shape of the earth? dont fuckin know

seriously?

the earth is a fucking globe, mate.

definately does make sense of alot of things, but i hafta TPTB telling us the exact details

Have you ever seen an electron move through a circuit? Why do you believe TPTB about how a computer works?

There is so much evidence the Earth is a globe that you have to ignore to believe a FE

What do you know ?

Most 'conspiracy' types I know who are convinced of heliocentrism have bought into the false dichotomy between what we are taught in school and YouTube 'Flat Earth'. So many Flat Earth pushers are obviously liars/lunatics, so it is easy to assume we were told the truth by authority.

What the fuck are you talkin about ?

There's plenty to get skeptical about. And a lot of shit winds up being true.

FE isn't one of them though. It's scientific so we can prove it, unlike everything else being humans being assholes who can lie and mislead and kill people. Honestly man, I wouldn't waste your time. It's a good idea though if it made you question things, for me it was the Iraq war in the 2000s. Just remember some stuff does turn out wrong, especially when science has been doing its thing for tens of thousands of years, because we're lied to and mislead because once again: humans are shit.

i hear ya, a year ago i was pro war, i literally wanted them to drop nukes on these muslim countries, wish i woulda woke up sooner, i remember going into elementary school class in canada on 9/11 aka treason day... they had the ol roll out tv with the news on

i didnt clarify in my post, i tried to at end but, flat earth isnt what i'm convinced of, i'm convinced we are the center of the universe and that what we call space is not real, galaxies, nebulaus, blablahs, i need nasa to take a cellphone to the iss and take a picture from earth through the window

cuz everything looks fake, globe or not, i think our idea if a never ending cosmos is wrong.

science can math the heck outta whatever they want, in the end its just numbers and letters, that were perhaps created just for the fact its so easy to put the puzzle pieces together

geocentrism is what i'm leaning towards

anyways peace and love friend and thankyou fir the comment :)

take a picture from earth through the window

But we already have that...

geocentrism is what i'm leaning towards

How do you explain Mars orbit on a geocentric Earth? This was why Copernicus gave us our first solid understandings of a heliocentric solar system.

Mars makes loops in the sky which make zero sense if we are at the center. That means either Mars is special and can do cartwheels as it moves through the sky or that we orbit the sun.

Which scenario makes more sense to you?

my thoughts on why Flat Earth/Anti-Flat Earth are pushed so damn hard wherever you go?

It's not. You are spending too much time online if this is true for you.

i sjulda clarified, i feel i cant trust what i am told about the shape size ir nature of our planet/existense

What specifically about math is 'false data'?

from my point of view theoretically you should be able to use numbers and letters to fit whatever model/puzzle you need, so i think its possible that alot of our math of the universe is just false, take stephen hawkings for example, he has put out alot of math that seemingly makes black holes make sense, but can i ever verify a black hole?

Models and puzzles can often be expressed and/or solved mathematically, but that does not necessarily mean mathematics as a whole is at fault when an inconsistency arises; such flaws may be attributed to things such as oversights in the nature or application of the hypothetical model itself.

As for verifying black holes, I think it can be done, albeit indirectly.

i don't look at the math and physics as a whole being false, human intelligence is truley amazing, i know fuck all about math and physics, but as far as mathematical equations and formulas go from my perspective, i just feel itd be very easy to create the meaming behind whatever sequence of numbers, letters and symbols TPTB would want to fit whatever model they want

just feel itd be very easy to create the meaming behind whatever sequence of numbers, letters and symbols TPTB would want to fit whatever model they want

It may feel that way, but look closer and you'll see it's not so simple. Or rather, much, much, simpler than you imagine.

It's not like all of these mathematical formulas that describe the universe are independently created out of nothing. They all build from an incredibly simple set of rules.

In another post you say that 1+1=2 is that because we say it is. That's not exactly true. There are a small handful of fundamental rules of arithmetic that we assume to be true but can't prove. The most widely accepted set are known as Peano's Axoims and consist of 5 rules. From these rules, we can actually prove that 1+1 must always equal 2.

From these same 5 rules we can prove every single thing known about all of arithmetic.

The same holds true for geometry and calculus. They arise from a very small number of assumptions (axioms) that we're really sure about, but can't prove.

Now, here's the thing - using these very small handful of simple rules, we can step by step - entirely traceable with nothing invented or tossed in - create equations that perfectly describe the motion of everything we've seen move from entire galaxies down to electrons in an atom.

From these equations, we've been able to predict thousands of facts about the universe before we ever had proof they existed. The atomic bomb, silicon computer chips, travel to the moon, entire elements - the equations told us "hey, mathematically this thing should exist" or "this thing should be possible" and after our technology progressed, sure enough there it was.

And those equations are usually amazingly compact.

You say that's easy? It's like building a time machine out of 5 basic materials with nothing else and finding out at the end that it actually works and fits in your pocket.

So yes, it is possible that one or more the fundamental axioms behind math are wrong, meaning that all of math that we've ever concocted is faulty. But the odds of a made-up, faulty system perfectly predicting everything we see around us - matching measurement to the most precise decimal place we can measure?

