Except before making up bullshit, use a telescope. Look at the Sun and Moon. Go to Antarctica. Use a go fund me. Take a 10-20k holiday, prove it. Stop making up shit.
They're not a disc. At all. End of. They are obviously round. No, disc. You can see them being round. You can see the rotation as the moon changes. Full to new. Then there's the eclipse. Conjunctions and yawn and yawn.
Unless there's always and unless the conspiracy is they're a reflection. We can never get there because we're inside a void, called space. There's these flashlights peering through, any void. But it doesn't explain. How we are affected. The Sun our source of life. How these things planets and stars align, our seasons, even our personalities.
There is no ice wall around our Planet, get on a damn boat. Circumnavigate the globe.
If you want to prove that the moon is a disk, here is how you do it. Have one person north of the equator, say in Canada, and one person south of the equator, say in Argentina, take a picture of the moon at the same time. Then compare the two images, rotate it, adjust the size, and see if it shows the same surface area of the moon. If the moon is a disk, then you will see the same surface area. If it on the other hand is a ball, one side should be able to view a surface areas that the other side is not able to view.
To demonstrate this principal, you could set up stripped ball, and have two people stand 100 meters away from it, and 3 meters apart from each other, then have them use superzoom camera to take a picture of the stripped ball. They will not take a picture of the same surface area of the stripped ball. If you on the other hand do this with a disk, they will take a picture of the same surface area of the disk.
if the moon was a disc then looking at it from any angle besides head-on would result in it looking oval shaped
It depends on how far away it is and how far you move in relation to that distance. If the moon is very far away (as is believed) and your motion on the earth is relatively very small - then it is very unlikely you will be able to detect any such minuscule shape deformation (especially with your eyes). In much the same way as the sun changes size as it increases and decreases distance from us - it is very difficult to detect for the same reason(s).
But there's only one shape that appears as a perfect circle no matter what angle it's viewed from, and that's a sphere.
Of course not, but if your vantage to it is limited - it certainly can, and can even be perceived to be convex when it is not. That was my only, admittedly minor, point.
The further away you get from the sun, the colder it will get. As it gets colder, water will go from liquid form, to a solid form, also known as ice. Even salt water will turn to ice, once it gets cold enough.
So an ice ring will form around the earth, containing the water, once you get far enough south. This ice ring is known as Antarctica.
If you mean gravitation, no one has any idea - from the dullest of the dull to the most credentialed and accomplished physicist.
Gravity (a scientific law, millennia old), on the other hand - is another matter entirely.
Why do things fall?
Because they weigh more than the media they displace. Weight is an intrinsic and inexorable property of matter, and not imbued by magical "fields" of perpetually (3+ centuries now) mysterious and completely imaginary (at best) composition and mechanism.
why do other planets have more or less gravity than earth
Do they? Or do you just believe that they do because someone told you that was a fact? Because you saw someone playing an astronaut hit a golf ball on the tv?
In my view, and that of our ancestors, the planets we see in the heavens are nothing like the earth we stand on. They are wandering stars; luminaries. They are above us, not below. They are not giant rocks or balls of gas. Admittedly, i know how insane that sounds to most.
or does weight magically change depending on where the weight exists in space ?
No, weight remains more or less constant. Effective weight (what we commonly/colloquially refer to as weight : i.e. measured on a scale) varies with many factors - most notably buoyancy - but its intrinsic/actual weight generally does not. Although a battleship floats on water or a dirigible measures 0 when placed on a scale, that does not make their actual weight any less phenomenal or different than the materials they are built/composed of.
Huh? All the planets are shaped like discs. It's the earth which isn't a planet [wandering star].
What shape the earth is has no relevance to the shape of the things in the sky which are obviously not the earth.
And if they are, are they all facing us?
It sure appears as though they are.
The only object I can think of that looks like a circle when viewed from different angles is something shaped like a ball.
It depends on your vantage point and the relative distances involved. For instance, a concave shape can be perceived as a convex one depending on your vantage. In the case of very distant objects, as the lights in the sky are assumed to be; if the amount of distance we travel to change our vantage point is small in comparison to our initial distance to the object - then the visual deformation (making a circle seem like an oval, for instance) would be expected to be very small as well. For instance, during the course of the day, the sun changes distance from us as it rises and sets - yet it does not appear to us to be getting smaller or bigger as it does so. Of course it does get smaller and larger as the distance to us changes - but because the change in distance (or vantage) is so small compared to the distance of the object - we can't perceive this size change.
