Watch "Behind The Curve" flat earth documentary, whereby flat earthers prove a spinning globe... but of course chose to ignore that proof.
Can I ask you, is there one piece of evidence that would convince you that the earth is in fact a spinning globe? Or at least convince you that the flat earth "model" is incorrect?
Seeing a myriad of varying light spirals and rings on timelapse photography of the night sky would help but we don't see that. The many types of spin allegedly inherent in a "heliocentric solar system" are at complete odds with what we can actually observe - large concentric perfect circles.
So seeing all the stars in the northern "hemisphere" make perfect circles around Polaris obliterates the notion that the Earth is spinning around the sun (which in turn is allegedly spinning around some non-defined center of the galaxy, flying through the universe in constant motion and rotations). If that were true we would neither see perfect circles around Polaris at night, nor would there be any reason that our "North pole" should always be perfectly aligned with Polaris. Nor that sun and moon appear exactly the same size from Earth by mere coincidence in an allegedly random universe. There are hundreds of other arguments most of which I find sensible once I dared to look past all the bickoring and superficial condemnations from either side.
That said, you asked for evidence against the fe model: The observation that stars in the southern "hemisphere" spin opposite to the stars in the northern "hemisphere" - around a point near the southern cross - obliterates the popular FE model completely for me (the fe model commonly referred to as Azimuthal projection). Most flat earthers insist that all stars (also those south of the equator) turn counter clockwise against Polaris, which is provably not so. There are problems for me with the statement that the sun is some sort of dics as it doesn't begin tilting when moving away, and there are peculiar details about the sun equinox that don't play out well on the disc model for me with the straight shadows at odds with a circular course of the sun's movements over its duration of daily visibility.
Many of these the globe model explains way better mathematically which is why heliocentrists can't see the forest for all the trees.
However, after seeing the globe model discrepancies and the surprising lack of basic evidence for it (apart from all the hollywood and culture propaganda we constantly underestimate) it is rather hard to take the globe model seriously any longer. We have mighty problems with the angle of the sun's rays allegedly coming in parallel from a huge lightsource 93 mio miles away. We are able to witness the moon lit up next to the sun during daytime, something that in itself seems impossible when assuming that the moon is merely reflecting the sun's light.
Whoops, I caught myself getting way ahead of myself ahahaha. It's such an interesting topic.
As for that documentary: Beware controlled-opposition narratives. You don't ask politicians why politics are useless, neither do you try to get honest and actual presentation of evidence against the globe model from the behemoth that has prescribed it to the masses for centuries.
Not sure we have an accurate model of this place at all, and I really mean that! ;)
Both azimuthal and globe have some essential qualities they share in the way they lay three dimensions as the basis of all existence. I have seen a model that shows a lot of promise for solving these discrepancies, but that would go way beyond the point here I guess ;)
I found it's "merely" necessary to find the flaws in any popular models we are presented with. One major flaw is enough to throw sand into the gears of any model.
As such I find both globe and azimuthal to be controlled-opposition narratives to what this place probably is.
@paradigmprospect: couldn't agree more. are you talking about the 4D 'pacman' type models?
So I was just coming back to comment, and this significant breakthrough happened yesterday. A private Israeli company crashed a spacecraft onto the moon, they took pictures of the earth as they went, and proved conclusively, once and for all that the earth is not flat.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-47879538
Cg
do you mean this lol?
obviously you're still at the stage where you believe what comes on the telescreen. this is an obvious photoshop, to even the most basic of skeptics.
did you know the bbc reported the collapse of the saloman brothers building, or wtc7, 23 minutes before it actually collapsed on 9/11? how did they know that was going to happen?
Well I assume you're saying that whoever masterminded 9/11 brought the BBC on in their conspiracy which included random reporters, editors and loads of other staff who for some reason agreed to be complicit to murder.
Then I guess you're saying that rather than keep something like this secret, they phoned the bbc and said hey, we're going to blow up building 7 at whatever O'clock, make sure you report it then.
Subsequently, the BBC then prepared a report, which involves dozens of people, and all of those people were fine with this.
Lastly I guess you're saying that even though they could have simply waited for it to fall down before reporting it, that they somehow messed up and reported it a full 23 minutes before it happened.
So I guess you're really saying that even though these criminal masterminds are so precise and powerful, that they for some reason left things to chance by telling a news agency of their plans, instead of letting news agency simply report the aftermath.
Sounds plausible.
Cg
what you need to first before all the speculation is examine the evidence.
first, i just told you that happened - but did it actually, or am i trying to mess with you? so go review the evidence (doesn't take long) and then we'll take it from there. you know where to go and what to search for, right?
the flat earth model is completely incorrect, but if you can produce any scientific experiment which proves the earth is in motion by some 1038 mph at the equator that would be a start.
any unedited, unprocessed, photograph or video of the ball earth would be useful too (be aware, don't think we haven't been through all of nasa and esa's output, it's all composite/ photoshopped by self-admission.)
