The question no flat-earther can answer

[stonesoffire]

And the roller is round . . . but wait - was that a flat paint - or a round paint? on a flat surface . . . - now I am all confused?

I don’t like flat paint. Hard to clean.

What’s underneath this flat earth? Fire?

 

[Karraster]

Still looking into this...

Hi Gary, great to see you are back you've been missed. Also I'm sorry I spoke harsh to you just before you left I hope you don't even remember, (that it was insignificant to you ) but in case you do I am sorry.

 

[GaryA]

Hi Gary, great to see you are back you've been missed. Also I'm sorry I spoke harsh to you just before you left I hope you don't even remember, (that it was insignificant to you ) but in case you do I am sorry.

Oh, I definitely remember it...

I deeply regret that you somehow got the wrong impression that I never meant to give...

"And, for that, I am so sorry."

Thank you -- "hearing you say this" gives rest to my soul - I hope that I will have the opportunity to explain a few things to you about it when we are able to talk more privately.

"All is forgiven."

(Albeit, there really is nothing for which you need to be forgiven. But, if there is, then - you were already forgiven long ago...)

I sincerely hope and pray that you and all of yours are doing well...

<3

 

[Moses_Young]

If the Earth is flat and the North Pole is the center of a circular flat Earth, then . . . But if the sun travels faster, then the length of summer daylight for locations in the southern hemisphere will be shorter than for comparable locations north of the equator. The problem is that this is not what the objective evidence shows. Locations equally north and south of the equator will be found to have almost exactly the same length of summertime daylength.

Flat-earthers - Can you resolve the dilemma?

Is the text in red true? My experience is actually that the length of days in Summer is longer in the Northern hemisphere than in the Southern hemisphere. I haven't been exactly the same distance North as South, but North seemed to get some 4 more hours of daylight in the Summer than the South. So Northern Summer days are longer than Southern Summer days, but Northern Winter days are shorter than Southern Winter days.

 

[Chester]

Is the text in red true? My experience is actually that the length of days in Summer is longer in the Northern hemisphere than in the Southern hemisphere. I haven't been exactly the same distance North as South, but North seemed to get some 4 more hours of daylight in the Summer than the South. So Northern Summer days are longer than Southern Summer days, but Northern Winter days are shorter than Southern Winter days.

You have to get away from the "seemed" to actual stats. Take any city in the southern hemisphere and a city in the northern hemisphere the same distance from the equator and you will find the length of their summer and winter days is the same (within minutes). It is not too hard to verify with internet availability of these stats. You can say that these stats are wrong; well, then, go to the locations and check it out for yourself!

 

[Moses_Young]

You have to get away from the "seemed" to actual stats. Take any city in the southern hemisphere and a city in the northern hemisphere the same distance from the equator and you will find the length of their summer and winter days is the same (within minutes). It is not too hard to verify with internet availability of these stats. You can say that these stats are wrong; well, then, go to the locations and check it out for yourself!

Maybe I didn't explain myself properly, but in the Northern Summer, the night doesn't get so dark, and certainly not quickly. In the Southern Summer, it does, and quickly.

I agree that this would ideally be observed equal distances North and South of the equator and scientifically measured, but life is too short. From talking to others, it's a common phenomena, so I'd expect it at various latitudes North and South.

 

[Chester]

Maybe I didn't explain myself properly, but in the Northern Summer, the night doesn't get so dark, and certainly not quickly. In the Southern Summer, it does, and quickly.

I agree that this would ideally be observed equal distances North and South of the equator and scientifically measured, but life is too short. From talking to others, it's a common phenomena, so I'd expect it at various latitudes North and South.

As long as your points are unverified by data it really holds little value in a discussion. People's perceptions are going to match what they want to believe.

 

[Moses_Young]

As long as your points are unverified by data it really holds little value in a discussion. People's perceptions are going to match what they want to believe.

I guess your argument hinges on the fact that the length of days are equal at equal distances North and South. You're making the assertion, remember, not the Flat Earthers. If the Flat Earthers don't believe your assertion is true (which I don't), and if you don't offer scientific proof of it being true, of course no Flat Earther is going to bother answering. That's almost like asking a Creationist "If creation is true, why do animals evolve?"

