• "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

michael59

heads up-butts down
Sr Site Supporter
Platinum Bling
Joined
Apr 1, 2014
Messages
11,413
Likes
7,444
Location
on the low side of corporate Oregon
Well, well, well now truth be told if I drank something 200 proofs I would not care if the earth was flat at all but I know I would be spinning. Just thought I would point that out as it is sort of in the title.

So since all this flat earth round earth controversy I have finally called in to question my sensibilities for not noticing a strange occurrence in the rising of the moon. I mean when it is not raining and obscured by cloud cover. I mean I have seen this all my life but as of late I just got to thinking of it. It seems the moon doth riseth in different locations and sometimes it even races across the night sky and some times it is like it is on the back of a turtle.

I have never done any checking on exactly where it comes up relevant to the year and the geographical location of where I live all I have noticed is the windows wherein I can see it rising. I have two windows which are center to center about 7 feet apart and most of the time I see the moon it is in the northeast window but other times it is in the southeast window.

Well it most likely is just me but I am thinking I need to do a wood henge with some surveyors sticks.
 

solarion

Midas Member
Midas Member
Sr Site Supporter
Joined
Nov 25, 2013
Messages
6,910
Likes
10,839
Don't forget the asteroid belt where the missing planet is...don't forget also to put uranus on its side as its axial tilt is NINETY-EIGHT degrees. Don't forget either that ALL the planets have an axial tilt that differs from the star called sol. This despite the fact that all of the planets and Sol were allegedly created from a single flat disc of material through an un-repeatable & un-verifyable process called "gravitational accretion".

Essentially what you posted is a cartoon fiction...just not...only...for the reasons you think.

Take what you THINK you know about the universe and study it in depth and you'll find that you actually "know" very little...and believe a whole lot.
 

foolsgold

Platinum Bling
Sr Site Supporter
Platinum Bling
Joined
Mar 31, 2010
Messages
4,539
Likes
5,583
Yes all knowing solarion it is as you command. Nobody knows better than you.
 

solarion

Midas Member
Midas Member
Sr Site Supporter
Joined
Nov 25, 2013
Messages
6,910
Likes
10,839
Awww...shucks...thank you, fool-sgold but I don't know all. As ever if you dispute what I said you're welcome to challenge any of it.

What is it I "commanded" btw? The cartoon remains unchanged, so apparently my so called "commands" don't count for much.
 

chieftain

Silver Miner
Joined
Jan 4, 2020
Messages
1,804
Likes
2,567
What makes more sense, the sun and the other planets of the solar system are flat circular surfaces always facing the flat circular surface of the Earth or the sun and it's planets are spheroidal...
 

solarion

Midas Member
Midas Member
Sr Site Supporter
Joined
Nov 25, 2013
Messages
6,910
Likes
10,839
Is that obviously binary question directed at me specifically?

Do I get to question the size of the spheroid(s) in question or do you have some binary choices provided for me there too?

Do you believe it's possible for alleged dust and gas to somehow accrete into a planetesimal? If so, how? What's the mechanism that makes that happen...and why cannot it be demonstrated in a lab? Is it because gravity is kinda shy?

1580515585081.png


Cartoonz iz fun...I find.
 
Last edited:

Uglytruth

Midas Member
Midas Member
Site Supporter ++
Joined
Apr 6, 2011
Messages
11,250
Likes
21,673
Is that obviously binary question directed at me specifically?

Do I get to question the size of the spheroid(s) in question or do you have some binary choices provided for me there too?

Do you believe it's possible for alleged dust and gas to somehow accrete into a planetesimal? If so, how? What's the mechanism that makes that happen...and why cannot it be demonstrated in a lab? Is it because gravity is kinda shy?

View attachment 153050

Cartoonz iz fun...I find.
Sure because you would be digging at the bottom of the hole! But then there is that darn gravity thing..........
 

chieftain

Silver Miner
Joined
Jan 4, 2020
Messages
1,804
Likes
2,567
My question wasn't directed at anyone in particular, just a general question. But I do have to ask solarion, why is it being a binary question an issue?
 