When you drop an object and it goes down, what is causing it to go down?
Its weight. Weight is an intrinsic and inexorable property of all matter. It "goes down" aka falls, because you lift it, because the matter you place it on cannot support its weight, and because the object weighs more than the media it displaces.
Objects of different weight fall at the same speed in a vacuum. Why?
They don't really, but the difference in speed is very small. Effectively so small that we teach this "rule of thumb" as "practically" correct.
The speed and acceleration profile of something falling is most influenced by the media through which it is falling and the buoyancy of the object. A balloon does not fall like a brick for this reason. When you remove as much of the air as you can and make a partial vacuum (full vacuum is not attainable) the brick and the balloon fall more similarly because the media you removed was most responsible for the differences in the way they fell.
If you could remove all the matter and achieve a perfect vacuum, then we would expect things to fall at the same rate. The why is the same as before, when the air was present - because the weight of the object is greater than the weight of the media they displace (which in the case of the perfect vacuum would literally be nothing/0)
The fact that things fall at the same rate, and instantaneously upon dropping them, is a bigger problem for the concept of gravitation than you likely realize. How would these imagined "fields" know to apply different amounts of force to overcome differing inertias and to accelerate equivalently? How could they do so instantaneously at infinite distance (or even a finite distance, for that matter)? It is much more natural, intuitive, realistic, and sound from the perspective of physics to recognize that the objects fall because they have nothing holding them up, and are heavier than the media they displace - rather than requiring magical and unequivocally unempirical fields that must violate multiple laws of physics in order to do what we observe.
Things fall, as they are more dense than the medium they are surrounded by. A example is Helium, which is less dense than air, so instead of falling, it goes upward, until it finds it relative buoyancy level.
Gravity is a theory about how two object attract each other, based on their mass, and it never been proven. As a example electromagnetism (static electricity) is a much stronger force then what they claim gravity is (100.000 times stronger or something like that), and you can not control for if you are detecting electromagnetism or gravity, if running experiments.
(Electromagnetism - the force we know best - is 10 to the 36th power stronger than Gravity. That's 10,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 times stronger!
And people who call the (pseudo)force "pull" between mass bodies gravity are making a (albeit common) mistake.
Gravity is a law, thousands of years old. Laws are the observation, they can never be the cause. The supposed cause of the law of gravity (i.e. the phenomenon of falling) is not properly called gravity (1000's of years old) but gravitation (merely a few hundred years old).
That is based on the density of the medium it is surrounded by. The more dense a thing is, and it will go down, if it is less dense then the medium it is surrounded by, it will go up. If an object finds it relative buoyancy level, it will neither move up or down, unless an external force is applied to it.
The north is far enough away from the sun, that it freezes. The north is at the center of the circular path that the sun makes above our head. While a place like Australia is directly above the most souther path of the sun, having the sun daily right above it for 3-4 months a year. While the suns most northern path is around Hong Kong in China.
Another thing that came to my attention, is that the average elevation of Mongolia is 1580 meters above the sea level. Whatever parts in northern China that gets cold, could be because of the elevation.
The Gobi is overall a cold desert, with frost and occasionally snow occurring on its dunes. Besides being quite far north, it is also located on a plateau roughly 910–1,520 m (2,990–4,990 ft) above sea level, which contributes to its low temperatures.
A theory of how the sun creates heat: when sunlight interacts with something, it makes it vibrate. At sea level, all the heavy molecules are, like O2. The heavier a molecule is, the more energy it produces once it vibrates, which we experienced as heat. 1000 meters over sea level, the air is thinner, less heavy molecules are here, producing less energy ones sunlight interacts with it, making it colder the higher up in the air you go.
Your current Zeitgeist: You have assigned a singular belief to a collective of people, which makes for a nice straw man, in order to label people and dismiss them. The levels of erroneous logics you have used here are profound.
I believe the earth is round but the moon and sun are flat. /s
Actually. It can be said that the "Earth" is round, but that the "earth" is flat. And so are the disks of plasma known as the Sun and moon.
So, not being sarcastic. Yes.
Except before making up bullshit, use a telescope. Look at the Sun and Moon. Go to Antarctica. Use a go fund me. Take a 10-20k holiday, prove it. Stop making up shit.
They're not a disc. At all. End of. They are obviously round. No, disc. You can see them being round. You can see the rotation as the moon changes. Full to new. Then there's the eclipse. Conjunctions and yawn and yawn.
