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.
But you're also claiming that other scientists and physicists agree with what you're saying
That's true, the vast majority of them throughout history do (all those who ascribe to classical deterministic physics).
None that I have found, both modern and classical, seem to agree with what you're sharing.
Then you haven't looked hard enough, and/or far enough back.
As i said, it hardly matters. As if you reading about any historical physicist espousing this view (of which there are a great many) would do any good at all.
Again, there is no pencil in this scenario, only the finger superglued to the bottle on the side closest to me. There is no push in this scenario.
No, that is all too complicated for you. Start simpler. Just a pencil, just a finger. One object - don't complicate it with others, it's just confusing you.
Can you answer the question of how my finger is pushing the bottle towards me, without adding any other element (such as a pencil) to the scenario?
Yes, and i have - but you didn't understand it. Perhaps you could go back and re-read the answers i have given as well as earnestly try to answer the questions i've asked (which you sadly ignored) in order to elucidate (such as the one two comments ago, which i reminded you to answer in the previous comment).
It's not that I need a hallowed name, but I need more than just you telling me this,
Clearly! But i don't think you should. I'm sharing my perspective - so the best source to learn about it is me "telling you this".
especially since what you're telling me doesn't make sense when applied in real life scenarios.
Of course it does! If it didn't make sense, so many physicists probably wouldn't have had this view for quite so long. When something doesn't make sense, it's best to start by asking questions! Much of your difficulty understanding is coming from your bias. Perhaps discussing a "real life scenario" might help?
I'm referring to the scenario when you superglue your finger to the bottle, there is no pencil in this example.
Part of your difficulty understanding is coming from overcomplication, which is only distracting you. Just consider the pencil (or the finger, if you insist) - nothing else. And try to answer the question i asked about it. That should help you!
In the example when you superglue your finger to the bottle, there is no pushing taking place.
Of course there is, you just call it pull ;) Start with the pencil/finger.
If you were taught about Christopher Columbus and/or Ferdinand Magellan in school, then you were officially introduced to FLAT EARTH THEORY
Sort of. You were (likely - especially if "educated" in the american school system) introduced to a strawman historical fiction against the idea of a flat earth (first created by the american 19th century fiction author of rip wan winkle).
Neither CC nor FM thought the world was flat, and never in any way sought to prove that it wasn't. That's just nonsense fiction a lot of us were taught as historical fact.
But what is weird about FLAT EARTH, is how EMOTIONAL people get about it.
You get the same (conditioned) reaction from any zealot when you criticize or attack their religious beliefs. It's often a good way to tell the difference between what someone thinks, and what someone believes and/or is required to believe (i.e. their dogmas).
like VACCINES
Another dogma. Any heretic who blasphemes against the holy lord vaccine is a heretic and deserves the stake.
Is that people have 2 very distinct brains,
one brain that is highly logical,
and one brain that is highly ethical.
Interesting idea. I tend to think that logic is a skill that takes time to learn/foster, nurture, and exercise. If you don't, it withers away by atrophy and people are ruled by their emotions by default.
because if we talk about USURY, we are using the ETHICAL part of our brain, and if we talk about INTEREST, we are using the LOGICAL part of our brain.
Ah, but what if interest is merely a form of usury? (in your example, a largely historical one that no longer exists today, minusculely benefiting a banking customer; a bribe so they can continue to gamble with your money... but much more commonly a fee you are charged for borrowing money you had no alternative but to borrow at whatever rates "the market" deems fair)
There are people who believe that white men have walked on the moon,
And there are people who believe that this story is a hoax.
And there are those of us who know that it's a hoax, because we have done adequate research to soundly conclude that ;)
Belief is the enemy of knowledge, and to objective study of any kind. If you believe the moon landings took place, or didn't take place - you have already lost the possibility of objective study and are hopelessly biased.
But why do people get so EMOTIONAL?
To put it simply, the secular religion of scientism. It is a conditioned response to prevent discussion, criticism, and communication/collaboration.
I encourage all who are interested in such topics to join us on c/flatearthresearch to discuss and exchange views on them!
