Flat Earth and plants

[MyMatesBrainwashed]

Flat earthers sometimes seem to have a problem with up and down and I was thinking about how plants are a pretty decent indication of those two directions. Down being where the roots go, up being where the bit we see goes.

And then with not being a flat earther it's difficult to imagine that gravity isn't playing a role here. So if I was a flat earther, would I have to assume that density and buoyancy were playing a role here?

A quick google throws up Auxin (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Auxin) that is influenced by gravity, so I suppose you could still argue density and buoyancy are involved instead to a certain degree there.

But then you think of growing plants on a rotating platform like a Gravitron fair ground ride. Rotating fast enough that the seeds wouldn't fall down the walls (due to gravity/density buoyancy). If the plant reacts to a force (like gravity) then you'd expect the roots to grow horizontally to the ground rather than down towards the ground.

Google suggests a dude called Thomas Knight did this in the early 1800s and the results were as expected.

What I like about this is the whole fictitious force thing. Trying not to get into a centrifugal/centripetal force argument, the plants appear to be reacting to a fictitious force in this setup. Something that sometimes gets mentioned in the whole gravity doesn't exist nonsense.

I'm intrigued how density/buoyancy could be used to explain away such a phenomenon. I like that vacuums aren't involved. Anyone any ideas?

 

[Z.W. Wolf]

The predictable response would be: It's fake. Plant roots don't do that. That experiment is disinformation. Thomas Knight was demonic.

 

[Scaramanga]

And then with not being a flat earther it's difficult to imagine that gravity isn't playing a role here. So if I was a flat earther, would I have to assume that density and buoyancy were playing a role here?

The amusing thing about flat earth nonsense is that they talk about 'buoyancy' yet don't seem to grasp that buoyancy is directly a product of gravity creating pressure differentials. Buoyancy without gravity is meaningless.

 

[FatPhil]

But then you think of growing plants on a rotating platform like a Gravitron fair ground ride. Rotating fast enough that the seeds wouldn't fall down the walls (due to gravity/density buoyancy). If the plant reacts to a force (like gravity) then you'd expect the roots to grow horizontally to the ground rather than down towards the ground.

Google suggests a dude called Thomas Knight did this in the early 1800s and the results were as expected.

What I like about this is the whole fictitious force thing. Trying not to get into a centrifugal/centripetal force argument, the plants appear to be reacting to a fictitious force in this setup. Something that sometimes gets mentioned in the whole gravity doesn't exist nonsense.

Einstein's equivalence principle supports the idea that seeds cannot distinguish between gravitational forces and acceleration (in GR, gravity isn't even a conventional "force"). So if the centrifuge says the force it outwards, "down" (which is merely our perception of the force) is outwards.

 

[Mendel]

The predictable response would be: It's fake. Plant roots don't do that. That experiment is disinformation. Thomas Knight was demonic.

It's reproducible. If a guy could set this up 200 years ago in his garden, certainly in today's age of electric motors anyone who really wanted could set this up at home.

 

[Mendel]

Einstein's equivalence principle supports the idea that seeds cannot distinguish between gravitational forces and acceleration (in GR, gravity isn't even a conventional "force"). So if the centrifuge says the force it outwards, "down" (which is merely our perception of the force) is outwards.

Yes. But the pressure differential governing buoyancy is at right angles to a horizontal wheel. If FE "physics" are correct, then "down" is governed by buoyancy, and the plants on that wheel should grow upward and not inward. But they grow inward.
So this is a classic case where the two theories give different predictions that are decided by experiment.

 

[Scaramanga]

Just thought up a disproof of the flat Earth that I don't think anyone ever considered before....

Apparently the Earth is stationary and the Sun and stars, etc rotate around the Earth on glass spheres or something like that. But...even the most perfect glass produces some friction. So the 'sphere' would, over time, drag the Earth's atmosphere with it. Give it a few thousand years and we'd be enduring 1000mph easterly winds all day as the atmosphere kept up with the rotating sphere.

 

[Mendel]

Just thought up a disproof of the flat Earth that I don't think anyone ever considered before....

Apparently the Earth is stationary and the Sun and stars, etc rotate around the Earth on glass spheres or something like that. But...even the most perfect glass produces some friction. So the 'sphere' would, over time, drag the Earth's atmosphere with it. Give it a few thousand years and we'd be enduring 1000mph easterly winds all day as the atmosphere kept up with the rotating sphere.

more wind-based globe proofs: https://www.metabunk.org/threads/ca...way-no-hurricanes-crossing-the-equator.13237/

note also that air gets accelerated in the equatorial regions, rises as hot air, and moves towards the poles where Earth's surface speed is slower; thus jet streams appear.

 

[JMartJr]

Just thought up a disproof of the flat Earth that I don't think anyone ever considered before....