Voodoo

Gold Member
Gold Chaser
Site Supporter
Joined
Mar 31, 2010
Messages
2,198
Likes
2,913
Location
Deep Underground Bunker
Don't forget the asteroid belt where the missing planet is...don't forget also to put uranus on its side as its axial tilt is NINETY-EIGHT degrees. Don't forget either that ALL the planets have an axial tilt that differs from the star called sol. This despite the fact that all of the planets and Sol were allegedly created from a single flat disc of material through an un-repeatable & un-verifyable process called "gravitational accretion".

Essentially what you posted is a cartoon fiction...just not...only...for the reasons you think.

Take what you THINK you know about the universe and study it in depth and you'll find that you actually "know" very little...and believe a whole lot.
That is true we still have much to learn. But we can start with the obvious observable and predictable things like we are living on a big round ball.
 

Zed

The Bullish Bear.
Midas Member
Site Supporter ++
GIM Hall Of Fame
Joined
Mar 30, 2010
Messages
17,950
Likes
18,477
Location
Watching the Sideshow!
Here's something that makes a difference. The pic of Chicago that you posted that you thought proves that the Earth's surface has no curvature.
....but now that it's been shown to prove you wrong, you have to ignore it. Lol lol lol lol

View attachment 150752

Pretty funny that virtually everyone else reading this thread can easily see that you are wrong.
Lol lol lol




How far one can see to the horizon all depends upon how high above sea level the persons eye is.
It's entirely possible that zed can see a horizon that far away. He did say, "when sailng". Which implies that he's on a boat at the time.
The horizon is approx 3 miles away for a person of average height when standing @sea level. Depending on just how big of a boat he is talking about, he could be substantially above that height, which would make his horizon substantially further away than 3 miles.

He also said, "lose sight of big ships".

"Big ship" implies that it sticks up above the surface by quite a bit, and would therefor be visible for a good distance beyond his horizon.

Kinda like how the horizon in your pic is about 5 miles out, but DT Chicago's tall buildings are visible above it.
I'd be talking eye level in the 10' to 12' over the water assuming about 6' of height standing and the bridge of the ship can be 100' give or take 25' depending on the vessel (educated guess) so plugin those estimates and I would think from experience you'd be in the 10 to 14 mile range or so.
 

Zed

The Bullish Bear.
Midas Member
Site Supporter ++
GIM Hall Of Fame
Joined
Mar 30, 2010
Messages
17,950
Likes
18,477
Location
Watching the Sideshow!
Are you saying that, with the naked eye you can see objects at up to 10 nautical miles? ...ummm...roughly 11.5 statute? Do you mean you can see all of these large ships or just portions of them? What happens when you employ optics?

While people don't often consider it, 11.5 statute miles on the surface of a spheroid...even one the dimensions the Earth is claimed to be is actually quite a distance as geometry can quickly demonstrate.

11.5*11.5*8 = 1055(inches)

Now while that doesn't include observer height...you mentioned sea level. It's still a long way to see when you're allegedly a spec on the surface of a giant spheroid. The spheroid itself will quickly obstruct your view...if you're on a giant spheroid.
Yes that is about right, when I say 'see' I mean become aware that it is there, ie seeing nav lights @ night or superstructure in the day. That is not seeing it clearly or in any detail. Of course atmospheric conditions and the ships colour can effect things, I am talking ideal conditions, it can be a lot less and with some ships traveling at speeds in the 20 knot range it isn't hard to be surprised by one if you are not vigilant.
 

Zed

The Bullish Bear.
Midas Member
Site Supporter ++
GIM Hall Of Fame
Joined
Mar 30, 2010
Messages
17,950
Likes
18,477
Location
Watching the Sideshow!
Suppose the earth is flat, what does the edge and the bottom look like and why have we never found them? The image just fuses my mind, I'm not sure how you make it make sense.
 

Joe King

Midas Member
Midas Member
Site Supporter ++
Joined
Mar 31, 2010
Messages
10,974
Likes
12,995
Location
Instant Gratification Land
I'd be talking eye level in the 10' to 12' over the water assuming about 6' of height standing and the bridge of the ship can be 100' give or take 25' depending on the vessel (educated guess) so plugin those estimates and I would think from experience you'd be in the 10 to 14 mile range or so.
I think it's closer to 20, maybe 25 mile range.
....but what makes it so easy to see that much of the buildings height is hidden from view by the horizon, is the very distinctive shape of Willis Tower. It gets narrower in steps as it gets taller and the height of each of those "steps" is known. So it becomes very easy to tell exactly how much of the building is hidden.
....and that amount is entirely consistent with the amount of curvature that should be between DT Chicago and Indiana Dunes park, if the Earth is a 25,000 mile circumference spheroid shaped object.

Anyone can use that pic to help them calculate Earth's curvature for themselves. Well, almost anyone. Lol
Which is why sol hates that pic. He posted it to "prove" the Earth is flat, but now has to ignore it, lest he has to admit he was wrong.
...but I am sincerely grateful that he posted it. Thanks again for posting it @solarion ! Awesome pic!

Suppose the earth is flat, what does the edge and the bottom look like and why have we never found them?
We haven't found them because it's impossible to find that which doesn't exist. Lol
 

solarion

Midas Member
Midas Member
Sr Site Supporter
Joined
Nov 25, 2013
Messages
6,910
Likes
10,839
But I do have to ask solarion, why is it being a binary question an issue?
For numerous reasons. Here are a few.
What makes more sense, the sun and the other planets of the solar system are flat circular surfaces always facing the flat circular surface of the Earth or the sun and it's planets are spheroidal...
"Makes more sense" isn't how science works. Science is an empirical process.
"the sun and the other planets of the solar system are..." Why must they "all" be anything? Again, preconceived notion to be accepted via blanket binary statement.

Humans KNOW of only one planet covered in water and teaming with life. When you're told to accept that Earth is simply another rock hurtling through alleged space/time at over 1,800,000 mph ...JUST like countless other rocks behaving similarly it completely devalues everything unique about THIS planet. Ya know the only planet in the known universe PROVEN to support life. Earth is not simply a spinning water pear hurtling through an endless void...it's the home of every human that has ever lived. It's the center of creation for humankind and as far as anyone can prove it's the home of 100% of the life in the universe...sentient and otherwise. Treating it otherwise is imo dangerous to human psyche.

YMMV.

Is it reasonable that the star called sol and the 8, 9, 10, xx planets in the sol-ar system are spheroids? Sure it's a reasonable conclusion. Is it possible that they're flat discs like the alleged disc that supposedly formed the sol-ar system? Yes it's possible. Certainly the nearest alleged floating rock to Earth maintains the same face toward Earth 100% of the time and has never rotated in recorded human history. Does that mean it's a flat disc? Nope. Does it mean it's a "tidal locked spheroid"? Nope.

The purpose of threads like this are to get people thinking about things they hold to be "facts" despite the FACT that they don't actually KNOW anything for certain. It's really just a belief structure and when challenged people react with anger. There's a reason why people here dislike these threads that question "scientific" dogma. I did not start this thread btw ...and I'm glad BB did. He's smart, he's wise AND he doesn't believe Earth is spherical OR flat.
 

solarion

Midas Member
Midas Member
Sr Site Supporter
Joined
Nov 25, 2013
Messages
6,910
Likes
10,839
Suppose the earth is flat, what does the edge and the bottom look like and why have we never found them? The image just fuses my mind, I'm not sure how you make it make sense.
It doesn't make sense.

...and the reason it doesn't make sense is because you've taken a tiny portion of one theory and crammed it into another theory. The cartoon up there is not even close to what any flat Earther I've ever interacted with believes...coincidentally it's also not even close to biblical tradition. The bible says the Earth is flat...yes, and it says the Earth has a dome(firmament) with water above and water below. IOW there is no "space/time" for so called "experts" to fill up with anything their wild imaginations can invent.

What's at the edge of Earth? I dunno, ...and I believe many flat Earthers would say "an ice wall".
What does the bottom of flat Earth look like? I dunno, ...and I believe many flat Earthers would say it looks like the pillars the bible claims god set Earth upon.

Perhaps you should ask some flat Earthers these questions if you'd like more elaborate answers. I'm not convinced Earth is flat. I'm convinced only that the story of Eratosthenes is complete rubbish, that NASA lies whenever they say anything, and that Earth is NOT a spheroid 24,901 miles in circumference.
 

arminius

Platinum Bling
Platinum Bling
Midas Supporter ++
Joined
Jun 6, 2011
Messages
5,700
Likes
8,309
and that Earth is NOT a spheroid 24,901 miles in circumference.
You know that I know that you know that you can't possibly know that.

