Have you done research into shapes other than flat earth?
It is best to simply research the earth's shape directly - whatever it may be, ideally without such preconceptions/beliefs/biases.
In terms of evaluating other peoples ideas / conclusions as to the shape of the world - yes. I have evaluated/researched spherical and concave notions, as well as those that think it is flat.
A central part of flat earth research is identifying and eliminating/suppressing such beliefs. I attempt to deal with what i actually know (and have validated), which is what objective study (the ideal) requires.
Belief (e.g. suspicion, speculation) is the enemy of knowledge and objective study of any kind.
I know that the world isn't spherical the way we are taught. I could guess [suspect] as to the actual shape, but that is exactly what brought the ancient greeks to the incorrect conclusion (which we inherited) millennia ago.
Our discussion about a scale model of the earth comes to mind
Was there more of that conversation to be had? I think we had pretty well concluded it. You were in search of a completely accurate scale model of the earth - and in general, one doesn't exist - regardless of what shape it actually is.
As well as our talks about Antarctica
Again, i don't think there was much of anything left unsaid and certainly nothing ignored. You may not have been satisfied with my answers, but that is a different matter.
If there really is anything you asked/discussed that you think was ignored, please cite/link to it specifically so i can properly address it!
How come serious attempts at discussion get ignored
Do you have an example? Personally, i try not to ignore anything, though life certainly gets in the way and sometimes it takes me a while to respond.
and/or get empty responses actively withholding information?
Personally, i try to answer questions as thoroughly as i can. However, the one exception is when doing so will make the student weaker at doing their own research and thinking for themselves.
Im very happy to help any earnest students in their research, but i should not, and will not do it for them.
That i don't know (and no one does, in my view). It would require measuring the entire earth and ideally validating those measurements repeatedly.
Provisionally, if the earth is 70%+ covered in liquid water then because of the laws of hydrostatics - it certainly cannot be the size and shape we are required to learn (and repeat) it is from childhood.
It's my quote.
Try the other one i mentioned if you are looking in more modern hydrostatics textbooks.
Otherwise, the older the hydrostaticks text, the more plainly it will tend to be written. The surface of still water (of significant surface area) is always level, flat, and horizontal.
You won't because you can't
Is that why you refuse to look something up? Because you can't? That's sad :(
You are all the same.
And yet, i'm not a flat earther... You are very confused. Try asking questions instead of making assumptions - you're a lousy psychic.
Conclusion: you made up this "law".
"Everything anyone says that i don't like is made up. Luckily i just believe this to be true religiously, otherwise i'd have to look things up" - you :(
Just another flat Earth liar who cannot substantiate his claim.
I can and did. Did you try looking it up? Where did you try looking? Was it nowhere?
as predicted, you cannot provide any actual data.
I can, but i won't because it will make you an even less competent student than you already are :( If i feed a man a fish...
flat earther never can.
There are no flat earthers, and i am certainly not one in any case. You sound confused.
I think you may have misread my comment.
I am of the view that the earth is not rotating - the sky is.
Unlike me, jesuits are all in on cosmology, having made most of it up (from the fiction of "outer space" to the fiction of "the big bang")
This is kind of a trick question.
The first one i am aware of is the, so called, gyro[spin]-scope[viewer].
The more scientific / "peer reviewed" procedure is known as the michelson gale pearson "experiment".
More modern examples include other types of accelerometers like the mems and the gyrocompass.
The reason this is a trick question is that the michelson gale pearson observation is an aether measurement. It measures the perturbance of the aether, but it cannot discern the cause. As in astronomy/cosmology, it is equally valid to conclude that the earth is spinning and the aether is stationary as it is the reverse, or some combination of both's motion.
Airy's failure shows that it is, in fact, not the earth which moves - but the aether above us (the rotation of the sky).
Aside - there is no reason why the world can't rotate AND not be spherical... People only conflate the two due to their mythological predispositions.
Provide a map, size and measurements of the flat Earth.
Assuming the earth is flat, there are many available - known as AD maps.
You won't do it.
Like providing a map would - or should! - convince you that the earth isn't the shape we were taught it is. Lol.
Then for fuck's sake provide one.
I don't do people's homework for them, it makes them weaker/less competent students.
Why can't you?
I can help you find one if you earnestly look and fail. My only request is that you earnestly try first, and then share what you tried. Are you afraid you might confirm what i'm saying, and so refuse to look?
Why do all airlines fly as if the earth is a globe and not flat
Why do you assume that they fly as if the earth is a globe? In what way do you believe this is the case and can you provide some (likely imagined) examples?
What do you think airlines would do differently if the world were actually flat, and not spherical as it is believed?
Airplanes fly, and they often try to take as straight a line path as possible (to save fuel). They imagine they are "great circle/arcs" but experiencially to all the pilots and passengers they are straight lines.
Airplanes do not depend on the world to be any particular shape. Why do you think they should/do?
Yes, many. It is in a great many books on hydrostatics, and phrased a number of different ways (both mathematically, and more often - in english). One way it is described in modern textbooks is "Fluids at rest cannot resist a shear stress" or equivalent.
You seem to be misunderstanding what a scientific law is, and why.
We establish them by measuring what is, not what we imagine might be.
When we measure water's surface at rest, again - barring negligible surface tension artifacts, it is always flat, level, and horizontal. The "source" of this law, as well as the place to look for a citation validating (or invalidating, as it appears you hope) it is reality! Still, if you trust books more than you trust your own competence to assess reality - there are many available on hydrostatics.
What do they have to gain by stating the earth is round? What advantage would that produce?
Keeping their job. Imagine a (science or otherwise) teacher (or most any other professional) NOT stating that the earth was round... How long do you think they would last?
One of the tactics of the psyop is to slander the subject as some sort of "conspiracy" to suppress it. Indeed this is the purpose of the terminology "conspiracy theory" outright.
The shape of the world is not a conspiracy, and humanity requires no help (nor conspiracy) to be stupid and wrong as it historically always is.
Teachers teach students that the earth is spherical because they were taught, and believe, that is its shape. There is no conspiracy required whatsoever.
However, if one were hellbent on assuming such a conspiracy does exist and some group of people were knowingly misinforming the rest of humanity (and had for literally thousands of years!) - then there are a great many potential benefits to doing so. Use your imagination! Here's one to get you started : What if there were more land not on our map/globe?
I did.
"Barring negligible surface tension artifacts, the surface of water at rest is always flat, level, and horizontal."
The reason it is a law is because there are no measurements which contradict it. That's all laws are - repeated measurements of what is.
Prior to "newton's folly", there are many descriptions - both mathematical and, more commonly, in english of this law (aka phenomenon/behavior) which describe it plainly. After "newton's folly", the laws are surreptitiously changed to include fictional terms - but this is simply not acceptable in science. Laws are created from measurement. They cannot be changed (and should not) until and unless contradictory measurement is provided which warrants such a change.
By saying silly things that are trivially demonstrated wrong?!
The true purpose of the flat earth psyop is the opposite!
It is to ensure that no one seriously examines or discusses the subject because it is valuable to do so. It is labeled a "conspiracy" (when it plainly isn't one) for all the same reasons other legitimate things are - to slander, suppress, and disable general knowledge (and expression!) of them.
The language used is often simple and imprecise, leading to misunderstandings like this.
Of course water can curve, it's a fluid! It can take the shape of anything you put it in, or forces applied to it. In the case of the droplet, it is being forced into that shape by isostatic air pressure (air pressure pushing equally on all sides)
However, aside from negligible surface tension artifacts, the surface of liquid water at rest is always flat, level, and horizontal.
It is more accurate to say that water at rest does not, and by its nature cannot, curve convexly in the manner the globe model describes/requires. This has been a law of hydrostatics for centuries.
If you went out and directly measured the supposed curve of a stationary body of water (such as a frozen lake, for instance) - you would be the first person in history to do it!
In fact, everyone who has ever tried (including the scientists in the discipline of hydrostatics) has found that it does not, and cannot, curve at rest the way we are taught it must to fit the presumptive worldview we are steeped in.
To anyone with an earnest interest (including critical!) in this subject, or the heavily funded psyop that surrounds it, please join us to exchange our views on c/flatearthresearch!
I see your point that something has to be postulated and imagined.
In science, postulations/imaginings/guesses only have a place in hypothesis generation. The purpose of hypotheses is only to be experimentally verified or refuted. A hypothesis only becomes science after experimentally verified, and a valid hypothesis can never invoke fictional imaginings as a cause (ex "zeus caused this").
Newton understood that what he was doing was so blatantly unscientific that he famously didn't even attempt to formulate a hypothesis for gravitation - and of course - nor any experiment to test or validate it.
He just made it up (sort of, the concept already existed - credited to the ancient greeks - he really just "invoked" it)
Newton was observing physical laws and made math to best describe them.
He wasn't even observing physical laws - he was observing lights in the sky and then using math and fantasy to make up laws. This is, of course, completely unacceptable in science and inherently unscientific. Experiment is the driving engine of science, not fiction/imagination/math.
It is science to do as you describe - it is called "natural law", merely the description (in any language, mathematics included - but traditionally ... english) of what is. However, again, natural law cannot include fantasy/fiction nor speculate on cause (as newton's "law" blatantly did).
Newton didn't concoct fanciful new concepts as relativity does.
No, as i said - he merely "invoked" ones that rich ancient greeks had concocted while sitting on their asses, musing on reality.
It is hardly better.
Those bizarre physical assumptions lead to a view of the world with strange paradoxes including the absurdity of relative simultaneity which makes it technically impossible to determine cause and effect in the universe.
True. And it is a simple explanation why relativity is clearly wrong. Paradoxes that are irreconcilable with reality as well as unobserved are not a "badge of honor" (as they are often misrepresented as) for a framework designed to describe/explain it.
No mind bending paradoxes that turns physics on its head.
Keeping in mind that i generally agree that newtons "sin" was less egregious, he did exactly that - and every physicist worth their salt since has loathed him for introducing magic into physics. "Spooky action at a distance", something (mass) acting upon something (mass) through nothing is absolutely anathema to physics.
The level of absurdity and I'd dare say arrogance in trying to make the physical world fit a vision rather than simply trying to describe what is observed.
It is the war of rational positivism vs pure theory. One is science, the other isn't.
All that said, and largely agreeing with your position in many respects - it is worth mentioning that - just like "newton's folly" - relativity is useful in certain contexts and matches with what we observe.
For instance, when we try to accelerate a particle - even in the best vacuum we can muster, for instance, it does not take the energy that newton's equations predict - but the ones that relativity does. This is one example of many. It is kept and taught not so much because it is correct, but because it is useful in certain contexts.
Also, einstein is a patron saint of scientism and they paid a LOT of money to secure that title. They won't give it up easily.
"Gravitational waves" are imagined guesswork based on vibrations in the Earth
Not necessarily, but this is a likely possibility.
Light bending around the sun doesn't happen in "empty space" it only happens through the photosphere where there is atmosphere.
Agreed. "Gravitational lensing" is not a thing, nor is there any experimental support for the possibility that it might be.
More to your point, yes - most all the "proofs" of relativity are themselves widely publicized hoaxes.
Space-time is far more "magic" than gravity as a force.
They are equivalent, and for the exact same reasons. One was, ostensibly, made to supersede and replace the other precisely because they are the same. Both are entirely unscientific and magic, and for the same reasons.
In my view, there is no "gravitational force" at all. There is only weight, which is an intrinsic property of all matter.
a field force is a fairly well defined construct
But that does not make fields real! We have many well defined concepts, many of which are useful - but that doesn't make them actually exist in manifest reality outside of our conceptions.
When einstein said "nothing more of his castle in the sky remains", he was talking about fields - writ large. He was remarking on how successful the quantumnists had been with quanta/particle-based views/conceptions.
Space-time is undefined
In the exact same way as "gravitation" and for the same reasons. It is defined in the equations, and does not exist in any way outside of them.
How does "space-time" act on me while I'm standing still on Earth's surface?
How can "space-time" act upon you, when you yourself are both within and comprised of "space-time"? How much wood could a woodchuck chuck...
There is no physical explanation there, it's all conceptual / mathematical.
Correct. Exactly like gravitation before it, and for the exact same reasons.
I do however empathize with the general view that einstein was no newton.
It adds a logically absurd concept of space-time.
One of the simple proofs for relativity being wrong is its many paradoxes (often taught in conjunction with it to students as "mysteries of the faith" rather than the massive errors that they necessarily are and prove).
Tell that to Maxwell
Mathematicians are not scientists. If the math is useful, use it.
That is the basis of electromagnetic force equations which work exceedingly well
True
and describe reality very well
This is the error. Useful does not equal correct. This is a common and encouraged erroneous conflation.
Geocentrism described astronomical reality very well too...
In practice it is, and Einstein admitted it is, but all modern relativists claim relativity does away with an ether
I don't blame them for being mistaught and therefore wrong in this regard.
So you have to ask them why they say that and Einstein doesn't.
