The Flat Earth Society
Flat Earth Discussion Boards => Flat Earth Q&A => Topic started by: Ubeliever on July 29, 2007, 01:25:31 AM
-
A friend showed me this site... and at first I laughed really hard... No offense... but then I read through a bunch of the topics and found the theories quiet interesting... I am a firm believer in that the World is Round. Science in my eyes have proven this fact manytimes over. I read the FA's and Q&A Forums... And one question keeps coming to mind...
In RE Theory there is a Mathmatical Therum Called the Earth Surface Curve. This is used in Areonautical Mapping and the Theory of the Shortest Distances between two points on the Flat Globular is in fact an Arc and not a straight line. ( You would be appearing to travel in a straight line but in reality it would be an arc )
(I know you all hate NASA but here is a Globular Map (http://val.gsfc.nasa.gov/projects/map_globe/north_globe_200.jpg) when combinding the ends and making it sphereical a straight line would in fact appear as an arc making it a longer distance to travel where as if you take the globe and draw a straight line then flatten in like the Globular Map it would appear as an Arc)
I would like to know FE'ers Stance on this Idea...
Hypothetical Situation (if it were possible by geometrics): I stand At the furthest point of the continental US... One the far end far across the Ocean someone stands on the closest continetal Europe/Africa point. We both hold a piece of string at the same height and tightness so the middle would not sag.
If the FE theory is Correct the String would remain the same distance of the surface in the middle of the ocean as it is in both US and Europe/Africa.
Where in RE Theory. The String would actually be submerged under the water in the middle of the string as the Surface Curve that the RE Theory States would happen.
PS>>> I meant for my Screen name to be OBeliever :-D
-
I don't understand your question. Surely no one has ever tried that idea.
-
He means to say that if you and another person were to hold a piece of string taught over a large distance, than one of two things would happen:
1: FE: The String would be just that, taught. It would not contact the ground in between the two people.
2: RE: The string would be submerged in the body of water between the two people due to the curvature of the Earth.
Now, this is a very good point to make, and it seems that it would work very well.
However, all FE'ers would say that the string itself was not taught, but was bending in the middle, as to create the submersion. Even if you used a material that could not bend, they would deny this experiment.
So, good experiment, but wouldn't be accepted by most FE'ers here.
PS. When I mean most, I mean Tom. THinking on it, the number of FE'ers here would qualify Tom as most...
-
He means to say that if you and another person were to hold a piece of string taught over a large distance, than one of two things would happen:
1: FE: The String would be just that, taught. It would not contact the ground in between the two people.
2: RE: The string would be submerged in the body of water between the two people due to the curvature of the Earth.
Now, this is a very good point to make, and it seems that it would work very well.
However, all FE'ers would say that the string itself was not taught, but was bending in the middle, as to create the submersion. Even if you used a material that could not bend, they would deny this experiment.
So, good experiment, but wouldn't be accepted by most FE'ers here.
PS. When I mean most, I mean Tom. THinking on it, the number of FE'ers here would qualify Tom as most...
Exactly what I am asking...
What is the FE'ers view on the Earth Surface Curve Theorem
Here is an interesting Article I found and talks about the Earth Surface Curve
http://www.newton.dep.anl.gov/askasci/gen99/gen99427.htm (http://www.newton.dep.anl.gov/askasci/gen99/gen99427.htm)
Which goes into more detail about how the Earth Surface Curve Theory Works and why it support a RE and not a FE
-
Yeah. We try to avoid ridiculous hypotheticals as evidence of either position. ::)
-
...
If the FE theory is Correct the String would remain the same distance of the surface in the middle of the ocean as it is in both US and Europe/Africa.
Where in RE Theory. The String would actually be submerged under the water in the middle of the string as the Surface Curve that the RE Theory States would happen.
PS>>> I meant for my Screen name to be OBeliever :-D
I suggest that you redesign your experiment. Instead of a thread, use a ray of light. Then you have Experiment 0013 of the RE Primer. The team did a great job documenting this. In particular, Trekky posted a great photo.