What is knowing? :rotf:
 

DodgebyDave

Metal Messiah
Midas Member
Joined
Mar 30, 2010
Messages
12,773
Likes
15,483
Ice Wall? is that the idiots code for a "stares at their shoes" moment??!!
 

solarion

Midas Member
Midas Member
Sr Site Supporter
Joined
Nov 25, 2013
Messages
6,910
Likes
10,839
You know that I know that you know that you can't possibly know that.

What is knowing? :rotf:
Oddly that's the thing that is easiest to prove/disprove. If the surface of Earth does not conform to the exterior surface of a spheroid 7917 miles in diameter then it isn't that, but is instead some other shape/size. So does an observer on Earth observe what one would see if standing upon a spheroid 24,901 miles in circumference? My own research leads me to conclude the answer is definitively NO.

It's not a belief I obtained from others, it's knowledge I obtained via scientific experiment.

To me "knowing" or "science" is an empirical process...so to answer your question as bluntly as possible I know because I checked.
 

chieftain

Silver Miner
Joined
Jan 4, 2020
Messages
1,804
Likes
2,567
Occam's razor:

"Entities should not be multiplied without necessity."
 

solarion

Midas Member
Midas Member
Sr Site Supporter
Joined
Nov 25, 2013
Messages
6,910
Likes
10,839
If you're comfortable building your belief structure upon such a fundamentally simplistic concept, that's your prerogative. Again science is based upon empiricism.

Bill of Ockham was undoubtedly a smart man, yet somehow basing my entire belief structure around "entia non sunt multiplicanda praeter necessitatem” seems fatally flawed to me. I prefer to establish a base of knowledge via empiricism and build up from there.
 

Bottom Feeder

Hypophthalmichthys molitrix
Midas Member
Midas Supporter ++
Joined
Mar 31, 2010
Messages
11,333
Likes
21,959
Location
Plague world — still
Here, sol, let me address your hypothetical question.
  • Assuming the earth is spheroid
  • The hole has air all the way thru
  • You don't fry in the middle
  • Remember this is hypothetical...
But here's what would happen; terminal velocity at around 220 mph will limit your speed in a gravity assisted only fall. Your velocity after you pass the center of the earth will not be sufficient (speed should be close to escape velocity) to clear the surface on the other side so you will fall back towards the center. Back and forth you fall until you eventually coast to a stop in the center.

Kinda like so...
Hole Thru Earth.gif
 

Joe King

Midas Member
Midas Member
Site Supporter ++
Joined
Mar 31, 2010
Messages
10,974
Likes
12,995
Location
Instant Gratification Land
the nearest alleged floating rock to Earth maintains the same face toward Earth 100% of the time and has never rotated in recorded human history.
It rotates every 27 days. If it didn't, we would see the other side halfway through each cycle.

Does that mean it's a flat disc? Nope. Does it mean it's a "tidal locked spheroid"? Nope.
The fact it rotates once per cycle, proves it is tidealy locked.


It's really just a belief structure and when challenged people react with anger.
You're the only one who has reacted in anger. Especially when confronted with evidence that you can see will prove your ideas to be wrong.


If the surface of Earth does not conform to the exterior surface of a spheroid 7917 miles in diameter then it isn't that
However it does in fact conform to the exterior surface of a spheroid 7917 miles in diameter. Your pic of Chicago clearly demonstrates that fact.
....but you can't discuss it because you already realize that it proves you wrong. Can't have that, now can we? Lol lol lol
 

Joe King

Midas Member
Midas Member
Site Supporter ++
Joined
Mar 31, 2010
Messages
10,974
Likes
12,995
Location
Instant Gratification Land
In case anyone missed it, I'll post it again.
Is there anyone alive and reading who cannot see just how much of Willis Tower is hidden from view by the horizon? Anyone at all?

The superimposed pic of Willis Tower was taken from a boat just offshore of DT Chicago. The steps make it readily apparent that the images are lined up.

