It's from 2015
The roasting was 7 years ago. I think your headline is a bit misleading
What makes you think the planets are that small (under 32 miles across)? How have you come to that conclusion?
That's fair, I do know something about the physical limitations of the range. I'm an engineer, and a buddy of mine is a pilot. A plane wouldn't be able to travel that sort of distance over the north pole from Australia to SOuth America without stops. Here's some flight info for you:
I understand that most are not non-stop, but the existence of any being nonstop briings question to the theory you're putting out there.
- Not that I saw.
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'm not sure I understand your response. I'm saying that the distance traveled (over the north pole and the USA) is physically impossible for a commercial airplane to do without making a stop. And yet, there are nonstop flights between those two countries. How is that possible?
So do you believe that gravity is acting on the planets of the solar system?
-
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.
So if I jump, am I making myself more buoyant in the air? And then when I fall back down, is it because my density is increasing?
I understand that, and the time it would take to travel that distance would be over a day. Planes wouldn't be able to physically go that distance without refueling.
What about flight patterns? How come a flight from australia to south america is so short?
I understand your explanation, and yes it's absolutely the case that the water is more dense than the air, hence why it goes down. Gravity though is the reason why the more dense water goes down instead of up. Density is a property, but it doesn't fully explain the reason why and object is pulled downward.
I mean, forgive me, but this just shows the trend of search queries. Many of these can easily be attributed to people trying to get more informed. Myocarditis and side effects were googled by all of us when the vaccines were coming out because we wanted to know what would happen.
Theoretically, yes! If I had not known anything about gravity, then I would imagine there would be open to interpretation whether an object is pushed or pulled. But, of course, the cause of that force would require some sort of explanation.
Why is an invisible force, that no one can quite put their finger on, required to explain what we observe?
People constantly seek answers to the "why." Why the sky is blue, why grass grows, why it's easier to machine aluminum than titanium. Since the era of enlightenment man has sought out answers and explanations to why things behave the way they do. Because, ultimately, the more we learn how these forces and world works, the better we are at utilizing its resources most effectively.
Ancient romans sought explanations in force, gravity, and engineering to build aqueducts, giving us some of the earliest examples of modern plumbing. The ability to construct something like that requires the explanations of the things we observe. It requires a knowledge on how gravity and, subsequently, waterflow works to create that sort of system.
It's perfectly fine to accept things as "just is." Especially in the modern age, it's quite easy to get by without having every little thing explained. But exploring those forces, the shape of the earth, the reasons why the sun rises and falls, give us greater knowledge to harness the power to build great things.
I mean...hold a glass of water up and pour it out. Where does it go? Downward. That's the pull of gravity. There aren't any natural situations where this doesn't happen. Water will flow downward as gravity pulls it. I'm genuinely not sure what situations are where water isn't acting in this way.
Yeah there's a lot! For example: I facetimed with my brother when he was in China, and I was in the US. For him, it was night. For me, day. If the earth is flat, how is it possible that I can see the sun and he cannot? What makes it go below the horizon?
If you know how the flat earth really works, I'd love to hear your take on it!
Totally understandable your questions of a round earth. I have very similar questions! But the explanations I've gotten for the round earth theory have at least made more sense than the explanations I've gotten on a flat earth.
I think I am confused by your thought on space being a vacuum. As I understand it, it's not a vacuum as it's constantly sucking in, but it is basically an absence of our known atmosphere. It's not as if you just breach the surface of the atmosphere you get sucked away at warp speed.
That's how I've been taught to understand it at least
the power of gravity holds the vaccum of space from pulling gases from the earths surface?
Correct
how strong is the gravity on the molucules that are 50 miles up?
Not as strong as the gravity acting on molecules on the surface of earth
why cant the incredibly perfecly powerful vaccum of space pull those weakly attracted by grvaity molecules? why is there no science that address where gravity stops and where vaccum begins.
To a point, the vacuum does pull those weakly attracted molecules away. These points are where our atmosphere ends
no joke, you've been fooled about round earth your entire life. we all were. earth doesn't curve. its doesnt move. the sun is small. all stuff that we can easily use scientific method to observe and conclude.
There' are a ton of things I observe with my two eyes on a daily basis that would make no sense on a flat earth though. That's where I have the most trouble.
What kind of proof would you need?
water will always act due to the forces of gravity, not necessarily stay "level." It's why when you have instances of zero gravity (such as in the infamous "vomit comet" plane ride used to train astronauts), you'll see water float.
Gravity does act on bees and flies. Their wings and the muscles they use to operate them allow them to fly. If gravity didn't affect them, they wouldn't need wings.
Because the earth is spherical, water is "curved," but it's because it is settling on a curved surface where the point of gravity is in the middle. On a flat bottom surface (such as the container example you put out), the water surface will be flat.
Where are you seeing that the laser will have a 0" change in altitude?
Yes, I never meant to imply otherwise.
Okay then I don't understand the point of your "standing on a sphere" comment.
Okay, so let's assume that we place this container midpoint first and while it rests perfectly balanced (for the sake of the thought exercise, let's assume glass doesn't break, heh), we fill in the space between its underside and the ground with dirt (or whatever) such that the container never moves until we're done. Then we fill it with water and let it rest. Would the water take any particular shape?
Great question, and actually it has me rethinking what I wrote earlier.
Short answer: the surface of the water will be flat, as the top of the container.
Disclaimer: I understand you are doubting the shape of the earth, but since you asked relative to the current working theory of a globe earth, I am going to make statements about that only due to the fact that it's relevant to the specific question. Anyway:
Gravity is a downward force, but it might be easier to say that it's an inward force, originating from the center of Earth's mass. When it comes down to it, gravity is pulling everything in to a singlular point at Earth's core, which gets weaker as we get further away. This is one important element to the equation
Fluids, like water, will always take the shape of the container they're in, in this case a rectangle. They will also obey the laws of gravity (obvi) pulling it towards the earth.
In the case of what you wrote here, the water will not curve, and that is due to the shape of the container that it's in, which is flat. Gravity is still pulling the water downward, but since the container is so long technically there is an ever so slightly weaker gravitational force on the ends of the container vs the middle, but it's negligible. The fluid will still keep the shape of its container.
So, I apologize for the comment above:
Assuming the container is flat along the top and bottom, the water wouldn't be parallel with the rim of the glass.
Because it is completely wrong
Wherever you are on a sphere, you are always at the peak of the hump; everything curves 360 degrees around you, however gradually. The hump is commonly portrayed as being in front of the observer, but that can never the case.
Yes, exactly. I thought when you were asking about where the peak of the hump is you meant the peak of the hump relative to the glass container (hence why you said things like "100 feet from the left.") That would depend on the tilt of the container
Seeing that the ground curves in all directions, would we even be able to place this extremely long container on the ground?
Nope! Unless there was a terraformed part of land, I don't think there's anywhere on earth you'd be able to place a container like that flat on the ground
26 feet is deep enough, so 1.2 miles would be plenty deep for a canal.
Gravity acts on everything, including canals. I'm not sure what your point is...
The whole water "bending" part is a little misleading. Water is a fluid. It's not bending at all. It's filling a container.
No, the headline that OP wrote is misleading.
The linked headline is much more true to the situation