Unless there's always and unless the conspiracy is they're a reflection. We can never get there because we're inside a void, called space. There's these flashlights peering through, any void. But it doesn't explain. How we are affected. The Sun our source of life. How these things planets and stars align, our seasons, even our personalities.
There is no ice wall around our Planet, get on a damn boat. Circumnavigate the globe.
Your statements do not even contain internally consistent logic. Nor do they show any understanding for what it is I have actually posted above.
In response, I must inform you, that I have no use in debating a baffoon, nor education one such as yourself.
Before addressing me again, I insist that you first, "Go to Antarctica. Use a go fund me. Take a 10-20k holiday, prove it. Stop making up shit."
You absolute damp rag of a person.
If you want to prove that the moon is a disk, here is how you do it. Have one person north of the equator, say in Canada, and one person south of the equator, say in Argentina, take a picture of the moon at the same time. Then compare the two images, rotate it, adjust the size, and see if it shows the same surface area of the moon. If the moon is a disk, then you will see the same surface area. If it on the other hand is a ball, one side should be able to view a surface areas that the other side is not able to view.
To demonstrate this principal, you could set up stripped ball, and have two people stand 100 meters away from it, and 3 meters apart from each other, then have them use superzoom camera to take a picture of the stripped ball. They will not take a picture of the same surface area of the stripped ball. If you on the other hand do this with a disk, they will take a picture of the same surface area of the disk.
It depends on how far away it is and how far you move in relation to that distance. If the moon is very far away (as is believed) and your motion on the earth is relatively very small - then it is very unlikely you will be able to detect any such minuscule shape deformation (especially with your eyes). In much the same way as the sun changes size as it increases and decreases distance from us - it is very difficult to detect for the same reason(s).
It could be concave as well.
Concave wouldn't look like a perfect circle from every angle
Of course not, but if your vantage to it is limited - it certainly can, and can even be perceived to be convex when it is not. That was my only, admittedly minor, point.
Could be, have not considered that. Guess I need to look more into how the moon is plasma, and how plasma works.
I already know the moon is a sphere because I saw it through a telescope.
the earth is a doughnut...
no flat earther "believes" this. These imagines were made specifically to poison the well.
hahahaha but what do they believe? it's the same shit with a dome, but the stars are within, as if makes a difference lmao.
Wait... what the hell happened to the turtle? 🐢
We're totally lost without the turtle! 🤣
The further away you get from the sun, the colder it will get. As it gets colder, water will go from liquid form, to a solid form, also known as ice. Even salt water will turn to ice, once it gets cold enough.
So an ice ring will form around the earth, containing the water, once you get far enough south. This ice ring is known as Antarctica.
You can't reason someone out of a position they did not reason themselves into.
If you mean gravitation, no one has any idea - from the dullest of the dull to the most credentialed and accomplished physicist.
Gravity (a scientific law, millennia old), on the other hand - is another matter entirely.
Because they weigh more than the media they displace. Weight is an intrinsic and inexorable property of matter, and not imbued by magical "fields" of perpetually (3+ centuries now) mysterious and completely imaginary (at best) composition and mechanism.
Do they? Or do you just believe that they do because someone told you that was a fact? Because you saw someone playing an astronaut hit a golf ball on the tv?
In my view, and that of our ancestors, the planets we see in the heavens are nothing like the earth we stand on. They are wandering stars; luminaries. They are above us, not below. They are not giant rocks or balls of gas. Admittedly, i know how insane that sounds to most.
No, weight remains more or less constant. Effective weight (what we commonly/colloquially refer to as weight : i.e. measured on a scale) varies with many factors - most notably buoyancy - but its intrinsic/actual weight generally does not. Although a battleship floats on water or a dirigible measures 0 when placed on a scale, that does not make their actual weight any less phenomenal or different than the materials they are built/composed of.
Huh? All the planets are shaped like discs. It's the earth which isn't a planet [wandering star].
What shape the earth is has no relevance to the shape of the things in the sky which are obviously not the earth.
It sure appears as though they are.
It depends on your vantage point and the relative distances involved. For instance, a concave shape can be perceived as a convex one depending on your vantage. In the case of very distant objects, as the lights in the sky are assumed to be; if the amount of distance we travel to change our vantage point is small in comparison to our initial distance to the object - then the visual deformation (making a circle seem like an oval, for instance) would be expected to be very small as well. For instance, during the course of the day, the sun changes distance from us as it rises and sets - yet it does not appear to us to be getting smaller or bigger as it does so. Of course it does get smaller and larger as the distance to us changes - but because the change in distance (or vantage) is so small compared to the distance of the object - we can't perceive this size change.