Burden of proof and all.

 

[JamOn]

North and south hemispheres display these cool looking lights, only places to see them on the globe.

 

[Branwen]

Also if the sun is 3000 miles, or how far ever it is above the earth at all times not going lower then we would experience it going from dark to light, and light to dark different.

For the light would chase the darkness, and the darkness would chase the light for the sun is always above the earth and does not lower.

And we know it is not always light in our area, and it is not always dark.

So when it is daytime in our area and it approaches night time we would see the darkness off in the distance coming our way, but it would still be light in our area, and then the darkness would pass through our area and we would see the light go off in the distance until it is gone and it is all dark as far as the eye can see.

The same with it going from dark to light, we would see the light coming, but dark in our area, and the light would pass through our area and we would see the darkness going off in the distance until it is gone, and it is all light as far as the eye can see.

That is the way it seems it would be to me for it is not always dark, and it is not always light, and the sun always stays above the earth and does not lower.

But we do not see it going from dark to light, and light to dark that way.

But on a round earth as soon as the sun goes down, boom, it is dark, and when the sun rises, boom, it is light.

We do not see the light chase the dark, and the dark chase the light, and if it is a little lighter on the side of the earth where the sun comes up it is still light as far as the eye can see, and the light does not chase the dark, and the same the other way around.

Can you picture how it would be if we were on a flat earth and the sun is always above the earth at the same height, and does not lower.

For that is the way that is would seem to me, because it is not always light, and not always dark, so the light would have to follow the dark, and the dark would have to follow the light.

Also what about gravity, which some people will say that it does not exist.

Gravity - the force that attracts a body toward the center of the earth, or toward any other physical body having mass.

On a round earth no matter where you stand you have the same amount of earth under you, the same with objects, so gravity goes downward.

But on a flat earth wouldn't we be pulled to the center of the flat earth and move sideways if we were not in the center.

gravity- look at the videos of Nikola Tesla.

 

[posthuman]

gravity- look at the videos of Nikola Tesla.

i found this:

"Nikola Tesla's dynamic theory of gravity was an attempt to ascertain a theory between gravitational radiation and the electromagnetic force as a unified field theory (a model over matter and energy). No mathematical details of the theory are available, nor is there any evidence that Tesla ever worked them out."​

​

IOW, just a hand-waving hypothesis that never panned out once examined, plus, even if it were true it doesn't 'do away with gravity' at all it would only have been a link between gravity and EM.

so it's a non-theory, and it wouldn't explain why observed gravity is nothing like what it should be on a flat planet, even if it were an actual workable theory.

 

[Moses_Young]

i found this:

"Nikola Tesla's dynamic theory of gravity was an attempt to ascertain a theory between gravitational radiation and the electromagnetic force as a unified field theory (a model over matter and energy). No mathematical details of the theory are available, nor is there any evidence that Tesla ever worked them out."​

​

IOW, just a hand-waving hypothesis that never panned out once examined, plus, even if it were true it doesn't 'do away with gravity' at all it would only have been a link between gravity and EM.

so it's a non-theory, and it wouldn't explain why observed gravity is nothing like what it should be on a flat planet, even if it were an actual workable theory.

What demonstrable observation of gravity is "nothing like what it should be on a flat planet"? To my understanding, most of the "proofs" of gravity are based on circular reasoning. In other words, the reasoning is as follows: the law of universal gravitation is true, therefore, the mass of this celestial object is this, therefore, the law of universal gravitation is true. Similar to evolutionary "proof" of evolutionary theory.

Also, "planet" means wandering star. If Earth were flat, it is doubtful it would also be a planet.

 

[posthuman]

What demonstrable observation of gravity is "nothing like what it should be on a flat planet"?

Objects should experience an acceleration with a vector pointing toward the center of the earths mass.
To wit, whenever you drop something on a flat earth it will fall towards the north pole, not straight downward, as is universally observed.

