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.
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.
A little difficult to wrap my mind around how that would work though. What's causing that gravitational force to pull downward?
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.
Not exactly. My question is in regards to a theory that there is something that's in motion (the entire surface of the earth). So far, there is no explanation as to the why or how it is moving in such a direction at such a rapid pace, which is why I have trouble accepting it.
There's too much evidence in favor of a "flat earth" to pinch a tent here.
The problem though is the little explanations for phenomena that we can readily observe every day, that don't make sense on a flat earth model.
A little difficult to wrap my mind around how that would work though. What's causing that gravitational force to pull downward?
Earth's mass, the same thing that causes it to do that on a globe. Objects wouldn't be attracted to a sphere, but to the mass of the Earth beneath our feet (whatever shape it might be).
My question is in regards to a theory that there is something that's in motion (the entire surface of the earth)
which is why I have trouble accepting it.
Oh, agreed. I don't have an explanation for it either, but such a motion could also explain what we're observing. I don't take it as fact either, just as mere possibility.
The problem though is the little explanations for phenomena that we can readily observe every day, that don't make sense on a flat earth model.
May I ask, have you watched any "flat earth" documentary (if we can call it that)? Most, if not all, phenomena have been covered by people interested in the subject. Granted, those explanations will make little sense if you perceive them through "globe glasses", but I'm sure you could take those off as an exercise. If you're interested, I could recommend some titles.
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.
A little difficult to wrap my mind around how that would work though. What's causing that gravitational force to pull downward?
Not exactly. My question is in regards to a theory that there is something that's in motion (the entire surface of the earth). So far, there is no explanation as to the why or how it is moving in such a direction at such a rapid pace, which is why I have trouble accepting it.
The problem though is the little explanations for phenomena that we can readily observe every day, that don't make sense on a flat earth model.
Earth's mass, the same thing that causes it to do that on a globe. Objects wouldn't be attracted to a sphere, but to the mass of the Earth beneath our feet (whatever shape it might be).
Oh, agreed. I don't have an explanation for it either, but such a motion could also explain what we're observing. I don't take it as fact either, just as mere possibility.
May I ask, have you watched any "flat earth" documentary (if we can call it that)? Most, if not all, phenomena have been covered by people interested in the subject. Granted, those explanations will make little sense if you perceive them through "globe glasses", but I'm sure you could take those off as an exercise. If you're interested, I could recommend some titles.