Let's just say I'd want any competing theory to do at least as good before I'd be willing to even entertain it.

ty, well put comment, did a good job making it understandable for me, for me its just i dont see the data or whats making the data, i think nasa needs to open source all, hardware, firmware and software, i guess there is some major security issues there with satelites, but we should be able to see exactly how these ground based satelites work

There is of course, the Trans Planckian problem - mathematical proof showing Hawking Radiation and other aspects of cosmology to be incorrect.

thankyou friend you have my upvote, your comment is appreciated

i'm going to look into the TP, i won't be able to understand much, but it is interesting and going off that i think it gives credibility to the idea of SOME math and physics being completely false

people will spend their whole lives studying a certain model that can't even be known for certain yet to them its truth, mainstream science blows my mind

btw i think it was a nasa thread i seen you on for the first time, you commented "i am nasa", fuck i laughed, cheers

can i ever verify a black hole?

Can you verify an electron moving through a logic gate on a processor?

Can you verify that illness is caused by viruses?

The electron doesn't think the earth a globe?

What is your point old bean?

The electron doesn't think the earth a globe?

How can you prove that is how a computer works? Why take someone elses word for it?

Same with globe Earth. Unless youre an astronaut or have access to a high altitude plane or balloon you have to use your own intuition to figure it out (Again if you dont believe all the images we have from space or dont believe in the people who spend years learning this trade).

In a computer we can think of certain tests to run that will or will not verify that a computer is an electrical system dependent on the correct flow of electricity to function, even if we cant watch an electron move through the system.

I don't understand the analogy of the computer I am sorry.

The proof the computer works, is works.

The proof the earth is flat and mostly Motionless is that it feel and looks that

The proof the computer works, is works.

How can you verify that? You are taking someone elses word for it.

The proof the earth is flat and mostly Motionless is that it feel and looks that

When Im on a plane in the air it feels stationary, does this mean a plane isnt moving?

How can you tell how a computer works by how it feels and looks?

There is too much evidence the Earth is a globe, too many inconsistencies of a FE model.

Whats the most convincing evidence in your mind the Earth is flat.

Say you play a computer game. You playing the game is proof of the computer working. You know it cause as a human you can sense it.

You can know its flat and not moving with the same human senses.

. You playing the game is proof of the computer working.

Its proof its working but it isnt proof that it has to do with electrons.

By that logic the coriolis effect should satisfy a globe Earth. It works because it does and it wouldnt work on a FE. Same with a focault pendulum.

You can know its flat and not moving with the same human senses.

But human senses arent infallible. Can you feel moving 500mph when on an airplane?

I was surprised at the lack of proof of the moving globe earth initially

There is overwhelming proof...

You can feel the planes movements though. The earth is spinning and hurtling through space and we feel nothing.

You can feel the planes movements though.

No you cant. You can feel the engines but if the plane isnt accelerating you cant feel the movement. You can walk in a plane just fine.

The earth is spinning and hurtling through space and we feel nothing.

Why would we? We have the same reference frame as the Earth, we are all moving the same speed.

If the Earth were accelerating or decelerating we would feel it, otherwise we are all moving at the same speed.

If you are on an object that is spinning on its axis, how can you not feel the centrifugal force? Even if it is a closed system?

Can you replicate that with items here on earth? Make a ball and create for it a sealed atmosphere out of something solid material like plastic and then spin it and see what happens to the items on the ball.

If you are on an object that is spinning on its axis, how can you not feel the centrifugal force? Even if it is a closed system?

How small is that centrifugal force? Lets stop looking at the speed for a moment and think about it like this.

A tennis ball spinning at 1000+ MPH is moving fast, you would feel that if you were small enough to be on it.

Now lets say that the tennis ball makes one full rotation every 24 hours, you would barely even register that.

Same with the Earth, yes its moving fast but it only makes one rotation every 24 hours. The centrifugal forces are very small.

Or go on a carousel that is sealed from the outside air, will you feel the spin or not?

If the carousel made one rotation every 24 hours you wouldnt even notice it turning. When you are on a plane why do you not fly back and hit the wall at 500mph if you jump? Because both you, the plane and everything in it are moving at the same speed.

What if you are at the poles where the earth is rotating? Its going faster than if you were at the equator?

What if you are at the poles where the earth is rotating? Its different than if you were at the equator?

Its still going to take 24 hours for that spot to rotate 360 degrees. Not enough to notice. You are however a little heavier at the north pole because of the slight centrifugal force in place at the equator

The centrifugal force is what makes the Earth bulge ever so slightly in the middle, like spinning pizza dough.

Why is it any different if I am going moving at x amount of speed on a big surface or x amount on a smaller surface? Why does one make you feel it and the other makes you not?

Lets go back to your carousel example but make the carousel much bigger. Like the size of the Earth.

So the carousel is moving the same speed, one rotation every 24 hours. The "top" (North Pole) is moving slowly.

People at the edge of the carousel are moving much faster. Now when you walk out to the edge you are accelerating at an incredibly slow rate, just making shit up here but lets say every step accelerates you .000001% faster.

When you reach the edge you, the carousel and everything on the carousel are moving the same speed. Much like on an airplane or bus, you can jump and land in the same spot because you are moving at the same speed as the carousel.

Why is it any different if I am moving at x amount of speed with a big big surface or x amount with smaller surface? Why does one make you feel it and the other makes you not?

Centrifugal force like you brought up earlier.

That's what they say yet I feel like I can feel a plane or car move when it's goo fast

Because it's accelerating... Otherwise you can't

When I drive at 80 mile I feel as if, I can feel the car going forward

Do you really not, at all?

I feel it when the car accelerates to 80 but when you reach 80 and hit cruise control you can't feel that speed

You can feel the engine working or wind on the car but you can't feel going 80 just accelerating to 80

I've put this out there before, I consider it MY personal proof of flat earth. I've lived on a island on and off my whole life, as long as I've been alive I could see the shore on the other side, I never thought much of it till I came across FE theory. Now you'll find videos all over the place of people zooming in on distant objects over land, this makes sense to me because land has variations which let you defy curvature(mountains, valleys, etc) ... but put a glass of water on a table, sits flat right? So in theory if you viewed a distant shore, the water in between should follow the curvature strictly. It doesn't.

Now according to the formula for calculating the curvature of the earth , that shore which I've been viewing which is 17 miles away , should be SIGNIFICANTLY below the horizon. Explain that too me please and don't say mirage, you can see the other shore in almost any weather condition

from my point of view theoretically you should be able to use numbers and letters to fit whatever model/puzzle you need

How long do I have to entertain the idea that 2+2=5?

Please read up on the science as well as the conspiracy. You must give all sides thorough investigation before you decide on something this fundamental.

you are correct in the fact all sides need to be studied, but completely regarding all thoughts in this post, i fully understand conspiracy

Please read up on the history of science being corrupted for money.

Math is the most logical, defined, quantified language that exits. How can anyone argue against 1+1=2? It's impossible, trust math over your feelings. We are not the center of the universe.

What validates an idea? If i could predict the next lottery numbers or predict the exact time you get struck by lightning a month from now, you would then have confidence that I possessing some kind of Truth or something special, yes?

This is exactly what Gravity does, it predicts future motions...not only that, Gravity explains and describes motions NOT YET OBSERVED.

Even more impressive, is Gravity explains a huge wide range of seemingly UNRELATED phenomenon and explains and PREDICTS thier future motions perfectly.

yaaa i getcha, i'm not arguing over 1+1=2, i'm saying 1 + 1 = 2 because that's what we have made it, anything we know comes from our ability to describe somethin, if i goto china, i no longer know what anything is, i know what things do, but if i cant relate to a different language, i no longer know how to describe something in a way that works for them, drunk n stoned, my apologies, giberish i know, but point of my gibberish is if we are talking about ways for us to describe something and we are in the position of power too dictate how people do it, then we can can describe whatever however we want

this came out so wrong and retarded lolol oh well, i hope you see MY logic, think about the number one, is it shaped 1 because the world came together and said thats the most logical? or us ut because somewhere in hisrory that rule was set? (probably with special meaning)

It all has to do with being able to quantify objective values. Non mathmatical words like " god" will have a different subjective meanings to each individual, while a value like "5" is quantified and so objectivly descriptive... no matter what creed , religion, country, culture, 5 is still 5. This is why mathematics has validity and can be trusted to accurately communicate over any other language

Nope Maths can be manipulated

Spotted the guy who failed algebra

5 rocks is 5 fingers, i get that, but how do you quantify a black hole accurately when it's not something we can actually observe

when heliocentrism started, they were going off the movement of specks of light in the sky, the big telescopes these days that tell us the makeup of whatever star or exo planets dont actually have anyone looking tbrough them do they? they just take in the light and generate data on propietary software i imagine, correct if wrong

seems all our evidence for space these days is based off data we get from a closed source, and from that a tale is told

We figured out, hundreds of years ago, when you shine a light thru any gaseous Element , say Argon, or Hydrogen, or any element , it creates very specific identifiable dark lines thru out the light spectrum when the light is measured thru a prism. Each Element has very identifiable "absorption lines" .......now point that prism at a star or some glass container with an unknown gas.

The theory of gravity of bollocks

Ok said the guy who jumped off a building expecting to fly with power of his positive thinking

Lots of disinfo agents on here and flat earth is the crown jewel

Any source/proof/evidence fe theory disinformation?

Somehow I doubt it

The fact that we are literally debating if the world is a disc for about a year or two now and the only thing Flattards keep repeating is how everything against them is world class CGI and bible quotes

We have been debating is the world flat for 2/3000 years. And almost everyone has agreed it is. Outside of some Jesuits and NASA-nazis

For the amount of times the "flat earth disinformation " thing gets said here you think there might be some sort of proof. Yet none has been presented.

Ancient greeks were Nazi jesuits amirite

Na but they were the only people's on gods flat earth that thought it were a globe

How'd that work out for them?

I Look into the world view of ancients cultures.

Almost all had a flat earth theory version as their Beleif system.

Which is strange cause some of them had very good space understanding too

The Chinese continued this outlook until... Jesuit infiltration only a few hundred year ago

We have been debating is the world flat for 2/3000 years. And almost everyone has agreed it is.

This is false. As early as 300 BC people believed the Earth to at the very least not be flat. Eratosthenes proved that with some sticks.

Copernicus finalized the idea because it was the only way to explain Mars orbit. In a geocentric solar system mars orbit makes no sense, it literally would have to do loops through the sky.

Erato was one guy. That put two sticks in the ground. He didn't proof anything intact his maths (which was wrong) would have worked out the same if the sun were smaller and closer...

But the 1500s we arrive at the Jesuit period

The two stick experiment gives same results if the earth is flat and the sun is closer, so how can it be used as a proof for the ball?

The two stick experiment gives same results if the earth is flat and the sun is closer, so how can it be used as a proof for the ball?

The sun would have to be dramatically closer, even closer than current FE models.

Not only that but we can use rough parallax estimations to prove the sun isnt that close.

The math of how far the sun is, is it already based on the assumption that the earth is a ball, because if it is then it starts from a potentially false axium.

No... Thats not how parallax calculations would work.

So lets assume a FE. Lets say I have someone at the very bottom tip of south America and anther buddy at the very southern tip of Australia.

Now on a FE map this is about as far from each other as you can get. You both take measurements of your relation to a celestial body, like Mars (Or the moon).

Since you are tens of thousands of miles apart there should be slightly different results of your calculations. Im sure we remember A² + B² = C²

If we do this experiment we know A and B so we can calculate C. This is how parallax works.

When was the last time this has been scientifically verified so I dont need to take the word of someone who lived ages ago at face value?

You could do it.

You measure and you have a friend measure on the opposite side of the Earth.

Do you take issue with this? Why do you think its not a good example? Can you see a flaw in this test?

We dont use parallax anymore because we have radio telescopes that are more accurate.

I am asking if someone other than a guy that claimed to have done it has done and verified it? Isnt science based on observeable, testable and repeatable evidence? Where is the repeated tested evidence?

I am asking if someone other than a guy that claimed to have done it has done and verified it?

Yeah dude thats like astronomy 101. Anyone can do it with extremely simple tools. Ask people who have taken introductory astrology courses and Im sure they at some point have had to measure celestial bodies.

Isnt science based on observeable, testable and repeatable evidence? Where is the repeated tested evidence?

Come on you are getting pedantic. If you cant find a flaw with this test just say so.

Anyone can do it with extremely simple tools. Ask people who have taken introductory astrology courses and Im sure they at some point have had to measure celestial bodies.

So is there any actual scientific paper I can read where someone has done this experiment?

Come on you are getting pedantic. If you cant find a flaw with this test just say so.

I am asking only for evidence that this test has actually been made.

So is there any actual scientific paper I can read where someone has done this experiment?

http://www.astrosoftware.com/What%20is%20Parallax.htm

https://www.google.com/search?q=parallax+astronomy+tested&biw=1494&bih=794&source=lnms&tbm=vid&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjqurXI2s_UAhWGbz4KHebWDmEQ_AUIBygC

I hate to be that guy but there are tons of references out there.

I dont have audio where I am right now so I cant parse through which video is the best example but this is common knowledge shit dude.

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/starry-science-measure-astronomical-distances-using-parallax/

So is there any scientifically done experiment or is this one guy the only one that has done it? Like an actual scientifically conducted study?

So is there any scientifically done experiment or is this one guy the only one that has done it? Like an actual scientifically conducted study that I can read?

I... I just gave you that info... Its all right there... You could literally test this yourself.

http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1993PASP..105.1101G

Heres a paper on "One-milliarsecond precision parallax studies in the regions of Delta Cephei and EV Lacertae"

Heres another paper that may be more appropriate by a physics professor

https://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/1208/1208.2061.pdf

He brings up examples of people who have done this.

https://arxiv.org/abs/0809.1550

Another complicated one.

You gave info about how it is done but not about actual studies where someone has done it and scientifically documented it. Maybe even peer reviewed it like proper scientific studies need to be done.

Dude... Why would professors or college kids write a paper on finding Mars with Parallax? Its been done a few hundred years ago. Its like asking for a peer reviewed paper on if fire is hot. You could go figure it out right now with minimal tools.

I find your argument is extremely weak and you are grasping at straws. I just gave you a trove of evidence and you want a peer reviewed document going over the fundamentals?

Dude... Why would professors or college kids write a paper on finding Mars with Parallax? Its been done a few hundred years ago. Its like asking for a peer reviewed paper on if fire is hot. You could go figure it out right now with minimal tools.

If it has been done by a one guy few hundred years age and not done after that, that is not science. Science is repeated.

I find your argument is extremely weak and you are grasping at straws. I just gave you a trove of evidence and you want a peer reviewed document going over the fundamentals?

Yes, I want to see this actually used in real life. It seems like no one has actually done it apart from this one guy claiming it some hundreds of years ago and the rest just believe it is so.

That is an extremely weak argument.

I just gave you multiple examples of it

You didnt give a scientific study. Which is the only thing I have been asking from you.

The study was done hundreds of years ago. I just linked you peer reviewed papers that use parallax.

I have you steps to perform this yourself, I can't give you anymore.

It's such a common phenomena, if you have two points of measurement you can figure out the 3rd point. I literally linked you to proof of it in effect.

It always works. It would be like me saying show me a peer reviewed paper that proves multiplication works.

Check out the documentary mirage men.

Dows that contain said evidence?

No its a documentary about the disinfo campaign the government used to discredit alien conspiracy theories after roswell.

Most theories regarding Roswell come from one man who would attend these meetings to spread these ideas he knew were false so people would invest time and energy into those ideas instead of finding the truth.

I do believe the same is happening here. Planted seeds of disinfo that some users took and ran with.

There is overwhelming amounts of evidence the earth is a globe.

Density explains things falling. Gravity is a model that has never been proven. That is why it is called the theory of gravity.

Density explains things falling.

How though? Without an attractive force there is nothing to separate things of different density. If I mixed oil and water in a zero gravity environment it will never separate because there is no force attracting both the water and oil.

There must be an attractive for between things with mass. There is no way around that.

Your point about zero gravity is based on the assumption that gravity is real.

If something is more dense than the medium in which it is then it will sink, if not it will rise or float. Why do we need an extra force?

Things of different density will find their balance, gasses will equilibriate, solids sink or rise till they either can no longer do that due to a physical barrier or until they get to the same density as the medium and then they will simply stay floating at that level.

Your point about zero gravity is based on the assumption that gravity is real.

Well call it whatever you want but there is an attractive force, you cant deny that.

If something is more dense than the medium in which it is then it will sink, if not it will rise or float. Why do we need an extra force?

Yes... There must be something affecting both things with different densities. What is the force that compels things to fall to Earth?

Things of different density will find their balance, gasses will equilibriate, solids sink or rise till they either can no longer do that due to a physical barrier or until they get to the same density as the medium and then they will simply stay floating at that level.

I get that. What I dont get is what force is causing different densities to find this equilibrium. If its not gravity then what causes a ball to fall to the floor? If it is density then that means there is a force pulling both the air and the ball in the same direction.

We can actually test density theory pretty easily.

Create a vacuum sealed box with a brick in it. If there is no air (A minimally dense object) and a highly dense object like the brick will the brick float and will the weight of the box change?

So my two questions for you are;

• What causes the attractive force to the Earth

• How can we test your theory and is my test a valid one?

I dont buy your claim that there needs to be some outside force apart from density and its opposite. But if there has to be a force apart from density, have you looked at the electrical universe theory? What if the electrical force which is not outside of the substances themselves is what creates attraction?

About the vacuum, we would have to try it out, I dont know how airless space would function with an object in it.

I dont buy your claim that there needs to be some outside force apart from density and its opposite.

Then how will objects of different density separate? What is causing them to be attracted to the Earth?

You cant just say density and be done with it. Dense things separate because they are all being attracted in the same direction. Without a force attracting them density will not work.

have you looked at the electric universe theory? What if the electrical force which is not outside of the substances themselves is what creates attraction?

This is another theory we can easily test.

We can make EM shielded boxes. Put a brick in a shielded box and see if the weight changes. We could do both a shielded box and one with a vacuum. If you can show that this box weighs a different amount you are looking at completely debunking gravity.

Now if there is no change in weight we know its not EM or density alone. We know there is a force that doesnt act on EM or density and that attraction is based on mass.

What do you mean separate? I dont quite get what you mean.

If something is less dense than air it will fall, the earth is just a solid object that stops this fall. Why should it attract?

Also about the shielded boxes and weight changing, why should there be any weight change? In the electric universe there is only one force which is electricity, everything else is a manifestation of this force in different forms.

What do you mean separate? I dont quite get what you mean.

If I mix oil and water they will eventually separate. Two objects of different densities will separate, which is what I assume you mean. So a brick is more dense than air so the brick will sink to the bottom (The ground) when tossed.

The question is why is the brick moving down? What force is pulling both the air and the brick downwards?

If something is less dense than air it will fall, the earth is just a solid object that stops this fall. Why should it attract?

Why does it fall down? Why is a less dense object wanting to fall to the ground? Gravity says that objects are attracted to the center of objects with mass. So the brick is attracted to the center of the Earths gravitational pull.

You cant have density without a force pulling all objects to the ground.

• Why does everything want to fall to Earth? What is the mechanism?

Also about the shielded boxes and weight changing, why should there be any weight change? In the electric universe there is only one force which is electricity, everything else is a manifestation of this force in different forms.

In an electric universe (As far as I understand it) electric fields permeate everything and cause things to be attracted to each other. We can shield against electrical forces very effectively.

• Will the weight of an item change if it is blocked from this electrical field?

If you mix oil and water they will separate, but not all substances do. Like in atmosphere there are many gasses mixed in with each other. If you mix water and salt, these wont separate. It depends on the substances.

The brick is moving down because it is more dense than the medium in which it is in. If its less dense it will rise, its not that it falls because its gravity and rises because of anti gravity, its natural density of the substances that make it happen. If you claim otherwise you need to show this gravity to me, but no one has actually observed this force, its just infered to exist even though density explains it.

A more dense object has to fall, it can not rise because only less dense objects fall, and it can not move sideways because sideways the density stays the same.

In the electric universe everything is electricity, its not that there is one thing called electricity permeating another thing, there is nothing else than electric force.

I dont know if the weight would change but I dont see why it has to change either.

If you mix oil and water they will separate, but not all substances do. Like in atmosphere there are many gasses mixed in with each other. If you mix water and salt, these wont separate. It depends on the substances.

Yes, but for the sake of discussion I thought we should avoid things that when mixed simply combine and might have slight density changes.

The brick is moving down because it is more dense than the medium in which it is in. If its less dense it will rise, its not that it falls because its gravity and rises because of anti gravity, its natural density of the substances that make it happen. If you claim otherwise you need to show this gravity to me, but no one has actually observed this force, its just infered to exist even though density explains it.

Im not really sure where the disconnect is coming from...

You cant have things separate by density if there is no force acting on them to pull them in the same direction. Whatever that might be, EU or Gravity. There must be something pull all objects towards the Earth for things to separate by density.

• Why are all objects attracted to other objects with mass?

THe only thing unknown about gravity is the mechanism. We know that there is an attraction between all objects with mass. We can very accurately predict how objects will interact with each other based on our model of gravity.

A more dense object has to fall, it can not rise because only less dense objects fall, and it can not move sideways because sideways the density stays the same.

But why DOWN? Density doesnt explain why things fall down to the Earth it only explains why they separate.

In the electric universe everything is electricity, its not that there is one thing called electricity permeating another thing, there is nothing else than electric force.

The EU theory breaks down under a bit of scrutiny. It is not able to model stellar interactions for one and star formation wouldnt be possible.