P. S., You can change your screen name.
-
These 'professors' wouldn't stand a snowball's chance in hell on these forums...
That is easy.
Observation of the Earth from outside the planet shows it to be round,
nearly spherical.
-
P. S., You can change your screen name.
What was yours before you deleted all your old posts?
-
Its basicaly a physical way of testing the Wave Crest arguement. True, this question has been asked before, but this idea might be fun to try, if you can find a long enough piece of string that is!
However, I think a beam of light would be more practical. Put the transmitter and the receiver at an equal height above sea level (or any other benchmark you care to use), then see if you can transmit it without it having to reflect.
Perhaps this would be easier to test on salt flats?
Good work Obeliever.
-
Science in my eyes have proven this fact manytimes over.
That is the problem. Science was founded by Satanists to turn people from God. If you need proof the Earth is flat read the Bible!
-
And again, bye bye credibility.
-
Science in my eyes have proven this fact manytimes over.
That is the problem. Science was founded by Satanists to turn people from God. If you need proof the Earth is flat read the Bible!
Daniel?
-
Yeah. We try to avoid ridiculous hypotheticals as evidence of either position. ::)
Life Rotates around Hypothetical Situations... So why limit yourself... FE Theory is all based on Hypotheticals... Especially since no one has Proof of this "Ice Wall"
Hypocritical much?
I thought about a light beam... and I know of that experiement but I was trying not to use that as an arguement as been FE'er seem to believe that the Sun is a "Spot Light" and rotates around the (i already forgot what they call it) North Pole... In that case the experiement would fail due to an outside influence...
Also Moisture in the air would also interfer so I was thinking of something with less reflective qualities
-
P. S., You can change your screen name.
Whysa would I change my screenname?
Science in my eyes have proven this fact manytimes over.
That is the problem. Science was founded by Satanists to turn people from God. If you need proof the Earth is flat read the Bible!
Danny! Your back!Its basicaly a physical way of testing the Wave Crest arguement. True, this question has been asked before, but this idea might be fun to try, if you can find a long enough piece of string that is!
However, I think a beam of light would be more practical. Put the transmitter and the receiver at an equal height above sea level (or any other benchmark you care to use), then see if you can transmit it without it having to reflect.
Perhaps this would be easier to test on salt flats?
Good work Obeliever.
And to use a ray of light, the atmosphere would have to be absent (refraction and whatnot). A superpowered laser might work, but... Meh, you could probably do this with a hundred yards of so of some strong, not bendy material. All you would need is a couple inch drop in height to prove a round Earth. Then again, anybody got a hundred yard long piece of supersteel?
-
A string wouldn't be good because strings are always under the presence of gravity and would bend down, so even on a flat Earth, it would touch. Hence you can't prove anything. (I think that the curves they match are called catenary's.)
I think a laser beam would work well.
-
A string wouldn't be good because strings are always under the presence of gravity and would bend down, so even on a flat Earth, it would touch. Hence you can't prove anything. (I think that the curves they match are called catenary's.)
I think a laser beam would work well.
Opps, I meant gravitation hahaha...
Gravity exists (at slow speeds)...
-
gravity doesn't exist at fast speeds?
-
Yeah. We try to avoid ridiculous hypotheticals as evidence of either position. ::)
Life Rotates around Hypothetical Situations... So why limit yourself... FE Theory is all based on Hypotheticals... Especially since no one has Proof of this "Ice Wall"
Hypocritical much?
I thought about a light beam... and I know of that experiement but I was trying not to use that as an arguement as been FE'er seem to believe that the Sun is a "Spot Light" and rotates around the (i already forgot what they call it) North Pole... In that case the experiement would fail due to an outside influence...
