Is the earth flat?

[Alpha]

Well now you’re sounding like your old, calmer self. Good.

I’m glad you’re not trying to convince anyone and frankly, I’m not trying to convince you. My whole point has been that there is a better way to conduct an argument than saying… “I’m right and you’re wrong. My research is the only one that counts, and the rest of you are sheep for following what you’ve been taught.” It starts things off on the wrong foot. The fact of the matter is no… neither nor I have ever been to space, and cannot say firsthand we’ve seen the shape of the Earth in person.

As for your experiments, you’ll claim they are binding and representative of what holds true for the entire Earth, and others will say there are flaws in those assumptions. That other factors, such as physics of scale, must be considered. But that’s neither here nor there. Not wanting to start another argument. Just saying that everyone’s opinions are valid, even ours.

Arguments of yours I can sympathize with? The one about water staying on a spherical surface… I can see where that would give people pause. Saying gravity holds the oceans to the surface doesn’t seem to impress everybody. But the rest of it? I tried explaining how air pressure is a gradient and gradually goes down as you go into space, to the point where it becomes a vacuum, which in itself is a gradient. You know… partial vacuums vs. perfect vacuums.

The luminaries, as you call them, is another area where I just see too many holes. You yourself struggle to explain how two celestial bodies can just gyrate in circles above the center of the Earth without any explanation as to the forces that keep them in those circling patterns. But again, since you don’t believe in gravity, a lot of things just fall by the wayside (pardon the pun). If the force keeping those bodies from flying off in linear fashion comes from the Earth itself, then where exactly does if come from? It’s easier for most of us to imagine a sphere where gravity comes from the center of said sphere, than a mysterious force equally distributed across a flat plane. Your previous post did nothing to either explain this, or convince anyone of its veracity.

Try to keep in mind that most doubters you’ll encounter are not just some yo-yo’s who can’t think for themselves. Some of us have technical backgrounds, and are as much into experimentation and facts as you are. You don’t have a monopoly on gray matter, Alpha.

I think you’re the one who’s taking things personally, and I don’t blame you. Claiming 9/11 was an inside job is one thing. No one is going to ridicule you for that. They may disagree vehemently… but they won’t ridicule you because no one has any proof to the contrary. Claiming the Earth is flat is quite another ball…. er….. slab of wax altogether.

I have always been calm, just wanted to show that insults against each other are irrelevant. There are no emotions involved in this for me, in my opinion objective reality is not up for debate. But insulting intelligence, rather than attacking the argument is pointless. I have been at this for 3 years. And for the better, now actually understand how the heliocentric model works. Before getting into questioning the globe claims, I don't think I ever questioned it once, like most I guess. I've not trying to say I'm right and others are wrong, I'm saying that actual empirical natural scientific experiments prove things in this reality.

I suppose that when I say sheep or brainwashed, I am really referring to myself back then, not meaning others. I find it hard to believe how easily I was fooled by the propaganda and pseudoscience for so long, without every questioning the globe.

Anyone is free to say there are flaws in my experiments. That's what experiments are for. But if they are claiming they are wrong, then obviously I will expect a practical demonstration showing the opposite of my results. And the great thing about natural science is that everyone should be able to demonstrate, observe, test and repeat the same experiments, producing the same results. We are all scientists really.

So if someone claims water can conform to the exterior of a shape, I will expect a practical demonstration of that.

Again with gravity, we don't observe it anywhere in nature, and there is no practical demonstration that can be observed of mass attracting to mass.

You did try explaining air pressure, but again didn't explain how we can have that pressure without some sort of barrier. I'm not claiming a dome or anything, but I do know that we need some sort of container or surface to create pressure.

Also if the claim is that gravity (that we can't prove with a practical demonstration) is whats holding the atmosphere to the earth, then again I would expect a practical demonstration of this.

And also a practical demonstration of this gradient atmosphere, beside this claimed gradient vacuum, without any barrier. We know by the laws of thermal dynamics that hot will always go to cold, and a higher energy (pressure) will always go to a low energy (pressure).

If the claim is that the earth is moving, then again, a practical demonstration would be required to show this. This has never been done.

And if the claim is the the earth is curving, in the shape of a sphere, the we should be able to quantify and measure this.

So I hope you can see where a lot of this becomes belief and pseudoscience, rather than actual science.

You shouldn't have to believe in gravity, it should be able to be proven by a scientific experiment. I call them luminaries because they look more like balls of light to me through a telescope. Like I said we have never been up there, and can only rely on what we see for ourselves vs the agencies, who like those in the scientific community have a agenda to protect. It's their livelihood. I don't know what they are exactly, but claiming that gravity (again a force we can't observe in the natural world, or provide a practical demonstration for) doesn't prove what they are or why they do what they do. I ask myself if gravity is real then why doesn't the moon move fast on it's cycle when it's closest to the sun? Surely the Suns mass would be pulling it towards it, making it's speed increase. But again, looking at the sky doesn't give us anything to measure this claimed curvature of the globe.

I have never claimed to have a monopoly on gray matter, I have always encouraged others to do their own research and experiments. But like I have said with the sciences, only natural science uses empirical evidence, tangible, quantifiable substances. Formal sciences are languages, created by man to assist as a tool, and aren't real scientific experiments.

The scientific community should be jumping all over this. Isn't that what science is. Observing, testing, demonstrating, repeating. And it should be repeatable by everyone, not just 'their' peers. Instead they prefer to focus on the formal side of science, creating things like dark energy and dark matter, because, funnily enough 'gravity' only works in our solar system.

But take sometime, a few days, a couple of weeks, I've been at it 3 years and am still learning things. But I highly recommend researching how some of these things like gravity were proved. And see if you agree that it was done with actual scientific experiments, or just pseudoscience. Either way you'll learn more about the heliocentric model, that for some reason or another, most of us seem oblivious to, until the questions are presented to us.

I'll leave a vid below in case anyone is interested in gravity vs density: