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)?
As predicted
Just because you couldn't be bothered to do one google search for sunset/sunrise charts - they don't exist and/or are "made up"? Some research ethic you have :(
Try harder, if you can.
Thank you for proving the point of this thread.
Sadly you have missed / been unable to respond to my points, and out of desperation resort back to predictable script :(
Flat Earthers are just so predictable
When you assume...
You aren't talking to a flat earther.
Show those charts
You can't find charts of sunrise and sunset times? Where have you looked?
The formula requires Earth to be round
This is your mistake. It is akin to saying the geocentric formula(s) require the earth to be the center of the universe. I hope you are beginning to understand my analogy.
It's a fact.
Many facts are wrong/untrue. Facts are merely what your authority tells you are facts. You believe it is a fact (i.e. true).
However, your "proof" is circular.
Premise : The world is a sphere because equations which include its sphericity work to predict sunrise/sunset times.
Conclusion : The equations work because the world is spherical.
The premise IS the conclusion, and does not follow from it. It's circular logic.
If the Earth is flat, why does the formula work?
Because we built it to! It coincides with the actual measurements that we made of the sunset/sunrise times because it was built from / confirmed against such charts.
Our conception of the world and its workings can be (and most often are) entirely wrong and still be useful.
Why can you not produce these "charts" that you claim exist
I won't because i don't do people's homework for them - it makes them worse students/researchers. If you earnestly search for such charts and fail to find them, then we can talk about what you tried and i will do my utmost to help you. Finding charts of the sunrise and sunset times should not be difficult.
Charts do not require the world to be any particular shape, just like the times for sunrise and sunset within them. They simply are.
Then show how you determine sunrise and sunset without a formula that requires a round Earth
You're not listening. They're called charts. Look them up, or don't.
You won't because you can't
You are just not understanding me. You believe that because such formula exist and are useful that proves that the world must be spherical. This is exactly as wrong, and for the exact same reasons, as believing that because the geocentric model (and its equations) exists and is useful that the earth is proven to be the center of the universe. Hopefully you will understand my analogy a little better now.
Repeating your subjective standards
The community rules are in the sidebar. It's rule #1. It's objective enough for our purposes, and has nothing to do with me.
You're not even aware of how you've shifted your argument?
There is no argument. You made a shitpost, i called you out. No argument whatsoever.
I am only curious what argument you think there was initially and what you believe it changed into. Can you really not describe it at all? Doesn't that worry you?
I'm not sure what the truth is, but i was fascinated by the documentary "3 Billion and counting" on the subject.
It has been shown to possibly cure/treat certain types of cancer, and the guy who made the video actually ate a decent quantity of it in the documentary.
I highly recommend it.
It's just an analogy to help you understand why your position is silly. Sadly it didn't help :(
Fundamentally, our belief of the world and its workings has no bearing on that world - including when there is ostensible "predictive" "power".
The reason we can know when the sun will rise and set is because it has happened before, and is reliably periodic. Not because the world is any particular shape.
The formula to calculate sunrise and sunset in a location requires the earth to be round.
So you believe. But the earth does it what it does, and the sun rises at the time it does irrespective of that belief.
The movement of the lights in the sky are cyclical/periodic. All you need are charts.
If it isn't round, how can the formula be accurate?
Lol, because the formula are built from (and in accordance with) the real observations. You are conflating useful with correct. They are not the same, and this is a common (i would say. encouraged) mistake.
Who did it and what formula did they use?
Lol, you don't need a formula. You need a chart. Most (if not all) of the ancient civilizations had such charts (many built them into their buildings - archeoastronomy).
One of the earliest known examples of a "formula" based mechanism was the antikythera device.
I'm looking forward to hearing your excuse for not answering this question.
Always prepare to be disappointed. We all know what happens when you assume....
With a round Earth, we are able to perfectly predict the time of sunrise, sunset and the movement of the stars and planets.
We've been able to do that for millennia (at least). It has nothing to do with the believed shape of the earth. It has to do with watching the lights in the sky, recording them, and noticing the cyclical pattern. The shape of the world isn't involved, as much as you may want it to be.
Many people are encouraged to have your misunderstanding.
Consider the geocentric model. It exists, and does all the things you are lauding above. Does that prove the world is the center of the universe?
Of course not, and for the exact same reasons.
Predicting the motion of the lights in the sky comes from charts and the fact that the patterns are cyclical/repeating. It doesn't in any way depend on the conception of the shape of the world.
This is incorrect, but popularly advertised.
Eratosthenes never figured anything out regarding the shape of the world. He was taught from childhood, as we all are today, that the earth is spherical and never doubted this teaching nor sought to validate/prove it.
In fact, his procedure and calculation require that the earth be spherical (and many further unvalidated assumptions) in order to be meaningful at all.
He calculated the size of the world assuming it was spherical (with many other assumptions besides).
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.