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 :(
Whats funny when I was writing out this war game THIS had me for like 15 minutes.
Lol.
TBH I chose gravitational wave because it was a bigger word and I wanted to sound cool amongst all the cool kids here.
That's why einstein, or more likely someone studying the equations he claimed were his, called it that in the first place - and to make it distinct from gravity waves, which remain purely speculative.
I will take note of this in the future, should I pursue a career in sci-fi writing.
Lol, yes - though most of the sci-fi addicted fanboys also don't know the difference between them - so, go with your gut! I personally think this is by design/intention, as LIGO was massively (i.e. very expensively) advertised as "discovery of gravity waves" so the common folk would make this false conflation.
accidentally triggers a gravitational wave.
You mean gravity wave. Gravitational waves are not gravity waves (which are still only theoretical). If you believe LIGO, we are already being bombarded with them (gravitational waves) on a regular basis and they are damn near undetectable. Just a semantic nitpick.
What do you do to overcome the 2x weight being put on the body every day?
Normally, people kind of "waddle". Worst case, they lay down horizontally and stay that way (often forever).
I think the others have done a pretty good job of answering this one already.
When you are driving, or in/on any moving vessel, look at the ground close to you and compare it to the ground far in the distance.
The ground near you appears to be moving very quickly (when you are, anyhow) and the ground in the distance (or a bilboard, for instance) seems to be moving much more slowly.
The reverse of this effect is the reason you can see things moving very quickly at a great distance (of course, assuming they are big enough and light from them is received by your eye).
If the bullet were large enough (or illuminated in some way, like a tracer round for instance) you could do this test yourself to confirm - but it is the exact same situation as with the billboard.
The billboard is moving the same speed relative to you as the ground right below the window of your car, yet appears much slower. If you could fly the car up to be close to the billboard - it would appear to whiz by just like the road does (close to you) on the highway. Likewise, as you get farther and farther away from the billboard it appears to move slower and slower - even though you are still traveling the same speed.
You might want to drop this meme out of your collection.
Whoever built the horoscope knew.
Knew about parallax, triangulation and/or the distance to (or spherical shape of) the lights in the sky? The horoscope doesn't require any of those things.
Whoever built the https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antikythera_mechanism knew.
Also requires none of those things - right?
Someone knew the world was round, long before humans could supposedly even add and subtract. Inconsistencies, for sure.
Possibly, but the first people to historically record such a thing (that survived to us, anyhow) were the ancient greeks and they came to the conclusion by sitting around and guessing. The ancient egyptians conceived of a flat world, for instance.
Personally, i like the blue ones.
It's slightly more complicated/convoluted.
There is a massively advertised (i.e. funded) flat earth psyop.
However, contrary to popular misconception (encouraged by said psyop) - the primary purpose of the flat earth psyop is to suppress the subject because of how valuable it is.
Anyone with any earnest interest in the subject (including purely critical), please join us to exchange views on c/flatearthresearch.
Wrong
That's an insane, and reflexively contrarian, view. He who has the gold, makes the rules. It is the most "special treatment" that exists in our civilization.
You get special treatment if you're a black lesbian mentally retarded obese jew
Why on earth do you think that "special treatment" is somehow mutually exclusive? You can't seriously think that because one group - say, black people - gets special treatment that other groups magically can't have special treatment also.
Besides, who do you think pays to make/legislate those special treatments for the minority groups you mentioned above? The poor? Don't be so naive.
Wealth doesn't matter to your ideology
I am not espousing any ideology. I'm just calling a spade, a spade. You get special treatment if you can afford it (though that is not the only way/criteria that entitles you to such special treatment, as you mentioned).
woke projection never fails
Those that are ignorant of history are doomed to repeat it :( Empires (as well as individual empires), and their wealth, are built on the backs of slaves coupled with mass murder and other forms of theft (often euphemistically called "conquest")
Cults are obviously incapable of coexisting with other cults.
And yet there are so many cults, today and historically. They are evidently quite capable - though often do not do so amicably. Anyhow, i am against all cults and am a heretic to most all religions. You are simply mistaken about my perspective. When you assume...
If you want to know what i think and why, you should try asking questions instead of just guessing and being wrong over and over!
marxism, satanism, atheism, and queer are all derivations of the same religion.
That is your ideology, and i understand why you say that and what you mean. I don't necessarily even disagree.
Depends on the "conspiracy" theory you want to explore.
Granted, but my question was specifically directed at the op.
Or if you wanna go down the mackinnon
I cut my teeth in ufology. The phil schneider rabbit hole comes to mind too.
There is enough money missing from the pentagons budget we could have several moon/mars/space colonies.
If those places were real and reachable - sure, possibly.
All the land masses were prolly substantially bigger 10,000 years ago.
That is generally the biblical view, and the uniformitarian secularist view as well.
Most flat earthers believe it because its part of their religion
Believe what? Communism?! That the rich get special treatment?
but they have yet to link a video where someone talks about flat earth and then doesnt mention god as well
There are many. However, there is a significant amount of - not just god - but the christian god in the flat earth videos. The movement in england during the 1800's was almost exclusively christian.
There are two main reasons for this in my view.
- The christian bible unambiguously describes the world as flat.
- As a part of the psyop, the christianity angle is pushed to coral people back into a behavior control structure and limit their influence on / communication with secularists. Biblical literalists (a brand of fundamentalist) are considered cooks by the educated, as they are conditioned to under the guise of education.
I know you're a communist because the rich do not get special treatment.
That is an insane hill to die on, but have at it. You get special treatment when you can afford it. It's called service.
"Minorities" like jews, blacks, obese, and child grooming faggots get special treatment.
Did someone say they didn't?
Then don't white people deserve a homeland as well?
That's a separate, and completely valid, discussion. In general, you "deserve" only if you can afford in our civilization (though granted, there are other forms of special treatment like those you listed above).
That "current thing" itself is generated and advertised/marketed through that very same wealth, by those very same rich. The golden rule : he who has the gold (historically acquired almost exclusively through theft and often accompanying murder), makes the rules.
Your ideology is backwards and you don't care how hypocritical it is.
I don't think i'm espousing ideology at all right now; Just calling a spade, a spade.
Religious cultists never do.
That's generally true. I'm against cults and am a heretic to most all religions.
Actually, flat earthers aren't genuinely real at all.
They are products and/or agents of a heavily advertised (i.e. funded) psyop.
You think i am a communist just because i recognize the rich get special treatment in our civilization? I would say that those that don't recognize that obvious fact are deluded and blind - regardless of what political ideology they play cheerleader for.
They're called "the rich".
Lol, that's our civilization.
I was asking the op where this other secret civilization is.
Where do they live / where is their civilization?
Assuming the earth is flat, there are many available - known as AD maps.
Like providing a map would - or should! - convince you that the earth isn't the shape we were taught it is. Lol.