It's not rocket science

[[XAP]Bob]

That word “what” allowed you to correct what is usually bandied about by people who claim the earth is flat, since it allows for the appropriate difference in angle to the sun from different locations.

If the sun is always above the horizon, by an inch or a million miles, then it cannot be cut off at the bottom.

Then there's the issue of why depending on your altitude the sun sets at different times.

These days easy to do with a drone. I was flying one on Sunday, at 400' there's the sun, on the ground - dark.

In fact sunset is defined (for the purposes of Ramadan) differently for the top half of the burj khalifa - something perfectly explained by spherical geometry, and not in the slightest by your theories.

[kwackers]

Then there's the issue of why depending on your altitude the sun sets at different times.

These days easy to do with a drone. I was flying one on Sunday, at 400' there's the sun, on the ground - dark.

In fact sunset is defined (for the purposes of Ramadan) differently for the top half of the burj khalifa - something perfectly explained by spherical geometry, and not in the slightest by your theories.

Me? Which theories?

[[XAP]Bob]

Sorry - quoted you, was talking to Manc33.

Mea culpa

[Postboxer]

How come the stars above the poles appear to be rotating in opposite directions?

[Manc33]

How come the stars above the poles appear to be rotating in opposite directions?

This only correlates with a rotating globe, it's not concrete evidence for it. For example there could just be two points of rotation above a flat earth. This is the case with many other things claimed to be evidence of a rotating globe earth, for example the Eratosthenes sticks and shadows test that even Neil DeGrasse Tyson admitted (to his credit) can work on both models.

[Postboxer]

Is there a model for the two rotation points? I can't picture how it would work, how could all the stars be mapped from different places on the globe, all consistent with being on a rotating globe or all the stars rotating around us, all viewed to be travelling in circles around the polls, the same stars in the same constellations viewed from everywhere in each hemisphere. I can't see how this could ever work on a flat earth. One rotation point presumably is above the centre, the other is somewhere else, where is it?

[[XAP]Bob]

How come the stars above the poles appear to be rotating in opposite directions?

This only correlates with a rotating globe, it's not concrete evidence for it. For example there could just be two points of rotation above a flat earth. This is the case with many other things claimed to be evidence of a rotating globe earth, for example the Eratosthenes sticks and shadows test that even Neil DeGrasse Tyson admitted (to his credit) can work on both models.

Oh, you can make sticks and shadows work... but not whilst remaining consistent with other observations.

The dual rotation being a case in point. Whilst the northern hemisphere rotations can be mapped to a flat earth the stars must rotate very rapidly the other way as they get to the edge of the disk, and the southern cross is visible from points very widely spaced around the edge of the disc simultaneously

[Postboxer]

and the southern cross is visible from points very widely spaced around the edge of the disc simultaneously

Whilst at the same time the Sun mysteriously disappears from view.

[KTHSullivan]

Even rocket science isn't rocket science when you think about it, its just that this is an imposed belief on everyone to make them assume it is too difficult to understand, so people don't bother looking into it and leave it all down to the so-called experts - that in a lot of cases are just playing the system and lying to get more grant money. For example the people that claimed to have discovered a gravity wave didn't, but if they can convince everyone they discovered gravity waves (with the added convenience of having every single educational academy agree with you due to confirmation bias and wanting gravity waves to be there) it is a cakewalk for the brainy people getting that grant money.

If you asked them truthfully what are they really studying, they would probably have to say "Nothing that will accomplish anything, we are just sort of rearranging what we already know and making up new BS for it, but hey it keeps the grant money coming in, want another glass of champagne? Cigar? The caviare is over there if you want some."

Why be an actual physicist if you can be a theoretical physicist and never actually contribute anything real to the field or need to? I bet the theoretical physicists get paid more than the physicists that deal with known facts, its a sick world, where conjecture, confirmation bias and fantasy passes for supposed facts.

You can't propel a rocket in a weightless vacuum the way we get told, the rocket has no air to push against to propel it and it would remain fixed, internally stressing itself, pumping all of the force out in the form of a gas cloud, which indeed, would be moving and yes, with 100% of the force. Don't worry, energy isn't being lost here! All of the force is all still there, but it wouldn't move the rocket anywhere, it would effortlessly pump the gas out into the vacuum, where it would float away in space for billions of years.

Space isn't even up there lol, nothing is floating and it isn't a vacuum, more of an airless void, but thats technically not a vacuum because lower down there is air and there isn't a barrier to it, I mean you can't have a vacuum connected to a non-vacuum and have it maintain itself, so then what's above us isn't a vacuum, it isn't weightless. Where's the proof apart from stuff shown to us on TV screens? If it is that easy then I guess George Clooney and Sandra Bullock really went into space? They must have because we have the footage on video.

It is rocket science but it isn't hard to understand what I just said (in a nutshell it needs air to push on and air isn't there in a vacuum) and this certainly doesn't need maths, it needs understanding - something that is unfortunately completely lacking from the world of mathematics for some reason, I mean when did you ever hear a mathematician admit hey, this entire premise could be wrong?

Never.

Naive mathematicians that insist on their equations matching reality when they actually don't. Someone needs to tell these people that theories aren't facts because I think they are getting a little bit too carried away with it.

"Today's scientists have substituted mathematics for experiments, and they wander off through equation after equation, and eventually build a structure which has no relation to reality." - Nikola Tesla

Amen to that.

Hmmmmmmmmmm