Sphericity Inevitable From Semi-fluidity.

Discussion in 'Science' started by Felix (R), Sep 7, 2011.

  1. Felix (R)

    Felix (R) New Member

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2011
    Messages:
    1,603
    Likes Received:
    21
    Trophy Points:
    0
    SPHERICITY INEVITABLE FROM SEMI-FLUIDITY.

    An argument for the earth's rotundity is thought, by many, to be found in the following facts:

    "Fluid or semi-fluid substances in a state of motion invariably assume the globular form, as instanced in rain, hail, dew, mercury, and melted lead, which, poured from a great height, as in the manufacture of small shot, becomes divided into spherical masses."

    "There is abundant evidence, from geology, that the earth has been a fluid or semi-fluid mass, and it could not, therefore, continue in a state of motion through space without becoming spherical."

    In the first place, in reply to the above, it is denied that hail is always globular. On examination immediately after or during a hail-storm, the masses present every variety of form, and very few are found perfectly globular. Rain and dew cannot so well be examined during their fall, but when standing on hard surfaces in minute quantities, they generally appear spherical, a result simply of "attraction of cohesion." The same of mercury; and in reference to the formation of shot, by pouring melted lead from the top of a very high tower into cold water, it is a mistake to suppose that all, or even a large proportion, is converted into truly spherical masses. From twenty to fifty per cent. of the masses formed are very irregular in shape, and have to be returned to the crucible for re-melting. In addition to which it may be remarked, that the tendency in falling fluids to become globular is owing to what, in chemical works, is called "attraction of cohesion" (not "attraction of gravitation "), which is very limited in its operation. Its action is confined to small quantities of matter. If, in the manufacture of shot, the melted metal is allowed to fall in masses of several ounces or pounds, instead of being divided (by pouring through a sieve or "cullender" with small holes) into particles weighing only a few grains, it will never take a spherical form. Shot of an inch diameter could not be made by this process; bullets of even half an inch can only be made by casting the metal into spherical moulds. In tropical countries the rain, instead of falling in drops, or small globules, often comes down in large irregular masses or gushes, which have no approximation whatever to sphericity. So that it is manifestly unjust to affirm, of large masses like the earth, that which attaches only to minute portions, or a few grains, of matter.

    Without denying that the earth has been, at some former period, or was, when it first existed, in a pulpy or semi-fluid state, it is requisite to prove beyond all doubt that it has a motion through space, or the conclusion that it is therefore spherical is premature, and very illogical. It should also be proved that it has motion upon axes, or it is equally contrary to every principle of reasoning to affirm that the equatorial is greater than the polar diameter, as the inevitable result of the centrifugal force produced by its axial or diurnal rotation. The assumption of such conditions by Sir Isaac Newton, as we have seen when speaking of the measurement of arcs of the meridian, was contrary to evidence, and led to and maintains a "muddle of mathematics" such as philosophers will, sooner or later, be ashamed of. The whole matter,
    taken together, entirely fails as an argument for the earth's rotundity. It has been demonstrated that axial and orbital motion do not exist, and, therefore, any argument founded upon and including them as facts is necessarily fallacious.
     
  2. TheLaw

    TheLaw New Member

    Joined:
    Jun 28, 2011
    Messages:
    105
    Likes Received:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Your anecdotal evidence is very convincing...
    on a more serious note, everything you just questioned has been proved; and most of it has been proved on the I don't believe in gravity thread. Every time we give you evidence you refudiate it with anecdotal evidence or some unprovable conspiracy theory.
     
  3. Bishadi

    Bishadi Banned

    Joined:
    Apr 26, 2010
    Messages:
    12,292
    Likes Received:
    52
    Trophy Points:
    0
    so see the evidence and find the 'gravity'


    the energy is causing it

    not the mass
     
  4. Felix (R)

    Felix (R) New Member

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2011
    Messages:
    1,603
    Likes Received:
    21
    Trophy Points:
    0

    The OP is not a conspiracy theory, it is actually quite real.
     
  5. TheLaw

    TheLaw New Member

    Joined:
    Jun 28, 2011
    Messages:
    105
    Likes Received:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Well your entire theory is in fact a conspiracy theory because you are saying that what is officially accepted as being the truth is false and that there are people or governments conspiring to keep the truth from being uncovered.

    conspiracy theory noun
    Definition of CONSPIRACY THEORY
    : a theory that explains an event or set of circumstances as the result of a secret plot by usually powerful conspirators
    — conspiracy theorist noun

    Regardless of that you provide absolutely no empirical evidence you cannot even provide a link to any kind of professional or trusted specialist that agrees with you. You say that it has been demonstrated, or proved, or shown; but you can't demonstrate or prove or show. We all know the mathematics behind Newton's ideas, and all the mathematicians and scientists that agree with him, now show us yours.
     
  6. Felix (R)

    Felix (R) New Member

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2011
    Messages:
    1,603
    Likes Received:
    21
    Trophy Points:
    0

    Science Reference Guides

    The Flat Earth and its Advocates: A List of References

    Blakeston, Oswell. England's latter-day flatearthists. (The story of a correspondence.) Life and letters, v. 62, July 1949: 9–24.
    AP4.L416, v. 62
    Bramhall, William. Wilbur Glenn Voliva. In his The great American misfit; 26 bizarre personal histories. New York, C. N. Potter [1982] p. 71–73. port.
    CT9990.B7 1982
    Carpenter, William. One hundred proofs that the earth is not a globe. [6th ed.] Baltimore, 1885. 39 p.
    QB638.C3 1885a
    Cohen, Daniel. Is the earth flat or hollow? Science digest, v. 72, Nov. 1972: 62–66. col. illus.
    Q1.S383, v. 72
    Collamore, R. G. S. His pronouncement: a layman's version, a layman's message. Philadelphia, Dorrance [1924] 157 p.
    Q173.C6
    Cook, Frederick H. The terrestrial plane; or, The true figure of the earth. [London, 1908] 64 p.
    Held by the British Library under shelfmark 8563. b. 52.
    Davenport, Walter. "They call me a flathead." Collier's, v. 79, May 14, 1927: 30–31. illus., ports.
    AP2.C65, v. 79
    "Wilbur Glenn Voliva, the boss of Zion City, knows the world is flat. He can prove it. He doesn't care what you think or what the newspapers say. He's still doing business at the old stand, and business couldn't be better."
    DeFord, Charles S. A reparation: universal gravitation a universal fake. Fairfield, Wash., Ye Galleon Press [1992] 62 p. illus., port.
    QB283.D44 1992
    Reprint of the 3d ed. (New York, Fortean Society, 1931), with a new introduction by Robert J. Schadewald.
    "... an attempt to prove that the world is flat."
    Edgell, William. Does the earth rotate? [London? 1927] 69 p. illus., port. NN
    Flat city. In Odd and eccentric people. By the editors of Time-Life Books. Alexandria, Va., Time-Life Books [1992] (Library of curious and unusual facts) p. 13–l4. illus., port.
    CT9990.O33 1992
    About Wilbur Glenn Voliva.
    Flat earth. New statesman and nation, new ser., v. 9, Jan. 12, 1935: 35–36.
    AP4.N64, s. 2, v. 9
    Signed Y. Y.
    On the views of Henry Edgell, "the most persistent modern advocate of the theory that the earth is flat," who had just died at the age of 73.
    Gardner, Martin. Flat and hollow. In his Fads and fallacies in the name of science. [Rev. and expanded ed.] New York, Dover Publications [1957] p. 16–27.
    Q173.G35 1957
    The part of this chapter dealing with flat-earth proponents is about Voliva and the Christian Apostolic Church in Zion, Ill.
    Gates, David, and Jennifer Smith. Keeping the flat-earth faith. Newsweek, v. 104, July 2, 1984: 12. port.
    AP2.N6772, v. 104
    On Charles K. Johnson and the International Flat Earth Research Society.
    Gleason, Alex. Is the Bible from heaven? Is the earth a globe? 2d ed., rev. and enl. Buffalo, N.Y., Buffalo Electrotype and Engraving Co. [1893] xix, 402 p. illus., map, col. plates, ports.
    QB638.G56
    Goudey, Henry J. Earth not a globe: scientifically, geometrically, philosophically demonstrated. Over 75 arguments and 30 diagrams. Boston, Mass., 1930. 145 p. illus., fold. map.
    QB52.G7
    Gould, Stephen J. The persistently flat earth. Natural history, v. 103, Mar. 1994: 12, 14–19.
    QH1.N13, v. 103
    Investigates the relatively recent origin of the notion that scholars of the Middle Ages, with few exceptions, believed the earth was flat.
    Hampden, John. The new manual of biblical cosmography; or, Outline of the general system of the universe. London, Beaumont [1877] 15 p. fold. illus.
    QB638.H22
    The Infidel globe; or, Scientific witchcraft, the emblem of paganism and the refuge of the atheist. [London?] 1884. [4] p.
    YA 22866 Rare Bk. Coll.
    Johnson, Gilbert. The book of light, a brief description of the earth, with a map showing its shape. The earth being flat instead of round, the sun is not stationary but moves. Greer, Mo., 1923. 48 p. fold. map.
    QB638.J6 1923
    First published in 1890 (7 p. QB638.J67).
    Jones, Charles W. The flat earth. Thought, v. 9, Sept. 1934: 296–307.
    AP2.T333, v. 9
    Finds that educated persons in the Middle Ages knew that the earth is round.
    Labbie, Edith. The world is flat. In Those eccentric Yankees. Edited by John Lovell. Introd. by Robert Taylor. Camden, Me., Yankee Books [1991] p. 10–13.
    CT9990.T58 1991
    About Joseph W. Holden (1816–1900) of Otisfield, Me.
    Lindsay, Thomas. Astronomical myths—the flat earth. Popular astronomy, v. 6, Sept. 1898: 405–408.
    QB1.P8, v. 6
    London. Zetetic Society. Chart and compass, sextant and sundial, latitudes and longitudes, plumbline and pendulum, globe or plane? A letter of remonstrance, respectfully addressed to the officers of the Naval and Mercantile Marine of England and America. [London, 1887] 8 p.
    Held by the British Library under shelfmark c. 19. (9.).
    Macht, David I. Science and the Bible. Science, v. 114, Nov. 9, 1951: 505.
    Q1.S35, v. 114
    Letter commenting on Ray's observations on the shape of the earth as implied by Revelation 7:1.
    McCready, William D. Isidore, the Antipodeans, and the shape of the earth. Isis, v. 87, Mar. 1996: 108–127. illus.
    Bibliographic footnotes.
    "That the sphericity of the earth was clearly established in the ancient world is beyond dispute. Apparently unknown to the Babylonians or Egyptians, it was a discovery of Greek astronomy and was generally accepted among natural philosophers by the time of Aristotle. It was the received view of educated Romans as well, including Pliny the Elder. Among Christian thinkers, however, its fortunes are not quite so clear. It was not without significance that the ancient Hebrews, whose views were reflected in Scripture, conceived the earth as a flat disk covered over by the dome of the heavens ... [Isidore's] grasp on the spherical nature of the earth was tenuous at best ..."
    Michell, John. Loyalists of the flat earth. In his Eccentric lives and peculiar notions. San Diego, Harcourt Brace Jovanovich [1984] p. 21–32. illus., plates, ports.
    CT9990.M5 1984
    References (19): p. 234.
    The plates follow p. 32; no. [2]–[5] relate to the flat-earth supporters.
    Moore, Patrick. Better and flatter earths. In his Can you speak Venusian? A guide to the independent thinkers. [Newton Abbot, David & Charles, 1972] p. 16–29. illus.
    QB52.M66 1972
    Morse, Charles W. Unpopular truth against popular error in reference to the shape of the earth. Boston, C. J. F. Fletcher, Printer, 1913. 78 p. illus., port.
    QB281.M8
    Proctor, Richard A. A challenge from the earth-flattening society. Knowledge, v. 4, Nov. 30, 1883: 336.
    Q1.K7, v. 4
    Proctor, Richard A. The earth-flattener's challenge. Knowledge, v. 4, Dec. 14, 1883: 362.
    Q1.K7, v. 4
    Proofs (so-called) of the world's rotundity, examined in the light of facts and common sense, by "Search Truth." [London, Zetetic Society, 1882?] 2 p. illus.
    YA 22774 Rare Bk. Coll.
    "... the world is as God made it, a circular and motionless plane, with the Sun, Moon, and Stars revolving at very moderate distances above it ..."
    Quinlan, John E. The earth a plane. London [1906]
    Held by the British Library under shelfmark 8563. b.
    Randi, James. Flat Earth Society. In his An encyclopedia of claims, frauds, and hoaxes of the occult and supernatural. J


    Just to name a few.
     
  7. Felix (R)

    Felix (R) New Member

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2011
    Messages:
    1,603
    Likes Received:
    21
    Trophy Points:
    0
    [Rowbotham, Samuel B.] Zetetic astronomy. A description of several experiments which prove that the surface of the sea is a perfect plane, and that the earth is not a globe. Being the substance of a paper read before the Royal Astronomical Society on the evening of Dec. 8, 1848. By ‘Parallax' [pseud.] Birmingham, W. Cornish, 1849. 16 p. illus.
    QB638.R87
    [Rowbotham, Samuel B.] Zetetic astronomy. Earth not a globe. An experimental inquiry into the true figure of the earth, proving it a plane, without orbital or axial motion, and the only known material world; its true position in the universe, comparatively recent formation, present chemical condition, and approaching destruction by fire, &c., &c. By "Parallax" [pseud.] The illus. by George Davey. 3d ed., rev. and enl. London, Day, 1881. 430 p. illus. CaBViP; CtY; ICJ
    Russell, Jeffrey B. The flat error: the modern distortion of medieval geography. In Mediaevalia, a journal of medieval studies. v. 15; 1989. Binghamton, Center for Medieval and Early Renaissance Studies of the State University of New York, 1993. p. [337]–353.
    CB351.M38, v. 15
    "I first review the evidence that educated medieval people knew the shape of the planet, go on to show how and why the ‘Flat Error' developed, and end with some suggestions about the precarious nature of historical knowledge."
    Schadewald, Robert J. The flat-out truth; earth orbits? Moon landings? A fraud! says this prophet. Science digest, v. 88, July 1980: 58–63. port.
    About Charles K. Johnson, president of the International Flat Earth Research Society.
    Schadewald, Robert J. He knew earth is round, but his proof fell flat. Illus. by W. B. Park. Smithsonian, v. 9, Apr. 1978: 101–102, 104, 106–108, 110, 112–113. illus. (part col.)
    AS30.S6, v. 9
    "A renowned English naturalist [Alfred Russel Wallace] seeking to convince a nonbeliever, won argument, lost the money."
    Scott, David W. Terra firma: the earth not a planet, proved from scripture, reason, and fact. London, Simpkin, Marshall, Hamilton, Kent, 1901. xvi, 288 p. illus., fold. map.
    CtY; MdBJ
    Serland, F. S. Did the older ecclesiastical writers deny the sphericity of the earth? American Catholic quarterly review, v. 43, Apr. 1918: 340–343.
    AP2.A332, v. 43
    Points out "that Venerable Bede in the first half of the eighth century knew and taught the sphericity of the earth" and that this knowledge was not dependent on Islamic learning.
    Shippey, Chester M. Answers to the common "proofs" that the earth is a globe. Leaves of healing, v. 66, May 10, 1930: 138–142, 184.
    BX7401.L3, v. 66
    Shippey, Chester M. The true shape of the earth. Leaves of healing, v. 66, May 10, 1930: 158–160, 162–166, 168–173, 175.
    BX7401.L3, v. 66
    Sifakis, Carl. Voliva, Wilbur Glenn (1870–1942): king of the flat earthers. In his American eccentrics. New York, Facts on File Publications [1984] p. 226–229. port.
    CT9990.S53 1984
    Sisk, John P. The view from the edge; on the necessity of the flat earth. Harper's, v. 258, Mar. 1979: 127–129.
    AP2.H3, v. 258
    On the International Flat Earth Research Society.
    Smith, Carl Albert. Is the earth a whirling globe? 2d ed., rev. and enl. Northampton [1918] 112 p.
    Held by the British Library under shelfmark 8562. aaa. 35.
    Wallace, Alfred Russel. [Hampden and the flat earth] In his My life, a record of events and opinions. v. 2. New York, Dodd, Mead, 1905. p. 381–393. illus.
    QH31.W2A, v. 2
    Wallace, Irving. In defense of the square peg. In his The square pegs; some Americans who dared to be different. New York, A. A. Knopf, 1957. p. 3–24.
    CT9990.W3
    Discusses Wilbur Glenn Voliva on p. 3–8.
    Where are they now? The flat earthers. Newsweek, v. 73, Jan. 13, 1969: 8. port.
    AP2.N6772, v. 73
    About the International Flat Earth Research Society, then based in Dover, England. The portrait is of Samuel Shenton, the society's general secretary.
    White, Andrew D. The form of the earth. In his A history of the warfare of science with theology in Christendom. v. 1. New York, D. Appleton, 1896. p. 89–98.
    BL245.W5, v. 1
    White, Arthur V. The shape of the earth; some proofs for the spherical shape of the earth given in astronomical and geographical text-books examined, and shown to be unsound. [Toronto?] University of Toronto Alumni Association, 1909. [12] p. illus.
    QB283.W5
    Reprinted from the University Monthly, Mar. 1909.
    [Winship, Thomas] Zetetic cosmogony; or, Conclusive evidence that the world is not a rotating-revolving-globe, but a stationary plane circle. By Rectangle [pseud.] 2d ed., enl. Durban, Natal, T. L. Cullingworth, 1899. 192 p.
    QB638.W77
    First published in 1897 (46 p. QB638.W769).
    Wise, Carl S. The Bible and the earth's shape. Science, v. 113, Feb. 2, 1951: 128.
    Q1.S35, v. 113
    Declares that "the Bible itself nowhere states that the earth is flat."
    Woofson, H. Ossipoff. The flat earth and her moulder. Knowledge, v. 5, Mar. 28–Apr. 4, 1884: 213, 233.
    Q1.K7, v. 5
    The former secretary of the Zetetic Society "promises to show the nature of the deceptions practised by some at least among the advocates of the flat-earth theory."
    May 1998


    Just a few more.
     
  8. Felix (R)

    Felix (R) New Member

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2011
    Messages:
    1,603
    Likes Received:
    21
    Trophy Points:
    0
    I have done more than you have. You have invoked names such as Newton and mentioned how many others agree with him. History shows us that majorities do tend to side with ideas that are not always the right ones. Invoking majority will not suffice as empirical eveidence.
    I am not a mathematician so I have not dealt with the mathmatics behind the shape of the earth. I have no doubt encountered equations in my studies and research, however I do not need equations, (that are many times based on things purely hypothetical), to learn the shape of the earth.
     
  9. TheLaw

    TheLaw New Member

    Joined:
    Jun 28, 2011
    Messages:
    105
    Likes Received:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Finally, This is what I wanted all along. Now every time you make a claim just find something in all of your research to back it up. While mathematics can sometimes be wrong it is much more reliable than just observations.
     
  10. venik

    venik New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 31, 2009
    Messages:
    2,266
    Likes Received:
    12
    Trophy Points:
    0
    So is the moon flat too?

    I dont get what you're trying to prove really.
     
  11. Felix (R)

    Felix (R) New Member

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2011
    Messages:
    1,603
    Likes Received:
    21
    Trophy Points:
    0
    I personally do not suspect the moon as being a metallic disk as some others have. The major issue for me in terms of primacy is moonlight, as it is certainly not a reflection of purely solar emission. Peopl have known about the dangers and negative effects of moonlight for quite some time. Effects which sunlight does not have. Also, considering the shape and nature of the earth, a reflection to create cycles in the moon with phases would prove most difficult.
     
  12. venik

    venik New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 31, 2009
    Messages:
    2,266
    Likes Received:
    12
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Still have no idea what this thread is about. I want to say you believe the earth is flat, and somehow believe your OP is a proof of this.
     
  13. Felix (R)

    Felix (R) New Member

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2011
    Messages:
    1,603
    Likes Received:
    21
    Trophy Points:
    0
    The OP is going against a popular belief and argument in favor of a spherical earth. Believers of an ellipsoid or geoid earth commonly say spherical instead.
    There are many more arguments of course however I started with this one.
     
  14. venik

    venik New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 31, 2009
    Messages:
    2,266
    Likes Received:
    12
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Are you trolling? For the 3rd time, what is your argument?
     
  15. Felix (R)

    Felix (R) New Member

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2011
    Messages:
    1,603
    Likes Received:
    21
    Trophy Points:
    0

    The argument was stated clearly in the OP, you have not understood it and I have attempted to afford you better insight into this most excellent subject.

    An argument in favor of earths rotundity is promoting the idea of a spherical earth, or geoid or ellipsoid earth. Opposing this argument is clearly in favor of an earth which is not shaped in this manner. Do you understand now?
     
  16. venik

    venik New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 31, 2009
    Messages:
    2,266
    Likes Received:
    12
    Trophy Points:
    0
    No I don't understand, because you state facts and not opinions.

    Where are YOU in this jumble of jargon you post?
     
  17. Felix (R)

    Felix (R) New Member

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2011
    Messages:
    1,603
    Likes Received:
    21
    Trophy Points:
    0
    So you believe the earth is flat too?
    I do not understand, I am promoting reality, thats all.
     
  18. venik

    venik New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 31, 2009
    Messages:
    2,266
    Likes Received:
    12
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Nope, I just believe the facts you posted have no correlation with your argument. Raindrops don't form because of gravity, planets *do*.

    "So convienent a thing it is to be a reasonable creature, since it enables one to find or make a reason for everything one has a mind to do."
    -- Benjamin Franklin
     
  19. Felix (R)

    Felix (R) New Member

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2011
    Messages:
    1,603
    Likes Received:
    21
    Trophy Points:
    0

    If you do not recognize a correlation, it is because you are unaware of many of the arguments favoring earths alleged rotundity.
     
  20. RPA1

    RPA1 Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Aug 22, 2009
    Messages:
    22,806
    Likes Received:
    1,269
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    I see a basic fault with your logic. Everything you mentioned about fluids refer to atmospheric testing. For example: A raindrop falling through the air on Earth is subject to the frictional forces that alter its shape. Drops of liquids will form spheres in a weightless environment where they can float and not be significantly effected by atmosphere. In a weightless vacuum, fluids can generally be expected to form spheres.
     
  21. Felix (R)

    Felix (R) New Member

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2011
    Messages:
    1,603
    Likes Received:
    21
    Trophy Points:
    0
    There are examples referenced which have gone unmentioned. You have spoken about raindrops.
     

Share This Page