Of course, the claim is that gravity causes this, but gravity has never been proven. 

.
Yes, that's right.  Sometimes when I jump off my roof, I go up, other times I go down.

Geometry is coincidental to all of physics, and the coincidental is as meaningful as the circuмstances, which are not meaningless. For the variety of clinging effects there has to be contact obviously. Waterproof surfaces tend not to allow clinging so it also depends on the surface matter.

Rain is falling down to the center of the Earth as it falls to the surface where it lands. All the rain falls in the same direction down to the center of the sphere, like this:


Waterdrops are spherical, and in a true sphere the distinction between up or down is arbitrary, depending on location, but the direction to the center is not.

I'm not seeing how that is evidence for a ball earth. Or are you trying to explain gravity? Do you believe that because rain falls downward, this indicates a force of gravity, and that's what keeps the water in place on the surface of a supposed ball earth? ? Or something like that? The problem I have with that is that water on the surface of the earth is very, very heavy, but rainclouds are not. 

 The problem I have with that is that water on the surface of the earth is very, very heavy, but rainclouds are not.

That's a matter of density and buoyancy.

I'm not seeing how that is evidence for a ball earth. Or are you trying to explain gravity? Do you believe that because rain falls downward, this indicates a force of gravity, and that's what keeps the water in place on the surface of a supposed ball earth? ? Or something like that? The problem I have with that is that water on the surface of the earth is very, very heavy, but rainclouds are not.

No to the Bank of Engand and Newton's theory of "gravity". Besides modern physics admitting that it's the "weakest force" and weaker than a little refrigerator magnet, Newtonian gravity's not any lateral force. It doesn't move anything sideways. And the distinction between the vertical and horizontal in a true sphere is arbitrary. So if it's not a lateral force, it's not a vertical one either. Besides that, weight by itself, which constitutes what one could call Augustinian "gravity" in contrast to the Newtonian, does not constitute a source of motion. They can put a 500 pound anvil in a field and it'll never move, unless something that can move it, moves it.

So if the Moon goes laterally around the Earth, which it does along the ecliptic, it must not be "gravity". It's something else, like "celestial impetus" ...

One thing to consider is where the Sun is at midnight. It's specifically on the opposite side of high noon. It doesn't keep going further west after sunset ad infinitum. It recedes from the straight-line attempt at cosmic infinity, at the end of the day, by curving around in a circle ...

Everything in space is on the other side of infinity, or infinity's on the other side of everything in space, and the full division of sides in two planes is like a cube, and the full rotation of the cube is like a sphere. Divide the day by six hours, and that's like 90 degrees, and there are the four sides of the square of the ecliptic that makes circles in rotation. The poles cut it from another plane for the 3-D roundness and full rotation in the sphere of space.

Raindrops are too heavy to remain suspended in air, and rain falls down to Earth, imho, because it's at the center, from the same reason of evidence that the Earth's in all the signs of the zodiac, in the middle, and under the clouds the same way all the time. The clouds, the stars, and the rain all point in to the Earth. They always will recede from a straight-line attempt at infinity and point in to the Earth out of a curve. It's elemental condensation and Aristotle thought that was how the Earth was formed spherically in the first place, through condensation.

So Aristotle believed that the earth was formed spherically, through condensation, and is this what you believe as well? How old do you believe the earth to be?

That seems to me the same as how modern science would describe the creation of the earth and planets.


What I wonder is, when considering the force of gravity in a sphere, would the force of gravity be sufficient to keep matter compressed in the core keeping the core solid, or would the gravity of the matter between the core and surface cause the core to be of low density, even naturally a cavity making a place for hell? I think the core would probably still be compressed such that there would be no cavity, not that hell needs to be a cavity; being submerged in lava would be bad enough.

No to the Bank of Engand and Newton's theory of "gravity". Besides modern physics admitting that it's the "weakest force" and weaker than a little refrigerator magnet, Newtonian gravity's not any lateral force. It doesn't move anything sideways. And the distinction between the vertical and horizontal in a true sphere is arbitrary. So if it's not a lateral force, it's not a vertical one either. Besides that, weight by itself, which constitutes what one could call Augustinian "gravity" in contrast to the Newtonian, does not constitute a source of motion. They can put a 500 pound anvil in a field and it'll never move, unless something that can move it, moves it.

So if the Moon goes laterally around the Earth, which it does along the ecliptic, it must not be "gravity". It's something else, like "celestial impetus" ...

One thing to consider is where the Sun is at midnight. It's specifically on the opposite side of high noon. It doesn't keep going further west after sunset ad infinitum. It recedes from the straight-line attempt at cosmic infinity, at the end of the day, by curving around in a circle ...

Everything in space is on the other side of infinity, or infinity's on the other side of everything in space, and the full division of sides in two planes is like a cube, and the full rotation of the cube is like a sphere. Divide the day by six hours, and that's like 90 degrees, and there are the four sides of the square of the ecliptic that makes circles in rotation. The poles cut it from another plane for the 3-D roundness and full rotation in the sphere of space.

Raindrops are too heavy to remain suspended in air, and rain falls down to Earth, imho, because it's at the center, from the same reason of evidence that the Earth's in all the signs of the zodiac, in the middle, and under the clouds the same way all the time. The clouds, the stars, and the rain all point in to the Earth. They always will recede from a straight-line attempt at infinity and point in to the Earth out of a curve. It's elemental condensation and Aristotle thought that was how the Earth was formed spherically in the first place, through condensation.

You believe that the moon goes laterally (sideways?) around the earth. And if it's not 'gravity' it must be something else like 'celestial impetus.' Well, yes, 'celestial impetus' is one way to term it. It can also be thought of as God causing its orbit, but of course I believe that the moon and sun orbit above the earth, and not sideways around it along the ecliptic of a ball. We don't really know how it works exactly, but that's okay.

I agree that the sun doesn't keep going west after sunset ad infinitum. The sun seems to have no interest in, as you say, a straight-line attempt at cosmic infinity. But then, being located and rotating above the earth, it's obvious that it does not make an attempt at going in the direction of 'cosmic infinity.' Of course it doesn't.

Is everything in space really at the other side of infinity? Or is it in a closed system, such as the one that we flat-earthers believe in? We hear a lot about infinity, but I don't believe it exists. Though of course fake NASA photos might suggest otherwise.

I would agree that raindrops are too heavy to remain suspended in air. Even snowflakes, which are not spherical, but mostly hexagonal, fall to earth, though not always in a straight line. Yes, the clouds, stars and rain do point in to the earth. Actually, that would make sense on a flat earth plane.

This is precisely why you need a model:




“At any given time, there is an equal area of the Earth that is experiencing daytime, and that is having a night time. The reason is that the sun is very far, and it would illuminate a hemisphere of the Earth, and leave the other dark.
If we plot which areas of the Earth that are getting sunlight on an azimuthal equidistant map centered on the north pole, the sun would appear to illuminate a somewhat elliptical area during the northern hemisphere summer, and a lopsided Bat-Signal shaped area during the winter. During the equinox, the sun would appear to illuminate a half-circle area.

This fact is not a problem because the azimuthal-equidistant is a map, and like any other map, it has distortions. An area of the map closer to the center represents a larger real-world area compared to the same map area farther from the center.
On the other hand, flat-Earthers insist the azimuthal-equidistant map is the map of a flat-Earth, devoid of any distortions. And this is a problem for them. They would have to invent just another ad-hoc ‘explanations’ how the sun illuminates such an impossible area. Their ‘lamp-shade’ or the ‘spotlight’ explanations fail to explain it.”

This is precisely why you need a model:




“At any given time, there is an equal area of the Earth that is experiencing daytime, and that is having a night time. The reason is that the sun is very far, and it would illuminate a hemisphere of the Earth, and leave the other dark.
If we plot which areas of the Earth that are getting sunlight on an azimuthal equidistant map centered on the north pole, the sun would appear to illuminate a somewhat elliptical area during the northern hemisphere summer, and a lopsided Bat-Signal shaped area during the winter. During the equinox, the sun would appear to illuminate a half-circle area.

This fact is not a problem because the azimuthal-equidistant is a map, and like any other map, it has distortions. An area of the map closer to the center represents a larger real-world area compared to the same map area farther from the center.
On the other hand, flat-Earthers insist the azimuthal-equidistant map is the map of a flat-Earth, devoid of any distortions. And this is a problem for them. They would have to invent just another ad-hoc ‘explanations’ how the sun illuminates such an impossible area. Their ‘lamp-shade’ or the ‘spotlight’ explanations fail to explain it.”

I believe that the sun is actually smaller than the one depicted in the diagram in your above post. You may say that that would not make any difference, but I think it would.