Well even the flat earthers already did an experiment proving the earth is rotating.
They used a ring laser gyroscope and measured that the earth is rotating 15°/h.
wow, got a link for that?
because the very famous michelson-morley and sagnac's turntable experiments proved earth is not in motion, as does everyone's inner ear and eyes every single day.
even any cgi footage from the iss, nasa et al doesn't show any rotation - the iss just 'flies' over earth fixed in its position.
but if flat earthers have proved it's in motion, well maybe i'll go back to heliocentrism as a possibility then.
It was stated in the documentary "Behind the Curve". Here is a link of the relevant section:
michelson-morley experiment showed that the speed of light is the same at every point on the earth. It is your interpretation, that this implies the earth isn't moving. The interpretation of science is that the speed of light is constant for any observer. The theory of relativity which states exactly that is proven in several aspects.
The sagnac effect is the principle operating behind the ring laser gyroscope which proved rotation. I'm not sure what you mean with sagnac's experiment. Do you got a link?
The problem about the footage is, that it is very hard to see rotation, if you don't say the sun for example is at a fixed positon. So that doesn't prove nor disprove anything here.
About your ears and eyes. Why would they be effected? They are moving at the same velocity as the earth and therefor do not experience any forces.
yes, interpretations.
m+m's interferometer showed no difference in any direction, where they were expecting difference due to the earth's rotation, even if slight. null result. earth is not in motion.
george airy filled a telescope with water to see if it was the earth rotating or the stars moving above, as the water obviously slows down the light entering the telescope, he wanted to see if he had to tilt the telescope to track stars. he didn't. the stars move (as one) the earth is stationary.
as my explanations are brief and crap, as it's been four years since i studied these, i will link to sagnac's turntables - it should be telling that you are aware of the 'sagnac effect' but not the original experiment (s).
finally, though i'd prefer to concentrate on the science, are you saying our eyes and ears are unable to detect motion and change of direction because we are on a moving earth?
because i'm pretty sure i'm very sensitive to motion and direction - i know if i'm leaning slightly, or moving, or upside down, even blindfolded. you might mean that the gases which make up the atmosphere rotate exactly along with the earth so we don't feel its motion, which also defies the laws of observable physics - whilst there is obvious some friction between solids and gases, there is nowhere near enough to make the gas behave as an extension to the solid, as a solid. that's just no reality is it?
Yes water slows light, but the difference is negligible when using a telescope(what was its size?).
You say you are studying this for 4 years. What is your theory for the apparent movement of the sun?
Yes that's what I say. If you are moving at a constant velocity no force is applied to any part of your body. You have a sensor in your ear which is able to detect the magnitude and direction of a force applied to your body. Due to the force of gravity and your brain you can detect if you are leaning or being upside down.
Now let's consider you motion sensity based on three examples:
You are sitting in car. Due to the unclean street you feel a slight vibration. Your brain learned to identify the strength of this vibration with velocity(based on the coordination with your vision which showed your brain an approximation of the velocity). So when the car is vibrating in this special way you feel like your are moving.
Earth doesn't move along a bad street. Therefor there is no vibration and you don't feel velocity.
Consider an elevator. At the beginning of your elevation the elevator accelerates for a while. Your ear sensor feels this force. Since your childhood your brain learned to intuitively do some physical calculations(like where is a ball going to land that you throw). Those basic calculations also allow you to integrate the acceleration your ear sensor senses and get an approximation of the velocity, although the elevator isn't accelerating anymore.
Consider the solar systems movement through space: there was no initial acceleration, so you don't feel the velocity.
Consider the movement of the earth around the sun: the sun creates a force on the earth, that holds it on it's elliptical orbit. Why can't you feel that force?
The answer is simple. Gravity does not only accelerate your body like in an elevator, but also the fluid in your ear sensor. So there is no additional pressure in your ear sensor due to this force. At this point you may ask why you feel the gravity of the earth, considering, that the same argument could be applied there. In this case the gravitational force is counteracted by an equal force, which comes from your bones. The force on the fluid in your ear sensor is not counteracted before your pressure-detection-nerves, so you still feel the force.
Consider a bike: You get a lot of wind right in your face → your pressure sensors on your face-skin tell you the velocity the wind is coming at you.
There is no wind in space, since there is no atmosphere outside of earth.
About the motion of the gas:
Yes the friction is very low, but it had millions⇌billions of years to unify the velocities of gas and solid. And since there is no gas in the vacuum, there is no friction on the outer layer of the atmosphere, so velocity was able to slowly transit to the movement of the earth.