Also Moisture in the air would also interfer so I was thinking of something with less reflective qualities
Actually Flat Earth Theory is derived from real zetetic experimentation. You should read Earth Not a Globe (http://). You'd be surprised by how scientific the supposed proof of a flat Earth is.
This experiment is completely impractical. If you could figure out a more practical way of performing it, it might work. But really, there are so many practical ways to prove the Earth's roundness an idea like this is ridiculous.
-
Flat Earther reporting for duty. Your post was pretty huge, but I'll give some of it a crack.
Sorry, by the way, about the low level of FE response, but as has been already pointed out, there are about 10 of us who believe here, about 3 of whom have posted in the last couple of months or so.
What scientific evidence do you have which strongly supports the theory of a flat Earth? And how much has this "evidence" been scrutinized by the scientific community? If you are going to base your belief in a flat Earth on some scientific experiments and data, this data had damn well better stand up to peer review. I am unaware of the publishing of any of these studies in any legitimate scientific journals. I am also unaware of any scientists who believe in such a theory.
For me, it is not only the strength of arguments for the Flat Earth, but also the weakness of arguments for a Round Earth. To my mind, since the Earth appears flat, it rests with globularists to prove their outlandish claims, which so far they have failed to adequately do (despite the best efforts of the Conspiracy).
In the way of strong evidence FOR the FE, Earth: Not a Globe is definitely worth a read (despite what the resident globularists have said about it in this thread). "Torn to shreds" is a huge overstatement - as far as I know, none of them have replicated even a single one of the experiments in that book.
There's also plenty of evidence (some presented on this site) for the existence of the Conspiracy. If the Earth wasn't flat, why would the Conspiracy exist? I've posted quite a few phenomena which testify to its existence (and the subsequent true shape of the Earth).
The things listed under The Earth in Space portion of the FAQ offer some totally bogus "facts" and data about Earth and the sun and the moon. And this is not even to mention the outstandingly ridiculous explanations of a sunset or Universal Acceleration. So this brings me to question these things as well. What is the scientific evidence behind this? Feel free to enlighten me. Explain it as in depth as necessary, and do not hide any of its complexity. I would love to hear how it was discovered that Earth and the sun and stars are all accelerating upward due to this Universal Acceleration.
There's a 14 page stickied thread on the subject - with more material soon to be added by yours truly (an article by an associate on the photoelectric theory of solar suspension).
It was discovered that the Earth was accelerating because things appear to fall to the Earth when dropped. Actually, the Earth is "falling" towards the objects. Round Earthers explain this with the theory of gravity - an invisible, never-observed, mystical force. If gravity actually existed, it would scrunch the Earth into a sphere. It hasn't.
At the end of that section it goes on to say that sustained spaceflight is not possible. This is the most bizarre and perplexing lie I have heard. My current research is on the Galilean moons of Jupiter and how they effect the radio wave enhancement of Jupiter through interactions within Jupiter's plasma field. In order to study this, we use data collected from the Cassini spacecraft during its flyby of Jupiter back in 2000-2001. Do not even try to tell me that I make up bogus data to analyze and study, or that I am "fed" some bogus data, because I get the data directly from the spacecraft's data processing unit.
You told me not to, but...
How do you know you're getting data straight from the "craft"? How would you know that the Conspiracy wasn't sending you it from Earth?
You mention that gravitational variation with altitude is possibly a myth, but it is not. It has been experimentally verified not hundreds, but thousands of times by practicing scientists all over the world.
So why doesn't this variation show up when I, and others, test it? Is it only observable by Round Earthers?
You claim that the whole "round Earth" theory is a conspiracy perpetuated by all of the world governments.
Only the ones with major space programs. Various scientific and business groups are also involved, but government involvement probably only occurs in nations such as the USA (and the former USSR) as well as a few others.
