Yes, the math works, but the math merely describes things.  Math can describe the rate at which something falls, but the actual cause for why it falls has remained elusve.  Gravity has never been proven, and there's a wide array of competing theories about what causes the phenomenon.  Tesla rightly pointed out that a fantasy world has been built up with one equation layered on top of another.

You just fail to distinguish between the high and low energy physics. There is no need to prove theory of gravity in order to have very accurate formulas applicable here on the Earth. Or Solar System.

We all type our posts on computers which are created by engineers using those rudimentary law of physics you so despise. How ironic.

Lots of stuff to cover here but I'll do my best.

I'd rather talk about this than the other current events going on right now!  :D

And you keep it fun and not contentious, so thank you for that!


So if we spin at 1000mph why don't we feel 1000mph winds?



How do we know planets and the moon have rocks and dust?

Here is a photo of a moon rock:


 


Moon Rock Is Really Just Petrified Wood

"A prize possession in the Dutch national museum is not what the curators thought. In 1969, three Apollo 11 astronauts visited the Netherlands. And the U.S. ambassador gave the Dutch prime minister what he said was a moon rock. When an expert saw the rock in the museum, he didn't think it was real. Geologists have identified the moon rock as petrified wood."
 
https://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=112324216#:~:text=the%20curators%20thought.-,In%201969%2C%20three%20Apollo%2011%20astronauts%20visited%20the%20Netherlands.,moon%20rock%20as%20petrified%20wood.

Ooops.  They pulled a fast one 'em!  LOL

There are a lot of points for sure. I have to drop out of this topic sometimes because it takes a while to go through it all

I'm with you on talking about this over other current events! And you keep it fun as well so I appreciate that in return!

For your first question, regarding 1000mph winds:

I could talk about how everyone says motion is relative or that the upper atmosphere makes it so that you don't have wind. I don't think you would find that helpful, so I will raise a different point :)

Mars has an atmosphere that is somewhat similar to ours. Actually I believe it is thinner, which shouldn't hurt this argument at all. A martian day/night cycle is very similar to Earth's, at 24hr, 37 min. Since it is smaller than Earth, with a slightly longer day, Mars spins at 539.48 MPH, according to this source:

https://www.universetoday.com/14889/mars-rotation/

Now, one might wonder about Mars having constant 539.48 mph winds, right? It doesn't! And you can see this with a backyard telescope. Now, apparently Mars is best observed every 2 ish years due to its orbit (it is closest at this time), so you can't just always look and expect to see it, but it is an observable thing for anyone with a decent scope.

Now, what do I mean about being able to observe the lack of wind?

What I mean is that you can see when there actually is wind, versus when there isn't. Mars is famous for occasionally throwing up some massive duststorms. According to a couple sources (which may track back to NASA, so take with a grain of salt) the winds on Mars were often around 20mph, and sometimes in excess of 70mph.

I am betting that a backyard astronomer could actually measure to confirm the speeds, but I haven't looked into whether it has or hasn't been done as of yet.

My point basically boils down to: if being on a round and spinning planet requires you to experience constant winds traveling at the same speed the planet turns, why would there not ALWAYS be dust storms on Mars?

https://cosmicpursuits.com/2183/how-to-see-mars-in-2020/

This link gives some relevant info on what I am talking about above. There are some cool pictures too! The dust storms are actually insanely massive when they do kick up, and they are well observed as they unfortunately prevent unobstructed viewing of Mars at times.

Oh, and about the atmosphere being thinner... Wouldn't that make the wind more likely to happen?

What I think of is this: if you have a bowl of thin soup, and you rotate it in your hands, the bowl rotates but the soup does not follow it. If you have a thicker soup, it is more likely to rotate with the bowl. Similarly, I would expect that a planet with thinner atmosphere would spin more freely from the atmosphere. Thicker atmosphere would follow better, right?

Another thing is, to my understanding, the winds on earth are far greater at higher elevations. I am sure we could confirm this if you haven't heard of that before. My thoughts are that the air nearest the ground "follows" the earth the best, and that the further out you go, the less inclined the air is to follow. I wonder how fast the winds are moving inside of a hurricane, versus on the ground...

Finally I get to your second point

This will be shorter. We know that there is dust on other planets because it is observable via backyard telescope. Mars, as mentioned above, is a perfect example. Your moon rock is a good one though, gotta love NASA . I had heard of the petrified rock but never seen it before, so thanks for that!

I will quote the other points on a separate post as I find time :)

Nifty, thanks! In the first calculater I have a question about the obscured object part. Is that referring to the bottom of the cruise ship, the first point of the ship that is visible to me, or ?

Yes, that number means how much the curvature will obstruct of an object from bottom up, viewed from this height over this distance.

I think the terms round earth and globe earth can also describe the flat earth.  Flat earth models are round and with the firmament can create a globe.  I think Ball Earth is probably a better term for globe.

Gravity works for large and small objects right?  So why can't we take a large ball and carve out a lake and a few ponds and fill them with water and spin it around?

Lol.  Me neither. :)

So how far out does a boat need to go to go over the curve?

When I think of the word "round" the first thing to pop to mind is a ball/sphere. I like the term "Disk Earth" instead of FE personally.

I think you would have to start with a REALLY large ball for that to work

Gravity as RE defines it is determined by mass. Let's say we are doing our little experiment on earth. If we were able to get a ball that was even 1/10th the mass of the earth (impossible for us of course) and carve out some lakes, what would stop the earth from completely negating any gravitational pull that our ball had for the water? The earth would have 10x the gravitational pull that our ball did.

Now if we were to take our ball and launch it into space (as NASA defines it ) and carve out some lakes and add some water.... I would imagine it would probably stick! Although I don't know how well lol. With no atmosphere and a significantly smaller gravitational pull, it would probably not stick as well as it does to Earth. Water likes to stick though! It sticks to itself even, which is how you get surface tension (which causes water to bead up into little balls)

Here's a question for you! Why aren't raindrops flat as they fall through the sky if water is always level?

With the question of how far out it should take a boat to disappear over the water... I don't know! This is something the other RE leaning people seem to know more about. But my question is why do we always ask about distance over water? It always leads to the same arguments of refraction and distortion and waves and whatnot lol. There are some places on earth that are incredibly level! (Notice I don't say flat as we haven't proven that )

Think about the Salar de Uyuni salt flat for instance. According to RE, it should be almost perfectly level compared to the sea, meaning it follows the curve of the earth accurately. On FE, it should be super super flat. Why don't we talk about a place like that, maybe with buildings or something to compare to instead of talking about the sea?

Now, you might not want to show pictures when it's wet, as it acts as a giant mirror and allows for more refraction arguments (lol) but wouldn't this be better than testing over water? I suppose mirages are still a thing so maybe there is some refraction, but surely less than there would be over the ocean?

Also, how fast does the plane need to go to catch up with the 1000mph spin? 

In the other direction can it just hover and let the earth spin below until it gets to it's destination?

I can only make sense of this using the flat earth model.  The same one all the ancient civilizations used.  Have you seen those pictures Digital Logos posted?

Douay-Rheims Bible  Gen 1:6

And God said: Let there be a firmament made amidst the waters: and let it divide the waters from the waters.

I can't see how the firmament would work with the solar system shooting like a comet through an ever expanding space like the video I posted above. ??

So they want to make Christians look crazy because modern science trumps the Bible and Christians need to get with the times?

Haven't we heard that one before?

I mentioned this somewhere but when I asked one of the pilots why I couldn't see the curve from the cockpit view over the ocean and why we were flying over the arctic and other questions he told me I'd have to be a Freemason to know about that.  Hmm???

I know they don't like their special "knowledge" getting out to the "profane" (loosers like us). :P

As far as catching up to the 1000mph spin, I am not 100% sure how it works. I believe the answer is probably somehow related to relative motion. To me though, I find it plausible that there is a real explanation. I bring back my point about Mars's dust storms. If the plane has to speed up an extra 1000mph to keep up with the spin, why isn't Mars always covered in complete clouds of dust? Remember, we can observe the rate at which it spins, which is over 500mph. 

Yes, I am familiar with the FE firmament models :)

They are definitely interesting, though to me it feels a little claustrophobic. I guess it seems like the night sky goes on forever! Picture this as a model for the firmament: imagine God creates the waters. Then, He makes a huuuuge border that divides the waters from the waters. He gathers the waters inside of this huge expanse together, and creates the Earth from those. But the Earth is really tiny compared to the border. Also within the border is everything else God created (the lights, the stars, the other planets and everything else). Outside the border is the other part of the waters, and also heaven! Does that make more sense as an idea now? 

Alternatively, if you WANT to think of space as an ever growing expanse, if some translations of the original word for firmament also mean expanse, this seems possible. Maybe it would be something like this.... The Earth is at the center, along with all the planets and lights around it. The firmament that keeps us from just physically traveling to heaven is actually just the ever expanding length of space. Personally I like the big border idea better myself but how can we ever know? I think it would be impossible to find the firmament, and that it's an unexplained mystery how it works.
 
Operation fishbowl is definitely a curious name, and makes you wonder, but I don't trust it as proof of the FE fishbowl firmament. I think government sources are suspect even when they seem to not want us to believe something... I definitely don't take that as a sign that it's true lol. A lot of the times it seems they want to intentionally divide people in new and surprising ways. 

For instance, if they do 9 bad things that they want to cover up, and one truthful thing... If they make sure that the general public knows that the last thing is truthful beyond reasonable doubt, and you deny that one truthful thing nobody will trust you when you bring up the 9 things they did wrong. I think they try to trick us to make us doubt the truth as well as their lies... It is guilt by association basically. 

Obviously we know the Catholic Faith is the truth. Everything else we have to discern. Anyone denying the Faith is wrong, but they can be right on unrelated matters. The Dimonds are wrong on a couple of big things, and right on most everything else, right? Just because they are wrong on some things doesn't mean we have to deny everything they say. Alternatively, I am sure you and I agree on a lot of things, but that doesn't mean we have to agree on everything 

That being said, a lot of people are tempted to avoid anyone that isn't following mainstream opinion. They use our mistakes to reaffirm their confirmation in their own mistakes! That's why I worry about getting caught up in FE if it truly is false! What if it prevents someone from listening to me on something more important that I know is true, like the Catholic Faith? 

Alternatively, if you are right and FE is the truth and you convince others that it is, they are more likely to listen to you about the Catholic truth. You definitely have to go with what you think has the best evidence here! I could be wrong, and I admit that. 

Lol, I think that pilot may have been pulling your leg. Definitely a weird joke. He may have been a freemason himself, or maybe not. Hard to know. But do you think that a freemason high enough on the chain to know the truth about FE would be working as a pilot? I think he would be living the easy life.  

That's utrue.  It's precisely because their theory of "gravity" doesn't work out in the cosmos that there's the "crisis in cosmology" mentioned by Kaku.  That's why they had to invent the notion of "dark matter".

Yup.

The classic, relatively innocent cosmology embraced by Baby Boomers both Catholic and non-Catholic in the 60's has grown up into a monster.

We're not merely talking about a globe earth spinning and rotating around the sun. That's bad enough, yes, but that was relatively tame.

That video above -- which expresses OFFICIAL TEACHING on the motion of the earth, sun, galaxy, etc. through the universe -- shows what you ALSO have to believe if you buy in to their "system". You can't just say, "Nah, give me the classic 60's version I grew up with." you can't be "Traditionalist" that way. It's a PACKAGE DEAL. These other things were added over the decades to keep the whole system viable.

Which leads to the next point -- Dark Matter.

Part of their crazy system -- which includes the Big Bang and order coming from chaos on its own -- basically enough monkeys typing for enough years will produce the complete works of Shakespeare -- is this Dark Matter, without which their whole System collapses.

That is why I am willing to reject their whole system, rather than follow them off a cliff. Especially when the classic idea of a disc-shape earth with a firmament, etc. is much more compatible with Creationism. And there is *so* much evidence for a flat earth, and virtually zero evidence for a globe-shaped earth.