Again, is there anyone alive who cannot comprehend this?
Oh, and there are several buildings between the red arrows, but you cannot see them due to the fact that they are hidden behind the horizon.
So either there is curvature consistent with a round spheroid shaped Planet that is approx 25,000 miles in circumfrence, or downtown Chicago is under a shit ton of water. Which is it? Can't be both

Willis Tower 2665-2.jpg


Wide shot that was so kindly provided by @solarion . Thanks again man!

Willis Tower 2265.jpg
 
Last edited:

solarion

Midas Member
Midas Member
Sr Site Supporter
Joined
Nov 25, 2013
Messages
6,910
Likes
10,839
But here's what would happen; terminal velocity at around 220 mph will limit your speed in a gravity assisted only fall.
...and why is that? Newtonian gravitational theory holds that the gravitational force between two bodies is proportional to the product of their masses and inversely proportional to the square of the distance between them. So why do falling objects accelerate to 9.8m/s/s and then stop accelerating? That's a violation of Newton's "law" of universal gravitation's inverse squaring function.

Awesome that you believe it would act like a yo-yo in both directions. I really have no idea what would happen, but then I also believe that mainstream gravitational theory is complete and utter rubbish.
 

foolsgold

Platinum Bling
Sr Site Supporter
Platinum Bling
Joined
Mar 31, 2010
Messages
4,539
Likes
5,583
Amazing how they can predict Solar Eclipses. They must know a lot about this "pancake" flat Earth. Then they manage to keep this knowledge secret from the public, how devious and cunning they are.
 

Joe King

Midas Member
Midas Member
Site Supporter ++
Joined
Mar 31, 2010
Messages
10,974
Likes
12,995
Location
Instant Gratification Land
terminal velocity at around 220 mph will limit your speed in a gravity assisted only fall.
...and why is that?
Because air is thing and falling through it causes friction which limits how fast you can fall through it.



why do falling objects accelerate to 9.8m/s/s and then stop accelerating?

Per my understanding, each second in freefall results in the thing falling to fall 9.8 meters further than it fell in the previous second. For the duration of the fall.
Second #1, 9.8 meters
Second #2, 19.6 meters
Second #3, 29.4 meters
Second #4, 39.2 meters
Second #5, 49 meters
Second #6, 58.8 meters
Etc.
Etc.
Etc.

Edited to add: As for why 9.8 meters per second sqaured, it's because of the mass of the Earth. If it were more massive, that number would be higher than 9.8, and smaller if the Earth were smaller.
 
Last edited:

Zed

The Bullish Bear.
Midas Member
Site Supporter ++
GIM Hall Of Fame
Joined
Mar 30, 2010
Messages
17,950
Likes
18,477
Location
Watching the Sideshow!
So why do falling objects accelerate to 9.8m/s/s and then stop accelerating?
They accelerate at (not to, it is a rate) 9.8/s/s until they reach their terminal velocity which is determined by atmospheric resistance.
 

Zed

The Bullish Bear.
Midas Member
Site Supporter ++
GIM Hall Of Fame
Joined
Mar 30, 2010
Messages
17,950
Likes
18,477
Location
Watching the Sideshow!
Per my understanding, each second in freefall results in the thing falling to fall 9.8 meters further than it fell in the previous second. For the duration of the fall.
Second #1, 9.8 meters
Second #2, 19.6 meters
Second #3, 29.4 meters
Second #4, 39.2 meters
Second #5, 49 meters
Second #6, 58.8 meters
Etc.
Etc.
Etc.
If you removed the atmosphere that would be true. Terminal velocity is determined by form, mass etc. and it's ability to overcome atmospheric resistance.
 

solarion

Midas Member
Midas Member
Sr Site Supporter
Joined
Nov 25, 2013
Messages
6,910
Likes
10,839
If you removed the atmosphere that would be true.
Would it? What makes you think that? Have you ever tested it?

So when NASA allegedly has men standing on the moon dropping a feather and a hammer to demonstrate that objects on the moon fall at the same rate irrespective of "weight" what is that then? Same alleged "gravity", no real air sphere to provide resistance, differing mass, and yet...somehow they fall at the same rate. Which is in direct defiance of newtonian gravitational theory's inverse squaring function.