This is a laughable argument at best. Like all conspiracy theories, surely you've got some kind of evidence to try to back this up, right? I saw no mention of evidence of this conspiracy in that section of the FAQ, which leads me to believe it does not exist. A conspiracy may exist when you find mountains of undeniable evidence pointing to a conspiracy. But I'll tell you what does not constitute evidence: the fact that every government on the planet disagrees with your medieval, pseudo-scientific stance. That is simply a case of Flat Earth proponents making more far-out, totally outlandish statements supported by no facts. "They disagree with something that we believe to be true, therefore there must be a conspiracy among all of them to hide the truth." That's an absolutely painfully irrational and illogical move to make. I understand that the support for this theory lies on logical fallacies, but that one is just too blatant!
A good place to start is the murder of Scott of the Antarctic. After that, there's a tonne of posts on this site which address individual components of the body of evidence which exists for the Conspiracy, and a few searchs for relevent terms should turn some up.
You also fail to offer any sort of motive for this conspiracy. What would these world governments possibly have to gain from us "wrongfully" believing the world to be spherical? You threw out the idea of money, as if it was the safe standard to assume in the case of a conspiracy. But can you hypothesize how there would be monetary gain from such misleading of the public?
The combined budgets of the world's space programs are tremendous. Vertical space travel is a physical impossibility. You do the maths.
The ice wall. What is the scientific evidence for this invisible ice wall? It appears to just be a mechanism invented by Flat Earthers to try to explain phenomena that would be totally impossible if a flat Earth really existed.
Scott of the Antarctic's murder is a good pointer that there's something fishy in Antarctica. The Conspiracy systematically murders or bribes everybody who reaches the Ice Wall, Scott being the first.
I'd like to understand how this contradiction is explained.
Those are alternative possible explanations, believed by different FE factions.
Ironic that you answer with this statement, considering the curious complete lack of evidence for the stance you are taking. And there, of course, is mountains of evidence for this. Airline pilots do this quite often.
Yeah, that particular FAQ answer is a rather twatish and unhelpful one. Sorry for that. The key to answering the question posed lies in the geography of the Flat Earth. A cursory glance at one of our maps will make the answer to the "over the edge" criticism glaringly obvious.
I think that the accepted theory is that it does exist and that the SUn and Moon have a slight gravitational pull, causing this. This would cause many things that they also believe to not be true, but they continue to believe conflicting theories.
It's impossible for these bodies to exert gravitational pull, because gravity does not exist! I still hold that no serious Flat Earther truly believes in this contradictory and absurd claim.
Well, that's it. Hope I was of some help. I'm also sorry that my answers aren't more lengthy or comprehensive, there was a lot to deal with in a single post. However, I guarantee that almost all questions or criticisms will have "precedent" on these forums already - previous posts are a valuable resource in finding rebuttals, counter-rebuttals, counter-counter-rebuttals, etc., etc.
Here's 5 holes in an FE (http://theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=14448.0). I can point out more if you like, including the thread you accidentally replied in. This is Obeliever's thread, not Lorcan's.
-
Science in my eyes have proven this fact manytimes over.
That is the problem. Science was founded by Satanists to turn people from God. If you need proof the Earth is flat read the Bible!
The Bible is a Book written by man... Science is also created by man... One says one the other say another... Which is more ture?
A book that has had its stories torn apart by laws of science of facts...
Or a Method(science) that is believe to be part of conspiracy by only a handful of people around the world?
Its hard to say...
But try not to use a religious view point on my question as I did not mention a single world about God or the Bible in the questioning... I asked about Viewes and Theories based of FE'er on a RE Theorem so only correct answer will be one Based on theory....
A string wouldn't be good because strings are always under the presence of gravity and would bend down, so even on a flat Earth, it would touch. Hence you can't prove anything. (I think that the curves they match are called catenary's.)
I think a laser beam would work well.
dont get me wrong I unerstand your retore(sp?) on that but in FE theory from my understanding There is no such thing as gravity and there for the string would not be affected by that concept. And Since the Law of Acceleration and Realativity...
