Please answer this question that I posted before
I answered all your questions! Please let me know which one i missed.
what would be the reason to fool everyone into believing the earth is round
I'm sure you could imagine plenty of reasons if you wanted to - but it isn't necessary.
Humanity requires no help, no "fooling", to be consistently stupid and wrong as they historically always are; To believe ridiculous things are true and teach it to their children for centuries (if not millennia).
In my view, no one is "fooled" as much as they are "taught" through conditioning by rote under the guise of education, from childhood. Do you think we had to be "fooled" into thinking the earth was the center of the universe, or that spirits were causing illness (both things we taught at the best schools for centuries, or longer)?
what did anyone gain by doing this?
Again, there are many potential answers to this speculative question that you could imagine if you wanted to. But it isn't necessary, because it is based on a false premise.
I do not believe the earth is flat
Good! Belief is the enemy of knowledge, and to objective study of any kind (it's called bias).
If you believe the world is flat, spherical, or any other shape - you have faith not fact.
but there would have to be a reason to fool people.
Why? People fool themselves, and believe and teach all sorts of nonsense - and always have. Mythology is a natural/biological habit. It seems we prefer to make up an answer rather than live honestly with the self imposed (and unnecessary) shame of ignorance.
That said, speaking in terms of speculation/imagination - i'm sure you could imagine plenty of things which one or a group of people (that knew the world was not the shape and size we are all taught it is) could possibly gain from not sharing that or further - "fooling" people into not discovering it. For example, the aristocracy knew about and had maps of the "new world" for centuries prior to columbus... Do you know what happened when the cat was finally out of the bag and the poor slaves (often rebranded "citizens") found out there was a place to go to escape their miserable lot?
Why is it towards the earth, and not outward?
Again the question is the same. Why should you expect the object to go away from the earth when you drop it? It's a nonsensical question.
It falls towards the earth to return to equilibrium/rest/lowest available energy state.
It falls because you lifted it (and with the exact same energy used to do so), because it cannot be supported by the matter beneath it, and because its weight is greater than the weight of the media it displaces.
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.
Why are no other planets shaped like a disk?
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.
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.
Okay genius
You completely misunderstand. You are operating under the false impression that in order to have a differing view to yours, you must think yourself some sort of "genius". Nothing could be further from the truth.
Being wrong and/or misunderstanding what i'm saying does not make you dumb or me some sort of genius by comparison.
Take that very same statement and apply it to up and down instead of east and west.
Yes, as i said - if there was no force then there would be no down - at all. It just so happens that there IS a force, and in the direction we arbitrarily named down, which we call weight. Weight is an intrinsic and inexorable property of all matter. It is not imbued by magical "fields". If you still don't understand - please ask questions! If you disagree, please try to do so using specifics and - even better - examples!
Then maybe you'll see why this "density" argument is stupid.
I'm not making a density argument. In many ways I'm explaining it, and why your "debunk" is nonsensical - but what i'm really doing is sharing my view, and my conclusions from a lot of research on the subject.
If you truly wish to learn about my perspective, it will take time - but i assure you that we will get there eventually. You only need to be earnest and continue the conversation! Ask questions!
Genius
No. Thinking that objects ought to fall east or west when there is no force being applied to them is certainly not "genius". Nor was your first response to my question as to why you believe they ought to fall east or west.
and remove all of the air
Not really, but you can remove a lot of it!
all of the objects will always fall towards the earth
Well, removing more of the stuff in the room is hardly going to help them stay aloft!
Things fall to reach equilibrium / their available lowest energy state as efficiently as possible (by following the path of least resistance). They fall because they are lifted, and with the same energy used to lift them. They fall because they weigh more than the media they displace. When you make that media LESS dense (by removing it, in a partial vacuum) - obviously that doesn't make things fall less....
Again, if you don't understand (or disagree) with any of the explanation above, please ask questions!
objects will always fall towards the earth
When they are heavier than the media they displace, yes! Otherwise, no.
Your whole premise that up is up and down is down because that's just where the natural equilibrium is can be easily disproved by putting objects in a controlled environment and changing their equilibrium in relation to each other.
The equilibrium (or tendency towards rest / lowest energy state) doesn't change in the "vacuum". Why on earth do you think it does, or should? You don't seem to understand archemide's principle. Things fall if they are heavier than the media they displace... Why would putting it in a "vacuum" (aka : a less dense media) change or "disprove" anything about that?
Or maybe "equilibrium" means something completely different to you, like "weight" does?
Nope! Traditional definitions for both - however equilibrium has more potential for misunderstanding, so perhaps "rest" or "lowest available energy state" might be less likely to potentially mislead.
All these words your using are very similar to Scientology jargon
I loathe scientology (except for their stance on psychology and drugging children), but if there are any words you think i am using a non standard definition for - please just ask! It is not nearly as important that we use the standard definitions for words as it is to effectively communicate with one another. As long as we understand what we mean, an alternative definition shouldn't be too much of a problem - should it?
Because there's no force being imparted on them to pull them downward in your worldview.
That is not a sensical answer to my question. If there is no force being imparted on them (other than the intrinsic force of weight and the interplay of that weight and the weight of the media displaced), why should they go east or west?
Gravity accounts for this
Gravitation. And, no - gravitation can't account for anything if it isn't real. I appreciate that in imagination it appears to account for it, but in reality it doesn't and the phenomenon of falling is still caused by weight. Even if gravitation were real, not all things fall, and archimedes had figured out and formally described why millennia ago (almost 2 millennia before the fiction of gravitation was first invoked by newton purely to solve an astronomical math problem).
The cause is made clear in the equation. Weight is all there is, and all that is needed.
I honestly don't know what to say to that other than it's word salad
When you don't understand, the best thing to begin with is to ask questions! The more specific the question the more likely you are to get a specific answer you're seeking.
Throwing up your hands and declaring "word salad" is only appropriate when it is word salad - and that will only be established by asking such questions about it.
What didn't make sense to you? Were the words unclear? Their meaning? Ask for clarification! Be specific! Communication is hard, and takes repeated and concerted effort on both sides!
That aside, physics isn't for everybody - some of us genuinely enjoy it and have a natural aptitude.
I know that you are required to dismiss my views as "insane" and give up trying to communicate immediately by your dogmas, but ask yourself - is that the scientific thing to do? Is declaring every view that contradicts your own as "insane" and then sticking your fingers in your ears and running away the smart thing to do? Especially on a forum devoted to above average rational skepticism and investigation...
Just food for thought. I also wish you well.
Why don't objects with "weight" just displace east to west?
Why should they? The general reason is because they have no imbalance in that axis/dimension to resolve. The force from the displaced media's weight is roughly equivalent on all sides, and the weight of the object seeks equilibrium (down, where - generally speaking - it came from).
Why is it always in the same direction relative to the earth?
Well, technically it isn't. But it is mostly the same direction because that is the direction of least resistance to reach equilibrium. All things tend towards rest.
Things fall because they are lifted (and with the energy used to lift them), and because the media which they sit upon cannot support their weight.
Where does the force emanate from?
From the intrinsic property of matter called weight, and the interplay between the weight of an object and the weight of the media it displaces.
Does it come from the earth, pulling stuff downward towards it?
No. In fact, in classical physics there is no mechanism for pulling at all. Everything is push. A common example is sucking up liquid in a straw - you think you are pulling the liquid up to your mouth - but actually it is the air (and its weight!) which is pushing the liquid up.
Pushing stuff towards earth? If so, where?
Yes. From the weight within, surrounding, and above the object
Or perhaps we call it gravity?
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).
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.
So how do these things determine which direction is "down" without a force pulling them from that direction?
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.
How does gravity work?
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.
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.
It could be concave as well.
These charts exist only in your head.
Where have you tried looking? Is it nowhere? Be honest. You don't want to be a "liar" like me right?
Why do you keep lying?
Why do you keep beating your wife?
Don't keep lying to yourself just so you can be fantastically lazy and continue making baseless claims about people "lying".
why I'm even bothering to respond to you
Only you can answer that question, friend :) You certainly don't have to respond, and never did!
you keep harping on the same points
Just clarifying. You were confused that there was some sort of "dynamic argument", and/or that i was perhaps mischaracterizing the explicitly stated purpose of your post (i.e. merely to annoy / attack, not a conspiracy nor for the purposes of discussing conspiracy).
you've been shown are entirely your opinion
The latter views - that conspiracy should be a place to discuss conspiracy and related topics and not a steaming pile of shitpost garbage - sure, admittedly that is my opinion (and hopefully one that the mods, and even you - share).
But the primary view that your post is both disrespectful and an attack against those that hold a particular view (as opposed to an attack against their view, which is permitted - and by me, encouraged) - is not an opinion. It objectively (and rather explicitly) violates rule #1, though for some reason you don't want to admit that to yourself.
This is much like the question you asked regarding the procedure you supplied that you thought measured the curvature of water when it didn't.
What eratosthenes (his slave, actually), apocryphally, measured was the angle/length of shadows. Obviously.
What he calculated was the circumference of the world IF it was spherical, sunlight rays are always parallel, and a few other unvalidated assumptions.
If the world is not spherical and/or any of the other underlying assumptions were wrong then what he calculated was just nonsense.
All your claims are lies.
Now swinging wildly :( Everything you don't agree with is not automatically a lie, obviously.
Name one lie, let's start there. "Everything is a lie" is meaningless.
There is nothing for me to research
That's your excuse for refusing to do even a single google search for them? Pathetic.
Do you have chart that can do it
Yes. There are many charts which can do that. The times of sunrise and sunset have been recorded and subsequently forecast/extrapolated from those measured patterns for centuries (likely millennia).
You are a liar.
You are lying to yourself so you can choose to be lazy and do no research whatsoever :(
Show it, don' t just claim it.
This is real life. The burden to thoroughly validate all claims (facts are merely one type of claim) before accepting (or in your case, reflexively discarding) them always lies with us - the students.
You can ask for help in that endeavor, but demanding it like a petulant child is always counter productive.
All you have is claims without evidence.
"Flat earthers", aren't real. "Arguing" with them has made you grow complacent and form bad habits.
You are now trying to defend a stupid and evidenceless position yourself as a result :( (i.e. charts for sunrise and sunset times don't exist)
Don't argue - it's for idiots. Instead, earnestly discuss - the way all capable students do.
Because you can't be bothered to do even the smallest amount of research - now the charts don't exist AND i am a liar.
You are making me embarrassed for you.
Where have you tried looking for these charts to proudly declare that they "don't exist"?
I'm happy to help if you earnestly try and fail, but i won't spoonfeed you because it makes you a worse student.
Backtracking eh?
When you assume....
"for out purposes"
I only meant, "in this context". Sorry for the confusion.
Rule #1 is : "Be respectful. Attack the argument, not the person."
It is clear that you are both not being respectful (further, have the explicit intention of being disrespectful) and are attacking the people who hold a particular view rather than the view itself. I only added the verbiage that confused you to acknowledge that "respect" is a subjective term, but is perfectly objective enough in this case.
Nowhere do I personally attack anybody
It is the explicit purpose of your shitpost. There is no reason not to recognize and admit it. Because your attack is directed at many people rather than a singular "anybody" does not make it better (nor can you earnestly argue that it ever could) or somehow not a violation of rule #1.
and I apologized, which you accepted
True, and this was/is appreciated.
you're attempting to impose your subjective standards
Rule #1 is not particularly subjective in this context. This was a shitpost directed to explicitly annoy people who have a view you don't like. You are not addressing their argument(s) in any way and instead attacking them.
Besides it being a violation of rule #1 (and more importantly, in my view) your post had nothing to do with conspiracies, was a mean spirited waste of everyones time, and generally makes the community worse in every way.
And I don't "think" you changed your argument, you did change your argument.
Again, there was never any argument.
Does it bother you that you are unable to put into words the specific argument you believe was made and what it changed into? It would bother me.
How can anyone rationally respond to a view you can't articulate?
The point of this thread is that you believe the earth has to be the center of the universe, because the equations which describe it that way work to predict all the things you praised in the post title.
Do you finally understand the analogy, or will you keep obstinately refusing (to vainly shelter your pride and dogmas)?
Actually, no they don't. Buoyancy (and drag) is still in play in a partial vacuum. They fall very similar (often too similar for the precision of our instruments to detect) speeds. You may want to re-read my previous answer to this question.
The acceleration profile in falling is most influenced by the media. The reason things fall is due to their weight, and although the weight of the larger object is greater - it has more matter to move!
Furthermore, the fact that it does appear that if a perfect vacuum were possible to exist - that all things would fall at the same speed essentially rules out the idea of a propagating "force"/"pulling" wave being the cause of it. It is not really a mystery why gravity waves are purely imaginary. If they existed they would need to routinely violate many fundamental laws of nature.
Why do you think this? The weight of the object (and being greater than the media it displaces) is all that is required for things to fall. Scientifically speaking, it is the experimentally verified and verifiable cause of falling. It requires no magical "pulling force" which is utterly unempirical and hopelessly unscientific (which newton well knew and understood when he invoked it to solve an astronomical math problem).