Ball Earth conundrums

[posthuman]

No one will ever reach the "edge" of the earth (not in this life) - it is somewhere beyond the dome.

chapter and verse plz

The phrase "edge of the world" can be confusing -

it's kind of confusing whether you're claiming the earth is a disc or an infinite plane, now.

seems a bit like infinitely "moving the goalposts"

 

[Moses_Young]

I don't know where you are getting your facts, but...

Ain't nobody sinking those ships.

That's 'cause they're not exploring Antarctica. Just going to one of several very specific, controlled places. Antarctica is big in Flat Earth, remember? Try going there off-grid on your quad bikes, and see how the conspiring governments of the world like it then.

 

[Moses_Young]

If you are a flea on a hot air balloon you aren't going to see curvature. so that observation is moot. the earth is big.

Do I take it from this statement that you at least admit that we observe a Flat Earth?

But an enterprising flea on a rotating hot air balloon can make a Foucault's pendulum, and prove the balloon is rotating.

we've done that.

A thinking flea on a hot air balloon would realise that the differences in direction (clockwise/counterclockwise) encountered when conducting Foucault's pendulum experiments invalidate the claim that the experiment by any means can prove or disprove the rotation of the balloon.

 

[posthuman]

Do I take it from this statement that you at least admit that we observe a Flat Earth?

If that is your conclusion then you do not understand the statement.

i'm saying the conclusion you reach from your observation is invalidated by the size of the earth - one reaches the conclusion of flat earth only through ignorance of geometry and physics.

 

[Moses_Young]

If that is your conclusion then you do not understand the statement.

I think I do.

i'm saying the conclusion you reach from your observation is invalidated by the size of the earth - one reaches the conclusion of flat earth only through ignorance of geometry and physics.

You said "If you are a flea on a hot air balloon you aren't going to see curvature. so that observation is moot. the earth is big." [Bold and underlined formatting mine]. I think you are saying that we can't see curvature because the Earth is too big. Ergo, you admit we observe a Flat Earth.

 

[posthuman]

A thinking flea on a hot air balloon would realise that the differences in direction (clockwise/counterclockwise) encountered when conducting Foucault's pendulum experiments invalidate the claim that the experiment by any means can prove or disprove the rotation of the balloon.

your reply indicates you do not understand the physics.

focaults pendulums only rotate in one direction depending on the hemisphere the pendulum is in motion on, and does not rotate at all on the equator.

by these facts both rotation and closed topology are proven. the pendulum would not precess if the earth wasn't rotating, and would not flip rotational direction based on position on earth if the topology of the earth were open. furthermore because the precession changes linearly with distance from the equator, uniform curvature of the topology is proven.

the observation of the pendulum completely invalidates infinite plane earth.

 

[posthuman]

I think I do.

That's unfortunate, because you clearly don't.

being ignorant of one's own ignorance leads to error upon error upon error and prevents learning.

 

[posthuman]

You said "If you are a flea on a hot air balloon you aren't going to see curvature. so that observation is moot. the earth is big." [Bold and underlined formatting mine]. I think you are saying that we can't see curvature because the Earth is too big. Ergo, you admit we observe a Flat Earth.

false conclusion.

we observe a BIG earth.
thinking it's flat because it's big is ignorant.

it's equivalent to saying the earth is only 25 miles in diameter because you can only see that far.

 

[Moses_Young]

your reply indicates you do not understand the physics.

focaults pendulums only rotate in one direction depending on the hemisphere the pendulum is in motion on, and does not rotate at all on the equator.

Says you. Reality, on the other hand, shows the rotation of Foucault's pendulums depends more on the design and initial direction than anything to do with the Earth rotating.

by these facts both rotation and closed topology are proven. the pendulum would not precess if the earth wasn't rotating, and would not flip rotational direction based on position on earth if the topology of the earth were open. furthermore because the precession changes linearly with distance from the equator, uniform curvature of the topology is proven.

the observation of the pendulum completely invalidates infinite plane earth.

It might, if the Foucault's pendulums were admissible as evidence by means of their consistency of results. That the results are inconsistent and contradictory means Foucault's pendulums are little more than a novelty item, and have nothing to do with science.

 

[Moses_Young]

That's unfortunate, because you clearly don't.

I think it is you who are unaware even of your own observations.

being ignorant of one's own ignorance leads to error upon error upon error and prevents learning.