Since the Disc would be moving at 1g the string would to so it would not sag in the middle since an object in motion will stay in motion unless acted upon by an outside force.... And the Froce of an object on an independent object would cause the independent object to obntain the same accerlation as the orginal object unless acted upon by an outside force...
Dogplatter
I read your respones it seems to be in respons to someone elses post... I did not see any mention of the Earth Surface Curve Theory or the views towards the experiement I suggested :-D
-
gravity doesn't exist at fast speeds?
You must have seen all the debate & discussion about the force of gravity being non-existent! Foolishness...
-
Science in my eyes have proven this fact manytimes over.
That is the problem. Science was founded by Satanists to turn people from God. If you need proof the Earth is flat read the Bible!
The Bible is a Book written by man... Science is also created by man... One says one the other say another... Which is more ture?
A book that has had its stories torn apart by laws of science of facts...
Or a Method(science) that is believe to be part of conspiracy by only a handful of people around the world?
Its hard to say...
But try not to use a religious view point on my question as I did not mention a single world about God or the Bible in the questioning... I asked about Viewes and Theories based of FE'er on a RE Theorem so only correct answer will be one Based on theory....
A string wouldn't be good because strings are always under the presence of gravity and would bend down, so even on a flat Earth, it would touch. Hence you can't prove anything. (I think that the curves they match are called catenary's.)
I think a laser beam would work well.
dont get me wrong I unerstand your retore(sp?) on that but in FE theory from my understanding There is no such thing as gravity and there for the string would not be affected by that concept. And Since the Law of Acceleration and Realativity...
Since the Disc would be moving at 1g the string would to so it would not sag in the middle since an object in motion will stay in motion unless acted upon by an outside force.... And the Froce of an object on an independent object would cause the independent object to obntain the same accerlation as the orginal object unless acted upon by an outside force...
If the disc were accelerating upwards but the string were not accelerating upwards, then the string would sag in the middle. Why wouldn't it? (They do all the time; look at telephone wires...)
Dogplatter
I read your respones it seems to be in respons to someone elses post... I did not see any mention of the Earth Surface Curve Theory or the views towards the experiement I suggested :-D
[/quote]
-
You must have seen all the debate & discussion about the force of gravity being non-existent! Foolishness...
Yea, the force of gravity doesn't exist at any speed!
-
Flat Earther reporting for duty. Your post was pretty huge, but I'll give some of it a crack.
Sorry, by the way, about the low level of FE response, but as has been already pointed out, there are about 10 of us who believe here, about 3 of whom have posted in the last couple of months or so.
What scientific evidence do you have which strongly supports the theory of a flat Earth? And how much has this "evidence" been scrutinized by the scientific community? If you are going to base your belief in a flat Earth on some scientific experiments and data, this data had damn well better stand up to peer review. I am unaware of the publishing of any of these studies in any legitimate scientific journals. I am also unaware of any scientists who believe in such a theory.
For me, it is not only the strength of arguments for the Flat Earth, but also the weakness of arguments for a Round Earth. To my mind, since the Earth appears flat, it rests with globularists to prove their outlandish claims, which so far they have failed to adequately do (despite the best efforts of the Conspiracy).
From our point of view, your views are outlandish claims which you have failed to prove adequately
In the way of strong evidence FOR the FE, Earth: Not a Globe is definitely worth a read (despite what the resident globularists have said about it in this thread). "Torn to shreds" is a huge overstatement - as far as I know, none of them have replicated even a single one of the experiments in that book.
Torn to shreds as in the experiments validity disproved. This has been done by logic, science, and the fact that when people do the experiments, they get the results that they wanted.
There's also plenty of evidence (some presented on this site) for the existence of the Conspiracy. If the Earth wasn't flat, why would the Conspiracy exist? I've posted quite a few phenomena which testify to its existence (and the subsequent true shape of the Earth).
Links please. I have seen no links by you to evidence of the COnspiracy.
