If this is the case, that's a major issue, because there are many forces that are not pushing forces.
Not in classical (deterministic, aka "billiard ball") physics, no. How would a billiard ball pull?
As i said, this is all just distraction currently - it has nothing to do with what we are talking about. Let's finish chewing on what's in our mouths before taking another bite!
It doesn't, because again there stands that there is matter at the top of the pile.
Not that can't be divided by 2. This is the core of zeno's paradox. The limit described would approach the actual weight. It's .99 repeating = 1 by different wording. You would always have another piece of matter with weight to do the "pushing from behind" and be consistent with your conception.
As i said, this was only for your benefit to try and understand/rationalize in a consistent way with your arbitrary convention. We see now that it didn't help. Best let it alone and try another approach if you are earnestly still interested in understanding.
And we then take the time to understand where that force comes from.
I've already done that (in much the same way archimedes undoubtedly did 2+ millennia ago). What we're doing now is trying to help you understand my conclusion that the force of weight is intrinsic and inexorable to all matter. Of course, you are free to disagree - but i think you are beyond the point of earnestly not understanding what i am saying.
Specifically?
As i said, at this point it is just more distraction. Let's try to stay focused on the one/current topic for now, and circle back.
So previously when you said it was "pushing" downward, was that just because you misunderstood that all force is pushing force?
I'm not sure i understand the question you are trying to ask. I am of the view that all forces are "pushing" forces, and that is the reason i omitted the word "pushing" from my description of your view that all (pushing) forces do so from behind, and thought the two statements equivalent (from my perspective). That's all - it was merely a rider to the apology so you would understand that there was no intention to deliberately mischaracterize your position.
Or do you still consider it to be a pushing force?
As i said, in my view all forces are pushing forces.
Eventually there is matter on top. What is pushing that? Its own weight pushing from within?
If you like, you may go all "zeno's paradox" on it and imagine the matter itself as infinitely divisible - if it helps you to understand/conceptualize. Most of these musings have only been for your benefit; to accommodate your self imposed arbitrary conventions. The matter above the matter on top of the object also pushes down upon it, if that helps you.
The matter itself has an intrinsic property called weight. That weight is what "pushes" down when the matter is heavier than the media it displaces.
We are not talking about an object at rest,
I am! And if there was some confusion about that, let's start with that example to discuss. Moving the object makes things needlessly more complicated.
we are talking about matter being "pushed" in a direction (downward)
We are talking about matter (which, because its weight is greater than that of the media it displaces, is) pushing in a downward direction with its weight. It does this at rest, sitting on a scale where we measure that weight.
Where are you getting this information from?
Science and the history thereof. In the traditional, deterministic, "billiard ball" conception of physics there is only push - but i don't think this aside is worth focusing on currently. It's only distracting from the actual conversation at the moment. It is well worth circling back to later though!
The only response that I have is that it's still not clear where the pushing force comes from.
It principally comes from the weight of the object. Weight is an intrinsic and inexorable property of all matter. When an object weighs more than the media it displaces, this force is directed downwards. It's all pretty simple and straightforward.
As i explained before, if it helps you to conceptualize / rationalize with your arbitrary view that "pushing force must come from behind", then you may imagine the matter at the top of the object "pushing" the matter beneath it (with its own weight) which cumulatively pushes on the matter beneath that etc., until that cumulative weight/force is measured on a scale.
Let me know if you are still having trouble understanding, or need more clarification!
relative to the direction of motion
Strictly speaking, in an object at rest - there is no direction of motion. But there is a direction to the force (as forces are vectors) of weight, and it is down when the weight of the object is greater than that of the media it displaces.
By your description, it seems to come from within the object.
Weight is intrinsic to matter, yes. But like i said, it may help you to imagine an object as an aggregation of "pieces" of matter (atoms or smaller if you like) which all push upon each other to become the cumulative weight measured on a scale.
You do if you want to claim this photo supports a flat earth
You've already forgotten what we were talking about? That's a little sad :(
No one claimed any photo you shared supports a flat earth. Perhaps you need to go back and re-read in order to remember what we were talking about.
