Quote:
Originally Posted by
TitoFan
Hey Alpha. I'm purposely staying away from the flat Earth debate this time around, as you're cool people and I don't want us to get into a dust up like we did last time.
I'll just limit myself to saying that you have your beliefs, which I respect..... and I have mine, which I hope you respect.
Rather than try to convince you of anything, I'll just put forth some of my own beliefs, just so you don't think I'm just following some sort of "globe Earth cult."
First of all, a flat Earth doesn't make much sense to me, if we are all to believe that Earth exists in some "space." Unless of course Earth was stationary, which again is hard for me to believe because..... well..... where is it and how is it supported?
Instead, if Earth is in fact moving through space, the global model just makes more sense to me. Globes are geometrically suited for movement through space, offering little of the inertial resistance that would come with a flat Earth configuration.
Granted, you haven't said Earth is moving at all, which of course presents only two possibilities. Either Earth is moving through space, or Earth is stationary. If it's stationary, it must be supported somehow and it's a logical question to ask.
The talk about gravity. Whatever we choose to call it, there is a force that causes objects to fall to Earth unless a greater force supports it or makes it rise. If we can agree on that, again it just makes more sense to me to think of the global model.
A force with vectors toward the center of a global Earth is more plausible to me than parallel force vectors all across a flat Earth.
Where would this force come from? How would it be generated?
The force of gravity also offers an explanation to the orbits of global bodies. For instance, it explains the orbit of the moon around the Earth, the Earth around the Sun, and so on and so forth.
In the flat Earth model that attempts to explain night and day, there is a Sun that gyrates over the flat Earth, providing sunlight in some parts and not in others, thus night and day.
I just can't get my head around that. What forces cause the Sun to gyrate in circles above the Earth? What keeps it in that circular path? Again, I need to have things explained by forces.
We never got over our disagreements on pressure and again we're just going to have to agree to disagree.
Pressure exists in a gradient, and that is true both as you go up in the atmosphere, and as you descend below the water surface. It is measurable, repeatable, and calculable.
You believe you must have a wall or container to have pressure. It is correct when you want to achieve a pressure higher than the surrounding atmospheric pressure, but it is not needed for the pressure gradient in the atmosphere and below the water surface.
I understand your insistence on discussing the physics of water and how it reaches its level.
However, all I can tell you there is that it is difficult to perform observations/experiments at a comparatively minute scale, and try to apply it to massive scales.
No one can replicate the curvature of water in an experiment, simply because certain physics change with vast differences in scale.
Even the line of sight argument. I hear you when you talk about the horizon "coming up to meet your eye level".... but the simple fact of the matter is that structures disappear from the bottom up as they get further and further away.
This can be easily demonstrated at a smaller scale and it's purely a case of simple geometry. It's also calculable, and there are plenty of tables which provide the amount of drop (from a straight line) around a curvature of a given diameter.
Since line of sight is a straight line, hence the behavior of ships and other structures over the horizon.
There was more, but those are what come to mind. Not to mention the fact that if the Earth was truly flat, we would have to discuss dimensions. No way of getting around that (pardon the pun).
We can't just dismiss that there must be an end to the plane. We can't just say... oh I don't know where Earth ends... but it's still flat.
Again Alpha... you're a good guy and I enjoy your banter on the forum, especially about boxing. You really know your stuff.
I think what put me off last time was my perception that us "globe people" were merely and mindlessly following some sort of indoctrination, without putting our own thoughts into it.
So I just wanted to say that some of us really do put our best logic into these things.
Cheers bro.
All good Tito, like I said, I have never tried to convince anyone, I'm just planting seeds, bring you to the door, if you choose to walk through that's up to you.
Gravity has so many holes, and most tend to revert back to Newtons. Check out what Newton actually said about gravity.
The globe works perfectly as a tool and as a concept, unfortunately it doesn't match our reality.
You know how I feel about maps and models, I prefer to concentrate on science (natural and applied) and what can be practically demonstrated to be true in this reality, using the tangible substances.
As for pressure, you used the atmoshpere as an example, how we have a pressurized atmoshpere is what I am questioning. We know how pressure is created. The rapid motion and collisions of molecules with the walls of the container, so I require a practical demonstration of pressure being created without a container. The claim is we live in a pressurized, next to a vacuum. Again, another practical demonstration of this is required.
Yes things disappear from the bottom, but it is due to perspective. You can test this, try to go to a football field, or someplace as level as you can get. Place your camera as low to the ground as possible, then get someone to walk away from the camera. You will see they will disappear from the bottom up as they get further away. Doesn't mean the field is curved.
We are not free to fully explore this place, so until we are we have no idea what the true deminsions of this place are. Can I ask if you think space has an edge?
You are a good dude as well Tito, remember I also believed I lived on a globe up until 2016. I wasn't lying or following some sort of indoctrination. I was just following what I had been taught. When I applied my attention to it, I found it was pseudoscience.