![[Most Recent Quotes from www.kitco.com]](http://www.kitconet.com/images/sp_en_6.gif)
200 Proofs Earth is Not a Spinning Ball
- Thread starter BarnacleBob
- Start date
I think this is just more a symptom of the breakdown of beliefs. When you start to question something that you had fervently believed it can wreak havoc in your mind. Nothing seems real anymore and I think it leads some to just not beleive in ANYTHING.
I think there are two seperate arguements here:
Complex Theory => Gravity - certainly far from proven and has problems. Heck we don't even know what space is or is not yet. Is it empty or not?
Simple Theory => The Earth is basically a big round ball. That is easily proven and observable.
Just because we can't completely explain the theory of why the Earth and other objects form generally round balls does not make them triangles. We simple need more work on the complex theories of how the shapes form.
I think there are two seperate arguements here:
Complex Theory => Gravity - certainly far from proven and has problems. Heck we don't even know what space is or is not yet. Is it empty or not?
Simple Theory => The Earth is basically a big round ball. That is easily proven and observable.
Just because we can't completely explain the theory of why the Earth and other objects form generally round balls does not make them triangles. We simple need more work on the complex theories of how the shapes form.
I've had a theory that this is where the misuse of science to support various political and profit agendas will lead. We are told "the science is in", it is "a fact" etc... while in reality science doesn't work that way and never has. The people, being less than educated about scientific method, simply want an answer. When too many "answers" turn out to be wrong or flawed they in turn start to question EVERYTHING and in turn misunderstand it all because of their level of education.
"Science" needed to do a better PR job and set expectations more realistically rather than constantly trying to scare us into funding this or that pet project or flog us some hyper marked-up $$$$$ pill to cure things that they can't really cure. etc...
To me this is symptom of a foreseeable reaction that came about because of mismatched expectations (scientists v public) due to the "over sell" of science's abilities. I probably hold the "middle men" more accountable than the scientists. Al Gore did no one save himself any favors.... etc, etc...
"Science" needed to do a better PR job and set expectations more realistically rather than constantly trying to scare us into funding this or that pet project or flog us some hyper marked-up $$$$$ pill to cure things that they can't really cure. etc...
To me this is symptom of a foreseeable reaction that came about because of mismatched expectations (scientists v public) due to the "over sell" of science's abilities. I probably hold the "middle men" more accountable than the scientists. Al Gore did no one save himself any favors.... etc, etc...
No one is upset because of you and arminius and bob questioning stuff.
The issue is you and theirs seeming inability to be able to look at a pic and attempt to explain, based upon your theory, of why we see what we see in the pic.
I mean, f dude, it's your pic that you posted and said that it proves the Earth's surface has no curvature.
....but somehow now is something you can't bring yourself to look at.
I find it utterly and completely bizarre that you seem to be going through life with blinders on. Because when your beliefs require you to ignore any and all evidence to the contrary, it signifies a problem with the beliefs.
Shit that's observable and therefor real, should be explainable by your theory.
....and that's all anyone is asking of you. After all, you are the one proclaiming that everyone else is wrong. So how is it unreasonable to ask you to explain observable phenomenon?
You and @arminius are the only ones doing that. He only chimes in to hurl insults and you ignore all credible evidence that you might be wrong. Ie: same thing half the women in the World do in an argument.
The issue is you and theirs seeming inability to be able to look at a pic and attempt to explain, based upon your theory, of why we see what we see in the pic.
I mean, f dude, it's your pic that you posted and said that it proves the Earth's surface has no curvature.
....but somehow now is something you can't bring yourself to look at.
I find it utterly and completely bizarre that you seem to be going through life with blinders on. Because when your beliefs require you to ignore any and all evidence to the contrary, it signifies a problem with the beliefs.
Shit that's observable and therefor real, should be explainable by your theory.
....and that's all anyone is asking of you. After all, you are the one proclaiming that everyone else is wrong. So how is it unreasonable to ask you to explain observable phenomenon?