Especially after spending an entire day telling me how invalid this photo is as evidence due to distortion
I appreciate that is all you experienced / can remember - but i never said anything of the sort. I never said the photos you shared were invalid, and it didn't take me more than a single comment (a sentence or two, actually) to explain why the photos do not and cannot show the curvature of the earth. The "entire day", continuing into today - has only been to try and help you to understand those few sentences.
Also, you need to measure the distortion too, not just the distance in the photo.
Again, i'm not the one who is confused about the globe model or the extremely subtle (essentially imperceptible) curvature that is described in it and would be (by calculation) visible on such scales.
If the reason for the ostensible curvature is not due to distortion, which i agree is the presumptive/deductive cause, then what on earth do you think causes it? Do you truly believe the world is far tinier than the globe model describes / we're taught? I am having difficulty imagining another option.
I'm not wasting my time on any more novels from you
They are only a waste if you don't read and/or understand them. When you don't understand, the best thing to begin with is to ask questions!
How did you manage to measure the distance in a Arial zoomed in picture with no landmarks?
I don't need to, you do (although the landmarks in the pontchartrain shot are of known height and spacing) . They are your observations.
I already know (from both experience and calculation), that the curvature on the scales in your pictures is not visible. You are free to repeat such calculations at your leisure.
Weren't you ... telling me this photo can't be used as proof of anything due to distortion?
Sort of. I was telling you that science requires measurement, not simply looking at things and then making declaration. I am also telling you that the curvature in the photos has to be distortion because if it were actually the curvature of the earth (as you want it/ are biased to believe it to be) then the world would have to be much smaller than the globe model specifies.
You throw out any evidence that doesn't support your preconceptions, and uphold anything you can twist to support it
You are describing yourself. You want so desperately for these photos to contain the earths curvature that you don't even know (through trivial calculation and observation) why that's not possible. This doesn't have much to do with the shape of the world, but with bias and subjectivity.
In general, in flat earth research - no evidence is discarded - merely interpreted differently than you have been taught. For example, you see the curvature in the photos and declare "that's the curve of the earth", i see that same curvature and know from calculation and experience that it is due to distortion. Nothing is being thrown out.
And of course you have to ignore the MASSIVE amount of observations you can make on your own to confirm the earth is round like so many they could fill a fucking book
You completely misunderstand. Nothing is being ignored. If the world is flat, then every observation in that imaginary book of yours that appears to "confirm the earth is round" is simply interpreted incorrectly.
inventing optical illusions to explain everything
Don't pout and gripe like a child. Instead disagree and criticize the specific claim. Do you think the visible horizon isn't an optical illusion? It recedes away from you as you approach it, just like a rainbow, and for the same reasons. The visible horizon is not a physical place that can be reached, and it is not the edge of the world (regardless of what shape that world is). We were simply mistaught to believe it was.
and redefining the laws of physics with ZERO math to back it up
I am doing no such thing. Math is merely a symbolic language. Describing something in it doesn't automatically make that thing true/correct (just like every other language)!
For discussion (like most all scientists in history) i prefer english but if you would like a mathematical formulation of something i've said instead, i can accommodate you. However the idea that you would accept something said simply because it was written in mathematical symbols is silly, laughable, and untrue. If you don't understand something said in your native tongue, it is unlikely encoding into mathematic symbol will help you. When you don't understand, try asking questions! When you disagree, try disagreeing and providing specific reasoning and criticism for what you disagree with and why!
Pouting, griping, and lobbing baseless insult like a child instead just makes me pity you :(
"Your photo shows a curvature.... And that's inconsistent with a globe model..."
Correct, your photos show the wrong curvature (far too much curve over far too little distance). If the curve shown in your pictures were actually the curvature of the earth, the world would have to be far too small (which is NOT consistent with the globe model). The globe model is not "any curvature" at all, but the specific curvature over distance to be a globe of the size and shape the model explicitly describes.
Do you really not understand what i'm saying, or are you just being willfully obtuse?
completely doable in your fantasy sci-fi disc world
Everything is possible in fantasy. But we are talking about reality! I obviously have no fantasy involving a sci-fi disc world, and also i have not encountered anyone who does.
but impossible on a spherical globe
What's impossible on a spherical globe?
