You may ask me any question, as long as you ask it earnestly.
I'm happy to share my knowledge (and expose it to critical scrutiny) whenever it is of benefit.
Whenever you're done muttering to yourself you should learn how to have a conversation with someone else (if you can!). The voices in your head are not your friends. Do not, i repeat, do not engage!
Also, i wouldn't waste the mods time and draw attention to yourself. You'll just get banned - again - but, "you do you" i guess.
Jack, I guess rather than gyroscope I should have said accelerometer -- so a device, such as a fiber-optic ring that will tell you your acceleration, both magnitude and direction.
Makes no difference at all. RLG's, mems, gyrocompasses (which do contain gyroscopes) - none of them in any way depend on the earths shape to function. This is an encouraged/popularized mistake/misunderstanding. Ask yourself - why do you think they need the world to be spherical in order to work?
In an airplane that's coasting, there is no acceleration, because gravity is balanced by lift.
That's not what the equations describe, but god knows i agree with you. The plane is (basically) not accelerating towards the ground when it is flying at constant elevation.
Now, if you're flying east-west on a 'Gleason map' flat-earth, then you have to constantly veer to the left to maintain the circle. You won't notice this effect physically, because it's small. But a sensitive accelerometer will detect it.
It certainly could, i agree. In reality, such precision even if present (it isn't) would be massively overwhelmed by local sources (wind, vibration, actual course flown etc.). A very large circle would, and does, seem identical to a straight path. Of course, airplanes don't travel in perfectly straight lines in any case. It's all a bit moot.
Conversely, if you're on a Globe earth, you'll have to constantly veer downwards, otherwise you'd fly off into space.
This is a common mistaken view amongst the "flat earthers" (psyop). They argue that because a plane DOESN'T (and doesn't need to) make any such corrections that this demonstrates the world can't be spherical the way we are taught.
If you agreed with this (flawed) premise, you would likely come to the same conclusion - that the world was not spherical, so it is a bit odd to me that you brought it up!
I hope this clears up what I mean?
A little. I still think you are misunderstanding what gyroscopes (and/or accelerometers) are in planes and what their function is.
Anyway, i once again thank you for earnestly engaging in the conversation. You might be surprised how rare that is! Much appreciated.
Who on earth do you think you are talking to? Do you deludedly believe there is some "audience", or are you just talking to those voices again? They aren't your friends.
As you well know, you cowardly liar, i am not a flat earther.
Why don't you grow a spine and ask a single earnest question?
You are lucky there is no audience reading any of this, i would be doubly embarrassed for you :(
Translation
There is no translator nor is one required to read the clear english i wrote. Stop listening to the voices in your head. They're not your friends.
What a coward. Can't even ask a single question because you're too afraid to actually get an answer. Pitiful.
Every question in your rhetorical gish gallop copypasta is trivial to answer. If you ever stop being such a frightened child, perhaps you'll just pick out your best one and ask it earnestly.
I won't hold my breath.
They’re right there.
The list you posted is a copypasta gish gallop, and a waste of everyone's time including your own (which is why i hope, for your sake, that you are a bot). I could easily answer them all, as we did once before - and you would just ignore them again.
If you have an earnest question, then ask one. What is the most important / "most impossible to answer" one? Why are you so afraid?
Gee, that didn't sound like a question...
Too scared to even ask a single one earnestly?
What, specifically, is "wrong". Use your words
I’m sure you think you answered them
Can't you even remember? Or do you just prefer to forget so you can mindlessly spam this copypasta over and over again?
Go ahead, ask your best question (earnestly). Your questions are all trivial to answer.
Are you just afraid of ever receiving an answer, because then you couldn't spam anymore?
Here: Why can I go either East or West from Toronto, and end up in Rome?
Regardless of the shape of the world, it would be because when you are traveling east or west you are actually traveling in a large circle with its center at the north pole.
On a spherical earth, a gyroscope would detect a semi-constant acceleration towards the ground.
Detect? All matter "detects" a semi-constant acceleration towards the ground in your view - doesn't it?
On a flat earth, a gyroscope would detect a semi-constant acceleration to the right or left, but none towards the ground.
The gyro (spin) - scope (see/view) was created for demonstrating the rotation (gyro) of the world - not its shape. If the world were flat, the gyroscope would behave exactly the same way it currently does and for the exact same reasons. Right?
Why do you think its function is dependent on the shape of the world?
What are the results of this experiment -- which is done every day via air-flight?
First of all, this is in no way an experiment - we are talking about mere observations. Secondly, the gyrocompass (and/or artificial horizon in an airplane) works - on that we can agree. Once again the question is why on earth you think that is dependent on the worlds shape. It isn't... and in the case of an airplane, which isn't even touching the ground, it is obviously doubly so.
I don't know, but I suspect that it's the former.
I'm not sure i'm fully understanding you. It seems you aren't properly understanding what the gyroscope is used for on airplanes. Maybe it will become more clear if you can answer some of the questions above.
In any case, your earnest engagement is appreciated!