Did gravity forget it's supposed to have an inverse squaring function here? Is this guy actually on the moon...IYO? What do you suppose happened to gravity in this experiment? Did it have an off day?

The interesting thing about gravitational theory is everything about it always seems to be un-provable and un-disprovable by anyone on Earth. You cannot test gravitational accretion on Earth because reasons. You cannot test gravitational containment of gas pressure on Earth because reasons. You cannot test a rotating rock covered in water operating in a vacuum because reasons.

These are all things one must take on faith without the ability to confirm or deny one's self. From that standpoint gravitational theory has a whole lot more in common with religious dogma than it does anything to do with science(knowledge).

...and in Earth's alleged "gravity" allegedly in a vacuum chamber.


The speed at which these objects fall has nothing to do with "air resistance" in either of these demonstrations. The amount of alleged gravity SHOULD be different between the objects demonstrated in both of these experiments(differing mass) if Sir Isaac was correct in his universal law of gravitation...yet clearly this data contradicts his findings. Does that bother you?

It sure didn't seem to bother the astro-nots or brian cox. Do they not understand newtonian gravitational theory?
 
Last edited:

Joe King

Midas Member
Midas Member
Site Supporter ++
Joined
Mar 31, 2010
Messages
10,974
Likes
12,995
Location
Instant Gratification Land
yet...somehow they fall at the same rate. Which is in direct defiance of newtonian gravitational theory's inverse squaring function.
An expert on Newtonian gravity you obviously are not.
....but then that should be expected of one who believes that density is what causes things to fall.


Is this guy actually on the moon...IYO?
See, that's the problem. You can't allow yourself to accept the fact that he is on the Moon, so therefore in your view there has to be something wrong with the experiment.

The only thing wrong with that experiment is your understanding of it.


What do you suppose happened to gravity in this experiment? Did it have an off day?
Nothing happened to gravity. It worked the same that day as it does everyday.
It's your understanding of it that is having an off day.


The amount of alleged gravity SHOULD be different between the objects demonstrated in both of these experiments(differing mass) if Sir Isaac was correct in his universal law of gravitation...yet clearly this data contradicts his findings. Does that bother you?
So you honestly expect to see a difference in the rate at which those two objects are falling? Yes, their mass when compared to each other is very different, but when both are compared to the third object (the Earth) there is virtually no difference betwixt the two smaller objects. Hence, virtually all the gravitational attraction is supplied by the Earth and both objects fall towards it at the same rate.
....but you can't accept that , as you believe density is the only thing that makes something fall. Which is why you get confused when trying to use that flawed theory to explain why things act as they do.
 

Bottom Feeder

Hypophthalmichthys molitrix
Midas Member
Midas Supporter ++
Joined
Mar 31, 2010
Messages
11,333
Likes
21,959
Location
Plague world — still
Which is in direct defiance of newtonian gravitational theory's inverse squaring function.
Unh...
So far not good.
You're thinking mutual attraction between the objects, right? As in newtonian physics.
But the gravitational body (the moon in your "example") supplies 99.9999999999999% of the attraction while the objects (a hammer and a feather) supply 0.00000000000000001% of the mutual attraction. (Figures POOMA)

So with the dropped object supplying only an infinitesimally small portion of the mutual attraction why do you think you could visually observe a difference in their falling speed?

should I make a GIF for you?
BF
 

Joe King

Midas Member
Midas Member
Site Supporter ++
Joined
Mar 31, 2010
Messages
10,974
Likes
12,995
Location
Instant Gratification Land

solarion

Midas Member
Midas Member
Sr Site Supporter
Joined
Nov 25, 2013
Messages
6,910
Likes
10,839
How very convenient. So once again gravitational theory cannot be proven/disproven unless one is...ummm...well where must one be? To test this so called "science"?

I guess one can only test this theory if one is light years away from ANY alleged "interefering" gravitational "force". The same is true if one places a grain of sand next to a mountain and expects the huge mass of the mountain to "attract" the grain of sand. Gravity worshipers cry foul because...

"you cannot expect gravity to care about a piddly mountain when there's an entire Earth distracting it..."

ROFLMAO ...hey "science" is hard mang! There's always an excuse why gravity cannot be tested...scientifically. So how do you know then that gravity complies with inverse square laws at all? ...lemme guess...it's because someone told you so?

