific...got it. Now would you mind answering the questions I asked?

I mean if you're going to model the universe on Newtonian gravitational theory, then clearly you must ignore general relativity and it's "universal speed limit", so I'm curious if gravity has a speed limit in your not scientific models.
I did answer that question. It propagates at an infinite speed. Using your value, in 4 hours and 10 minutes, according to my quick calculations Neptune would have moved a whopping .000288% of its orbit around the sun in that time.

So maybe I'll "fix" my program for that inaccuracy and I could show you just how many pixels it changes in a given simulation time. Hint: it will not be significant at the scale of my display. Probably would have to let it run for a very long time before there is any discernible difference.

Hence why I simplified my program.

When you cut wood do you make sure to cut its length accurate down to the atom? It's easy to be a back-seat criticizer when you're not the one who took the time to write the code!
 

Joe King

Midas Member
Midas Member
Site Supporter ++
Joined
Mar 31, 2010
Messages
9,996
Likes
11,291
Location
Instant Gratification Land
That's awesome...for you, but it's not very scientific.
Says the anti-science guy! Lol



How many times do I have to tell you?
At least a googleplex plus one, number of times.



Now would you mind answering the questions I asked?
What an arrogant @#$&! How dare you demand others answer your questions, when for pages you've been ignoring everyone else's questions!

You don't have the Right to demand anything.
 

Zed

Intergalactic Chart Arse
Midas Member
Site Supporter ++
Joined
Mar 30, 2010
Messages
15,811
Likes
14,787
Location
Just behind you.
Very useful post foolsgold. Thanks. If I'm an idiot and you're not then you should find my questions easy peasy. How about answering

Rich! Coming from you!
 

Joe King

Midas Member
Midas Member
Site Supporter ++
Joined
Mar 31, 2010
Messages
9,996
Likes
11,291
Location
Instant Gratification Land
Rich! Coming from you!
Ain't it though?!?

I sure hope everyone can see just how dishonest he is in his discourse with others.
.....but if he is willing to risk all credibility by going to the lengths he has, simply to cling to silly delusions about the shape of the Earth, he deserves to lose credibility!
 

solarion

Midas Member
Midas Member
Sr Site Supporter
Joined
Nov 25, 2013
Messages
6,364
Likes
9,204
Percent of its orbit? Is that some kind of nerd humor? What is Neptune and it's 13 moons doing while it waits for slow ass gravity to get there from the sun? Newtonian gravitational theory has no time element because it simply could not work with a speed limit. Earth is 500 light seconds from the sun...what happens if we delete Newton's instantaneous propagation from that? 67k mph into the moon perhaps? This stuff is ridiculous.

I never criticized your program, I asked a simple question...I criticized your religion.

Newtonian gravitational theory is provably WRONG. I don't care if you choose to use it in your program...just don't tell me it's a "rudimentary" version of general relativity...it isn't.
 

EricTheCat

Gold Member
Gold Chaser
Midas Supporter
GIM Hall Of Fame
Joined
Apr 2, 2010
Messages
1,574
Likes
3,889
Location
Southern MN
Percent of its orbit was relatively easy to calculate quickly. Sure I could have calculated out the exact minuscule difference in angle I would have on the vector between Neptune and the sun for use in the equation. Not really worth my time. Perhaps you would like to do that math and report back your findings?

I could make my program several times more complicated to gain an imperceptible amount of accuracy. Not sure why you think it would be worth my time. If that's what you wanna cling to, that's fine. I didn't do any of this to impress you. You haven't yet told me a simpler way to get results as (or more) accurate. Only pointed out how I could make it more complicated to gain an imperceptible amount of accuracy.

Why exactly should I take my time to do that?
 

solarion

Midas Member
Midas Member
Sr Site Supporter
Joined
Nov 25, 2013
Messages
6,364
Likes
9,204
Percent of its orbit was relatively easy to calculate quickly. Sure I could have calculated out the exact minuscule difference in angle I would have on the vector between Neptune and the sun for use in the equation. Not really worth my time. Perhaps you would like to do that math and report back your findings?

I could make my program several times more complicated to gain an imperceptible amount of accuracy. Not sure why you think it would be worth my time. If that's what you wanna cling to, that's fine. I didn't do any of this to impress you. You haven't yet told me a simpler way to get results as (or more) accurate. Only pointed out how I could make it more complicated to gain an imperceptible amount of accuracy.

