The Bible!

wow, nice

During a planets formation, sure, it wasn't a solid. It took many elements over much time to compact into a sphere, which was molded by the hunk of elements orbiting a star.

Indeed.  So its conceivable that for the Earth, the conditions required to form it into a sphere are not present, those conditions being certainly time and a gravitational field.

As I recall, FEers deny the existence of a gravitational field around the Earth.

-Erasmus

Well, I believe in a round Earth. When I use gravity as a variable, it's perfectly fine.

Even though it's been answered countless times before, I'm sure, what holds everything on flat Earth?

Even though it's been answered countless times before, I'm sure, what holds everything on flat Earth?

The Earth is accelerating upwards at a constant rate (1g) and pushes objects that are in contact with it upwards as well.  Objects not in contact with the Earth but above it appear to accelerate towards it at a constant rate.

It is not known what force propels the Earth in this fashion.

if we were being accelerated at a ocnstant force of 1g, wouldnt flight be impossable after your "icewasll" or invisible force?

If the only thing keeping everything on Earth is the force of the Earth moving upwards, wouldn't bodily functions be increasingly harder? I would imagine that walking would be hard without randomly falling. What if you bend over? Now, using gravity as the variable, we exert enough force to counteract ourselves falling over. But if the only force keeping us grounded is the constant propulsion of the Earth, wouldn't that keep us not only grounded, but completely stuck to the ground? How could you overpower this force by yourself in order to use your bodily functions?

If the only thing keeping everything on Earth is the force of the Earth moving upwards, wouldn't bodily functions be increasingly harder?

The amount of force required to overcome gravity and the amount of force required to overcome a given acceleration are the same.  Newton tells us that force is related to acceleration, not speed.  Einstein tells us that locally, gravity and acceleration are indistinguishable.

But if the only force keeping us grounded is the constant propulsion of the Earth, wouldn't that keep us not only grounded, but completely stuck to the ground? How could you overpower this force by yourself in order to use your bodily functions?

Since the Earth's acceleration is the same as the acceleration due to gravity in the RE model (1g), it is no harder to overcome the effect on the FE than it is on the RE.

Imagine being in an elevator that is not just moving upwards, but accelerating upwards.  Certainly it would be harder to jump than if the elevator were not accelerating, but it would still be possible.

According to Einstein, what flat Earth believers perceive to be the acceleration of the flat Earth keeping us grounded could very well be gravity.

According to Einstein, what flat Earth believers perceive to be the acceleration of the flat Earth keeping us grounded could very well be gravity.

Except that the effect seems to always operate in a direction perpendicular to the ground, which would not be the case if the flat Earth were generating a gravitational field.

Perpendicular would be if the Earth was flat, and gravity was pulling downward. Visualizing this, a gravitational pull will always be perpendicular with whatever object is exerting it, using the ground as the horizontal crossing point and gravity pulling to the ground as the vertical cross.

Perpendicular would be if the Earth was flat, and gravity was pulling downward. Visualizing this, a gravitational pull will always be perpendicular with whatever object is exerting it

Right... that's what's observed, and what's predicted by the FE model.  What's the problem?

The problem is that flat Earth believers don't believe in the Earth's gravity.

The problem is that flat Earth believers don't believe in the Earth's gravity.

How is that a problem?

What I said was: the FE model of "why stuff falls" makes the same predictions as the RE model, and that the predictions are good.

Maybe I misunderstood. Flat Earth models predict that objects fall due to gravity. Is that not what you just posted? How does that make any sense, if they don't believe in the Earth's gravity?

Flat Earth models predict that objects fall due to gravity. Is that not what you just posted?

I'm sorry if I wasn't clear.  What I meant was, the FE models predict that objects fall in the same way that they would in a gravitational field.

Then is it not safe to say that flat Earth does in fact have a gravitational field? If the acceleration of the Earth brings the same properties to the planet, could you not call that gravity? And if you called that gravity, would you not be right?

The equivalence between a gravitational field and acceleration is a purely local phenomenon.  The way in which they are equivalent is that you can't tell them apart.

Other than that, you're right, in a sense.  General relativity does have a concept of a "gravitational field".  All "gravititation" is due to motion through curved space (a kind of acceleration).

Then is it not safe to say that flat Earth does in fact have a gravitational field? If the acceleration of the Earth brings the same properties to the planet, could you not call that gravity? And if you called that gravity, would you not be right?

No, the effects of gravity are reduces by distance, the effects of Acceleration apply only to those things directly or indirectly having the force applied to them.

Under the FE Senerio, and object on the back side of the moon would have the same psuedo gravity as on on the surface of the earth, and so would every spot in between.

welbourne was right doubter, your theory about gravity is backwords

i don't know if anyone else has mentioned this, and i don't know if it has been commented on this post, but ever since around 2000 BC it has been widely accepted by anyone who truely cared to think about it that the world is, infact, a globe.


it wasn't until farely recently (as in when America came to be) that they were trying to romantise Columbus by saying that everyone thought the world was flat but he thought it was round.


The actual problem was that they all thought that it was not possible to transverse the atlantic because of a mixture of: Bad weather, heavy seas, and Monsters (ie ships never reapearing)

welbourne was right doubter, your theory about gravity is backwords

How so?

I'm an atheist and proud of it. I am also a nilhilist, so my opinion is that there is no purpoise to life. No magical afterlife, there's just the brief life you lead, then you die.

That's my view.

I think Materialism is an idea you would like. It assumes that the universe will eventually contract and create another big bang. Because quantum mechanics pretty much says that anything is possible, no matter how slim the chance of it, eventually a universe will come that resembles the one we are in now, including another instance of your body and conciousness. It may be zillions and zillions and zillions of years after you die, but you won't be aware of it because hey, YOU'RE DEAD.

As for people who believe in an afterlife of anykind I ask...
Do you remember what it was like before you existed?
Then why should you after you stop existing?

I'm an atheist and proud of it. I am also a nilhilist, so my opinion is that there is no purpoise to life. No magical afterlife, there's just the brief life you lead, then you die.

That's my view.

AMEN!. In my opinion the point of life is decided by you, by your morales.  To belive in god is like someone still beleiving in greek mythology (but now with these flat earthers there still is a chance).  The only reason religion is so widespread is because it is pounded into your head every since you are young.  Anyone who has read Aldous Huxley's Brave New World can make a connection.  This is not to be mistaken as me bashing religion. I feel that religion gives believers something that i dont have.  But also blind faith can be bad as well.  If you are a christian and support war, isnt that kind of oxymoronal since Jesus was a pascifist?

Quote from: "Ashantai"

I'm an atheist and proud of it. I am also a nilhilist, so my opinion is that there is no purpoise to life. No magical afterlife, there's just the brief life you lead, then you die.

That's my view.

AMEN!. In my opinion the point of life is decided by you, by your morales.  To belive in god is like someone still beleiving in greek mythology (but now with these flat earthers there still is a chance).  The only reason religion is so widespread is because it is pounded into your head every since you are young.  Anyone who has read Aldous Huxley's Brave New World can make a connection.  This is not to be mistaken as me bashing religion. I feel that religion gives believers something that i dont have.  But also blind faith can be bad as well.  If you are a christian and support war, isnt that kind of oxymoronal since Jesus was a pascifist?

I disagree with you entirely.  I'd much rather believe in eternal salvation than rotting in a ground.