There is also no explanation for the observed motion of the planets, or for tides, or for the action of a pendulum, all of which observed motions are readily and fully explained by gravity in a heliocentric solar system comprised of ibkate spherical bodies.

 

[posthuman]

To my understanding, most of the "proofs" of gravity are based on circular reasoning. In other words, the reasoning is as follows: the law of universal gravitation is true, therefore, the mass of this celestial object is this, therefore, the law of universal gravitation is true.

I invite you to look into the subject in a bit more depth.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cavendish_experiment

 

[GaryA]

Objects should experience an acceleration with a vector pointing toward the center of the earths mass.
To wit, whenever you drop something on a flat earth it will fall towards the north pole, not straight downward, as is universally observed.

WHEN are you going to STOP using this explanation?????

It is totally meaningless in the context of the Flat Earth Model.

In the Flat Earth Model, there is no such thing as a "center of mass" magical force that causes anything to accelerate towards it.

An object falling "straight down" is perfectly normal and completely in line with Flat Earth Model 'physics'.

Ball Earth Model 'physics' CANNOT be used to [properly] describe Flat Earth Model observations.

You CANNOT say "gravity should/will cause an object to move toward the north pole" when Flat Earth Model 'physics' actually defy-by-definition the very existance of gravity (as is defined by the Ball Earth Model) itself.

WHEN are you going to STOP trying to explain Flat Earth Model observations with Ball Earth Model 'physics'?

The two models are not 100% compatible where 'physics' is concerned.

What you are doing is not legitimate - not for fact - not for theory - and most certainly not for evidence.

 

[posthuman]

In the Flat Earth Model, there is no such thing as a "center of mass"

LOL

there's magically no such thing as a center of mass just because you change somethings shape?

get yourself some playdoh Gary.

make a ball. drop it. it falls, right?
make the same playdoh into a frisbee. drop it again.
still falls?

you're a hoot.

 

[GaryA]

LOL

there's magically no such thing as a center of mass just because you change somethings shape?

get yourself some playdoh Gary.

make a ball. drop it. it falls, right?
make the same playdoh into a frisbee. drop it again.
still falls?

you're a hoot.

And you can't read...

(That's giving you the benefit of the doubt; otherwise, I would have to assume you purposely "twisted" my post to make it look like I said something other than what I actually said.)

How about taking the whole sentence into account?

Want to try again?

 

[PennEd]

Objects should experience an acceleration with a vector pointing toward the center of the earths mass.
To wit, whenever you drop something on a flat earth it will fall towards the north pole, not straight downward, as is universally observed.

There is also no explanation for the observed motion of the planets, or for tides, or for the action of a pendulum, all of which observed motions are readily and fully explained by gravity in a heliocentric solar system comprised of ibkate spherical bodies.

I believe I have read somewhere that there are scientists who are questioning gravity, and the properties of it.

Electrons are not held together by gravity, but by electromagnetism apparently. What is the difference without getting too technical.

I think whether you are talking about atoms, solar systems, or Newtonian "Law", JESUS is the instrument by which things don't just fly apart. Therefore, I don't believe gravity can be used to prove or disprove a flat Earth.


Colossians 1:17 New International Version (NIV)
17 He is before all things, and in him all things hold together.

 

[Susanna]

When I was in training for flying helicopters we had to do flight planning for long hauls, even though none of us were going to fly long distance.

Point is, though, that none of those flight plans took into consideration a flat earth.

The whole flat earth idea is beyond stupid.

 

[JamOn]

I believe I have read somewhere that there are scientists who are questioning gravity, and the properties of it.

Electrons are not held together by gravity, but by electromagnetism apparently. What is the difference without getting too technical.

I think whether you are talking about atoms, solar systems, or Newtonian "Law", JESUS is the instrument by which things don't just fly apart. Therefore, I don't believe gravity can be used to prove or disprove a flat Earth.


Colossians 1:17 New International Version (NIV)
17 He is before all things, and in him all things hold together.

Difference between gravity and magnetism is one is created by mass the other by the movement of the mass