On this we agree. But I hold that it is you unaware of your own ignorance.

false conclusion.

we observe a BIG earth.
thinking it's flat because it's big is ignorant.

it's equivalent to saying the earth is only 25 miles in diameter because you can only see that far.

I didn't ask about your conclusion. I asked about your observation. Do you observe curvature? And if so, what has arguing "it's big" got to do with anything?

 

[Lynx]

That's 'cause they're not exploring Antarctica. Just going to one of several very specific, controlled places. Antarctica is big in Flat Earth, remember? Try going there off-grid on your quad bikes, and see how the conspiring governments of the world like it then.

Yeah, as soon as I said that I figured that's what you would say.

You give the government WAY too much credit. We can't even keep people from coming through our own borders, much less rigidly control a much, much larger outer perimeter.

Yeah, yeah, I know... "We're only pretending to try to keep them out. The government really wants them to come in, for cheap labor" or something like that. Tell that to the people ICE arrested.

 

[Lynx]

That's 'cause they're not exploring Antarctica. Just going to one of several very specific, controlled places. Antarctica is big in Flat Earth, remember? Try going there off-grid on your quad bikes, and see how the conspiring governments of the world like it then.

Speaking of this omnipotent government... Reckon how does it control water spinning down a drain?

I mean, if we were on a spinning ball then the coriolis effect would make perfect sense. But since we're on a flat, stationary plane, reckon how does the government make water spin one way above that equator and the other way below the equator?

 

[posthuman]

Says you. Reality, on the other hand, shows the rotation of Foucault's pendulums depends more on the design and initial direction than anything to do with the Earth rotating.

explain.

 

[Moses_Young]

Speaking of this omnipotent government... Reckon how does it control water spinning down a drain?

I mean, if we were on a spinning ball then the coriolis effect would make perfect sense. But since we're on a flat, stationary plane, reckon how does the government make water spin one way above that equator and the other way below the equator?

Lol. This is what I mean about science. Have you ever tried it? I have. Water doesn't spin the other way North and South of the equator. Its nothing to do with some omnipotent government, just bad information to begin with, and those perpetuating the myth without verifying.

 

[Moses_Young]

explain.

In short, Foucault's pendulums don't work. Some will go clockwise, some anti-clockwise, but this is more a matter of the design of the pendulums than any purported rotation of the Earth.

 

[Moses_Young]

Speaking of this omnipotent government... Reckon how does it control water spinning down a drain?

I mean, if we were on a spinning ball then the coriolis effect would make perfect sense. But since we're on a flat, stationary plane, reckon how does the government make water spin one way above that equator and the other way below the equator?

Just in case you misinterpret my response (below), I didn't mean it to mocking or demeaning. I'm not sure if you interpret it that way, but if so, it wasn't meant to be such. Sometimes I do intend a mocking type response (not usually to you, I don't think), but this is not one of those occasions!

Lol. This is what I mean about science. Have you ever tried it? I have. Water doesn't spin the other way North and South of the equator. Its nothing to do with some omnipotent government, just bad information to begin with, and those perpetuating the myth without verifying.

 

[posthuman]

In short, Foucault's pendulums don't work. Some will go clockwise, some anti-clockwise, but this is more a matter of the design of the pendulums than any purported rotation of the Earth.

this is a completey false statement on your part.

 

[Dino246]

Lol. This is what I mean about science. Have you ever tried it? I have. Water doesn't spin the other way North and South of the equator. Its nothing to do with some omnipotent government, just bad information to begin with, and those perpetuating the myth without verifying.

Have you personally verified this? On site? If not, your information is no more reliable than that of the sources you decry.

 

[posthuman]

I didn't ask about your conclusion. I asked about your observation. Do you observe curvature? And if so, what has arguing "it's big" got to do with anything?

The fact of the size of the earth makes it moot whether you personally observe curvature of the horizon from a relatively low altitude, because tour observation does not give you enough information to draw the conclusion that the earth is an infinite plane or a sphere.

it's equivalent to you observing that it is dark outside at midnight and concluding the sun doesn't exist anymore. the conclusion simply is not justified by the observation.

 

[GaryA]

@Moses_Young is not talking about any 'conclusion' AT ALL; rather, he is only talking about - and interested in - 'observation'. He only wants to know:

"What is your observation - is it dark outside at midnight?"

He is not talking about - or interested in - what you may conclude from that - he is talking about - and interested in - what your observation is - "plain and simple"...