You and @arminius are the only ones doing that. He only chimes in to hurl insults and you ignore all credible evidence that you might be wrong. Ie: same thing half the women in the World do in an argument.
Must be some sort of inbred nature of mine; I shop goodwill looking through the cast off junk for something that I need, if I happen to be at a garbage dump I look around for useful items that have been discarded, driving on the highway I keep my eyes open for road kill that might be useful, and, while perusing threads like this I frequently find gems like this:
BF
Gives me a peaceful, warm feeling to come across little tidbits like this. Akin to that feeling you get when you piss yer pants.
BF
- Joined
- Nov 25, 2013
- Messages
- 8,236
- Likes
- 14,000
Here's an expert on gravity...telling you EVERYTHING he knows about what gravity is...
Hey, let's build an entire model of the universe around this 500 year old theory that nobody knows a god damn thing about and call it "science".
Do you need your 500 year old dual provably WRONG theories to explain why your microphone falls to the ground? ...or can you do that with simple mathematics and NOT invent horseshit gravitational theory? ...well yes, but then what would we all brainwash kids with?
Hey, let's build an entire model of the universe around this 500 year old theory that nobody knows a god damn thing about and call it "science".
Do you need your 500 year old dual provably WRONG theories to explain why your microphone falls to the ground? ...or can you do that with simple mathematics and NOT invent horseshit gravitational theory? ...well yes, but then what would we all brainwash kids with?
- Joined
- Dec 16, 2019
- Messages
- 1,926
- Likes
- 5,072
You do not need to understand "GRAVITY" in order to observe and model its effects. When estimating where a projectile lands when fired from an initial height, angle, velocity, crosswinds, etc., you need a gravitational component to predict where it will land, if you want to find it again.
Observation and experimentation is how we have built up the body of knowledge (science) we have. Sometimes we go back to the drawing board.
I think the Primer Fields Theory has more to add to this discussion than most would think. You would have to be willing to sit through a few hours of video instruction to possibly increase you science (knowledge). It's worth doing, though.
Observation and experimentation is how we have built up the body of knowledge (science) we have. Sometimes we go back to the drawing board.
I think the Primer Fields Theory has more to add to this discussion than most would think. You would have to be willing to sit through a few hours of video instruction to possibly increase you science (knowledge). It's worth doing, though.
- Joined
- Dec 16, 2019
- Messages
- 1,926
- Likes
- 5,072
Nah, just the effect of gravity.
Interestingly enough, your suggestion is even more important when an orbital vehicle is falling back to the earth and they want to land in a specific location.
Last edited:
- Joined
- Mar 30, 2010
- Messages
- 13,468
- Likes
- 16,993
- Joined
- Nov 25, 2013
- Messages
- 8,236
- Likes
- 14,000
You don't actually. You need only the mathematics that apply to the reality one observes on Earth...that's simple mathematics and it doesn't require one to create a flawed provably wrong "universal law" of gravitation that includes instantaneous propagation.
The whole mess is completely unscientific. Provably wrong theories are discarded every day via proper scientific methodology, why is this one treated as though it's a religion unto itself?
The whole mess is completely unscientific. Provably wrong theories are discarded every day via proper scientific methodology, why is this one treated as though it's a religion unto itself?
Nice try, but your submission will still be rejected by the flat Earth brigade.
Their "out" is that they say the Sun is only 3000 miles above the surface, and on a flat Earth, the same effect would be observed. Ie: the stick closer to being directly under the Sun that is only 3000 miles above a flat Earth would in fact have a shorter shadow.
The experiment in the vid works for us round Earthers because we are in agreement that the Sun is in fact 93 million miles away, not a mere 3000 miles.
....and since a flat Earther is incapable of knowing the actual distance to the Sun without measuring it themselves, they'll never believe that it is 93 million miles away. Because to believe that, destroys their wack flat Earth famtasies, and they can't have that.