You are assuming things are pulled. Why could they not just find their respected balance according to their density in the medium they are in?

Down and up are labels we put on the facts that in a medium less dense objects fall and more dense rise. Same density stays floating. If there was gravity then same density object in a same density medium would be pulled downwards, but is this the case?

Why is a wrong question, I can ask you why questions about any fact and at some point you just have to say because thats how its observed to function. Why should a less dense object instead of rising fall? Because thats observeable reality, we dont know why. Just like with gravity theory there is no reason for why should there be attraction, why should attraction be something that happens instead of the opposite which is things repelling? This is the same as you asking why down and not up.

You are assuming things are pulled. Why could they not just find their respected balance according to their density in the medium they are in?

Again to have objects reach balance according to their respective densities it implies that they "want" to settle, which means there must be a force that attracts them to the Earth.

If there were no gravity or no attractive force they would never separate, regardless of their density.

Down and up are labels we put on the facts that in a medium less dense objects fall and more dense rise. Same density stays floating.

Again fall and rise implies there is a general direction of "down" which means that something is attracting objects towards the center of the Earth.

If there was gravity then same density object in a same density medium would be pulled downwards, but is this the case?

Yes, this is the case. All objects want to move closer to the center of the Earth. If two objects are the same density being pulled in the same direction they will achieve equilibrium.

If it was only density then there would be no attraction and the items wouldnt achieve equilibrium. They would just float.

Why is a wrong question, I can ask you why questions about any fact and at some point you just have to say because thats how its observed to function. Why should a more dense object instead of rising fall? Because thats observeable reality, we dont know why.

But we do know why and its provable. Gravity.

We know for a fact that mass is attracted to each other, we know by exactly how much also. Gravity can perfectly model out universe and can predict future events very accurately.

The mechanism isnt known but we do know that mass equals attraction.

Just like with gravity theory there is no reason for why should there be attraction, why should attraction be something that happens instead of the opposite which is things repelling?

Because it bends the fabric of space. We can see this with Einstein halos where the large gravity of the sun bends the light on the other side around it. We know this is a fact, we can prove this.

Electric universe however cant explain this phenomena as far as I know.

Why cant density be the its own force?

If you take rubber band and stretch it and let go, it will snap back. Likewise if you take a rock from the surface of the earth where it rests and lift it upwards against the opposing density and let go, it will snap back because it finds its balance and earth is what stops it.

We dont know that mass equals attraction, its only a model, it has not been proven, that is why gravity is theory and not an observeable fact of reality. It has never been observed unlike the natural properties of density.

If I tell you that the big bang was started by an outside force (because it can not be its own cause) and I call that force god, you would not believe me since we can not directly observe it.

Why cant density be the its own force?

Because it needs an attractive force acting on both densities the same. Without gravity you cant have density. It wouldnt matter how dense an object is if it isnt attracted in a direction.

Look at zero gravity. This can be however you imagine, like the vomit comet. If I have a bowling ball in a tub of water in zero gravity it wont sink to the bottom.

If you take rubber band and stretch it and let go, it will snap back.

Well there is energy stored in that band because you pulled it apart. In this analogy if a brick and the earth are a rubber band where is the energy coming from to pull themselves together?

Likewise if you take a rock from the surface of the earth where it rests and lift it upwards against the opposing density and let go, it will snap back because it finds its balance and earth is what stops it.

But why is it resting? Why is it sitting on the Earth? It cant be just density. Why does it want to fall to the Earth?

We dont know that mass equals attraction, its only a model, it has not been proven, that is why gravity is theory and not an observeable fact of reality. It has never been observed unlike the natural properties of density.

It has been proven multiple times. What we cant definitively answer is "why".

You have the burden of showing that you have a model that is as exact as gravitation. No one has proved such a thing, no other model fits what we observe. Like density, why would density cause planets to orbit objects? Why would density cause gravitational lensing? These questions cant be answered using the density model but can in the gravitational model.

If I tell you that the big bang was started by an outside force (because it can not be its own cause) and I call that force god, you would not believe me since we can not directly observe it.

By definition we cant know what started it. You can however directly view gravity in effect, just get a telescope.

No matter how good of a model I create out of the stuff that came after the force, if I can not show that this force actually exists you wont believe.

Again science isnt denying this. What is denied is how else do you explain it? No one has made a model that comes close to explaining and modelling our universe.

You can directly view natural things that are attributed to this magical invisible force gravity, but no one has observed gravity itself. This is why its called the theory of gravity.

Also we can observe of the universe only lights in the sky. I dont trust nasa or other space organisations since I cant verify them myself. In nasas website they call them images, not pictures. There is a difference, a picture is real photo and an image can be made up. Also we know they use composite images and not actual photographs like that nasa guy who made the blue marble said, he admitted that the images are photoshopped.

Objects that are more dense or less dense than the medium they are in will move towards the direction that will result them to be at the same density as the medium in which they are in or until they meet a physical barrier that stops them from moving towards that direction. No need for gravity in this statement.

but no one has observed gravity itself. This is why its called the theory of gravity.

No. No one has proven the mechanism for gravity, that is all. We have a very good understanding of how gravity works as proven by our ability to model very accurate predictions of our solar system.

Also we can observe of the universe only lights in the sky. I dont trust nasa or other space organisations since I cant verify them myself.

I can tell you for a fact that the other planets are globes. You can verify this yourself. Either get or borrow a telescope or observatories routinely have nights where you can take a look through their equipment. They arent lights, they are definitely globes and we (You) can see them orbit, you can even see their moons if you get a nice enough telescope.

There is zero reason not to look into this.

In nasas website they call them images, not pictures. There is a difference, a picture is real photo and an image can be made up.

That isnt true.

Also we know they use composite images and not actual photographs like that nasa guy who made the blue marble said, he admitted that the images are photoshopped.

NASA never once hid the fact they were composite, it is right in every single press release they make. The guy who photshopped those images gave his reasoning, again never once hidden.

Since most satellites fly low (At like 250-300 miles I think) they cant take a single image of the entire Earth so they take dozens if not hundreds of pictures then stitch them together. Since these photos were taken at different time cloud patterns wont be the same, it would look like shit.

So he meshed everything together to make it fit. You cant admit something you never denied in the first place.

There is a satellite launched last year called DSCOVR-EPIC that sits 100k miles away from Earth and routinely take unedited untouched photos of Earth. The Chinese also the Himawari satellite that does similar.

Objects that are more dense or less dense than the medium they are in will move towards the direction that will result them to be at the same density as the medium in which they are i

Only if there is already a force acting on them making them want to be on the ground.

I do not know how else to explain this. If there were no force acting on them making them want to move "down" their density wouldnt matter.

Again back to my zero G analogy. Density doesnt matter if there is no force attracting them downwards.

If I put a brick and some feathers in a back they all float in there together, it isnt until gravity comes into play that the brick sinks to the bottom of the bag.

No need for gravity in this statement.

There needs to be something.

I really dont get how you arent getting this.

Understanding of how the theory of gravity works is not same as proving that there is actual gravity, you need to find this gravity to prove it. No one has found it anywhere.

It is true that nasa calls them images.

If you see lights in the sky that are like discs how can you claim to know they are globes? Like the moon, the same face is always facing earth and when I look at it it visually it appears to be a 2 dimensional disc of light.

Understanding of how the theory of gravity works is not same as proving that there is actual gravity, you need to find this gravity to prove it. No one has found it anywhere.

Again just need to find the mechanism, the theory of gravity perfectly models our universe.

Are you denying this?

Do you think Gravity cant model our universe? Why do you believe that?

It is true that nasa calls them images.

I dont think it matters... Why would they fake it then use a term that you consider meaning that its fake? By your own logic it makes no sense.

If you see lights in the sky that are like discs how can you claim to know they are globes? Like the moon, the same face is always facing earth and when I look at it it visually it appears to be a 2 dimensional disc of light.

The moon is tidally locked... There are surface features on mars, for example, we can see those features rotate and disappear from view, same with their moons.

You can see a moon pass in front of a planet and then disappear behind it before coming out of the other side.

We can see more than 50% of a planet this means its not a disk.

Why cant density itself be the force that makes them move?

Because what separates them? Why does density want objects to fall to Earth?

Without a force acting on those objects they wont separate. They wont separate in zero gravity...

So what is pulling things to Earth at 9.81m/s^2? Its not density.

Density does not want objects to fall to earth, earth just stops the fall.

How do you know you can see more than x percentage if all you see is a flat disc shaped light?

What separates what? Again saying that they wont do it at zero gravity assumes such a thing exists, we cant verify or try it out ourself.

You keep saying that things are pulled to earth but that is not what I am saying. If you let a helium balloon up inside your house it stops to the ceiling but it does not mean the ceiling is pulling the balloon to itself.

earth just stops the fall.

The fall to what is what Im getting at.

How do you know you can see more than x percentage if all you see is a flat disc shaped light?

Because Ive used telescopes that are powerful enough to see the actual planets.

The telescope I have is a little under powered to make out surface details but I have hobbyist friends with more time and money invest and their setups are fucking amazing.

You can see (For example) a large scar on Mars, if you keep looking throughout the year you can see that scar move until eventually disappearing because the planet has rotated.

What separates what? Again saying that they wont do it at zero gravity assumes such a thing exists, we cant verify or try it out ourself.

Vomit comet, the plane that is capable of simulating zero g. Do you not believe that exists?

You keep saying that things are pulled to earth but that is not what I am saying. If you let a helium balloon up inside your house it stops to the ceiling but it does not mean the ceiling is pulling the balloon to itself.

Okay but because the dense air wants to sit at ground level... Why does it want to sit at ground level?

Dude... This is becoming a problem. I dont know why this isnt working for you.

• YOU CANT HAVE DENSITY WITHOUT A FORCE PULLING OBJECTS DOWNWARDS

• WHAT IS PULLING EVERYTHING TO THE EARTH

• WHY DO MORE DENSE THINGS WANT TO MOVE DOWN

If you see a disc shape and some shapes on it that dissapear, it does not mean its a globe. You cant actually see any globes.

About vomit comet, its not real zero gravity, as I understand it dives down and that causes objects to float. So what? I dont understand what that has to do with separation.

The dense air is at the bottom because it is more dense than the air above it. It does not want anything. Drop a rock in water and it sinks because it is more dense than the water, neither the water or rock want anything nor is either pulled by the earth.

If you see a disc shape and some shapes on it that dissapear, it does not mean its a globe. You cant actually see any globes.

By your definition globes do not exist. There are no golf balls in your world.

Come on that argument is grasping at straws. We see nothing but globes that spin when we look at the other planets in our solar system.

About vomit comet, its not real zero gravity, as I understand it dives down and that causes objects to float. So what? I dont understand what that has to do with separation or what you mean by separation.

