Theoretically, yes! If I had not known anything about gravity, then I would imagine there would be open to interpretation whether an object is pushed or pulled. But, of course, the cause of that force would require some sort of explanation.
Why is an invisible force, that no one can quite put their finger on, required to explain what we observe?
People constantly seek answers to the "why." Why the sky is blue, why grass grows, why it's easier to machine aluminum than titanium. Since the era of enlightenment man has sought out answers and explanations to why things behave the way they do. Because, ultimately, the more we learn how these forces and world works, the better we are at utilizing its resources most effectively.
Ancient romans sought explanations in force, gravity, and engineering to build aqueducts, giving us some of the earliest examples of modern plumbing. The ability to construct something like that requires the explanations of the things we observe. It requires a knowledge on how gravity and, subsequently, waterflow works to create that sort of system.
It's perfectly fine to accept things as "just is." Especially in the modern age, it's quite easy to get by without having every little thing explained. But exploring those forces, the shape of the earth, the reasons why the sun rises and falls, give us greater knowledge to harness the power to build great things.
the cause of that force would require some sort of explanation.
Agreed, I have issue with this as well. The downward bias of things cannot be fully explained by density. Sure, denser objects will fall perpendicular to the ground because what lies beneath them is less dense, but that is not the case in a vacuum, yet objects still fall as one would expect.
Excluding the theory of gravity, there are two ways (that I'm aware of) in which the downward bias could be explained (and demonstrated!):
Incoherent Electrostatic Acceleration
This is the idea that the Earth is negatively charged and positively charged particles are drawn to it. I can't do it justice in writing, so it's better you watch this two-part exposition:
This one is simple: the ground is accelerating upwards at a constant rate. Pretty ludicrous, yet, to my mind, still not as ludicrous as what the globe model proposes. Here's a demonstration (4m) of how this works.
If this were the case, why aren't negatively charged particles (such as electrons) repelled by the earth?
This explanation to me is incredibly ludicrous. Wouldn't planes have to continually rise in altitude when they take flight? What is propelling the ground to be rising at such a rate?
Honestly, for me, both of these explanations produce more questions than answers.
Regarding 1), it's explained in those clips, IIRC.
Wouldn't planes have to continually rise in altitude when they take flight?
No, that's handled by density/buoyancy and aerodynamics, I suppose. By the way, you could say the same thing about the globe, where planes fly in all directions relative to its spin, without ever accounting for it in any way; also, the atmosphere that's supposedly dragged along with the spin.
What is propelling the ground to be rising at such a rate?
Yeah, good question! Your guess is as good as mine. Again, you could say the same thing about Earth's constant acceleration around its axis. What causes/maintains that? Related video.
Either way, although intriguing, I personally don't see how any such forces would relate to Earth's surface being curved or not. That's directly observable by everyone.
Wouldn't planes have to continually rise in altitude when they take flight [if the surface of the earth is constantly accelerating upward]?
Buoyancy wouldn't explain that if the earth is moving up. That's what the basis of that question came from
Yeah, good question! Your guess is as good as mine.
So that's kind of where I have trouble. If there is no explanation beyond "the surface of the earth is moving upward" then I don't see how I can just accept that. Rather, for a globe model, at least there are answers to certain questions. These answers may not satisfy you, and that's fine, but at least there is an attempt at explanation.
These forces don't relate to the shape of the earth, but they require explanation on a flat earth model
Theoretically, yes! If I had not known anything about gravity, then I would imagine there would be open to interpretation whether an object is pushed or pulled. But, of course, the cause of that force would require some sort of explanation.
People constantly seek answers to the "why." Why the sky is blue, why grass grows, why it's easier to machine aluminum than titanium. Since the era of enlightenment man has sought out answers and explanations to why things behave the way they do. Because, ultimately, the more we learn how these forces and world works, the better we are at utilizing its resources most effectively.
Ancient romans sought explanations in force, gravity, and engineering to build aqueducts, giving us some of the earliest examples of modern plumbing. The ability to construct something like that requires the explanations of the things we observe. It requires a knowledge on how gravity and, subsequently, waterflow works to create that sort of system.
It's perfectly fine to accept things as "just is." Especially in the modern age, it's quite easy to get by without having every little thing explained. But exploring those forces, the shape of the earth, the reasons why the sun rises and falls, give us greater knowledge to harness the power to build great things.
Agreed, I have issue with this as well. The downward bias of things cannot be fully explained by density. Sure, denser objects will fall perpendicular to the ground because what lies beneath them is less dense, but that is not the case in a vacuum, yet objects still fall as one would expect.
Excluding the theory of gravity, there are two ways (that I'm aware of) in which the downward bias could be explained (and demonstrated!):
Incoherent Electrostatic Acceleration
This is the idea that the Earth is negatively charged and positively charged particles are drawn to it. I can't do it justice in writing, so it's better you watch this two-part exposition:
Upward Acceleration
This one is simple: the ground is accelerating upwards at a constant rate. Pretty ludicrous, yet, to my mind, still not as ludicrous as what the globe model proposes. Here's a demonstration (4m) of how this works.
I'm personally leaning towards 1).
If this were the case, why aren't negatively charged particles (such as electrons) repelled by the earth?
This explanation to me is incredibly ludicrous. Wouldn't planes have to continually rise in altitude when they take flight? What is propelling the ground to be rising at such a rate?
Honestly, for me, both of these explanations produce more questions than answers.
Regarding 1), it's explained in those clips, IIRC.
No, that's handled by density/buoyancy and aerodynamics, I suppose. By the way, you could say the same thing about the globe, where planes fly in all directions relative to its spin, without ever accounting for it in any way; also, the atmosphere that's supposedly dragged along with the spin.
Yeah, good question! Your guess is as good as mine. Again, you could say the same thing about Earth's constant acceleration around its axis. What causes/maintains that? Related video.
Either way, although intriguing, I personally don't see how any such forces would relate to Earth's surface being curved or not. That's directly observable by everyone.
Buoyancy wouldn't explain that if the earth is moving up. That's what the basis of that question came from
So that's kind of where I have trouble. If there is no explanation beyond "the surface of the earth is moving upward" then I don't see how I can just accept that. Rather, for a globe model, at least there are answers to certain questions. These answers may not satisfy you, and that's fine, but at least there is an attempt at explanation.
These forces don't relate to the shape of the earth, but they require explanation on a flat earth model