Why exactly should I take my time to do that?
You can take the time to do anything you wish. You're making this into a critique of YOUR program, because I asked a simple question about it.

Enjoy your program, I hope it pleases you immensely.

Doesn't change snot about how effed up your view of gravitational theory is though. ...but hey enjoy your religion too bud. It's perfectly normal for people today to not understand a damn thing about the two competing mainstream gravitational theories. It's also normal for people to get pissy when you question the two theories that are supposedly one.

Who exactly is it that's making a complete mockery of scientific methodology again? Suggest you sprinkle some dark matter on the problem...it'll patch it right up.
 

EricTheCat

Gold Member
Gold Chaser
Midas Supporter
GIM Hall Of Fame
Joined
Apr 2, 2010
Messages
1,574
Likes
3,889
Location
Southern MN
I get why you asked the questions. It just seems like you think the difference in results would be huge between the two models when in reality it is almost imperceptible and wouldn't even cross 1 pixel at the display scale being used. Let's pretend I had done that, let's pretend I have it working with relativistic gravity. What then would be your complaint?
 

solarion

Midas Member
Midas Member
Sr Site Supporter
Joined
Nov 25, 2013
Messages
6,364
Likes
9,204
My complaint has nothing whatsoever to do with your 1 pixel change in your program. Don't care how you use your program bro.

My complaint has to do with the way you and others treat gravitational theory. Again, the reason there is no time element in Newton's theory of universal gravitation is because it wouldn't work with one. People have tried for centuries to add a "speed limit" ...tried and failed.

To comply with legitimate scientific methodology it must be allowed to DIE. ...but it isn't allowed to die is it? Instead mainstream scientists do constantly what you just did...they try to pretend the TWO competing mainstream theories are ONE theory. They do this while ignoring the numerous conflicts between the two theories and pretend they're still scientists with a single shred of objectivity. That's what's making a mockery of science...mainstream scientists not showing a shred of interest in scientific methodology. Holding onto this rubbish isn't "protecting" science...it's trashing it.
 

Zed

Intergalactic Chart Arse
Midas Member
Site Supporter ++
Joined
Mar 30, 2010
Messages
15,811
Likes
14,787
Location
Just behind you.
@EricTheCat the problem is he assumes that he understands what you believe without taking the time to actually understand what you believe.

I think most here know that there are issues with the understanding of gravity but for our purposes so far the existing understanding has worked well.
 

newmisty

Splodey-Headed
Midas Member
Site Supporter ++
Joined
Mar 31, 2010
Messages
28,242
Likes
42,085
Location
Qmerica
Ain't it though?!?

I sure hope everyone can see just how dishonest he is in his discourse with others.
.....but if he is willing to risk all credibility by going to the lengths he has, simply to cling to silly delusions about the shape of the Earth, he deserves to lose credibility!
Yes I learned that trying to have a rational discussion with him in another one of these wonderful threads.
 

EricTheCat

Gold Member
Gold Chaser
Midas Supporter
GIM Hall Of Fame
Joined
Apr 2, 2010
Messages
1,574
Likes
3,889
Location
Southern MN
I kind of get where sol is coming from. There is a lot to learn about gravity. I stated multiple times I don't claim to know why what we call gravity exists.

The fact is you can make basic predictions using Newtonian math or make more accurate predictions by using Relativistic equations and maybe there is something better. There's nothing wrong with a simplified model for certain applications.

No matter which you use, they work very well predicting Lunar Eclipses, Solar Eclipses, comet orbits, asteroid orbits, meteor showers (when we pass through the orbits). The math works very well.