There is still movement left and due to the tidal force of the moon, there is still a force that leads to more movement of the air, but due to the far distance of the moon those forces are not strong enough to keep the atmosphere at a high velocity.
Assuming relativity there is no problem with Sagnac and m+m
on the latter, what you are telling me is there are two equally valid explanations for these experiments? is that correct?
back to the original point - the only 'experiment' you have come up with is one these clueless douchebags attempted?
where are the big mainstream royal society, well-known and repeated scientific experiments which prove beyond all doubt that earth is in motion, by rotation at 1038 mph, by orbit of the sun by 67,000 mph, and by the motion of the solar system through the galaxy at 500,000 mph (and the galaxy itself is said to be hurtling through the universe at some ridiculous speed too) ?
you keep wanting to say the motion of the heavens don't you?
my theory for the apparent movement of the sun is that is is actually in reality moving, and is a lot smaller and closer than we have been led to believe.
Sometimes multiple hypothesises can lead to the same conclusion. Here an example: Although classical mechanics is not really able to explain blackholes, you can derive the same schwartzschild-radius as with relativity.
I didn't use any main stream arguments, because I am pretty sure you already heard all of them and respponded to them several times.
Also I proved to you that you cannot feel the velocity of the earth through space. And now that you are out of arguments you try think you can persuade me by this tactic. Also that you give your units in miles per hour proves you have no only a small knowledge of science as every good scientist uses SI.
Why is this speed ridiculous? Compare that to the speed of light(c = 299792458ms⁻¹). Why don't you disclaim the speed of light then? And a bullet also has a ridiculous speed…………
Don't tell me what I want to say, because what I really want to say is:
(I bet you don't know a single variable except E and m)
What force let's the sun move?, and where does the light come from?, because a closer and therefor smaller sun couldn't radiate enough black-body-radiation.
Just because scientist were unable to make exact measurements in the past, doesn't mean the sun is smaller.
I will get back to you on this one, I have just used up my morning time answering the questions above, thanks for your patience and debate! :-)
Cg
cool, i'll look forward to it, peace.
So as you see in my link above we now have (not that we didn't before), have non NASA/ESA pictures of a globe earth from a privately funded spacecraft.
As far as proving the earth's spinning, a scientist called Léon Foucault did so in the 1800s with a pendulum experiment. He realised that if you swing a pendulum from a fixed point it will make a particular shape, however if you did it from a spinning perspective, the shape the pendulum described would be very different.
It's explained quite nicely here But it moves! How we know the Earth rotates.
As far as determining how fast it is going, we can use parallax equations to work out how far we are from a distant point in space, which is so far it seems fixed to us, then using measurements of the size of the earth we can determine our speed.
There have been many experiments, however there are none you personally can do, because to do it accurately you would need access to some pretty powerful radio telescopes... So you'd need to be able to go to an observatory and have them show you how to do the experiment.
Here's another link with experimental proof https://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2011-12/tum-fed122211.php
Finally Erastenes the ancient Greek mathematician used a bunch of sticks and measured the difference in shadow lengths cast by the sticks to calculate the circumference of the world.
Considering he didn't have access to computers, he made a fairly accurate estimate (as far as we know, seeing as the measurement was made in 'stadia', which we only have estimates as to how long a stadia was).
Cg
thank you for your reply - as you can see the israeli moon crash is a total lie as far as we're concerned, but we can talk about the science you came up with for sure:
eratosthenes did indeed estimate the circumference of the earth, assuming it was a ball, in around 240 bc. however, the difference in shadow lengths of two equal sticks hundreds of miles apart can be explained just as easily with a small local sun throwing non-parallel rays, as illustrated here:
as far as needing any powerful telescopes, unnecessary, because you would still be assuming that it is the earth moving and not (relatively) the stars. stellar parallax is a a giant hoax - there are just as many negative parallax reading as positive ones, but these are conveniently ignored to support the deception. look it up for yourself and see if it's true. the constellations have never changed, and will never change, they are fixed, exactly as our senses tell us. even if there weren't any negative readings we're talking about movements of 1/16000th of an inch over a six month period - is there any chance slight earth tremours, limits of microsopic human observation and various other factors could cause such a miniscule change over such a long experimental period?
finally, the foucault pendulum, one of science's greatest parlour tricks. it MIGHT have done the job of proving earth's motion, if only every single one in the world (mostly at universities and museums) wasn't dampened, driven, set, stopped and otherwise corrected - nowadays by electronics. don't believe me? you can buy one for yourself, all the kit comes with it:
https://academypendulums.com
peace, daz :-)