If the world is flat, then everything we observe is obviously possible (and indeed, actual) on it.
How hard is that?
Surprisingly hard AND expensive - but you are missing the point. There is no reason to assume that antarctica (especially the northern coast you will be allowed to travel to) is anywhere near any edge - even if one exists. Again, the people who believe in an edge of the world are the globe proponents and believers, not the others.
A flat map is supposed to be an accurate scale model of the Earth according to YOU...
Really? Could you quote/link what comment i made which made you think that? Clearly you have misunderstood me, or i misspoke. I can clarify what i meant if you refer me back to my statement.
If you can't accurately represent the Earth on a flat map... then guess what... That means the earth isn't flat!!!
This is a misunderstanding, but as it happens - virtually all maps are flat and always have been. I guess by your logic that proves the world must be flat - because otherwise we couldn't depict it on flat paper (a truly cuckoo idea) like we have for thousands of years...
Name one..... One observation that's inconsistent with a round earth.
Let's start with yours, shall we? Your observations (photos) ostensibly show curvature which is wholly inconsistent with the globe model (the world would have to be far too small).
Models are always wrong, and always contradict observation/reality to some degree. It's goedel's proof by other words.
If the earth is a disc then you should be able to go near the edge of the disk and go up high enough that you can see the edge, which would appear as a curve.
Only if the earth is a disc, has an edge, and you are close enough to that edge (and it is illuminated well enough) for you to view it. That's a lot of ifs!
Very few i have encountered that think the world is flat think it is a disc (and none of those think it is a disc "floating in space"). Many think it doesn't have an edge, and most that do think it has an edge also speculate that that edge is not reachable (for varying reasons).
The point is, if the earth were a giant flat disc (with edges that were too far from us to be seen, or without edges at all and a plane not a disc) or a sphere too large for us to discern its sphericity due to our relative scale - our experience/observations would remain the same in both cases.
It doesn't count
No, it doesn't apply. You seem to misunderstand that argument and its purpose. It isn't about our view of the world, which unquestionably presents itself experientially to us as (mostly) flat either because it is or because it is an illusion due to our relative scale. The pictures of the world that we take never show pieces of a (giant) basketball, and the horizon is always a flat line that surrounds us.
Every photograph that proves the earth is round is either fake cgi, or distortion that coincidentally conforms to scientific models of the earth
You misunderstand - i'm saying that it absolutely, unequivocally does not conform to scientific models of the earth. The curvature you show in both pictures would make the world far too small (that's one of MANY ways to determine that it is in fact due to distortion). If you don't believe me, do the calculations yourself!
Your map shows anartica or the "ice wall" as you put it to be like 500,000 miles long.... Like longer than every other continent's coastline put together.
Not my map! However AE maps are the preferred ones for military campaigns, by the by. Much like looking for the shape of the world in an optical illusion (the horizon), looking for it in a map is silly.
Wether antarctica is a giant ice wall surrounding the known world or a continent of the size and shape we are taught has no bearing on the shape of the world. The whole thing is a heavily advertised (i.e. funded) red herring; a product of the flat earth psyop.
I mean everywhere you look there are loose threads all over this theory that unravel at the slightest pull.
There is no theory for the shape of the world, flat, spherical, or otherwise. Scientific theories are never for determining or describing the shapes of physical objects.
As for "loose threads", there is much to justifiably criticize about the views of those who think the world is flat, as well as those who think the world is spherical. But that will never establish the shape of the world - right? The globe model is inconsistent with many of our observations, as all models always are - but that doesn't prove it wrong (and the inverse, that just because some of our observations are consistent with it doesn't prove it right) right? The truth is that scientific models are always wrong. Models are built for specific limited purpose and they are made to be (limitedly) useful. Useful is not the same as correct!
Or appears that way at least....
Granted. When speaking of the horizon, we are most often speaking of the visible horizon, which is very different than the actual/geographical horizon conceived in the globe model (aka the edge of the earth). What is most often missed is that this visible horizon is an optical illusion and not the physical edge of anything but our vision. That is one of the major reasons that it doesn't curve, and even if it did would not have bearing on the shape of the world.
