Message from @bait
Discord ID: 615057490005983233
Have you ever experienced attraction to center of mass?
does the earth count?
Is it an assumed value or an experienced one?
it's an attributed explanation
based on inductive data
I for example experience a linear downward acceleration
me too
But adding center of mass is the assumption
So the model is asserting two ideas into one
i dont think to call it an assumption is accurate
there is empirical evidence from satellite data
and fact that the horizon moves when you are in a car and you drive
Im coming from an emperical deduction
Thats what this exercise is
have you ever been in a car?
You don't experience a flat earth, you assume it.
You experience a locally relatively flat earth in short distances
saying the globe theory is too small to observe doesn't change the fact that we don't observe it
Is the car moving? Is it doing donuts around a track? Is my head put the window?
i mean going straight
preferrably
Yup
have you noticed things far off in the distance you couldn't see before come into view?
because there are hills and buildings
Thats because all objects at sharp angles form into a horizon and the angle between the top and bottom of objects are not the same
Then you have obtical effects and other factors
that sounds similar, hills and buildings are larger in angle when close up
and yeah
have you noticed that objects far away near the horizon become much lower from the horizon when you get close to it?
it's not very noticeable, it supposedly happens
but there must be refraction whether it's flat or globe
here, an 8 hour long car drive
going pretty straight
you can see that objects in the horizon get closer
Refraction tends to bend down unless there are heat waves or humidity that can cause heavy miraging
what causes the refraction?
dielectric responses in materials/air
The standard refraction model basically mimics angular resolution
is the sun above or inside the atmosphere?