Message from @rivenator12113
Discord ID: 606962928247111714
well that's the thing, GE can explain all these things with one model. The thing is, we live on one earth, not many earths, so you can't have 2 models that, when combined, explain less or the same amount phenomena than a single and expect the combination to be better than the single one
Horizon curve depending on elevation, horizon drop depending on elevation, moon position and rotation depending on latitude..etc..etc.
The list goes on
FE models always seem to explain phenomena as if it were in a vacuum. They don’t see the need to be consistent with the physics they come up with.
you sound like you have scientific potential, the problem is you're assuming a base that's absolutely wrong and building on top of it.
you can debunk gravity all you want, you'll never be published if you're saying that the replacement is the earth accelerating at 9.8m/s/s
And all the different combinations of advanced physics concepts, I have very little doubt that putting it all together will make something vital explode.
@Akhanyatin except it uses a concept that contradicts basically every other field of physics
"Scientific potential" lmao
so light travelling random distances is fine with every other field of physics?
distances being completely is fine with every other field of physics?
the sun and moon being local is completely fine with every other field of physics?
if classical physics were based on things that don't work, no buildings bigger than a few meters cubbed would be standing, airplanes would not be flying, meteorological predictions would have 0% accuracy.
if classical physics were actually obsolete, we'd either have a unifying theory or we'd completely remove them.
well yeah, you don't even have your bachelor's yet. you are not published, and you assume things that are completely wrong. but, even though you seem to *know* a lot of things, you are far from a genius, since you have yet to prove that you understand them and you also your model is based on one of the most heavily debunked models yet.
and none of this is meant to attack you, i'm just pointing out facts. you can either be insulted by them or you can take a moment and think about them.
The earth is round
@rivenator12113 Why don’t you explain to me how a rocket needs air for thrust?
Rocket engines need oxygen to burn fuel. And because an engine needs so much oxygen that the surrounding air can't deliver that, they inject oxygen (stored as liquid) next to the engines.
How would it thrust without air? You just proved that the rocket engines need oxygen to burn fuel not how it would thrust in a vacuum.
newtons third law
@rivenator12113 It essentially works by pushing tons and tons of gas in one direction and flying in the other
The molecules basically bounce of the craft before they leave imparting momentum to it
Newton said it himself
You forget that the gas would diffuse all over space, it wouldn't stay in a place where the rocket would be able to push off it.
but it would be jettisoned in a specific direction when leaving the rocket
oh wait i might have read the statement wrong
Yeah I would say diffuse is the wrong word here
It's a much more violent process of tons and tons of gas getting blasted out
The pressure differential is super large and the gas is travelling really fast
And you don't need gas outside to push off of
You are getting pushed away as the gas gets blasted out
@Albert Einstein why won't you align your name with your pfp lol
@NickC64 What's that?
Ask away
so if the earth is flat in your model how would it angle?
if its flat like a disk
What do you mean?
Everything revolves around the earth
It's not the earth that revolves around the sun
Earth is stationery
ok so in your model the earth is flat
correct?
Yes
Not perfectly flat