Its weight. Weight is an intrinsic and inexorable property of all matter. It "goes down" aka falls, because you lift it, because the matter you place it on cannot support its weight, and because the object weighs more than the media it displaces.
They don't really, but the difference in speed is very small. Effectively so small that we teach this "rule of thumb" as "practically" correct.
The speed and acceleration profile of something falling is most influenced by the media through which it is falling and the buoyancy of the object. A balloon does not fall like a brick for this reason. When you remove as much of the air as you can and make a partial vacuum (full vacuum is not attainable) the brick and the balloon fall more similarly because the media you removed was most responsible for the differences in the way they fell.
If you could remove all the matter and achieve a perfect vacuum, then we would expect things to fall at the same rate. The why is the same as before, when the air was present - because the weight of the object is greater than the weight of the media they displace (which in the case of the perfect vacuum would literally be nothing/0)
The fact that things fall at the same rate, and instantaneously upon dropping them, is a bigger problem for the concept of gravitation than you likely realize. How would these imagined "fields" know to apply different amounts of force to overcome differing inertias and to accelerate equivalently? How could they do so instantaneously at infinite distance (or even a finite distance, for that matter)? It is much more natural, intuitive, realistic, and sound from the perspective of physics to recognize that the objects fall because they have nothing holding them up, and are heavier than the media they displace - rather than requiring magical and unequivocally unempirical fields that must violate multiple laws of physics in order to do what we observe.
Things fall, as they are more dense than the medium they are surrounded by. A example is Helium, which is less dense than air, so instead of falling, it goes upward, until it finds it relative buoyancy level.
Gravity is a theory about how two object attract each other, based on their mass, and it never been proven. As a example electromagnetism (static electricity) is a much stronger force then what they claim gravity is (100.000 times stronger or something like that), and you can not control for if you are detecting electromagnetism or gravity, if running experiments.
(Electromagnetism - the force we know best - is 10 to the 36th power stronger than Gravity. That's 10,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 times stronger!
From google.)
When you have a force pushing them down. That force, we call weight.
Without any force at all, of course you have no down at all.
No, no one calls weight gravity ;)
And people who call the (pseudo)force "pull" between mass bodies gravity are making a (albeit common) mistake.
Gravity is a law, thousands of years old. Laws are the observation, they can never be the cause. The supposed cause of the law of gravity (i.e. the phenomenon of falling) is not properly called gravity (1000's of years old) but gravitation (merely a few hundred years old).
That is based on the density of the medium it is surrounded by. The more dense a thing is, and it will go down, if it is less dense then the medium it is surrounded by, it will go up. If an object finds it relative buoyancy level, it will neither move up or down, unless an external force is applied to it.
I am your Density!
It knows it based on its density relative to its surroundings.
The north is far enough away from the sun, that it freezes. The north is at the center of the circular path that the sun makes above our head. While a place like Australia is directly above the most souther path of the sun, having the sun daily right above it for 3-4 months a year. While the suns most northern path is around Hong Kong in China.
Another thing that came to my attention, is that the average elevation of Mongolia is 1580 meters above the sea level. Whatever parts in northern China that gets cold, could be because of the elevation.
The Gobi is overall a cold desert, with frost and occasionally snow occurring on its dunes. Besides being quite far north, it is also located on a plateau roughly 910–1,520 m (2,990–4,990 ft) above sea level, which contributes to its low temperatures.
A theory of how the sun creates heat: when sunlight interacts with something, it makes it vibrate. At sea level, all the heavy molecules are, like O2. The heavier a molecule is, the more energy it produces once it vibrates, which we experienced as heat. 1000 meters over sea level, the air is thinner, less heavy molecules are here, producing less energy ones sunlight interacts with it, making it colder the higher up in the air you go.
Your current Zeitgeist: You have assigned a singular belief to a collective of people, which makes for a nice straw man, in order to label people and dismiss them. The levels of erroneous logics you have used here are profound.
The Lost History Of The Flat Earth
That funny feeling in your skull, that isn't a joke, it's the joke being played on you.
Shitposting like this makes conspiracies, as a community, worse.
I defy you to find even one person who believes the above cartoon image is reality, or even a gross depiction thereof.
Great post for all the FE shills to show themselves.
Density, man.
No. They can live on another planet. Ban the banners. Send them to colonise the moon.