As in no matter where you are?
Correct.
Wouldn't a flat earth have a round horizon in some places near the edge?
No, the visible horizon (which is the limit of your vision - a line surrounding you in 360 degrees) would be and is always flat.
Also, assuming the world flat - who says it would have an edge at all, let alone a curved one? The ones who believe in an edge are the globe proponents and believers - not the others.
you always see the same uniform appearance?
It's because the horizon is an optical illusion. It's the same reason the horizon appears to rise up to your eye level in the distance. It has to do with angular resolution limits of the eye, which is the cause of perspective. It also varies with weather conditions in distance / clarity etc.
Can you think of any 3D shape that will appear the same no matter what angle it's viewed from
That "argument" doesn't apply to observations made of the earth. That is a common argument for observations of the moon and such things, but it is a big mistake to think that the uniformity we observe on earth has any dependency on sphericity. It's the opposite. The world is flat either because it actually is, or merely because it appears that way to us because of our relative scale.
What's this then?
That is a picture with distortion in it. Most likely that is caused by distortion from the air/and things dissolved/commingling in it. This can be confirmed by seeing the same shot from a slightly higher vantage point which shows clearly there is no curving occurring. But as I said, science is about rigorous measurement not merely looking! Often what we see, especially at great distance, is not what is. We often forget that we are looking through an awful lot of stuff, and even the laws of perspective/optics as a result of the design/limitations of the eye are not particularly intuitive.
You ruled science out the moment you ignored all of it's findings to adopt a theory that necessitates gravity not existing.
I did no such thing! Science is about dissent, disagreement, and doubt my friend. "All of its findings" are not congruent and consensus is a curse word in science (also known by another term : bias). Truth is not a democracy, thank god.
It is precisely because of scientific findings, my adherence to the principles/philosophy of, as well as study and love of science that i have come to the conclusions i have.
Besides, you are misunderstanding my view. Gravity very much exists, and has formally for millennia. It is gravitation, invented a few centuries ago, which doesn't exist. I'm not subscribing/adopting any theory whatsoever - merely rejecting/discarding a theory (gravitation) misrepresented as a law which has never had any empirical support or reality. Newton didn't even bother to offer a hypothesis for it, because he understood it could never be empirical. He literally attributed its function/mechanism to the christian god.
It would be the most epic conspiracy and cover up in history.
I see this as an encouraged mistake/erroneous conflation.
What epic conspiracy and cover up was ever required for most all the educated people in the world to be wrong? They are simply all wrong because the are all taught the same wrong thing (often from childhood), en masse.
The humors, spontaneous creation, the sun being a giant ball of gas lit on fire - all of these and so much more absolute nonsense was taught as fact and defended fervently by the "learned" of their time.
No conspiracy or coverup is ever required for people to be stupid and wrong as they historically always are.
None of those rulers are near the center of the lenses yet they don't distort.
As i said, it is mostly due to the lens being calibrated for the focal length you are using, but it is also (at least in part) because the light which enters the center of the lens perpendicularly is the least distorted (that's regardless of focal length).
Seems like you guys just wanna make up any excuse you can to say you can't see the earth curve.
It's the opposite, though I am not one of "you guys". You want to be able to see the curve, and want to believe that the distortion you see in this picture (or from an airplane) is that curvature. This bias comes from what we call education. The truth is, that the curvature is not there/perceivable at any available (to you or i anyhow) altitude (this is also calculable).
We'll I got news for you.. You don't even need a camera. You can see it with your naked eye.
This is a common and popularized misconception. The horizon (unless distorted) is always flat, level, and horizontal. You can't see any curvature (even if it were there) with your naked eye from any available altitude, even with a two by four at your disposal. If you could, the world would have to be far too small. I encourage you to calculate it if you don't believe that.
And I'm sure there's barrel distortion going on there too....
There certainly is, however the shape of the retina and processing in the brain is supposed to correct for that. Still, malformation of the eye (and/or nerves/brain which processes the signals from it) is very real and certainly possible.