Or is it all just a big screen TV? :D
 

EricTheCat

Gold Member
Gold Chaser
Midas Supporter
GIM Hall Of Fame
Joined
Apr 2, 2010
Messages
1,574
Likes
3,889
Location
Southern MN
General submission to the thread. Here is a fun experiment you can try yourself. Put a globe in the sun. Orient the globe so that your location is at the very top of the globe. Aim it as close as you can get to true North keeping your current location at the top of the globe. Now you can predict where the sun is up and where its down and where the sunrises and sunsets are all over the globe.
Globe-2020-02-11-Img_2001S.jpg
 

foolsgold

Platinum Bling
Sr Site Supporter
Platinum Bling
Joined
Mar 31, 2010
Messages
4,223
Likes
4,664
General submission to the thread. Here is a fun experiment you can try yourself. Put a globe in the sun. Orient the globe so that your location is at the very top of the globe. Aim it as close as you can get to true North keeping your current location at the top of the globe. Now you can predict where the sun is up and where its down and where the sunrises and sunsets are all over the globe.
View attachment 154142
There you go with that common sense stuff, so annoying. /sarc
 

Joe King

Midas Member
Midas Member
Site Supporter ++
Joined
Mar 31, 2010
Messages
9,996
Likes
11,291
Location
Instant Gratification Land
I kind of get where sol is coming from. There is a lot to learn about gravity. I stated multiple times I don't claim to know why what we call gravity exists.
The only reason he's making such a huge issue out newtownian gravity, is to have an excuse to say that the Earth cannot be a round spherical object. He himself has posted that for that to be would require gravity.
....and if having gravity says the Earth is round, well, no self respecting flat Earther would ever acknowledge anything that demonstrates that as fact. Lol

Which is why he cannot bring himself to respond to my question about that pic of Chicago. If he accepts that the water blocks the view of the lower portions of those buildings, his whole argument goes out the window.
Which is why I've been hammering it home. I'd like to destroy the flat Earth disease. It's mind pollution.
 

newmisty

Splodey-Headed
Midas Member
Site Supporter ++
Joined
Mar 31, 2010
Messages
28,242
Likes
42,085
Location
Qmerica
The only reason he's making such a huge issue out newtownian gravity, is to have an excuse to say that the Earth cannot be a round spherical object. He himself has posted that for that to be would require gravity.
....and if having gravity says the Earth is round, well, no self respecting flat Earther would ever acknowledge anything that demonstrates that as fact. Lol

Which is why he cannot bring himself to respond to my question about that pic of Chicago. If he accepts that the water blocks the view of the lower portions of those buildings, his whole argument goes out the window.
Which is why I've been hammering it home. I'd like to destroy the flat Earth disease. It's mind pollution.
And vehemently avoided the question about circum-navigation.
 

newmisty

Splodey-Headed
Midas Member
Site Supporter ++
Joined
Mar 31, 2010
Messages
28,242
Likes
42,085
Location
Qmerica
And vehemently avoided the question about circum-navigation.
This is my favorite Sol dodge regarding explaining circumnavigation...
.No, I'm not particularly interested in your anecdotal story about your sailing. If you think it proves the Earth is a giant water covered space fruit then good on you
 

Joe King

Midas Member
Midas Member
Site Supporter ++
Joined
Mar 31, 2010
Messages
9,996
Likes
11,291
Location
Instant Gratification Land
And vehemently avoided the question about circum-navigation.
That too. Or really, anything that definitively shows that the Earth's surface is in fact curved in a manner consistent with that of a spherical shaped object 24,901 miles in circumference.
...but that's what the flat Earth cult will do to ones ability to think objectively.
 

Zed

Intergalactic Chart Arse
Midas Member
Site Supporter ++
Joined
Mar 30, 2010
Messages
15,811
Likes
14,787
Location
Just behind you.
 

Joe King

Midas Member
Midas Member
Site Supporter ++
Joined
Mar 31, 2010
Messages
9,996
Likes
11,291
Location
Instant Gratification Land
Yes I learned that trying to have a rational discussion with him in another one of these wonderful threads.
Here's a good example. Back on page 5 he said this discussion is all about the shape of the Earth. No mention of the word gravity.
https://www.goldismoney2.com/threads/200-proofs-earth-is-not-a-spinning-ball.320287/post-1793193
We're discussing the mainstream scientific version of Earth. The official shape of Earth

But now, gravity is all he thinks it's about. Lol
I make lots of on topic posts about the ridiculousness of gravitational theory and you geniuses just ignore them.

The following is why he cannot "see" or respond to anything that demonstrates curvature. He admits that it would destroy his entire argument.

The shape of Earth...specifically a spheroid 24,901 miles in circumference is absolutely not possible without gravitational accretion to form
Huh? You all over the map sol. Lol

I thought you said the following?

The Earth is round.
If you say so, I suppose it is.





Is this the end of the thread? Probably won't be, but it should be. Lol