I've yet to see a scientist that supports what you're telling me
Then you are not looking hard enough. But it hardly matters. As if when you read it in some book written by a hallowed name you would suddenly understand and/or agree!
Except, for instance, when you superglue your finger to a cup, and pull it towards you. There is no push in this scenario.
I can (repeatedly) lead you to water, but i cannot (and would not) force you to drink it. You can't learn/understand something you don't wan't to :(
I did have a thought that might help you though - assuming you in any way earnestly interested in understanding this perspective. Remove the bottle from the example. Just consider the pencil.
Hold the pencil in your hand and push the pencil forward. Now "pull" it back towards you. Other than the difference in direction (and assuming you were a perfect machine which applied the exact same force to achieve the exact same distance and path moved, forward then reversed), what is the difference to the pencil? YOU see push and pull, but the pencil only sees push.
Considering I've gone well before the 50's-60's, I am going back far enough.
In general, the further you go back the more prevalent and prominent the view will be - but as i said, it was a common view of particle physicists from the era you have "gone well before".
Other things CAN pull, such as if I superglue my finger to a cup and pull it towards me.
As i've explained, the sensation (and colloquial distinction) of pull is really push. Analogously, the sensation of "sucking" with a vacuum or straw is likewise an illusion - the external air pressure is in fact doing the pushing which we experience as pulling.
Nothing can move without being pushed in classical deterministic physics.
ie, the direction from which the force is generated and how it acts
Not in the example, no. Just the direction from your relative perspective.
The direction of the force, from the perspective of the water bottle, is identical.
The example with the pencil is a different scenario with different forces applied in different directions.
Nope! Same forces, same direction.
The only thing different when the bottle is facing away from you and when it is facing you is just that. Everything else is the same.
Why would cutting a finger off affect anything?
Because then the finger would be (effectively) the handle that the pencil is. When the finger is attached to your hand (and the fingertip superglued to the bottle, remember), it is functionally equivalent (physically/mechanically) to you gripping the end stub of that severed finger (or end of the pencil) and applying force as we've already described. This conceptualization was to disabuse you of the notion that there is some fundamental difference between the pencil and the finger superglued examples. There isn't, and severing the finger (hopefully ONLY in imagination!) makes that clear.
Where/who is discussing push as the only force in the universe?
You are likely not going back far enough. It is the view of most all classical/deterministic physicists. Most particle physicists into the 50's-60's (and likely some beyond that) shared/inherited that view as well. You may want to do some research on things like magnetic monopoles, and other force carrying particles believed to exist. None of them can pull either! Because billiard balls can't pull! I do hope you are at least beginning to understand me ;(
So im curious what is the flat earthers explanation is for climate change?
What would the shape of the world have to do with it? In general, climate (including any change to it) is believed to be almost entirely caused by the sun - regardless of the shape of the world.
It blows my mind people think climate change is fake
Then you don't know much about the ipcc, eh? Even if climate change were legitimate science, the fake shit being constantly bandied about by lying politicians and mass media for personal gains is plenty to lead the average person to conclude that it is fake and gay.
Something is happening, anyone who farms or is connected to nature senses it as well.
Anyone who doubts that weather changes day to day, year to year, decade to decade, century to century etc. is a fool. "Climate change" as we are inundated with by the fear porn propagandists is a horse of a different color.
That's exactly the point.
Agreed.
We're talking about two opposite forces acting in different directions, push vs pull.
No, we are talking about identical forces! Only the direction relative to you has changed. Our viewing perspective (or that of any other observer) does not change the physics, despite colloquial suggestion to the contrary with distinctions like push and pull.
because that's precisely the difference between push and pull.
Right! Only a distinction of arbitrary relative perspective - not a physical reality in any way. Same forces, just a different direction. Call it anything you wish. A rose by any other name...
The finger is not the handle
That analogy/simile is only to help you conceptualize. The fact that you are avoiding the example with the pencil shows that you understand. So if you cut your finger off, would it suddenly NOT be the handle that the pencil is in the example you're avoiding?
Have you genuinely never heard of the concept of pulling?
Lol. In my view, and that of classical/deterministic physics - there is no pulling. There is only pushing towards and pushing away - pull is an illusion / arbitrary colloquial distinction with no reality in physics. Billiard balls can't pull. There is no mechanism for pulling in traditional physics (or indeed, even in modern physics).
You're not pushing. You're pulling.
Potayto, potaughto. The point is that nothing has changed (except the direction) just because you apply the pushing force towards yourself (what you, and many, are calling "pull") as opposed to away in the example i just described ("the pencil handle"/"pushing rope")
Like you said, the words we use to describe reality have no bearing on it.
Then is an entirely different scenario with different directional forces.
Lol. The only thing that has changed is the direction you apply the pushing force.
We're talking about the finger being stuck to the part of the bottle closest to you and the bottle moving towards you.
Which is the same as the pencil example when the pencil is pointed towards you and you grasp it. In the glued finger example, your finger is the handle, if you like / it is conceptually helpful for you to understand.
I do not.
In the case of the "super glued finger analogy" the finger IS the handle. You push the handle towards you by moving your hand, and that force is transferred to the bottle (and the rear of the bottle) by the handle.
Imagine there is a pencil stuck to the bottle, instead of your finger. Now turn the bottle so the pencil is facing away from you. Now you grab the pencil as you would the bottle, with your pinky closest to you and your thumb farthest from you. Now push. The bottle moves away from you (aka, "pushing the rope"). The exact same thing happens when you keep everything the same and rotate the bottle 180deg so the pencil is now facing towards yourself. You push the bottle towards yourself, in the exact same way you pushed it away from yourself a moment ago.
Good advice.
If what you're saying applies to the properties of physical matter, yes.
Of course, but more than that it is my perspective. As such you can learn about it best by discussing it with me, even if it applied to nothing in physical reality.
What it is does not change depending on our perspectives.
Agreed. Which is largely why calling the force which causes the cup to move "push" or "pull" shouldn't really bother you, right? A rose by any other name...
I have a plastic water bottle on my desk right now. From above, I can grip the bottle at positions 4 and 6 o'clock, and bring the bottle towards me.
True, or you could super glue the face of the bottle closest to you to your finger and then move the bottle towards you to as you moved your finger closer to you. In that case you are "pushing a rope" if you get my meaning. The billiard balls are still pushing towards you, and the force is transferred to them by the "rope".
There is no handle.
In your second example the cap is the handle, and in my example above the glued finger is the handle. But you need not think of things this way, and it doesn't seem like it is helping you to do so. It is intended as a conceptual aid; things don't need handles in order to push, obviously.
Well, I do require supporting documentation,
To understand what i am saying? It's best to learn about my perspective "from the horses mouth" don't you think?
because what you're saying doesn't make sense in practice.
You are free to ask any questions about my perspective (and that of classical deterministic physics) if you wish! What doesn't make sense? In particle (aka "billiard ball") physics, even forces are particles. Particles cannot pull, for the same reasons that billiard balls cannot pull.
I can pull a cup towards me without wrapping my hand around the cup.
Not without pushing the cup towards you, no! You are, of course, free to call that pushing "pulling" due to frame of reference / colloquial familiarity - but it is still just pushing. Perhaps if we walk through your thought process / example, my perspective may make more sense to you.
I don't see where the billiard ball view can support how that works.
Your moving "billiard balls" (in your hand) collide with the cup (or the behind of its handle), pushing it towards you.
It would certainly help your struggle in conveying how this process works!
Perhaps. I think it would just be more distraction. To learn about my perspective and (hopefully) clear up any of your difficulties with it, the best way would be to ask me about it directly!
What specifically do you find that i've said which is illogical, and why?
The whole point is it is taught as "nonsense" and excluded as a "maintainable" model on purely philosophical grounds. Not scientific ones!
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.
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.).
I am not advocating for deferral to religious doctrine.
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?
I think it worth seriously evaluating and considering - but i agree that nothing should be accepted before your own rigorous critical evaluation and validation.