However in the example you mentioned, barrel distortion couldn't be the cause. Much more likely you would be observing a swell (water isn't motionless) or distortion from the air (and/or things dissolved/commingling in that air). Try that same observation on a large lake on a calm day!
Can't trust them lying eyes.
Exactly! That's what science is all about. We measure because simply looking isn't good enough and often leads to incorrect conclusions.
How come when I squish these photographs of a squaring tool and a ruler they don't take on a curvature?
Primarily it is because the lens is calibrated for that focal length. and that the least amount of barrel distortion is introduced by the dead center of the lens
It still introduces distortion, but it is less noticeable because of that calibration (traditionally done by photographing a grid pattern).
Does the barrel distortion disappear when photographing a straight object?
Of course not, it is present in all convex lenses regardless of the subject photographed. I encourage you to read about it.
this is not what my stance is
I did not mean to mischaracterize your position, apologies for leaving out the qualifier "pushing" (i said "force" instead of "pushing force"). A freudian slip, as it is my view (and that of classical physics) that there is no other type of force.
we should understand that words have meaning, and use them carefully.
Agreed, though earnest mistakes are made (both in speaking and in receiving/interpreting what was said).
Speaking of which, did you understand my previous comment and/or have any response to it?
In the words of obi wan, "Your eyes can deceive you; don't trust them."
Often times what we see (and record in pictures) is not what is. This is the reason that science (empiricism) requires measurement, not merely looking at stuff!
I encourage you to look up "barrel distortion" to understand what causes the curve in the picture above. If the curve in the picture were really the curve of a spherical earth, that earth would be far tinier than we are taught (calculate it yourself if you like)..
If you, or anyone else, are interested in the subject - very much including those with purely critical views - please join us on c/flatearthresearch to discuss and exchange views on it.
It does matter.
Not with arbitrary convention, no. That's arbitrary - of course! It has no bearing on manifest reality.
You're suggesting that objects are being pushed down due to their weight, which means that they'd be being pushed from above.
That's partially correct; they are being pushed down from above - by the weight of the matter above them (though it isn't quite that simple because they are also surrounded by matter with weight as well) - but the force of their measured weight (what i call effective weight - weight with the buoyant force i.e. as measured on a scale) principally comes from the weight of the object itself, as well as the interplay of that objects weight and the weight of the media it displaces.
Objects are built of pieces. Although their effective weight is largely influenced by their volumetric density (the volume of media those pieces collectively displace), their intrinsic weight comes from the matter they are comprised of. Weight is an intrinsic and inexorable property of all matter.
Again, objects are comprised of pieces. Each one of those pieces has weight. If it is more consistent with your arbitrary convention of "force must always push from behind" and/or helps you to understand, you may think of each piece pushing on each other in the object "pushing from behind" and cumulatively being the force that "pushes the scale from behind", to use your wacky parlance.
The question then is, what is it that's pushing down on an object from above?
Matter [its weight]! (for us on the surface of earth, typically air)
But that is only a small percentage of what pushes on the scale. Primarily it is the object's weight which pushes on the scale.
Not relative to the direction one is facing, but relative to the direction of the force, all pushing force is from behind. Do you understand?
Not really, but i don't think it matters in any case. It's just an arbitrary semantic distinction you are applying for unknown reasons.
Words like "behind" are always in regards to the direction an object is facing and/or the point of view of the observer.
Let's say i agree to your arbitrary semantic convention, at least for the purposes of this discussion. What then?
but it was debunked
Debunking is for and by idiots. Capable students striving for objectivity prefer earnest and diligent research instead. Of course, that research can involve refutation of various claims.
and it's a known PSYop
Of that i have little doubt. Most flat earth videos are products of the heavily advertised (i.e. heavily funded) flat earth psyop.
against the Law of correspondence, as below so above.
Is that a law? It is certainly an alchemical principle, and echoed (if not straight repeated) in the bohr model.
Even if it were a law, if the earth were flat would that mean that matter couldn't be spherical (or any of the other platonic shapes)? Conversely, if it were spherical would that mean that other shapes (on the micro or macro scale) wouldn't/couldn't exist? More exists in heaven and earth than exists in all our philosophies combined.
