Can you please take a minute to explain how your idea of "weight" is different from the average flat earther's concept of "density"?
Sure! And please feel free to ask any other questions you may have.
First, i should clarify that there aren't really any flat earthers (average or otherwise) - just agents and products of a heavily advertised (i.e. heavily funded) psyop.
Second, i should clarify that "weight" is not my idea either. In terms of normal/colloquial meaning and use (going back millennia) my definition for weight is identical. In terms of the use of the word in physics, i use two phrases :
effective weight - The normal weight we all know and love. It is the weight of the objects measured on a scale, and includes the buoyant force.
intrinsic weight - The weight of the object without the buoyant force. The intrinsic weight of an object is directly related to the amount of matter in it, and generally does not change. Ex. a floating dirigible which weighs nothing on a standard scale still has the same intrinsic weight it did when it was in pieces waiting to be assembled.
Many i have encountered say things like : gravity is just density. Although generally true, I think the biggest problem with that statement is the frequent lack of further explanation. A more accurate phrasing is that "gravity, the phenomenon of falling, is just what happens when an object weighs more than the media it displaces".
It is the interplay/relationship of that weight, and the weight of the media that it displaces - aka archemides principle. If (and only if) the weight of the object is heavier than the media it displaces, then it falls. Otherwise it floats or ascends.
A bowling ball has more weight than a racquet ball.
Agreed.
Which should have some effect according to your idea of displacement.
True, it does (both calculably and in reality demonstrably).
But, If you go to your roof and released both from the same height at the same time, they would hit the ground at exactly the same time.
I am saying that they don't, but that the difference between when one hits the ground and the other one is very small. If you increased the distance, or increased your measurement precision, you would see the difference.
The "all things fall at the same rate" is a rule of thumb which is perfectly adequate for most cases we experience, but is not strictly speaking true. It would arguably be true if "perfect vacuum" were attainable - but even then not in the standard worldview (that you likely have) because there would still be the varying gravitational attraction of varying masses to consider/factor in.
We have a math formula for determining the speed at which objects will fall and the "weight" of the object is not represented anywhere in the math formula.
That's not quite right, but yes - the oversimplification taught to many students is just an acceleration and time. That is assuming there is no buoyant force, drag, etc. to consider - which is of course, untrue.
The fact that the math can still accurately tell you how fast something will fall without this concept being represented anywhere in the formula ought to tell you that you've misidentified the source of this force.
That is a mistake in your logic. It just means the variance in weight is not a major factor in the speed of the falling (assuming an over simplified "perfect vacuum" etc). Besides, what we are discussing is the the relationship of the weight to the weight of the media it displaces, which unquestionably is the cause of falling. That is in archemides' principle - so it is in "the equation".
Look as politely as i can say this... You don't understand physics
Believe me, the feeling is mutual. But it is not just knowledge of physics that you lack, but knowledge of its history. You can't hope to really understand the teachings now unless you have knowledge of where they came from, and how they were derived.
and your entire argument is built on sophistry.
No. It's built on physics, and it isn't an argument - just my perspective.
I dont plan on ever convincing you.
Good! We should never seek to convince [aka manipulate], we should seek to learn and share what we learn.
So can i just change the subject for a sec to WHY...
Sure, if you wish.
WHY is the earth flat?
Who said the earth was flat?
Why is it being covered up? Who stands to gain? And what fo they stand to gain?
What are you talking about? Who in the world are you talking to? As i said before, while discussing with me - try to ignore the other voices and focus on mine instead ;)
If you want to know/understand my perspective, simply ask - but don't foolishly assume you already know because you spoke to someone else!
In general, if the world is flat then nothing is being covered up. Humanity requires no help in order to be consistently stupid and wrong as it historically always is.
However, if there were some sort of "conspiracy" to hide the true shape of the world i'm sure you could imagine plenty of reasons (things to gain) to do so if you set your mind to it.
How was the planet created if not from gravity?
Gravitation, not gravity. Gravity doesn't create; it is just the phenomenon of falling.
Gravitation cannot explain the creation of the planets or stars, it is a major problem for the standard cosmological model.
In general, recognizing your views (that we were conditioned to believe through rote under the guise of education from childhood) are merely mythology/religion misrepresented as science doesn't automatically replace them with the correct answers (although that would be nice!). The planet was created, of that we can be assured. Did it, or life, create itself spontaneously the way our foolish ancestors believed and taught in a world demonstrably tending towards entropy? No, of course not.
And are all celestial bodies flat?
They certainly appear that way from out vantage (as discs), but they are too far away to determine that scientifically. They are almost certainly not bodies, however - they are luminaries. What shape is a light (not the lightbulb)?
Bad faith? Are you having trouble answering the question?
Who claimed the earth was flat, and when? Please provide quotes / links to my statements so that i can better address your misunderstanding.
Several times in this conversation you have asked silly questions like you are having an entirely unrelated conversation with someone who isn't me :(
Instead of stupidly assuming you know what i think (based on conversations you have had with other people) and being consistently wrong - why not try to have a discussion with me instead?
I have not only answered all your questions in good faith (and always do), i've answered them pretty thoroughly. If you want to know what shape i think the world is, just ask! It's the foolish assumption that is causing you problems :(
I'm completely done with your novels
If you can't handle a few sentences, then you can't handle conversation or learning :( I do try to be succinct, but i also want to answer your questions thoroughly enough so you understand my perspective.
That said, i know this is a difficult conversation for you and you were never obligated to continue. I assure you it has all been in good faith, however.
Sure! And please feel free to ask any other questions you may have.
First, i should clarify that there aren't really any flat earthers (average or otherwise) - just agents and products of a heavily advertised (i.e. heavily funded) psyop.
Second, i should clarify that "weight" is not my idea either. In terms of normal/colloquial meaning and use (going back millennia) my definition for weight is identical. In terms of the use of the word in physics, i use two phrases :
effective weight - The normal weight we all know and love. It is the weight of the objects measured on a scale, and includes the buoyant force.
intrinsic weight - The weight of the object without the buoyant force. The intrinsic weight of an object is directly related to the amount of matter in it, and generally does not change. Ex. a floating dirigible which weighs nothing on a standard scale still has the same intrinsic weight it did when it was in pieces waiting to be assembled.
Many i have encountered say things like : gravity is just density. Although generally true, I think the biggest problem with that statement is the frequent lack of further explanation. A more accurate phrasing is that "gravity, the phenomenon of falling, is just what happens when an object weighs more than the media it displaces".
Sort of.
It is the interplay/relationship of that weight, and the weight of the media that it displaces - aka archemides principle. If (and only if) the weight of the object is heavier than the media it displaces, then it falls. Otherwise it floats or ascends.
Agreed.
True, it does (both calculably and in reality demonstrably).
I am saying that they don't, but that the difference between when one hits the ground and the other one is very small. If you increased the distance, or increased your measurement precision, you would see the difference.
The "all things fall at the same rate" is a rule of thumb which is perfectly adequate for most cases we experience, but is not strictly speaking true. It would arguably be true if "perfect vacuum" were attainable - but even then not in the standard worldview (that you likely have) because there would still be the varying gravitational attraction of varying masses to consider/factor in.
That's not quite right, but yes - the oversimplification taught to many students is just an acceleration and time. That is assuming there is no buoyant force, drag, etc. to consider - which is of course, untrue.
That is a mistake in your logic. It just means the variance in weight is not a major factor in the speed of the falling (assuming an over simplified "perfect vacuum" etc). Besides, what we are discussing is the the relationship of the weight to the weight of the media it displaces, which unquestionably is the cause of falling. That is in archemides' principle - so it is in "the equation".
Believe me, the feeling is mutual. But it is not just knowledge of physics that you lack, but knowledge of its history. You can't hope to really understand the teachings now unless you have knowledge of where they came from, and how they were derived.
No. It's built on physics, and it isn't an argument - just my perspective.
Good! We should never seek to convince [aka manipulate], we should seek to learn and share what we learn.
Sure, if you wish.
Who said the earth was flat?
What are you talking about? Who in the world are you talking to? As i said before, while discussing with me - try to ignore the other voices and focus on mine instead ;)
If you want to know/understand my perspective, simply ask - but don't foolishly assume you already know because you spoke to someone else!
In general, if the world is flat then nothing is being covered up. Humanity requires no help in order to be consistently stupid and wrong as it historically always is.
However, if there were some sort of "conspiracy" to hide the true shape of the world i'm sure you could imagine plenty of reasons (things to gain) to do so if you set your mind to it.
Gravitation, not gravity. Gravity doesn't create; it is just the phenomenon of falling.
Gravitation cannot explain the creation of the planets or stars, it is a major problem for the standard cosmological model.
In general, recognizing your views (that we were conditioned to believe through rote under the guise of education from childhood) are merely mythology/religion misrepresented as science doesn't automatically replace them with the correct answers (although that would be nice!). The planet was created, of that we can be assured. Did it, or life, create itself spontaneously the way our foolish ancestors believed and taught in a world demonstrably tending towards entropy? No, of course not.
They certainly appear that way from out vantage (as discs), but they are too far away to determine that scientifically. They are almost certainly not bodies, however - they are luminaries. What shape is a light (not the lightbulb)?
Bad faith? Are you having trouble answering the question?
Who claimed the earth was flat, and when? Please provide quotes / links to my statements so that i can better address your misunderstanding.
Several times in this conversation you have asked silly questions like you are having an entirely unrelated conversation with someone who isn't me :(
Instead of stupidly assuming you know what i think (based on conversations you have had with other people) and being consistently wrong - why not try to have a discussion with me instead?
I have not only answered all your questions in good faith (and always do), i've answered them pretty thoroughly. If you want to know what shape i think the world is, just ask! It's the foolish assumption that is causing you problems :(
If you can't handle a few sentences, then you can't handle conversation or learning :( I do try to be succinct, but i also want to answer your questions thoroughly enough so you understand my perspective.
That said, i know this is a difficult conversation for you and you were never obligated to continue. I assure you it has all been in good faith, however.