Apparently the Earth is stationary and the Sun and stars, etc rotate around the Earth on glass spheres or something like that. But...even the most perfect glass produces some friction. So the 'sphere' would, over time, drag the Earth's atmosphere with it. Give it a few thousand years and we'd be enduring 1000mph easterly winds all day as the atmosphere kept up with the rotating sphere.

I have had discussions with with Flat Earthists who argue this is what causes the jet streams. Well, almost this.

The current prevailing belief (unless it has changed this morning) seems to be in a "firmament" dome under, on or above which the Sun, moon and stars orbit over the Earth. Due to friction, or magnetism, or handwavium, this imparts a motion to the air analogous to what you describe. Never occurred to me to ask why that wind would not eventually become constant 1000 mph winds (or why it wouldn't result in more air being flung to the edges, creating high pressure in the south and a partial vacuum at the North Pole, which would be potentially fatal to Santa and possibly negatively impact the ability of reindeer to fly properly. I suppose it could be argued that friction with the Earth and the dome serve to slow the winds down... or it might be simpler to dramatically change the subject.

 

[Stryder]

Give it a few thousand years and we'd be enduring 1000mph easterly winds all day as the atmosphere kept up with the rotating sphere.

I have had discussions with with Flat Earthists who argue this is what causes the jet streams. Well, almost this.

Wait! What? As we all know, jet streams are WESTERLY winds.

The main jet streams are located near the altitude of the tropopause and are westerly winds, flowing west to east around the globe.

Source: Wikipedia

A dome moving east to west causing easterly winds is NOT an explanation of the Jet Stream westerly winds. As usual, FEers strike out yet again.

 

[Ann K]

Flat earthers sometimes seem to have a problem with up and down and I was thinking about how plants are a pretty decent indication of those two directions. Down being where the roots go, up being where the bit we see goes.

If you're talking about plants you have to define "growth", don't you? Work on the principal that things get bigger/produce more cells when they are well fed. Soil and its moisture and nutrients are generally "down" and sunlight is generally "up", so the part of the plant which takes in water and nutrients (the roots) grow into the soil, and the part of the plant which photosynthesizes (the leaves) grow toward the sunlight. I'm not sure that a gravity argument has anything to do with it.

A much simpler argument would be to consider which direction rain falls.

 

[MyMatesBrainwashed]

If you're talking about plants you have to define "growth", don't you? Work on the principal that things get bigger/produce more cells when they are well fed. Soil and its moisture and nutrients are generally "down" and sunlight is generally "up", so the part of the plant which takes in water and nutrients (the roots) grow into the soil, and the part of the plant which photosynthesizes (the leaves) grow toward the sunlight. I'm not sure that a gravity argument has anything to do with it.

I do like your thinking as a flat earther here.

The point would be that soil, moisture and nutrients surround the seed entirely. There is some above it, below it, and to the sides. It could be made equal in all directions.

Yet it somehow decides a direction to grow.

I hadn't even considered that it grows up without sunlight at the start of its life.

 

[FatPhil]

Yes. But the pressure differential governing buoyancy is at right angles to a horizontal wheel. If FE "physics" are correct, then "down" is governed by buoyancy, and the plants on that wheel should grow upward and not inward. But they grow inward.
So this is a classic case where the two theories give different predictions that are decided by experiment.

I plant seeds in earth, not air, so buoyancy has no bearing on sprouting direction. Even hydroponics should give the "force is indistinguishable from gravity" result, because the fluid is being dragged on exactly the same path.

Of course, we must remember that there is no such thing as "FE physics", they have no model that's even superficially consistent with reality, so comparing our reality with theirs is like nailing jelly to the ceiling.

 

[JMartJr]

Wait! What? As we all know, jet streams are WESTERLY winds.

Obviously you are not up on the properties of handwavium and how it influences air 1.0...

 

[MyMatesBrainwashed]

I plant seeds in earth, not air, so buoyancy has no bearing on sprouting direction.

Oof. I like that (although I don't know if you are using that as a flat earther argument or not. Can you clarify, please?)

Seeds could germinate in air though, couldn't they? Maybe get rid of the soil.

 

[FatPhil]

Oof. I like that (although I don't know if you are using that as a flat earther argument or not. Can you clarify, please?)

Seeds could germinate in air though, couldn't they? Maybe get rid of the soil.

Vascular plants need water intake through their roots, and just air cannot provide that. Even things like mosses that don't rely on roots for water intake generally fall back onto rain or dew rather than just atmospheric moisture as a source. However, the natural world is far more variety than I can possibly comprehend, I'm sure there are some plants capable of solving this problem. But they aren't the seeds I plant.

 

[Scaramanga]

Wait! What? As we all know, jet streams are WESTERLY winds.

Well there's obviously an invisible spinning dome between us and the sun that reverses the 1000mph wind created by the Sun's spinning dome, as it rotates the other way.