Absolute Proof the Earth is Round NOT Flat!

a reply to: cooperton
You are confusing constellations or stars with our Solar System.

Orbits of our planets are and can be perturbed as can orbits of asteroids.

originally posted by: Oldcarpy2
a reply to: cooperton
You are confusing constellations or stars with our Solar System.

When I said orbit I simply meant in reference to earth since they travel across the sky in a consistent manner. They're supposedly further out than planets in our solar system... which begs the question how do stars stay in such synchronized orbits that they all have their specific coordinate on the celestial sphere which has been rotating like clockwork in our sky since the past known history? Floating 3D spheres doesn't cut it. It would be like a golf-ball twirling around the cup ad-infinitum, along with all other 100 billion stars and galaxies also twirling around the cup ad-infinitum. It is Time for the next dimension and to actually apply Einstein's physics.

a reply to: cooperton

There are no other stars in our Solar System other than Sol.

Newton's Laws apply. And work.

originally posted by: Oldcarpy2

Newton's Laws apply. And work.

The Newtonian view of the solar system is so off that they require the theorized dark matter to exist. Dark matter is a misleading term because it makes you think it has ever been empirically detected, but it has not. It is called dark matter because it has never been detected. It is required to exist so that the old theories are valid.... Do you see how absurd that is?

can't we get this thread closed?......jesus, 22 pages arguing the obvious...what next?...humans need oxygen to live?

originally posted by: jimmyx
can't we get this thread closed?......jesus, 22 pages arguing the obvious...what next?...humans need oxygen to live?

Ouch bro. Honestly with Einsteinian physics there's 3 solutions: flat, curved, or concave. Many of which would have overlapping features. The guy v-sauce did a cool video on how there could be multiple solutions (similar to the dualistic behavior of a photon):

originally posted by: jimmyx
can't we get this thread closed?......jesus, 22 pages arguing the obvious...what next?...humans need oxygen to live?

22 pages, is that all?
Take a look at this one, it has 126 pages lol.
The flat earth conspiracy, page 126
www.abovetopsecret.com...

a reply to: cooperton

You

The Newtonian view of the solar system is so off that they require the theorized dark matter to exist.

Cite a source?

Or do you mean relativity that allows for successful deployment of space probes around planets. While still in search to rectifying quantum theory being at odds with relativity?

originally posted by: neutronflux
"The Newtonian view of the solar system is so off that they require the theorized dark matter to exist."

Cite a source?

I would like to find the one video where the physicist does the math to show how off the numbers are without the assumption of dark matter. But I know that the reason that dark matter / dark energy must be 95% of all matter in the universe is not due to empirical evidence. Instead, it is desperately needed to exist in order to fit the theory. It is called dark matter/dark energy because it has yet to be detected, and is therefore "dark".

a reply to: cooperton

You are confusing the solar system with the universe

originally posted by: Oldcarpy2
a reply to: cooperton

You are confusing the solar system with the universe

If a theory is actually right for the cosmos it should be able to apply to all of it.

"The existence of dark matter can be traced back to the pioneering discoveries of Fritz Zwicky and Jan Oort that the motion of galaxies in the Coma cluster, and of nearby stars in our own Galaxy, do not follow the expected motion based on Newton's law of gravity and the observed visible masses."

source

Despite all this time they still have not detected it. It's because something is very much off with the old newtonian system. So much so that it needs an extra 20x more dark matter and energy just to fit the theory

originally posted by: cooperton

originally posted by: neutronflux
"The Newtonian view of the solar system is so off that they require the theorized dark matter to exist."

Cite a source?

I would like to find the one video where the physicist does the math to show how off the numbers are without the assumption of dark matter. But I know that the reason that dark matter / dark energy must be 95% of all matter in the universe is not due to empirical evidence. Instead, it is desperately needed to exist in order to fit the theory. It is called dark matter/dark energy because it has yet to be detected, and is therefore "dark".

Well your half right fact is we have detected dark matter we know its there. What we dont know is what it is. See we can calculate the effects of gravity with amazing precision. Proof we can launch a probe at an asteroid moving 100s of thousands of kilometers per hour. This is incredibly deficult and even the slightest miscalculation and the two objects wont be near each other.

So we have this effects of gravity down so when we observe distant galaxies do the math we see there is mass missing. We know its there we can see its effects we just cant see it directly. This isnt adjusting anything we know for 100 percent that there is mass there we cannot see, Which if you think about it makes sense not everything will give off light if it did our night sky would be white because even in empty space theres stuff there .

a reply to: cooperton

And yet, your missing the point. Newton physics was unreliable for calculating reliable trajectories for space shoots, and predicting the modeling of the solar system.

Unsung relativity changes that. It resulted in accurate mathematical modeling of the solar system, and resulted in accurate trajectories for space exploration.

And has very little with the fantasy earth can be treated as one flat slab.

To come back to earth, start with with this....

US road grid corrections because of the Earth’s curvature

Jason Kottke Jan 03, 2018

kottke.org...

originally posted by: neutronflux
a reply to: cooperton

And yet, your missing the point. Newton physics was unreliable for calculating reliable trajectories for space shoots, and predicting the modeling of the solar system.

Unsung relativity changes that. It resulted in accurate mathematical modeling of the solar system, and resulted in accurate trajectories for space exploration.

And has very little with the fantasy earth can be treated as one flat slab.

To come back to earth, start with with this....


US road grid corrections because of the Earth’s curvature

Jason Kottke Jan 03, 2018

kottke.org...

I said above I think the earth is a 4D space-time construct. It undoubtedly takes on the properties of being spherical, such as its circumnavigability and its grid system. My wonder is whether this is a 3D curve, or a 4D curve.. I've been investigating it and I think it would give some interesting conclusions. If the earth is 3D curved, then 4D spacetime wouldn't be curving it any more. Which would mean earth is a sphere, and spacetime is flat (1st solution). The other solution would be earth is flat in 3D and its 4D spacetime is curved (2nd solution).

originally posted by: dragonridr

So we have this effects of gravity down so when we observe distant galaxies do the math we see there is mass missing. We know its there we can see its effects we just cant see it directly. This isnt adjusting anything we know for 100 percent that there is mass there we cannot see, Which if you think about it makes sense not everything will give off light if it did our night sky would be white because even in empty space theres stuff there .

We have our gravity understood here on earth. This proves g = Gm/r^2. But it doesnt prove F = Gmm/r^2 because we aren't certain of the mass of these celestial bodies. We literally fit in the mass of the planets in our solar system to fit this assumption, but it is textbook backwards science. When we go outside our solar system I believe this is where dark matter must come in to fit these calculations. This shows that perhaps our estimations of even our own solar system are wrong, since the same assumptive model doesn't fit for celestial bodies outside our solar system.

Where did you say we found dark matter? Be sure it is empirical, and not just theoretical.

a reply to: cooperton

Sounds like dark matter would make a great thread.

Now.

What do you have regarding flat earth.

originally posted by: neutronflux

What do you have regarding flat earth.

youtu.be...

The whole video is informative but if you start at 2:26 you get straight to the point. Mountains are able to be seen which shouldn't be able to be seen if the earth is a sphere and curved in 3D. This leads me to believe solution 2 which I mentioned above... The earth is flat but is curved 4D. This would explain why you can see mountains far away that shouldn't be allowed if it is 3D curved, while retaining all the integrity of a circumnavigable spherical coordinate system which is established by 4D curvature.

a reply to: cooperton

Ok. The physics of earth is not that of a flat slab.

Got it.

a reply to: cooperton

You

Mountains are able to be seen which shouldn't be able to be seen if the earth is a sphere and curved in 3D

Have an actual example. Or just innuendo to make a false narrative.

originally posted by: neutronflux

Have an actual example. Or just innuendo to make a false narrative.

youtu.be...

Skip to 2:26 if you want it quick

a reply to: cooperton

Why shouldn’t the mountains be seen. Please use elevations as listed on a topographic map and the view point. And take in account the atmosphere does bend light rays.

Atmospheric Refraction

hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu...

The phenomenon of refraction is responsible for our ability to focus images with a lens or our eye. The refraction, or bending of light, depends upon the index of refraction of the transmitting medium. The amount of bending can be very large at the surface of a lens because of its large index of refraction, typically about n= 1.5.

A number of refraction phenomena can be observed in the atmosphere, but the conditions are quite different because the index of refraction of the air is very small, it being a nearly transparent medium. The index of refraction of air at standard temperature and pressure (STP) is n= 1.00029 compared to exactly 1 for a vacuum. The interesting observations of refraction effects in the atmosphere arise from the fact that the index of refraction varies with temperature and pressure, and the fact that distances for observation can be very large so that a small amount of refraction produces observable effects. Refraction leads to bending of the light rays toward the slower medium at an interface, so in air the light will tend to bend toward the area of greater pressure since the light speed decreases with increasing pressure. It will also tend to bend toward the area of lower temperature since the light speed will be slightly lower.