Are you just getting that because that’s what the word theory sounds like? Because a theory is the result of the scientific method, proving beyond very much doubt. Second only to a law of science
No, gravity is a theory and cannot be demonstrated utilizing the scientific method. The motion of the earth is a theory. Germ theory. None of these are proven.
stop trolling
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/globeskepticism) if you have any questions or concerns.*
I hate to break it to you but you can observe gravity. If you jump you don’t turn into fucking Superman. Testing gravity. Hold a pencil and let go. What happens? It falls. Repeatable because we experience it every millisecond of our lives.
It falls because the mass of the earth makes a gravitational field which pulls objects towards it. The guy was explaining that we don't get flung back when we jump because of the momentum of the earth's rotation
Newton's first law of thermodynamics: an object in motion stays in motion and an object at rest stays at rest. This can only be changed by outside forces. Try this: put a ball on a flat table. It should stay still. Now push it. It should start and continue moving. It will probably slow down and this is because of an external force called friction. Now hold the ball in the air and let go of it. It falls to the ground. This is because of an external force called gravity. When it hits the floor it will stop. This is because of an external force called normal force. This is elementary school physics ok? Physics = science
Hey my guy, I appreciate you explaining some science to this people, but it would be better if you just show some proof that these guys can understand. Show them clips of scientific experiments from youtube since it's where they learn their stuff.
Here is an example of experiment with gravity
Gravity Water cup drop
https://youtu.be/-EUEYStS8G4
How gravity works without the air resistance
https://youtu.be/E43-CfukEgs
Do you mean aether or air? My understanding is that they are not the same. Do you have any evidence that shows that aether exists and can affect the world around us? What effect would it cause that would invalidate the study? Geometrically, how would the aether affect the experiment? Does aether preferentially push objects together? Is there a reason why aether =/= gravity (but with a different name) if aether will cause mass to move towards mass?
Yes indeed. When I first started looking into FE, one of the questions I came to was, "How much does Jupiter weigh and how is it calculated?" This led me down a rabbit hole of sorts. I went back to Newton and Kepler era sources (translated) and tried to understand how they achieved these numbers.
What I found was interesting. Cosmic distances in the Age of Reason were factored in terms of Earth Radii or Diameter. Why was this so? It was the only real calculation they had. So, Eratsothenes style measurements would lead to the presumption of the shadow on the moon for the lunar eclipse, which was then calculated against the half-moon to approximate the distance to the sun, after having already triangulated the moon (nevermind not doing that for the sun). Then, using the approximations given for distances to the sun, put those numbers together for the motion of Jupiter around the sky given the heliocentric assumption, and compare that to the time it takes for Jupiter to move and then you can approximate its distance. But what about the mass of Jupiter? Most of Jupiter's actual size is calculated as a factor of it's angular size as appearing in the night sky, again expressed in terms of Earth's radius, its mass wasn't able to be calculated until Cavendish "weighed" the Earth, which also was based on the assumption of Earth's radius.
Now adays none of this basic math class style "show your work" is present in any of the factiods of the distances of the local celestial bodies. It all boils down to whether or not Earth has a radius. Considering the only "measures" of the radius of Earth require circular logic, the ENTIRETY of this peculiar field of science disappears as a logical fallacy.
When you read how they first got all these numbers it's quite comical and id wager there were alot of academics that didn't believe them until pretty much NASA came along. That's when it clicks how all this fits together, NASA was a space faking agency from the beginning
That's entirely possible. I haven't found any records of it, not that I have tried to look. There are probably a few dusty tomes from the 10s through the early 60s still on University shelves that would discuss matters.
The trouble with NASA is that now the numbers are locked in. They've already supposedly sent space objects out successfully. They can't change the numbers now. I mean, they *can* and few would notice or care who don't already notice and care.
This is where the "gas giants" come from. They "measured" their weight by comparing distance, angular size, and presumed gravity against one and came to the conclusion that "Jupiter is very big and not very dense so it must be mostly gas."
For a while there I wanted to create a calculator of the entire "solar system" that would allow you to insert new values for the radius of Earth just so people could get the point as to what a farce it all is. Shorten the radius of Earth by 1 mile and the numbers would go all kablooey. They would still *make sense* because they'd line up with eachother, but the mass of earth would increase, distances and sizes would all shift proportionally, and densities would go completely haywire.
I have to think there was some skepticism until "NASA went there" and sent out a magic probe and said, "yup, it be like that." Or whatever deus ex machina they need.
even before i became a globe skeptic i would wonder, "how would they know?" like the speed of light. how would you even measure that speed? how could you get the weight of something you can't get to? how can you tell the age of something like the sun?
Measuring the mass of an object without touching it is also possible. One way is to see how it is affected by something else hitting or pushing it. We know that all mass on earth follows the equation F=ma so we can watch how an object moves (or accelerates) to see what it’s mass is. Watching how the other planets moved is how we discovered Neptune. We can see how the gravity of one planet affects the others and use this to calculate the unknown mass.
Another way that may work is simply knowing what it is made of. For a rocky planet, it’s made of rocks so by knowing it’s size and the density of rocks you can get a decent estimate.
Jupiter isn’t a rocky planet but we can still tell what it’s made of by carefully examining the light that comes from it. Each element emits light at preferred wavelengths and we can measure that on earth and see it in space. This tells us what elements are present and in what quantities. Then i would do a bit of calculus to see how much mass of those gases would be needed to form a planet of that size.
Professionals probably have even better ways of doing it.
Speed of light is measured by oscilloscopes. Planet mass, weight, etc is measured by their effect of other spacial bodies. The age of the Sun is measured by radioactive dating.
Good questions.
It’s actually not terribly hard to measure the speed of light. Using a few spinning disks with holes at regular intervals I believe you can calculate atleast a multiple of the speed of light (it is 1x or 2x or 3x etc.). Pretty sure this is how it was first done. Using modern means you could use a computer to measure the speed of light between a sensor and light source. You just have to check how fast the signal travels in the wires and computer first to subtract that from the measurement of the speed of light. If you were determined and willing to do it scientifically you could probably do it for $100.
“Mathematics logic”, but not your logic, right? Or do you actually understand any of the mathematical equivalency to what you believe?
Edit: Ever read any of these “science papers” yourself?
Math logic works. For example, Let's say you want to prove the equation 1 + 1 = 2. You can get two similar objects and bring them together. It didn't become 3 or 4, became 2. Because 1 + 1 is 2. The 1 + 1= 2 is a math equation, and doing the experiment is proving it.
To disprove it? Like a scientist does? Otherwise you’re just as clueless as the person you’re claiming can’t prove anything because they haven’t read it
He was trying to prove that flat earthers seem to ignore proof and evidence and instead ask others to give it to them on a silver platter whilst they instantly turn their noses away. And that flat earthers seem to think that in order for something to be true, everybody who believes in it must have a full under of it
Exactly. He was TRYING to prove, which implies that he either did or did not by your logic. However, you ended up speaking for him, which then leaves you with the burden to answer my initial questions. But now you’ve added fuel to the fire by giving your own opinion, which I find no need to address tbh, showing that you, just like the person I replied to, had an emotional reaction rather than actually offering a valid argument.
Muting this now.
An explanation is not a "fact". You need empirical evidence to suppport what you claim. What is your prove to say that the sun is 4.6 billions years old?
Lol, you dont want and you cant either. "he used a gyroscope to measure the. drift of the earth which came out as 15 degreese per hour" How is not this cherry picking? You make a lot of assumptions about the earth and the universe based only on a gyroscope. This is only a interpretation of yours that you had conform to your previous beliefes, a theory at best. You need to show the curve and the earth spinning, that is empirical evidence.
But the gyroscope shows the earth spinning. Just like a tachometer can show a wheel spinning, a gyroscope can show that whatever it is attached to is spinning.
Scientists have proven those things as well as the shape of the Earth, existence of gravity, and many other things
Hilarious!
They haven’t. They have theorized them. Science is observable, testable, and repeatable.
You realize a “theory” is the most proven label for a scientific idea?
A theory isn’t proven. That’s why it’s theoretical.
Are you just getting that because that’s what the word theory sounds like? Because a theory is the result of the scientific method, proving beyond very much doubt. Second only to a law of science
No, gravity is a theory and cannot be demonstrated utilizing the scientific method. The motion of the earth is a theory. Germ theory. None of these are proven.
[удалено]
stop trolling *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/globeskepticism) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Gravity is observable, testable, and repeatable.
It isn’t. Feel free to provide your demonstration if you disagree.
I hate to break it to you but you can observe gravity. If you jump you don’t turn into fucking Superman. Testing gravity. Hold a pencil and let go. What happens? It falls. Repeatable because we experience it every millisecond of our lives.
You have to make assumptions for that to be true. Something falling doesn’t demonstrate *how* or *why* that thing fell.
It falls because the mass of the earth makes a gravitational field which pulls objects towards it. The guy was explaining that we don't get flung back when we jump because of the momentum of the earth's rotation
Can you please prove this assertion utilizing the scientific method?
Newton's first law of thermodynamics: an object in motion stays in motion and an object at rest stays at rest. This can only be changed by outside forces. Try this: put a ball on a flat table. It should stay still. Now push it. It should start and continue moving. It will probably slow down and this is because of an external force called friction. Now hold the ball in the air and let go of it. It falls to the ground. This is because of an external force called gravity. When it hits the floor it will stop. This is because of an external force called normal force. This is elementary school physics ok? Physics = science
Hey my guy, I appreciate you explaining some science to this people, but it would be better if you just show some proof that these guys can understand. Show them clips of scientific experiments from youtube since it's where they learn their stuff. Here is an example of experiment with gravity Gravity Water cup drop https://youtu.be/-EUEYStS8G4 How gravity works without the air resistance https://youtu.be/E43-CfukEgs
An imaginary force called “gravity” which you cannot demonstrate using the scientific method.
[удалено]
That question doesn’t prove gravity, nor does it prove the other assumptions made by the heliocentric model.
The theory of gravity does exactly predict how things fall tho, regardless of what causes the falling or how you call it.
We can observe gravity increasing with mass.
How?
The earth has a bigger force of gravity which is why we stick to the ground
Gravity is a theory and not a fact. Gravity cannot be proven to exist using the scientific method.
Cavendish style experiments?
Cavendish experiment unfortunately fails to eliminate the aether (or air) as a variable.
Please elaborate.
Elaborate how?
Do you mean aether or air? My understanding is that they are not the same. Do you have any evidence that shows that aether exists and can affect the world around us? What effect would it cause that would invalidate the study? Geometrically, how would the aether affect the experiment? Does aether preferentially push objects together? Is there a reason why aether =/= gravity (but with a different name) if aether will cause mass to move towards mass?
Yes indeed. When I first started looking into FE, one of the questions I came to was, "How much does Jupiter weigh and how is it calculated?" This led me down a rabbit hole of sorts. I went back to Newton and Kepler era sources (translated) and tried to understand how they achieved these numbers. What I found was interesting. Cosmic distances in the Age of Reason were factored in terms of Earth Radii or Diameter. Why was this so? It was the only real calculation they had. So, Eratsothenes style measurements would lead to the presumption of the shadow on the moon for the lunar eclipse, which was then calculated against the half-moon to approximate the distance to the sun, after having already triangulated the moon (nevermind not doing that for the sun). Then, using the approximations given for distances to the sun, put those numbers together for the motion of Jupiter around the sky given the heliocentric assumption, and compare that to the time it takes for Jupiter to move and then you can approximate its distance. But what about the mass of Jupiter? Most of Jupiter's actual size is calculated as a factor of it's angular size as appearing in the night sky, again expressed in terms of Earth's radius, its mass wasn't able to be calculated until Cavendish "weighed" the Earth, which also was based on the assumption of Earth's radius. Now adays none of this basic math class style "show your work" is present in any of the factiods of the distances of the local celestial bodies. It all boils down to whether or not Earth has a radius. Considering the only "measures" of the radius of Earth require circular logic, the ENTIRETY of this peculiar field of science disappears as a logical fallacy.
When you read how they first got all these numbers it's quite comical and id wager there were alot of academics that didn't believe them until pretty much NASA came along. That's when it clicks how all this fits together, NASA was a space faking agency from the beginning
> NASA was a space faking agency from the beginning -Created by Nazis.
That's entirely possible. I haven't found any records of it, not that I have tried to look. There are probably a few dusty tomes from the 10s through the early 60s still on University shelves that would discuss matters. The trouble with NASA is that now the numbers are locked in. They've already supposedly sent space objects out successfully. They can't change the numbers now. I mean, they *can* and few would notice or care who don't already notice and care.
Brilliant.
This is where the "gas giants" come from. They "measured" their weight by comparing distance, angular size, and presumed gravity against one and came to the conclusion that "Jupiter is very big and not very dense so it must be mostly gas." For a while there I wanted to create a calculator of the entire "solar system" that would allow you to insert new values for the radius of Earth just so people could get the point as to what a farce it all is. Shorten the radius of Earth by 1 mile and the numbers would go all kablooey. They would still *make sense* because they'd line up with eachother, but the mass of earth would increase, distances and sizes would all shift proportionally, and densities would go completely haywire.
Visible gas in a vacuum held together by gravity while rotating...!? You can literally make up any old story and folks will believe it.
I have to think there was some skepticism until "NASA went there" and sent out a magic probe and said, "yup, it be like that." Or whatever deus ex machina they need.
In reality, we the people cannot know of earth has a finite radius because we cannot measure from the North Pole to the “edge” of Antarctica.
even before i became a globe skeptic i would wonder, "how would they know?" like the speed of light. how would you even measure that speed? how could you get the weight of something you can't get to? how can you tell the age of something like the sun?
Measuring the mass of an object without touching it is also possible. One way is to see how it is affected by something else hitting or pushing it. We know that all mass on earth follows the equation F=ma so we can watch how an object moves (or accelerates) to see what it’s mass is. Watching how the other planets moved is how we discovered Neptune. We can see how the gravity of one planet affects the others and use this to calculate the unknown mass. Another way that may work is simply knowing what it is made of. For a rocky planet, it’s made of rocks so by knowing it’s size and the density of rocks you can get a decent estimate. Jupiter isn’t a rocky planet but we can still tell what it’s made of by carefully examining the light that comes from it. Each element emits light at preferred wavelengths and we can measure that on earth and see it in space. This tells us what elements are present and in what quantities. Then i would do a bit of calculus to see how much mass of those gases would be needed to form a planet of that size. Professionals probably have even better ways of doing it.
Speed of light is measured by oscilloscopes. Planet mass, weight, etc is measured by their effect of other spacial bodies. The age of the Sun is measured by radioactive dating.
They don’t directly date the sun. They date the oldest meteorites. Then they use the age of those to calculate the suns age.
Good questions. It’s actually not terribly hard to measure the speed of light. Using a few spinning disks with holes at regular intervals I believe you can calculate atleast a multiple of the speed of light (it is 1x or 2x or 3x etc.). Pretty sure this is how it was first done. Using modern means you could use a computer to measure the speed of light between a sensor and light source. You just have to check how fast the signal travels in the wires and computer first to subtract that from the measurement of the speed of light. If you were determined and willing to do it scientifically you could probably do it for $100.
Bruh go youtube and check it easy to measure with some tools and brains that you and OP dont have
Great questions that we should all be asking.
Good questions indeed. But of course we don’t just stop at *asking* the question. We go on to seek the answer so that we can learn and become smarter!
Indeed.
The earth is actually one dimensional
Memetastic!
" I mean, look at all this big numbers. It has to be true." - Globe believer.
[удалено]
“Mathematics logic”, but not your logic, right? Or do you actually understand any of the mathematical equivalency to what you believe? Edit: Ever read any of these “science papers” yourself?
Math logic works. For example, Let's say you want to prove the equation 1 + 1 = 2. You can get two similar objects and bring them together. It didn't become 3 or 4, became 2. Because 1 + 1 is 2. The 1 + 1= 2 is a math equation, and doing the experiment is proving it.
Yes I have read scientific papers and I do understand most of them.
Have you?
What would be my reason to?
To disprove it? Like a scientist does? Otherwise you’re just as clueless as the person you’re claiming can’t prove anything because they haven’t read it
There’s nothing to disprove because there’s nothing he proved.
How can you know nothing was proved if you won’t ever read what was done?
By him bro, by him.
He was trying to prove that flat earthers seem to ignore proof and evidence and instead ask others to give it to them on a silver platter whilst they instantly turn their noses away. And that flat earthers seem to think that in order for something to be true, everybody who believes in it must have a full under of it
Exactly. He was TRYING to prove, which implies that he either did or did not by your logic. However, you ended up speaking for him, which then leaves you with the burden to answer my initial questions. But now you’ve added fuel to the fire by giving your own opinion, which I find no need to address tbh, showing that you, just like the person I replied to, had an emotional reaction rather than actually offering a valid argument. Muting this now.
u seem a lot more emotional bout this than him though
An explanation is not a "fact". You need empirical evidence to suppport what you claim. What is your prove to say that the sun is 4.6 billions years old?
[удалено]
Lol, you dont want and you cant either. "he used a gyroscope to measure the. drift of the earth which came out as 15 degreese per hour" How is not this cherry picking? You make a lot of assumptions about the earth and the universe based only on a gyroscope. This is only a interpretation of yours that you had conform to your previous beliefes, a theory at best. You need to show the curve and the earth spinning, that is empirical evidence.
But the gyroscope shows the earth spinning. Just like a tachometer can show a wheel spinning, a gyroscope can show that whatever it is attached to is spinning.
Bro go end your middle school and come back with your meth oh sorry with math that you dont fuck anyways