Aether-mcarthyism. In order for relativity to be the only option available, the other aether theories needed to be cleared away / declared forbidden.
It invents something truly fanciful, the idea that space+time is one object that does "things" to other objects
Exactly, and this is precisely why it is unscientific (unemperical), and why gravitation was before it. Newton understood that he was introducing unscientific magic and a "philosophically unsound" fictional concept into physics when he invoked gravitation to solve an astronomical math problem. The subsequent students were not taught honestly about that. Experimentalism is the engine of science, not fanciful theory.
So, far too many contradictions compared to Newton's straight forward approach with gravity.
There is nothing straightforward about the three body problem or the surface postulate - but in general, i agree - one is less convoluted than the other. However, they are identically fictional and unscientific - and for the exact same reasons.
One led to incredible flights of fancy, whereas the other was simply the most accurately description of fundamental actions in our physical universe.
Interesting. The "standard" view is that relativity is the latter - but i get the sense you mean the opposite. There is ample support for both views (that newtonian cosmology is the flight of fancy and relativity the "most accurate" and vice versa), which is why it is interesting.
Newton invoked his magical god gravitation (big g!) in order to solve an astronomical math problem. It was certainly an unscientific flight of fancy and led to many others (like that the moon is a giant rock floating in the sky which pulls the oceans to cause tides and many other more ridiculous ideas)
General relativity is very hit or miss (mostly miss) and involves a fanciful invention of space-time.
More or less. At its core, it is an aether theory. The "space time" is a mathematical description of the structure of the universe (aka aether).
"Ironically", it was created - at least in part - as an attempt to fix the massive unscientific and religious fantasy that newton had introduced to physics with gravitation ("spooky action at a distance"). In physics, something cannot act upon/through nothing. Relativity attempts (and ultimately fails) to explain/describe/define the intermediary which transfers this magical force from the one mass body to the other. Newton's explanation, on the other hand, was literally "god did it".
Newton's work, on the other hand, was truly foundational and could be built upon.
Some of it, yes. The stuff that was actually science and bore of the scientific method. His astronomy forays which he is often most celebrated for are, like today, mathematical and religious - not scientific. They are every bit as imaginary and fanciful, and for the same reasons.
So why then does academia and the media insist Einstein's theory explains true and LASTING clock slowing? Is it an intentional conspiracy?
Relativity is more of a heavily advertised hoax, but that certainly does imply a knowing/willful conspiracy amongst academia and their publishers.
In any case, humanity requires no help - nor conspiracy - of any kind to be stupid and wrong as it historically always is.
So why then does academia and the media insist Einstein's theory explains true and LASTING clock slowing?
Scifi addiction and the religion of scientism. "Muh time travel", "Ignore reality, consume fiction in its place", and you hit the nail on the head - postmodernism's dogma of moral relativism.
it wouldn't be the first time science went astray organically.
Relativity and its idol einstein were a nothingburger for almost half a century before the mass media spent huge amounts of money making him into a publicly celebrated "rock star" (this never happens to great scientists - until long after their deaths, if ever) There was very little "organic" about that or the aether-mcarthyism that ensured no alternative to it in academia (which happened concurrently - "ironically" against einsteins vocal protests that relativity was itself an aether theory)
Einstein's work must be overturned
Many claim, and claim to be able to prove, that it was never his work to begin with. Neils bohr and the quantumnists wiped the floor with him in any case. In einsteins own words - "nothing remains of his castle in the sky".
In any case, relativity is easy to disprove - however it is demonstrably useful in some limited cases. Not unlike many newtonian views - still taught and used today, not because they are correct - but because they are useful in certain contexts.
But until those genius physicists start doing anything truly ground breaking
"The proof is in the pudding". I am still waiting on my tractor beam :(
Of course. In many gross depictions of flat earth it is depicted as hemispherical, and i've even encountered someone who thinks it is shaped like a ziggurat (i think an inverted one).
I've never encountered a vocal "cubist" outside the art world - have you? Again, due to the natural behavior of water and assuming the earth is 70%+ covered in it, if it were a cube, the world we know would be on the top face of it. Some think this is generally what masons mean by "on the square"
Again, if you seek to determine the shape of the world through research - it is necessary to eliminate such biases for objective study of any kind. You research the earth and its shape, not the "spherical earth" or the "cube earth" etc.
Of all the ones i encountered, the rectilineator was one of the more fascinating things i researched in regards to measuring and concluding that the earth is actually concave.