Thanks for reposting! I'll check it out - i've never heard of this guy.
NO. the
flatearth isn't flat.
If it were, hardly anyone would know that - because virtually no one bothers to actually study/research it. They just "know because teacher told them so", and faithfully repeat as they are required to for matriculation.
It was proven over and over
So people believe, yet if they are asked "When, by whom, and by what specific procedure" they find they can't answer that simple question. Worse, those few that can answer (or rather, believe, they have the correct answer) parrot conditioned (by rote under the guise of education) responses which are plainly wrong - like eratosthenes and columbus (neither of which set out to prove the shape of the world in any way shape or form; they were taught it was spherical from childhood, just like us today, and never once doubted that or set out to prove it true).
This in and of itself is immensely fascinating to the earnest student. The actual shape of the world, is much less so.
Am i wrong in thinking that you posted this video because you were earnestly interested in the topic and/or content of the video? Even if that interest is purely critical/dismissive/mocking - that is still genuine interest in my book.
Deleted :( Could you repost the video link?
If you have genuine interest in the subject (including critical/negative) please join on c/flatearthresearch to discuss and exchange views.
I am deleting my account today
I think for most/many people that is the best thing to do, and wish you well on the other side.
However, if it is as you say and this is an echo chamber holding corral, then you are making their work easier and abandoning those (admittedly few) you would hope to reach/engage with by doing so.
Nope. That's called an observation.
That's all laws are! We observe a phenomenon over and over again, and through repeated measurement confirm it (almost) always happens.
Observations are laws (when you repeatedly validate/verify/measure them enough).
You are simply watching buoyancy
Actually, you are watching the lack thereof in the falling object. If it had enough buoyancy, it would either float or rise.
Stop calling buoyancy and Aether, gravity.
I wouldn't! Buoyancy, aether, and gravity are all separate and distinct things. You still don't seem to be understanding me. Buoyancy is a force, but (as you have already explicitly said, and i have agreed) gravity is not (it's a phenomenon : aka natural/scientific law). They are not interchangeable for this, and many other reasons.
You're arguments that gravity is a scientific term because scientists have used the term for a long time is not an agrument
I agree, it's more like a semantic definition. But as i said, (the law of) gravity is real because we can repeatedly demonstrate it. That's all natural laws are or can be. The word gravity (and the law it represents) has been and is used much more frequently by non-scientists through history anyway.
You could call gravity, Satan jizz, and it would be just as meaningful.
I agree that it is just a name, arbitrary like all the other ones. The point is that there is no reason to discard it. It's a perfectly good word, and scientific concept. Its false conflation with gravitation is the problem.
Whatever new word we contrived would not be as meaningful until everyone else knew and used it. There is no reason to go to all that trouble - they already know and use the word gravity. If you want to speak to someone else, you best use their language and their terms.
True, and that is (and always was) the law of gravity!
There is almost certainly no risk of that.
You can't know or even list the things i "just supported" before you learn how to read and go back and read my comments in the first place.
I'm prepared to wait, but get the distinct impression (from this "conversation" and scores of others with you in the past) that i will be waiting forever :(
Your hoaxes
Learn to read, actually read my comments, and then quote/link one of the "hoaxes". When you, again, utterly fail to do so i shall expect your earnest apology for lying again (i think we are at least up to 7 apologies you owe me now).
I agree that your "responses" and lack of reading comprehension are embarrassing, but you have to keep trying if you are to get any better at it. Don't waste time thinking about what others might think of you. That's what the weak do.
The billiard ball metaphor/analogy is not a scenario. It is closer to the conception/model of classical deterministic physics. Everything is a billiard ball, including forces.
Like i said, please try to focus on the topic at hand. There is no benefit in discussing this tangent for now - it's just distraction. It is well worth circling back to though.
I'm happy to circle back to this topic once we are finished discussing the first one. Are you saying you have nothing more to say / question regarding weight being an intrinsic and inexorable property of matter and now understand what i'm saying?
Assuming that is the case, then the answer to your question is perhaps best answered socratically/dialectically :
Can an object be pulled by another object if the leading object itself is not pushed? (think mechanically for now)