The Principle rides upon supernatural beliefs
It is remarkably pro bible / traditional catholic views, but the thesis of the documentary is not supernatural. Even if it were, what we are discussing isn't. There is no supernatural belief in the recognition of the historical fact that geocentrism is discarded for philosophical, and not scientific, reasons. The documentary does a great job showing the historical inception and chronology of that philosophical bias, as well as its impacts today with modern cosmology and cosmologists; which, even when presented with compelling evidence that the earth is at the center (as it appears to us by observation), are so disturbed philosophically by such data as to discard it and continue to stubbornly cling to antiquated models which plainly conflict with such data/observations. Bias is pernicious, and as you say - it has everything to do with belief (the enemy of knowledge, and the possibility of objective study of any kind). Scientists are people too and they always deludedly think "we aren't superstitious (now)" in every age.
Those are not provable in any scientific way
Precisely the point! There is nothing provable or disprovable about a geocentric model. In truth, astronomy/cosmology is largely not science at all. One of the more interesting quotes from the documentary is from michio kaku admitting that in no uncertain terms - astrophycisists do not employ the scientific method - and as such are not scientists nor practice science. They are closer to mathematicians - theorists at best.
In any case - can you not answer my question? What specifically from the documentary did you find illogical, and what logic did it violate?
so this is really a waste.
If you say so. I don't think exchanging and exploring views with others of differing views is a waste unless you let it be. In general, it's called learning.
Besides, if you are "the learned" then sharing your wisdom with the less educated is also not a waste of time! It is the responsibility of us with knowledge to share it with others! Hoarding it while simultaneously maligning others for lacking it is cruel and self defeating/reinforcing.
And flat earth is a haven for both poor thinkers and trolls
The heavily advertised (i.e. funded) flat earth psyop - yes, i agree. The actual subject itself, as well as exploring such questions as "what is the true shape of the world, could i be wrong about it, and how can i prove it to myself and others?" is almost exclusively for intellectuals and capable autodidactic students only. It takes a great deal of intellectual fortitude, capacity, and bravery to recognize and admit that you could be (and likely are) wrong about a great many things you were taught. The fools and trolls, on the other hand, can only parrot what they were taught and reflexively/mindlessly attack any heretics which challenge their dogmas :(
I already did answer them - don't you remember? Of course not, because you just mindlessly copypaste this gish gallop for rhetorical purpose and don't have any earnest questions to ask.
Prove me wrong. Ask ONE earnest question; your best/most important question. Unless of course, you don't want answers to them...
illogic
What specifically do you find that i've said which is illogical, and why?
Anyone who has ever taken an astronomy course knows pretty well that it is nonsense to maintain the earth is the center of celestial bodies
The whole point is it is taught as "nonsense" and excluded as a "maintainable" model on purely philosophical grounds. Not scientific ones!
The sun does not circle around the earth, the planet earth is a subsidiary of the solar system not its center.
So we are taught, yes. But that does not make it so! Much (if not most) of what we are taught is wrong, just like historically and for the same reasons.
Centuries of astronomical observation data shows that
There is no observational data that fundamentally contradicts a geocentric model. That's the whole point! The reason it is excluded is for philosophical reasons, not scientific ones. Even with strong evidence supporting it and contradicting currently popular models (such as anisotropic cmb/matter etc.).
Deferral to religious doctrine bases things on the supernatural and not the real.
I am not advocating for deferral to religious doctrine.
The movie The Principle is absolute crackpot, full of bizarre illogic.
So you've actually watched it? I didn't find anything illogical, or more importantly - historically inaccurate - about it, though admittedly it is a bit of a catholic (ex-catholic, to be specific) propaganda piece. That doesn't prevent it from being a good documentary.
Again, what specifically did you find illogical? Maybe list a few things and explain what logic they violate?
For heaven's sake do not take it seriously.
I think it worth seriously evaluating and considering - but i agree that nothing should be accepted before your own rigorous critical evaluation and validation.
The 'earth is the center of the universe' argument was disproved long long ago.
Interestingly, no - that was never done. It was originally accepted by the pope on the recommendation by his advisers that it (the heliocentric model) be accepted for purely mathematical reasons (not scientific, or based on any particular observation, proof, or "disproof").
I highly recommend the documentary called "The Principle" on the subject. It is well worth a watch (or two).
said no terrestrial experiment could prove the motion of earth
Minor correction, but i believe he is quoted as saying no optical experiment [observation; not experiment] could prove the motion of the earth.
Why can't you ask earnest questions one at a time?
None of them are difficult to answer - regardless of conceived shape of the world.
It's because it's a heavily advertised (i.e. funded) psyop.
There are no flat earthers; just agents and products of the psyop.
They are contrived to sound so offensively stupid so you won't ever seriously consider, discuss, or research the subject because of how valuable it is.
Imagine spending so much money on an ad campaign to make something (the idea that the world is flat) already ostensibly stupid by default seem even stupider. Highly curious, wouldn't you say?
Methinks the woman doth protest too much...
Sorry, my wording of the question may have confused you.
No, your wasting of my time is just tiresome.
are you aware of tension and compression, and the respective effects they have on an object?
