Jump to content

Why the Earth is a globe


 Share

Recommended Posts

This topic has been created  to create a space where members can post and discuss their beliefs and evidence that the Earth is a globe, 
The thread is only to discuss this particular view. Opposing views/beliefs/evidence can be posted in a newly created separate thread about the Flat Earth view on this subject.

 

Amy member who does not follow these rules will be warned.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

One example , I might be stating the obvious here but Satellites of which all the time there are more and more )go Round the earth in Orbits and are tracked to try and avoid collisions .

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Another example which anyone can observe is on a  calm sea especially ,ships on horizon appear to be one or two steps down below the sea level so that you might see top half  of ship until they get nearer and appear to climb up stairs .

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Globular thread is a great well rounded idea. 🤟

 

btw, Talorgan, I have noted that one ship arguement someplace where I read that online, and is about my only opinion piece so far, personally, but sure it does stand up well I feel.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, zArk said:

 

 

 

Oh dear, oh dear, oh dear. I was going to reply to this myself but to save myself a lot of typing this youtube post lays out my own thoughts perfectly ...

 

~~~+++•••+++~~~

 

 

 

 @Ocean Master  "the sun literally can't illuminate more than 50% of the earth at any given time on a Globe Model."
 
If the sun's diameter is less than that of the earth then that would be partly true. Your assertion would have been more accurate if you'd said, "the sun literally can't directly illuminate more than 50% of the earth at any given time on a Globe Model." And I can understand why you might be confused as to how more than 50% of the planet can possibly be illuminated at any given time and that's not unreasonable. But there are two things you have missing from your understanding of what is actually going on.
 
The first thing is, the sun's diameter is not less than that of the earth, the sun's diameter is over 100 times that of the earth. It is that fact that makes the difference between 'true' and 'partly true' with respect to how much of the earth can be directly illuminated at any given time. It's true that any observer viewing earth from anywhere inside the sun's disk can only see a maximum of almost 50% of the earth at any given time but if you were to combine all the perspectives from all possible points inside the sun's disk, how much of the earth's surface would be in view of at least one of those observers? Right?
 
Okay, light from the central portion of the sun can illuminate only around 50% directly but equally, light from the leftmost portion of the sun also illuminates around 50% directly too. The thing is, the leftmost portion of the sun is 440,000 miles away from the central portion. The 50% of the earth lit up by the leftmost portion of the sun is a slightly different 50% of the earth lit up by the central portion of the sun... directly. Therefore, the amount of the earth that is directly illuminated at any given time is somewhat more than 50%. So, imagine that you are stood at the rightmost edge of the earth's circumference facing toward the sun. Your feet, or any point on the circumference for that matter, are at the 50% boundary that divides the 'lit side' from the 'unlit side', right? Obviously, you can see the sun from where you are standing but how many backward steps, beyond that 50% boundary, would you have to take before your feet cease to be directly illuminated by the sun?
 
I just wanted to include that for accuracy but in fact, I'm happy to proceed on the assumption that the sun's diameter does not exceed that of the earth's because insofar as the second thing you have missing from your understanding of what's going on, it's a distinction without much of a difference. Earth has an atmosphere. Without the atmosphere, almost all the light falling on earth would be direct sunlight. I mean, there is moonlight, starlight, the planets, etc., but let's leave them out of this because of their almost negligible contribution. The moon has no atmosphere and all the light we see from it results from direct illumination. Right?
 
Now, imagine the earth as a disk with a diameter of 8,000 miles and in your mind, imagine that disk as being at the centre of another disk with a diameter of 28,000 miles. The circumference of the larger disk marks the boundary of the extent of earth's atmosphere. So, you have this region of space reaching up to 10,000 miles above the earth's surface and which contains the entire atmosphere. Applying the same principal to the moon, we would have a disk with a diameter of 1,600 miles surrounded by another circle that is only slightly more containing its atmosphere.
 
Here's the thing: any photon or any solar particle that enters the region within 10,000 miles of the earth's surface has an opportunity to interact with the earth's atmosphere. We are talking about trillions and trillions of interactions that can cause trillions and trillions of photons to be emitted toward the earth's surface. You can see the result of this 'scattered light' every time you look at the sky in the day. That 'blueness' you see is 'indirect illumination'. From the sun's perspective, not only is the earth being directly illuminated by sunlight, any point in the earth's atmosphere in direct line of sight of the sun is also being directly illuminated by the sun. And it is this light that indirectly illuminates the surface of the earth. It should be noted too that light from the sun penetrates in much more than just 50% of the atmosphere. The first light of the day and the last light of the day are entirely the result of indirect illumination; direct sunlight comes after the dawn and disappears before the dusk. If you measure the amount of time dawn and dusk take up and relate that to how far the earth rotates in that time you can calculate the extra area of indirectly illuminated earth you need to add on to the 50% that is directly illuminated.
 
Anyway, that's the science bit done but I don't think that you will be able to follow the reasoning and logic behind it so... Do you have one of those 'Plasma Balls'? Or access to one. It doesn't need to work but as long as it has a 'ball' at its centre surrounded by a glass sphere, it will allow you to perform the following experiment for yourself and that will save me from the inconvenience of making a video for your convenience. Take a Plasma Ball and place it on a table. Now, in a darkened room, take a torch or some other device capable of producing a beam narrow enough to contain the entire ball and position it so as to light up one side of the ball. Position yourself on the opposite side of the globe and close enough form an 'eclipse' between the torch, the smaller ball at the centre of the Plasma Ball and your eye.
 
Do it. Half the ball will be illuminated directly and there will be a region that is illuminated indirectly. Add them together; what do you get? 50% + ???
 
~~~+++•••+++~~~
 
So there we have it. Feel free to pull this explanation apart but please provide proofs for everything you dispute. No unsupported nonsense please, we've had enough of that now. 😉 Thanks.
 
 
 
 
  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 hours ago, webtrekker said:

 

Oh dear, oh dear, oh dear. I was going to reply to this myself but to save myself a lot of typing this youtube post lays out my own thoughts perfectly ...

 

~~~+++•••+++~~~

 

Anyway, that's the science bit done but I don't think that you will be able to follow the reasoning and logic behind it so... Do you have one of those 'Plasma Balls'? Or access to one. It doesn't need to work but as long as it has a 'ball' at its centre surrounded by a glass sphere, it will allow you to perform the following experiment for yourself and that will save me from the inconvenience of making a video for your convenience.
~~~+++•••+++~~~
 

 

Good enough read..... 
Read all (not just the quoted)... I am feeling illuminated slightly. 
 
Good laugh at the descension tailing off portion of the speech (ie, after the science talk) by him talking Plasma try it out yourself talk... 😄 like saying~ *Look if you don't' believe me try it yourself!* and whats convenient for you may not be convenient for me, haha.
Where can one buy a Plasma Ball anyway? Gadget Shop or where? 

I found some strong magnet today, would that help? 🥸 
Don't worry anyone I don't have it sat next to my tech. I figure that would be unwise.
Edited by TetraG
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

some logic:

 

many flat earthers base their beliefs on vaguely worded scripture

 

lets assume that the text does imply a flat earth, that it says god made the earth flat

 

now consider the "science" of observation, that nearby planets and the sun appear spherical

 

the flat earther may say this is satans deception

 

did satan create the illusion? no, god created the heavens and the earth

 

why would god purposely deceive his followers?

 

a loving god would do no such thing

 

the logical conclusion is that satan, being the great liar, has deceived even the elect, if possible

 

the universe is gods creation and he gave it to us

 

believing we are trapped in an illusion, thinking that gods creation is fake comes from satan

 

flat earth = satan worship

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The red spot on Jupiter demonstrates how circular weather systems are created by spinning globes. 

 

The Northern lights are matched near the Southern poles. 

 

Toilets flush in the opposite direction in the Southern hemisphere. 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

52 minutes ago, Grumpy Grapes said:

Toilets flush in the opposite direction in the Southern hemisphere. 


Coriolis effect, its a property of magnetism and magnetic fields. Cyclones and anticyclones on either pole too, not a hard and fast rule but opposites most of the time on opposite poles. Force of inertia. Observable in weather systems and with every single magnet on the planet. 

Edited by TheConsultant
Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 hours ago, Grumpy Grapes said:

Toilets flush in the opposite direction in the Southern hemisphere. 

 

That is an urban myth. They spin whichever way the incoming water jets direct them to.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Arnie said:

 

That is an urban myth. They spin whichever way the incoming water jets direct them to.

no, its the Coriolis effect/force and affects weather patterns too. Search and you shall find young grasshopper.

Edited by TheConsultant
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, TheConsultant said:

no, its the Coriolis effect/force and affects weather patterns too. Search and you shall find young grasshopper.

 

No. The coriolis effect is completely insignificant at that level. Search properly and YOU will find. 

 

Do Toilets in Different Hemispheres Flush in Different Directions? | Britannica

Myth busted: Water does swirl in different directions across the globe, but it’s not a toilet thing - The Washington Post

Australian Toilets Don't Flush Backwards Because of the Coriolis Effect | Mental Floss

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Arnie said:


Its centrifugal and centripetal inertia derived from the earths magnetic field, its why we have cyclones and anticyclones on either pole. Its the weak force that some call gravity that everyone thinks is either non existent or is not understood and as such is still a theory. 

Please don't link to Washington Post and Britannica for sciences. 

Edited by TheConsultant
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 hours ago, Grumpy Grapes said:

The red spot on Jupiter demonstrates how circular weather systems are created by spinning globes. 

weather, on any planet, is primarily driven by ionization(electricity)

Quote

The main sources of atmospheric ionization are continuous solar UV radiation, highly energetic galactic cosmic rays (GCR), and energetic electron precipitation (EEP) as well as sporadic solar proton events (SPEs). The ionization produced by these sources affects the chemistry and dynamics of the atmosphere via enhanced formation of active hydrogen (HOx) and nitrogen (NOx) oxides, which further participate in catalytic ozone loss cycles (e.g., Mironova et al., 2015). These chemical processes thereby affect the entire climate system (Rozanov, 2018).

https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/2020GL088619

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

31 minutes ago, TheConsultant said:

Ionization/electricity being a component of magnetism. Mother and daughter, or father and son of one another. Conjoined siblings

magnetism is the "footprint" of electric charge, the two concepts are descibing the same thing: electro-magnetism

 

everything is made of electricity

 

in the sciences, at the fundamental level, all things are measured by their electric charge

Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 minutes ago, killing raven sun said:

magnetism is the "footprint" of electric charge, the two concepts are descibing the same thing: electro-magnetism

 

everything is made of electricity

 

in the sciences, at the fundamental level, all things are measured by their electric charge


One is actually the parent of the other, its not electricity giving birth/expression to magnetism as magnetism is the parent of electricity. But ultimately the same field, the same coin so I do agree but the distinction is important in maxwell equations. We just choose to measure in electrical charge rather than magnetic charge. 

If you scan someone with an EEG or ECG, its electrical charge, but magnetism is unified we just choose to ignore it and use electricity as being a separate entity altogether. Ultimately an ECG or EEG is measuring a singular component of light as all electromagnetism is just light at various speeds of oscillation.

Edited by TheConsultant
Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, TheConsultant said:

One is actually the parent of the other, its not electricity giving birth/expression to magnetism as magnetism is the parent of electricity. 

wrong.

9 minutes ago, TheConsultant said:

We just choose to measure in electrical charge rather than magnetic charge. 

the term "magnetic charge" is scientifically meaningless, it can only refer to "electric charge"

11 minutes ago, TheConsultant said:

Ultimately an ECG or EEG is measuring a singular component of light as all electromagnetism is just light at various speeds of oscillation.

not even wrong, this is just nonsense

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, killing raven sun said:

wrong.

the term "magnetic charge" is scientifically meaningless, it can only refer to "electric charge"

not even wrong, this is just nonsense


Electromagnetism is light. Please try and refute that, best of luck.

Magnetic charge was a simplified expression due to the fact I had just used the term electrical charge, I was simplifying for easier understanding as being either side of the same unified coin. If I were to be more accurate I would use the term gauss which is magnetic induction. It is what gives rise to "spooky action at a distance". Also referred to as "entanglement" 

Have you read some Steinmetz, Heaviside, Faraday, Maxwell? Tesla? Familiar with their works?
 

Edited by TheConsultant
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...