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
I mean, at the end of the day, you can have classic gravity on a "flat earth" as well, only that "the core" would be spread out uniformly, heh.
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.
Well, sure. You could ask the same thing about gravity, e.g., "what is causing gravity to pull on things?". I'm sure they have a nonsense answer for that as well, e.g., "gravitons" or some such.
Rather, for a globe model, at least there are answers to certain questions.
Sure, but none of those are demonstrable, they just appear to fit what's happening. Every alternative I've offered could fit just as well. With enough observation, you could reverse-engineer the entire thing into something else.
These answers may not satisfy you, and that's fine, but at least there is an attempt at explanation.
The problem with gravity is that it's being used as a catch-all for things that can't be explained (e.g., vacuum/atmosphere, atmosphere dragged along with spin, bendy waters, the three body problem, thousands of satellites orbiting "in front" of the Earth as it's spinning around the Sun, etc.).
These forces don't relate to the shape of the earth, but they require explanation on a flat earth model
Sure, whatever tickles you fancy, just don't get stuck on it. There's too much evidence in favor of a "flat earth" to pitch a tent here.
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
I mean, at the end of the day, you can have classic gravity on a "flat earth" as well, only that "the core" would be spread out uniformly, heh.
Well, sure. You could ask the same thing about gravity, e.g., "what is causing gravity to pull on things?". I'm sure they have a nonsense answer for that as well, e.g., "gravitons" or some such.
Sure, but none of those are demonstrable, they just appear to fit what's happening. Every alternative I've offered could fit just as well. With enough observation, you could reverse-engineer the entire thing into something else.
The problem with gravity is that it's being used as a catch-all for things that can't be explained (e.g., vacuum/atmosphere, atmosphere dragged along with spin, bendy waters, the three body problem, thousands of satellites orbiting "in front" of the Earth as it's spinning around the Sun, etc.).
Sure, whatever tickles you fancy, just don't get stuck on it. There's too much evidence in favor of a "flat earth" to pitch a tent here.