Therefore I've re-written Newtonian gravitational theory to account for this "new" revelation.

"ALL MASS attracts ALL OTHER MASS with a force that is the product of their masses and inversely proportional to the square of the distance between them...unless gravity sees a squirrel. ...and does so at infinite speed...again...unless distracted."

Great stuff in which to found a religion. Not so great as the foundation of a universal fundamental defining force according to scientific methodology.
 
Last edited:

Voodoo

Gold Member
Gold Chaser
Site Supporter
Joined
Mar 31, 2010
Messages
2,198
Likes
2,913
Location
Deep Underground Bunker
Unh...
So far not good.
You're thinking mutual attraction between the objects, right? As in newtonian physics.
But the gravitational body (the moon in your "example") supplies 99.9999999999999% of the attraction while the objects (a hammer and a feather) supply 0.00000000000000001% of the mutual attraction. (Figures POOMA)

So with the dropped object supplying only an infinitesimally small portion of the mutual attraction why do you think you could visually observe a difference in their falling speed?

should I make a GIF for you?
BF
This just goes back to my original point. These people are simply struggling with the concept of just how BIG this ball is on which we live.
 

Voodoo

Gold Member
Gold Chaser
Site Supporter
Joined
Mar 31, 2010
Messages
2,198
Likes
2,913
Location
Deep Underground Bunker
How very convenient. So once again gravitational theory cannot be proven/disproven unless one is...ummm...well where must one be? To test this so called "science"?

I guess one can only test this theory if one is light years away from ANY alleged "interefering" gravitational "force". The same is true if one places a grain of sand next to a mountain and expects the huge mass of the mountain to "attract" the grain of sand. Gravity worshipers cry foul because...

"you cannot expect gravity to care about a piddly mountain when there's an entire Earth distracting it..."

ROFLMAO ...hey "science" is hard mang! There's always an excuse why gravity cannot be tested...scientifically. So how do you know then that gravity complies with inverse square laws at all? ...lemme guess...it's because someone told you so?
You go sit under some apple trees while we shake them violently. How long before you get tired of apples hitting your head will it take to convince you of this force?
 

Bottom Feeder

Hypophthalmichthys molitrix
Midas Member
Midas Supporter ++
Joined
Mar 31, 2010
Messages
11,333
Likes
21,959
Location
Plague world — still
ROFLMAO ...hey "science" is hard mang! There's always an excuse why gravity cannot be tested...scientifically. So how do you know then that gravity complies with inverse square laws at all? ...lemme guess...it's because someone told you so?
Yes, I see now, I defer to your superior argument.
BF
 

solarion

Midas Member
Midas Member
Sr Site Supporter
Joined
Nov 25, 2013
Messages
6,910
Likes
10,839
Ah the ball is "big"! Sorry I forgot to account for the ball being "big". Ya know the sun is also "big" and newtonian gravitational theory says it steals Earth's moon because Earth isn't that "big" relative to the sun...but I guess gravity also has a sense of honor and wouldn't allow the sun to steal Earth's moon because that'd be wrong.

Thanks for entertaining guys. LOL

Can anyone come up with ANY way in which you or I can test gravitational theory? ...and yes I'm aware I can drop things. ...and no that doesn't prove gravity is a "universal force" or that mass causes "space/time" to warp.

I've already suggested we build scientific models to prove:

Gravitational accretion models in a lab. Nope can't cuz we can't make gravity work in a lab.
Gravitational containment of gas pressure in a lab. Nope can't cuz we can't make gravity work in a lab.
A rotating water covered rock operating in a vacuum. Nope can't cuz we can't make gravity work in a lab.

Do you know what it's called when an alleged scientific theory cannot be proven or disproven? ...well it ain't science.

I do apologize for insulting your religion though. I just think your religion sucks ass when it makes an absolute mockery of science. Perhaps if we simply sprinkle some dark matter on our lab first we can somehow get our own gravity to work properly? ...now how can we lay our hands on some dark matter when humans cannot detect it in any way, but can only allegedly observe its "effects" when it defies a theory we cannot prove or disprove? ROFLMAO
 
Last edited: