The earth is flat and we never went to the moon

[Right Divider]

Ok, so either I'm not explaining it well enough, or you're not understanding me. (Please keep in mind that I am a "globe earther", not a flat earther.)

Take a regular map (not flat earth) and put it on a table. Draw a horizontal line anywhere below the equator (ie, parallel to the equator). Now take a map of the flat earth, and draw the same line in the southern hemisphere. Now take a globe, and do the same.

Those three different "maps" show three different lines, but only one of them is straight, the one on the regular map. The one on the flat earth map is always curving toward north, but never reaches it. The one on the southern hemisphere of the globe is curving south, but never reaches it.

Now go look at https://www.cntraveler.com/stories/2...e-sail-maphead.

Notice on the flattened map of the globe he uses, the line curves, but when viewed on a sphere, the line is perfectly straight. Try drawing the same line (connecting the two ends appropriately) on the flat earth map. It's not straight at all, nor is it a circle.

That is part of the problem. There is no such thing as a "regular" map of the global earth. There are only different types of map projections that attempt to make a 2D map out of a 3D world.

This article (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Map_projection) accurately explains it like this

Maps cannot be created without map projections. All map projections necessarily distort the surface in some fashion. Depending on the purpose of the map, some distortions are acceptable and others are not; therefore, different map projections exist in order to preserve some properties of the sphere-like body at the expense of other properties. There is no limit to the number of possible map projections.^[2]:1

[Tambora]

Interesting question.

I got a million of 'em.

It also pulls each piece of the satellite individually.

I would think so.
But some of it's pieces would be heavier than others.
Gravity would pull on the heavier pieces more than it would the lighter pieces (ie. the heavier pieces would fall faster).
When there is some long object with heavier pieces, is it conceivable that the heavy pieces could break off from the lighter pieces due to more force being pulled on the heavier pieces?

The "pieces" aren't as rigidly held together but they do still act as a whole.

I would think that anything attached to the heavy pieces would fall at the same rate as the heavy pieces.
In other words you could attach a feather to the satellite and it would fall at the same rate as the heavy parts because it is attached to heavy parts and the heavy parts would drag the feather with it.

But drops of water don't really attach themselves to other drops, do they?
If they did, wouldn't the entire oceans move instead of just the top portion of the oceans?

In fact, the ocean is just one piece of the Earth.

Like the feather (oceans) attached to the satellite (earth land)?
If it all was attached, then wouldn't the heavier pull the lighter along with it at the same rate, like the feather attached to the satellite?
The feather cannot move until the heavier piece it is attached to moves.
So it would seem that since there is much more land mass than water mass of earth, the water could only move if the heavier mass (land) dragged it with it.
But we don't see that.
Instead we see the lighter mass (ocean) being pulled away from the land (breaking from the land).
So we have the gravitational pull of the moon actually having more affect on the lighter mass (water) and pulling it away from the heavier mass (land).
That's the opposite of the feather attached to the satellite, which will only move when the heavier mass it is attached to moves.

The ground is pulled on by the Moon just as the ocean is. The reason you notice it pulling on the ocean is because the ocean is a liquid that can deform in the direction of the pull. If the ocean was frozen solid, the tidal forces created by the Moon would still exist but there would be no tides because the ocean couldn't move and flow.

But doesn't gravitational pull work stronger (have more affect, for lack of a better word) on things that have more mass?

Or I could ask, does a snowflake weigh more or less than a drop of water?
My google search says the snowflake is lighter in mass.

Now, if snowflakes are lighter, then wouldn't we see snowflakes scurrying across the land (like tumbleweeds), although slower than drops of water because water is heavier?

I just don't get why the moon has that much of an affect on water, but not other things with mass.

Is it because of friction (does water cause less friction, and therefore less resistance)?
I'm not sure, so I ask.

And, just to be technical about it, it isn't really size that matters, it's mass. Size, technically speaking, has to do with volume. Gravity doesn't care about your volume, it acts as if all of the mass was concentrated at the "center of mass", no matter how big or lopsided the body happens to be.

Clete

Ahh, technically, yes.

Thanks for your time, Clete.
My head is spinning.



Oh ......... gravitational pull doesn't have anything to do with magnetic pull, does it?
(I don't know, so I ask.)
Cause a magnet will affect lighter objects more than heavy objects.
ie. My magnet will make a small nail move, but not my barbell.


I need a nap.
My brain is hurting!

[Tambora]

Ok, you're not taking into account what I just said, and you're trying to use a flat map instead of a globe. So pull out your globe this time and the string, put the end of the string on Chicago, and while keeping the string facing toward you, start heading west, keeping the string in a straight line. What happens? The string starts to dip south, until it hits the equator, then levels out, and starts heading north again (all still while heading west), hits the equator again, levels out, and ends up right back at Chicago (if you did it right. Did the line ever cross Antarctica? No. Was the line always moving west? Yes. Was the line straight? Yes.

Now, put the end of the string back on chicago, and instead of having the line always face you, keep the equator facing you, and then keep the string at the same distance above the equator as chicago, all the way around, until you hit chicago again. Now orient the globe so that the string is facing you. Did the line ever cross Antarctica? No, it never intersected the equator, let alone Antarctica. Is the line straight? No. Is it always heading west? Yes, but in order to do so, it has to always turn to the north to stay at the same distance from the equator, therefore the line is not straight, because it turns north constantly.

Yes, it is possible to draw a straight line on a globe from Chicago and end up back at Chicago, but it is not possible to draw a straight line on a flat earth from Chicago to Chicago. The line will always turn on a flat earth, but does not necessarily have to turn on a globe.

Here's something you might find interesting, there is a line that goes almost all the way around the globe on which you can sail in a completely straight line and never hit land.

https://www.cntraveler.com/stories/2...e-sail-maphead

Go watch the video on that site. I'll wait.

That "string" is not making a "straight" line.
It is making a curved line.
You can't get from Chicago to Chicago by going in a "straight" line on either the flat earth model or the globe earth model.
On the globe earth model, you would be above the earth 8 inches as soon as you went in any direction in a straight line for one mile.
At 100 miles, you would be 80 inches above the earth.
There can be no "straight" line on a ball.

Are we suppose to have a different definition of "straight line" for a ball than we do a plate?

[CabinetMaker]

I got a million of 'em.


I would think so.
But some of it's pieces would be heavier than others.
Gravity would pull on the heavier pieces more than it would the lighter pieces (ie. the heavier pieces would fall faster).

While this seems intuitively obvious, it is wrong. Gravity "pulls" on everything equally. When dropped in an atmosphere, drag plays a huge part in determining how fast something falls. Watch this short video, less than 5 minutes.

When there is some long object with heavier pieces, is it conceivable that the heavy pieces could break off from the lighter pieces due to more force being pulled on the heavier pieces?

This is why engineers spend a lot of time designing those connections between pieces. We engineers do not like things falling apart because we didn't account for gravitational forces.

I would think that anything attached to the heavy pieces would fall at the same rate as the heavy pieces.
In other words you could attach a feather to the satellite and it would fall at the same rate as the heavy parts because it is attached to heavy parts and the heavy parts would drag the feather with it.

Even if they were not attached they would fall at the same rate. At least until they reached the atmosphere.

I just don't get why the moon has that much of an affect on water, but not other things with mass.

Because water is fluid - it is free to move and it moves easily. Rocks, not so much. The moon does effect everything its just that sometimes those effects are so small its nearly impossible to measure.

Oh ......... gravitational pull doesn't have anything to do with magnetic pull, does it?
(I don't know, so I ask.)
Cause a magnet will affect lighter objects more than heavy objects.
ie. My magnet will make a small nail move, but not my barbell.

Gravity and magnetism are separate forces but they obey similar rules. The magnet pulls on the nail and the bar bell equally but the smaller mass of the nail is able to more easily moved while the mass of the bar bell will resist the magnetic attraction. As the magnet gets stronger then the bar bell is more likely to move.

[Clete]

That's what I said, but I did say that in order to continue moving directly west on a globe (in the northern hemisphere, probably should have clarified that), one would always have to be turning north so as to not start curving south, meaning turning right (obviously the opposite is true, on the southern hemisphere).

Right Divider already said this but just for good measure...

I understand what you're getting at but it just isn't correct, or at least you aren't saying it right.

East and West are defined in a very specific way and going straight east or west, by definition, means that you are not getting any closer or further away from either pole or any other latitude for that matter. Your path is curved in three dimensions because of the spherical shape of the globe and so there is "turning" involved if you want to call it that but it certainly is not "turning north".

Clete

[Clete]

I got a million of 'em.


I would think so.
But some of it's pieces would be heavier than others.
Gravity would pull on the heavier pieces more than it would the lighter pieces (ie. the heavier pieces would fall faster).
When there is some long object with heavier pieces, is it conceivable that the heavy pieces could break off from the lighter pieces due to more force being pulled on the heavier pieces?

I would think that anything attached to the heavy pieces would fall at the same rate as the heavy pieces.
In other words you could attach a feather to the satellite and it would fall at the same rate as the heavy parts because it is attached to heavy parts and the heavy parts would drag the feather with it.

But drops of water don't really attach themselves to other drops, do they?
If they did, wouldn't the entire oceans move instead of just the top portion of the oceans?


Like the feather (oceans) attached to the satellite (earth land)?
If it all was attached, then wouldn't the heavier pull the lighter along with it at the same rate, like the feather attached to the satellite?
The feather cannot move until the heavier piece it is attached to moves.
So it would seem that since there is much more land mass than water mass of earth, the water could only move if the heavier mass (land) dragged it with it.
But we don't see that.
Instead we see the lighter mass (ocean) being pulled away from the land (breaking from the land).
So we have the gravitational pull of the moon actually having more affect on the lighter mass (water) and pulling it away from the heavier mass (land).
That's the opposite of the feather attached to the satellite, which will only move when the heavier mass it is attached to moves.



But doesn't gravitational pull work stronger (have more affect, for lack of a better word) on things that have more mass?

Or I could ask, does a snowflake weigh more or less than a drop of water?
My google search says the snowflake is lighter in mass.

Now, if snowflakes are lighter, then wouldn't we see snowflakes scurrying across the land (like tumbleweeds), although slower than drops of water because water is heavier?

I just don't get why the moon has that much of an affect on water, but not other things with mass.

Is it because of friction (does water cause less friction, and therefore less resistance)?
I'm not sure, so I ask.

Ahh, technically, yes.

Thanks for your time, Clete.
My head is spinning.



Oh ......... gravitational pull doesn't have anything to do with magnetic pull, does it?
(I don't know, so I ask.)
Cause a magnet will affect lighter objects more than heavy objects.
ie. My magnet will make a small nail move, but not my barbell.


I need a nap.
My brain is hurting!

I think all of this can be basically responded to by simply pointing out that gravity pulls on the center of mass of any object, regardless of how many pieces there are or the relative masses of those pieces or how rigidly they are held together (so long as they are indeed held together).

And yes, the ocean is attached to the earth. Gravity is itself the primary means of that attachment but there are also other forces such as friction and some molecular forces as well.
Also, gravity is an astoundingly weak force. The entire mass of the whole Earth (and everything on it) is pulling you toward it's center of gravity and yet you can easily get up and out of bed, walk around, jump, etc. The surface tension of water (i.e. the attraction that each molecule of water has to each other), especially salt water, is way more than enough to overcome the pull of the Moon's gravity and keep parts of the ocean from flying away during high tide.

As for magnets, no, magnetism and gravity are not at all the same thing. Magnetism is property of moving electric charges, gravity is a property of mass. All physical objects have mass and therefore produce a gravitational field, including magnets. Most objects, however, are not magnets.

Clete

[DFT_Dave]

I think all of this can be basically responded to by simply pointing out that gravity pulls on the center of mass of any object, regardless of how many pieces there are or the relative masses of those pieces or how rigidly they are held together (so long as they are indeed held together).

And yes, the ocean is attached to the earth. Gravity is itself the primary means of that attachment but there are also other forces such as friction and some molecular forces as well.
Also, gravity is an astoundingly weak force. The entire mass of the whole Earth (and everything on it) is pulling you toward it's center of gravity and yet you can easily get up and out of bed, walk around, jump, etc. The surface tension of water (i.e. the attraction that each molecule of water has to each other), especially salt water, is way more than enough to overcome the pull of the Moon's gravity and keep parts of the ocean from flying away during high tide.

As for magnets, no, magnetism and gravity are not at all the same thing. Magnetism is property of moving electric charges, gravity is a property of mass. All physical objects have mass and therefore produce a gravitational field, including magnets. Most objects, however, are not magnets.

Clete

Why are you posting here when you asked for a part two that you could use editing???

--Dave

[JudgeRightly]

Why are you posting here when you asked for a part two that you could use editing???

--Dave

Are you not going to create a part two? If not, then [MENTION=12969]Sherman[/MENTION] can reopen my thread if clete doesn't want to open one.

[DFT_Dave]

Are you not going to create a part two? If not, then [MENTION=12969]Sherman[/MENTION] can reopen my thread if clete doesn't want to open one.

I have opened the new thread.

--Dave

[JudgeRightly]

I have opened the new thread.

--Dave

Please link it here.

[DFT_Dave]

Please link it here.

http://theologyonline.com/showthread...73#post5208073