Please see my previous answer to this needlessly repeated "question".
It gets to be more and more apparent that you are incorrect in this.
And to me it gets more and more apparent that you haven't done thorough research, but who cares? Why let it distract and derail a conversation which has almost nothing to do with that?
That is the real question, which i suspect you already know the answer to :(
Yes, it is a major distinction.
Of course it isn't. Don't be silly. The force has not changed AT ALL. Only the direction is altered. Altering the direction (of two otherwise identical forces) doesn't fundamentally change a force - that would be an insane notion with no support in reality.
Before I begin, are you familiar with compression and tension forces, and how they affect objects?
Yes, but we are only talking about one simple object here. Pushing an object one direction (towards yourself) and pushing an object another direction (away from yourself). You will only get confused again if you try and make it more complicated (with springs/elasticity or other distraction). There is time enough for that once we are done keeping it simple!
I have not found one.
Keep at it, and you will find plenty! Or don't. Up to you!
It is what defines the difference.
We're kind of just "talking" in circles here. You call push towards you pull - but that is an arbitrary distinction based on your vantage/perspective and not a real distinction on the force itself (yes, it is its direction - which is a component of that force; but the force itself, push, is the same regardless of the direction it is applied in).
This is demonstrably false.
Provide an example. To a given object, push applied towards yourself (which you call "pull") is (or at least can be, and for our hypothetical - explicitly is) identical to push applied away from yourself (yes, of course - save for the direction - which even you must agree cannot and does not fundamentally change the nature of the force itself).
I have not found one person, aside from you, that has this stance.
So you keep repeating. There are plenty for you to find, but since you want to give up - i say just do it! Talk to me about my perspective instead.
because you aren't as forthcoming with information.
You must be joking. I answer all your questions, many of them multiple times because you keep repeating them.
I don't want to quit looking
Then don't! The further back you go, the more common the view is. Virtually all those of classical/deterministic physics share it. But it seems it will take you more in depth research than you are willing to commit yourself to. So be it; it hardly matters anyway, especially for our current discussion.
The primary difference is the direction from which the force is applied, that distinguishes push and pull.
Exactly! The direction is arbitrary and has essentially no impact on the force itself. The object feels/experiences/is subjected to the same force (push) no matter which direction that force comes from. The distinction of "push" and "pull" is an arbitrary semantic one, and has no physical significance. The force is always push(ing) regardless of the direction relative to us.
So not just the moan landing was a hoax, but the entire Cold War?
Correct.
Wars in Korea, Vietnam, and countless other places where the US and Soviets fomented insurrections is very strong evidence that you're wrong.
That would prove that the cold war wasn't cold, and once again the cold war is a hoax :)
The reasons that nations go to war (or merely appear/advertise to) are NEVER the reasons they tell their citizens. Just fyi.
I have not found one that says that push is the only force
Perhaps not in such a gross way. It is more proper to say that forces can only push, and that pull has no mechanism in classical deterministic physics.
I have not found one that says that push is the only force
No one said it was, please read the above for clarification.
In any case, as hearing it from a historical (or modern) physicist will do no good in terms of helping you understand anyway, why don't you discuss my perspective with me instead? I assure you that if you keep earnestly researching, you will find this classical view espoused by many physicists - but since you want to quit looking; i say go ahead. It's just another distraction for you :(
We're not just talking about your perspective though
Of course we are, don't be silly. We are only talking about my perspective, and yours. We're the only ones here...
Yes, it is true that many others (physicists included) share my view. We are still only discussing our perspectives.
I'm bringing it towards me.
Right! A completely arbitrary distinction! In reality there is no difference, save for direction, when the object is pushed in one direction, or pushed in another. The pencil/bottle/severed finger does not know or care what direction that is in relative to us. In physics it experiences the same forces when you move it away from yourself (pushing) or when you move it towards yourself (pulling).
You (and many others) call it pull only out of colloquial habit. If you earnestly go back, read, and answer the questions i have provided you, you will begin to understand. Otherwise you simply don't want to understand, in which case no one can help you :(
We've established I have looked far enough back though, before the 50's/60's was your suggested timeline and I've gone through there, so that's not the issue.
Lol. You can find physicists from that era who share this view, but it may be easier if you go back further.
What "we" have established is that you haven't looked hard enough (temporally in breadth, depth, or both)
It would at least be another source where I could read more of the actual principle though, since you aren't providing much in terms of concrete information.
There is no better source for my perspective than me, obviously. We've been over this.
Okay great, we'll keep it simple.
Consider ONE object to move and no "superglue" or other complications for the time being - they are just distracting and confusing you. Then answer the question i asked 3 comments ago now. Start there.
The answer is, you are pushing your hand, which in turn pushes on the superglue, which pushes on the eraser.
Who said it was? Stop listening to the voices in your head! Learn how to converse if you are at all capable. First step is learning to read what the other person has written. You can't just perpetually skip that step and pretend you are "responding".
Let a rip. Either they'll ban you again for wasting their time, or completely ignore any such reports in the future for crying wolf (aka lying). Either way is fine by me. Cheers