Quote from: Fatman3001 on December 29, 2015, 05:43:22 PM

Quote from: Hyena on December 28, 2015, 02:08:33 PM

I don't believe in a magma filled ball Earth theory either. It simply has too many holes in it. When was the last time Copernicus'es model was proven with a physics experiment? It's funny how they demand you to prove your theory but refuse to prove theirs.

http://www.smarterthanthat.com/astronomy/top-10-ways-to-know-the-earth-is-not-flat/

I saw a hyena once. They're much bigger than I thought they were.

Oh, just curious. How do you explain the Northern and Southern lights (Aurora Borealis and Aurora Australis)?

The sticks and shadows experiment was the only point I found interesting from that link. Is it really possible to calculate the circumference of the Earth like that? If so then it definitely kicks a hole into the flat earth theory. It doesn't puncture the concave earth theory though.

But unfortunately, many of the other ways listed there were crap. The webpage even lists some of the stuff that is used to prove that the Earth is not convex. So it's laughable. For example, ships that have disappeared behind the horizon are still visible with a telescope, NASA photos are fake, centre of gravity could very well be in the middle of the hollow earth's crust not in the centre of the planet.

Since I think flat earth theory is weaker than the concave earth theory, hollow earth theory and expanding earth theory, I would not bother to explain some northern and southern lights thing. I'm not a flat earth believer anyway. I'm just an opponent of the Copernican system.

Quote from: aminorex on December 29, 2015, 08:02:25 PM

I fear you will require that particle expansion accelerates with the inverse of particle separation, which will result in path-dependent anisotropic particle size variations. I can measure the size of atoms after path variations, and compare them, to invalidate such a theory, on uniform curvature assumptions. Something akin to general relativity might rescue it, however. This is the path that leads to epicycles.

IMO this approach is a more interesting innovation: http://arxiv.org/pdf/1001.0785v1.pdf

Not so easy to dismiss the gravity by expansion theory. What if Planck length is not a constant? What if it is increasing in time but since everything is growing in size proportionally to the increase in Planck length we are unable to detect the change in that constant? Perhaps you should also have a look at this video:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bd-QqKmVyfU

Seems that this guy has more explanations in his sleeve than I have.

As for Newton, I must admit I don't fancy his theories. He assumed astral bodies to be filled while in reality there's a good chance they are hollow, which would invalidate the calculations of their mass according to Newton's "laws".

According to the article you pointed out gravity is an entropic force. So the universe is intelligent enough to understand that for some reason it needs to increase its entropy? Interesting indeed, but also ridiculous. As a result, the god/universe just generates this force "gravity" out of thin vacuum to make everything look more chaotic in the macro cosmos while not affecting the flow of energy in the micro cosmos. This is the first time I see a theoretical physicist trying to explain the world with the help of god except that instead of god they cunningly use the term entropic force which equates to "system's statistical tendency to increase its entropy". So when a theoretical physicist is in trouble and doesn't know how to explain something, they will come up with a clever term such as entropic force and just use that term. Same goes to utterly religious people who explain everything with the word "god". I wouldn't say one is better than the other.