How is it not real zero G? You experience a few seconds of it...

My point about the separation is when you mix oil and water in the vomit comet while experiencing simulated zero G the two wont separate.

It require a force pulling both liquids down.

The dense air is at the bottom because it is more dense than the air above it. It does not want anything. Drop a rock in water and it sinks because it is more dense than the water, neither the water or rock want anything nor is either pulled by the earth.

I guess this conversation is over then.

I literally do not know how else to explain this to you.

You cant have density without a force pulling all objects towards the Earth.

Ive explained it multiple times.

By your definition globes do not exist. There are no golf balls in your world.

You can take a golf ball in your hand and touch and feel it as well as see it from all different angles.

We see nothing but globes that spin when we look at the other planets in our solar system.

We see disc shaped lights.

How is it not real zero G? You experience a few seconds of it...

Because it does not shut off gravity but the diving down makes the objects float. If you take a container and put some object inside of it and suddendly jerk the container down the object will hit the top of the container. If you do it at just the right speed and keep the speed consistent you can make it float.

My point about the separation is when you mix oil and water in the vomit comet while experiencing simulated zero G the two wont separate.

Yes because you have negated the effects of density by applying an upward lift force because you are lunging down with the plane.

It require a force pulling both liquids down.

The plane is not actually outside of earths supposed gravity so why would gravity then not effect the objects in the plane?

Ive explained it multiple times.

You have stated it but I said very early that I am not bying that.

We see disc shaped lights.

So you mean to tell me if you cant hold it it isnt a ball?

Because it does not shut off gravity but the diving down makes the objects float. If you take a container and put some object inside of it and suddendly jerk the container down the object will hit the top of the container. If you do it at just the right speed and keep the speed consistent you can make it float.

How is this different than zero G? It simulates it. Yes the item in that box for a split second is experiencing zero g, not sure how this disproves anything.

Yes because you have negated the effects of density by applying an upward lift force because you are lunging down with the plane.

But... that isnt how density works! This is getting ridiculous.

Those objects all have the same density regardless. Here is a literal middle school definition of density

• Density is a characteristic property of a substance.

• The density of a substance is the relationship between the mass of the substance and how much space it takes up (volume).

• The mass of atoms, their size, and how they are arranged determine the density of a substance.

• Density equals the mass of the substance divided by its volume; D = m/v.

• Objects with the same volume but different mass have different densities.

You cant negate density. It would be like saying you can make steel less dense by throwing it up.

The plane is not actually outside of earths supposed gravity so why would gravity then not effect the objects in the plane?

Because its flying in a parabola that simulates a zero G environment. So gravity is pulling everything towards the Earth at 9.81m/s² if you control a descent at that rate you are falling at the correct speed to negate that.

You have stated it but I said very early that I am not bying that.

Dude you just dont understand your own argument very well. You do not understand what density is and why it wont work unless there is a force acting on it.

Wow not only are you a tool you're a fool

If I ever leave earth I'll have a strong position on it.

As for now: I could care less.

Something I want to point out is that math can be correct while being used for a false model. It's very easy to develop mathematics that match what we observe because there's plenty you can change in concept as long as you balance the equation. For instance, the sun and the moon look about the same in the sky but we're told the sun is around 400 times bigger but 400 times further away. So the math works out that they could be those distances and sizes while matching what we see, but it doesn't prove that it's so.

As long as you balance both sides of the equation, the math will match our observation. Natural phenomena, especially those in the sky, have been documented for millennia by ancient peoples. All our current model does is take these established observational patterns and use mathematics to describe them in different terms. Change the distances, change the sizes, invent values for mass. The math will always work out the same because they're just altering the equations while ensuring the results remain consistent with what mankind has always observed.

yaaa i getcha, i'm not arguing over 1+1=2, i'm saying 1 + 1 = 2 because that's what we have made it, anything we know comes from our ability to describe somethin, if i goto china, i no longer know what anything is, i know what things do, but if i cant relate to a different language, i no longer know how to describe something in a way that works for them, drunk n stoned, my apologies, giberish i know, but point of my gibberish is if we are talking about ways for us to describe something and we are in the position of power too dictate how people do it, then we can can describe whatever however we want

this came out so wrong and retarded lolol oh well, i hope you see MY logic, think about the number one, is it shaped 1 because the world came together and said thats the most logical? or us ut because somewhere in hisrory that rule was set? (probably with special meaning)

The theory of gravity of bollocks

You can directly view natural things that are attributed to this magical invisible force gravity, but no one has observed gravity itself. This is why its called the theory of gravity.

Also we can observe of the universe only lights in the sky. I dont trust nasa or other space organisations since I cant verify them myself. In nasas website they call them images, not pictures. There is a difference, a picture is real photo and an image can be made up. Also we know they use composite images and not actual photographs like that nasa guy who made the blue marble said, he admitted that the images are photoshopped.

Objects that are more dense or less dense than the medium they are in will move towards the direction that will result them to be at the same density as the medium in which they are in or until they meet a physical barrier that stops them from moving towards that direction. No need for gravity in this statement.

If you are on an object that is spinning on its axis, how can you not feel the centrifugal force? Even if it is a closed system?

Can you replicate that with items here on earth? Make a ball and create for it a sealed atmosphere out of something solid material like plastic and then spin it and see what happens to the items on the ball.

That's what they say yet I feel like I can feel a plane or car move when it's goo fast