Yeah. The shear amount of interest and engagement is shocking. I am definitely a skeptic of the shape....and maps. But neither has won me over completely.
I have read enough of the shoulders of giants to get a good idea of the globe model.
I’m interested in what you might be referring to with the flat earth math
Not because I’m trying to be argumentative but because I’m genuinely curious
I’m just following the evidence wherever it takes me and it’s been looking planar to me for a couple of years now but if there’s contradicting evidence to the planar surface then I’d like to investigate!
They frequently reference perspective and density and deny gravity.
These are all mathematical concepts when it comes to modelling. Perspective they are good at describing.
Yet they don't apply the same review of density. They should be able to describe the Motions of objects in various mediums without depending on any gravity.....
That means ... How do you measure mass....write the equations that describe motion through fluids without account for gravity...etc.
These equations must exist....if they are supposed to represent the concepts accurately....
Same with curvature and the idea of relative perspective drops. If it is perspective then that would account for perceived heights....not absolute, however, if Gravity exists......then space time curves.....so light follows the curve....but is straight....so that idea also....not great....needs more math...
I suggest volume ... We should be able to devise a volumetric test which will be able to be used to discern a curve over large distances but this would require enormous expense.
The study of aeronautics accomplishes this. It's a mix of fluid mechanics and dynamics.
There's engineers who will never come out as FE or even question the shape. I'm a failed engineer myself, never cost anyones life though.
Buoyancy helps with movement. This is how boats float, it's how planes fly with lift.
volume = mass / density
So density = mass / volume
It's all related.
Mass is real so isn't volume.
You want an equation that suggests density over acceleration of g, equivalent to 9.8 m/s^2 or 32 ft/s^2
The problem with your question is it depends on the medium your moving through and at what angle. That's why I suggested aeronautics.
Objects tend to fall slower in water because there's more drag.
9.8 m/s^2 is basically junk physics because it just describes what can occur in a vacuum.
You did just get me thinking about why an object would fall faster in a near vacuum. If gravity is fake, it has to be because the mass is denser than that near empty space. I don't know if gravity is fake, just shooting out ideas. But given that the moon mission was likely faked, we honestly don't have a lot of other planetary bodies to run these types of experiments. on. I believe it mostly theoretical at this point.
They should be able to describe the Motions of objects in various mediums without depending on any gravity.....
The things you are talking about are trivial/easy.
How do you measure mass
You can’t measure things that don’t exist in reality. You can calculate them, however. Mass is merely the intrinsic weight of an object (weight minus the buoyant force).
These equations must exist
They do. But the existence of an equation proves nothing about reality.
if Gravity exists......then space time curves
Not according to newton, no.
so light follows the curve
There are no demonstrable examples of this in reality. Lights path can only be altered by direct interaction with matter.
needs more math
Math worship is a scourge. When discussing science, I prefer english (as did most all other scientists in the history of the discipline).
We should be able to devise a volumetric test which will be able to be used to discern a curve over large distances
This is an interesting idea. Even if just for the thought exercise, you should further flesh it out / refine it. Perhaps share it on the community I created to discuss such things?
$10,000(TEN THOUSAND DOLLARS) CASH, WILL BE awarded to ANYONE who can provide ONE piece of FACTUAL and IRREFUTABLE evidence to support two things.
A). The CURVATURE of the alleged spinning ball earth
B). The MOTION of the alleged spinning ball earth
Yeah, it's physically impossible to prove the absolute motion of earth given that THERE'S NO STATIONARY OBJECT IN SPACE WE CAN COMPARE THAT TOO.
146 comments and only +10 votes
FE posts are always suppressed
Edit: 166 comments and now only +7
Last edit: After 6 days, 410 comments and +20
My man!
Figured that out a while ago
I’m on less and less lately
Yeah. The shear amount of interest and engagement is shocking. I am definitely a skeptic of the shape....and maps. But neither has won me over completely.
I have read enough of the shoulders of giants to get a good idea of the globe model.
But the flat earth needs its math a bit better.
I’m interested in what you might be referring to with the flat earth math
Not because I’m trying to be argumentative but because I’m genuinely curious
I’m just following the evidence wherever it takes me and it’s been looking planar to me for a couple of years now but if there’s contradicting evidence to the planar surface then I’d like to investigate!
The math of FE has a lot to be desired.
They frequently reference perspective and density and deny gravity.
These are all mathematical concepts when it comes to modelling. Perspective they are good at describing.
Yet they don't apply the same review of density. They should be able to describe the Motions of objects in various mediums without depending on any gravity.....
That means ... How do you measure mass....write the equations that describe motion through fluids without account for gravity...etc.
These equations must exist....if they are supposed to represent the concepts accurately....
Same with curvature and the idea of relative perspective drops. If it is perspective then that would account for perceived heights....not absolute, however, if Gravity exists......then space time curves.....so light follows the curve....but is straight....so that idea also....not great....needs more math...
I suggest volume ... We should be able to devise a volumetric test which will be able to be used to discern a curve over large distances but this would require enormous expense.
The study of aeronautics accomplishes this. It's a mix of fluid mechanics and dynamics.
There's engineers who will never come out as FE or even question the shape. I'm a failed engineer myself, never cost anyones life though.
Buoyancy helps with movement. This is how boats float, it's how planes fly with lift.
volume = mass / density
So density = mass / volume
It's all related.
Mass is real so isn't volume.
You want an equation that suggests density over acceleration of g, equivalent to 9.8 m/s^2 or 32 ft/s^2
The problem with your question is it depends on the medium your moving through and at what angle. That's why I suggested aeronautics.
Objects tend to fall slower in water because there's more drag.
9.8 m/s^2 is basically junk physics because it just describes what can occur in a vacuum.
You did just get me thinking about why an object would fall faster in a near vacuum. If gravity is fake, it has to be because the mass is denser than that near empty space. I don't know if gravity is fake, just shooting out ideas. But given that the moon mission was likely faked, we honestly don't have a lot of other planetary bodies to run these types of experiments. on. I believe it mostly theoretical at this point.
The things you are talking about are trivial/easy.
You can’t measure things that don’t exist in reality. You can calculate them, however. Mass is merely the intrinsic weight of an object (weight minus the buoyant force).
They do. But the existence of an equation proves nothing about reality.
Not according to newton, no.
There are no demonstrable examples of this in reality. Lights path can only be altered by direct interaction with matter.
Math worship is a scourge. When discussing science, I prefer english (as did most all other scientists in the history of the discipline).
This is an interesting idea. Even if just for the thought exercise, you should further flesh it out / refine it. Perhaps share it on the community I created to discuss such things?
This is your guy?
$10,000(TEN THOUSAND DOLLARS) CASH, WILL BE awarded to ANYONE who can provide ONE piece of FACTUAL and IRREFUTABLE evidence to support two things. A). The CURVATURE of the alleged spinning ball earth B). The MOTION of the alleged spinning ball earth
Yeah, it's physically impossible to prove the absolute motion of earth given that THERE'S NO STATIONARY OBJECT IN SPACE WE CAN COMPARE THAT TOO.
No one is EVER getting that money.