Since Newton's equation for for displacement is: [math]v=ut-1/2at^2[/math], and since acceleration is a vector, doesn't that mean the acceleration is constant throughout the whole earth, and as a result, the earth has to be flat?
This is just more proof that since the late 1800s the government have been trying to trick people in believing in a round earth, as even newton knew that the earth was flat.
What are you roundtards going to say to disprove newton? NOTHING BECAUSE YOU CAN'T HAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
Hey i think you meant: [math]d=ut-0.5at^2[/math]. But good theory though.
Zachary Robinson
fuck newton he was a fucking jew who's theories were designed by jewish overlords and shit
Sebastian Hall
Kill all roundtards. They are retards, newton proved the earth was flat but roundtards still believe that the earth is round.
Sebastian Murphy
>doesn't that mean the acceleration is constant throughout the whole earth, and as a result, the earth has to be flat?
No it means the Earth has to be roughly spherical. Distance from the planet's core determines the acceleration, and therefore the potential energy.
A flat Earth would have fucked up gravity, unless your rule for gravity is wildly more complicated than F=Gm1m2/r^2
Colton Lopez
Hold on there mate, your little theories are inconsistent. Your claiming the distance from the centre of mass determines gravitational acceleration, if that is the case, why is the direction of acceleration always in the same direction. Your roundtard equations don't make sense.
Adam Wood
distance from the center of mass determines the strength of the acceleration, not the direction
the direction is always towards the center of mass because gravity appears to pull things towards the center of mass
James Martinez
>falling for bait Let the thread die.
Wyatt Torres
i'm writing a book where i find the lowest hanging fruit on the internet and argue with them it would be economically disadvantageous for me to let this thread die
Dominic Morales
Look at this chart. Displacement in newtons equations is ALWAYS the same direction where ever you are on earth. This either means Newton's formulas are wrong (which they are not), or that the earth is flat, (which it is).
Liam Young
This is not bait. I know that S=ut−0.5at^2 is correct as a fact, as I've tested it. But the only way it can be right mathematically is that the earth is flat. That is why i have a very high certainty in the belief that the earth is possibly disk shaped.
Jonathan Flores
>Displacement in newtons equations is ALWAYS the same direction where ever you are on earth It's not, though.
If we take Earth and M1 and small objects on Earth (like your brain) as M2, you should be able to understand that the center of mass for any M1-M2 system is almost identical to the position of M1 in 3 dimensional space.
So here's a question for you, flatman. If gravity is a constant acceleration perpendicular to the surface of the earth, why do planets orbit stars?
Robert Nelson
Okay buddy I've got a great diagram coming up for your, give me a couple of minutes.
Asher Hill
If this doesn't make sense, then your IQ has to be X
Joshua Sullivan
am I understanding this properly?
Robert Miller
That's our type of orbit, but the earth is slightly below the sun's south pole, so it's facing upwards towards it.
There are many types of orbits planets can have, here is a similar one to the earth.
Hunter Hernandez
The diagram in , is slightly different from since they're showing two type of star systems, i'll clear up the model right now
Ryan Barnes
I believe I'm gaining all sorts of insight into what physics would be like without primary school geometry. This is a good thread.
If the earth's orbit is circular about a point directly beneath the disk sun's center, how does the day/night cycle work? Certainly if the disk earth rotated on an axis perpendicular and through the center of the disk earth, the disk sun would never drop below the horizon. Please clarify this mystery for me.
Nolan Young
okay this took awhile, sorry. But there is a difference in voltage between the earth and sun, thats why there is a force, gravity only works ON the planet.
Nolan Rivera
Get rolled buddy
Jeremiah Garcia
You cannot deny coulombs law.
William Price
When /pol/ tries to do physics
Charles Cox
So the rotation of the earth over the course of a day makes the sun appear dimmer and dimmer, because the sunlight has to travel through more and more ozone
So why does the sun appear to go below the horizon instead of just gradually fading out, and appear to rise on the other side of the horizon instead of just gradually fading in?
Julian Robinson
The real solar system is much more complicated than you think, it's not easy to learn but once you do, you'll realize that you've been lied to the whole time
Owen Lopez
>So the rotation of the earth over the course of a day makes the sun appear dimmer and dimmer, because the sunlight has to travel through more and more ozone Which is not true, because that would mean a change of color to blue instead of to red when the sun is fading away (as the ozone has the absortion minima around 400 nm atmos-meas-tech.net/7/609/2014/amt-7-609-2014.pdf)
William Ortiz
ah, of course. "they" have been lying to me maybe i should have spent my formative years staring into the sun so I could have learned the truth
I heard that the reason "they" tell you not to stare into the sun is because you will eventually learn the truth about disk earth and disk sun. And then "they" come to your house in the middle of the night and blind you with surgical tools.
Aiden Murphy
Friend, it is now obvious you lost this scientific argument, as now you're throwing insults towards me.
Grayson Watson
The correct equitation is v = u + at. Clearly, as time goes on, you move faster and faster. So velocity is not constant.
Integrating with respect to distance, you get x = at^2 + vt + c
Again, the distance between time interval 1 and time interval 2 is not constant.
In the case of gravity, a flat earth would still have its center of mass in the middle of the disc, or we would all float away.
The coLor of the sky is due to Rayleigh scattering.
Dylan Ramirez
You don't "win" arguments on the internet, comrade. They are negative sum games. Both players lose merely by participating.
The argument is hardly scientific. I would describe it as purely mathematical. And if it was a math game you lost with when you failed to explain why the sun doesn't fade to black instead of going below the horizon.
John Fisher
Who are "they" in this fantasy of yours?
Julian White
They're always coming up with something new. A few weeks ago someone had this idea of gravity as "buoyancy" which made no sense.
Brayden Jenkins
Well i think you're the user that said he's writing a book about debating on the internet (can't tell since no IDs), would you be able to tell me the name of the book you'll be releasing because it might be interesting to read.
>pic related
This made perfect sense, it relates to coulombs law
Blake Lopez
I am disgusted by round earthers. When will they understand the earth is a rectangle?
Joshua Morris
It's more likely that the earth is a triangular prism than a sphere.
Logan Fisher
That only holds for uniformly accelerated motion.
Joshua Harris
Then how did newton figure it out by using the acceleration of earth?
Jackson Reed
I've no idea what you're trying to ask since that doesn't follow on from anything I've posted. What's written in the OP only works near the earths surface, ie when [math] h
Joshua Baker
Don't bullshit me mate. Newton invented calculus and (((they))) tried to say that someone else invented it on the other side of England first. (((They))) hated newton because he knew the truth about the shape of the Earth.
Easton Jenkins
But Newton also discovered his law of universal gravitation [eqn] F = \frac { G M m } { r^2 } = ma \\ \implies a = \frac { GM } { r^2 } [/eqn]Where r is some height above the earth. Further if [math] r^2 = (R_E + h)^2 [/math] where [math] R_E [/math] is the radius of the earth and [math] h [/math] is the height above the surface, then we can expand [eqn] \left ( R_E + h \right )^{-2} = \frac { 1 } { R_E ^2 } \left ( 1 + \frac { h } { R_E } \right )^{-2} \approx \frac { 1 } { R_E ^2 } \left ( 1 - 2 \frac { h } { R_E } \right ) [/eqn]So for small [math] h [/math] we have: [eqn] a = \frac { G M } { (R_E + h )^2 } \approx \frac { GM } { R_E ^2 } \left ( 1 + \frac { h } { R_E } \right ) = \frac { GM } { R_E ^2 } + \mathcal { O } \left ( \frac { 1 } { R_E ^3 } \right ) [/eqn]So for small heights above the surface of the earth we find that acceleration is approximately just a constant. If you had sensitive enough equipment you'd detect the small additional term even with small h.
I would report this thread, but I've long since given up on competent moderation.
Christian Sanders
Awesome graphics!
Hunter Wood
This is a jewish lie, newton never ofund the value for G
Easton Barnes
He didn't need to. He was a theorist, in particular he was able to show how Keplers third law followed from his laws.
Ethan Jones
someone btfos your entire argument, what's your response gonna be?