They come to conclusions first, then look for supporting evidence while ignoring all evidence to the contrary.
Ie: put their bull caacaa carrying cart before the horse.
That's why none of them can truly see that pic I keep posting. To objectively look at that pic destroys their whole argument. They'd be forced to admit being wrong.
....and the kicker is that a flat Earther is who originally posted that pic as "proof" of a flat Earth, but is now incapable of seeing it. I don't know about anyone else, but I find that to be incredibly funny.
@solarion , again I thank you for posting that pic! Thanks buddy!
Their "out" is that they say the Sun is only 3000 miles above the surface, and on a flat Earth, the same effect would be observed. Ie: the stick closer to being directly under the Sun that is only 3000 miles above a flat Earth would in fact have a shorter shadow.
The experiment in the vid works for us round Earthers because we are in agreement that the Sun is in fact 93 million miles away, not a mere 3000 miles.
....and since a flat Earther is incapable of knowing the actual distance to the Sun without measuring it themselves, they'll never believe that it is 93 million miles away. Because to believe that, destroys their wack flat Earth famtasies, and they can't have that.
They come to conclusions first, then look for supporting evidence while ignoring all evidence to the contrary.
Ie: put their bull caacaa carrying cart before the horse.
That's why none of them can truly see that pic I keep posting. To objectively look at that pic destroys their whole argument. They'd be forced to admit being wrong.
....and the kicker is that a flat Earther is who originally posted that pic as "proof" of a flat Earth, but is now incapable of seeing it. I don't know about anyone else, but I find that to be incredibly funny.
@solarion , again I thank you for posting that pic! Thanks buddy!
Last edited:
- Joined
- Nov 25, 2013
- Messages
- 8,236
- Likes
- 14,000
“To say that a stone falls to Earth because it is obeying a law makes it a man and even a citizen.” -C. S. Lewis
"Science at its best is an open-minded method of inquiry, not a belief system." ~ Rupert Sheldrake
"Science at its best is an open-minded method of inquiry, not a belief system." ~ Rupert Sheldrake
Last edited:
BarnacleBob
Moderator, Equal opportunity annoyer!
Founding Member
Site Mgr
Site Supporter
GIM Hall Of Fame
Gravity is not uniform. It varies geographically.
As this map of Bouguer's gravity anomaly shows, the pull of the earth varies considerably by region.
https://bigthink.com/strange-maps/g...book=1&utm_source=Facebook#Echobox=1582795549
As this map of Bouguer's gravity anomaly shows, the pull of the earth varies considerably by region.
https://bigthink.com/strange-maps/g...book=1&utm_source=Facebook#Echobox=1582795549
It's not because the Earth ain't round, but rather because the matter that make up the Earth is not uniform in density.
....and no response to this reply?
https://www.goldismoney2.com/threads/200-proofs-earth-is-not-a-spinning-ball.320287/post-1821460
....and no response to this reply?
https://www.goldismoney2.com/threads/200-proofs-earth-is-not-a-spinning-ball.320287/post-1821460
- Joined
- Mar 31, 2010
- Messages
- 6,239
- Likes
- 4,835
You do not need to understand "GRAVITY" in order to observe and model its effects. When estimating where a projectile lands when fired from an initial height, angle, velocity, crosswinds, etc., you need a gravitational component to predict where it will land, if you want to find it again.
Observation and experimentation is how we have built up the body of knowledge (science) we have. Sometimes we go back to the drawing board.
I think the Primer Fields Theory has more to add to this discussion than most would think. You would have to be willing to sit through a few hours of video instruction to possibly increase you science (knowledge). It's worth doing, though.
Observation and experimentation is how we have built up the body of knowledge (science) we have. Sometimes we go back to the drawing board.
I think the Primer Fields Theory has more to add to this discussion than most would think. You would have to be willing to sit through a few hours of video instruction to possibly increase you science (knowledge). It's worth doing, though.
Do you know how anti-gravity technology works? It has to do with manipulating the electromagnetic field.