The things listed under The Earth in Space portion of the FAQ offer some totally bogus "facts" and data about Earth and the sun and the moon. And this is not even to mention the outstandingly ridiculous explanations of a sunset or Universal Acceleration. So this brings me to question these things as well. What is the scientific evidence behind this? Feel free to enlighten me. Explain it as in depth as necessary, and do not hide any of its complexity. I would love to hear how it was discovered that Earth and the sun and stars are all accelerating upward due to this Universal Acceleration.
There's a 14 page stickied thread on the subject - with more material soon to be added by yours truly (an article by an associate on the photoelectric theory of solar suspension).
yay!
It was discovered that the Earth was accelerating because things appear to fall to the Earth when dropped. Actually, the Earth is "falling" towards the objects. Round Earthers explain this with the theory of gravity - an invisible, never-observed, mystical force. If gravity actually existed, it would scrunch the Earth into a sphere. It hasn't.
???This is almost on line with Tom. THe theory of gravity does not exist in your FE, because of the said effect. But if the earth were round, the force of gravity wouldn't be able to move the earth around to a sphere, since it was already one. Oh, and "never observed"? Solar eclipses, when the moon is in front of the Sun, we can see stars that they both should cover, but don't.
At the end of that section it goes on to say that sustained spaceflight is not possible. This is the most bizarre and perplexing lie I have heard. My current research is on the Galilean moons of Jupiter and how they effect the radio wave enhancement of Jupiter through interactions within Jupiter's plasma field. In order to study this, we use data collected from the Cassini spacecraft during its flyby of Jupiter back in 2000-2001. Do not even try to tell me that I make up bogus data to analyze and study, or that I am "fed" some bogus data, because I get the data directly from the spacecraft's data processing unit.
You told me not to, but...
How do you know you're getting data straight from the "craft"? How would you know that the Conspiracy wasn't sending you it from Earth?
At least say something if your going type it.
You mention that gravitational variation with altitude is possibly a myth, but it is not. It has been experimentally verified not hundreds, but thousands of times by practicing scientists all over the world.
So why doesn't this variation show up when I, and others, test it? Is it only observable by Round Earthers?
Is this a joke? Thousands of people have tested this, and the variance has been shown. Have you posted your results? Has a neutral observer verified the results? Two edged sword Dog...
You claim that the whole "round Earth" theory is a conspiracy perpetuated by all of the world governments.
Only the ones with major space programs. Various scientific and business groups are also involved, but government involvement probably only occurs in nations such as the USA (and the former USSR) as well as a few others.
IF my calculations are correct, millions.
This is a laughable argument at best. Like all conspiracy theories, surely you've got some kind of evidence to try to back this up, right? I saw no mention of evidence of this conspiracy in that section of the FAQ, which leads me to believe it does not exist. A conspiracy may exist when you find mountains of undeniable evidence pointing to a conspiracy. But I'll tell you what does not constitute evidence: the fact that every government on the planet disagrees with your medieval, pseudo-scientific stance. That is simply a case of Flat Earth proponents making more far-out, totally outlandish statements supported by no facts. "They disagree with something that we believe to be true, therefore there must be a conspiracy among all of them to hide the truth." That's an absolutely painfully irrational and illogical move to make. I understand that the support for this theory lies on logical fallacies, but that one is just too blatant!
A good place to start is the murder of Scott of the Antarctic. After that, there's a tonne of posts on this site which address individual components of the body of evidence which exists for the Conspiracy, and a few searchs for relevent terms should turn some up.
And I have never seen them because...
You also fail to offer any sort of motive for this conspiracy. What would these world governments possibly have to gain from us "wrongfully" believing the world to be spherical? You threw out the idea of money, as if it was the safe standard to assume in the case of a conspiracy. But can you hypothesize how there would be monetary gain from such misleading of the public?
The combined budgets of the world's space programs are tremendous. Vertical space travel is a physical impossibility. You do the maths.
Whoa, you guys have mathematics now? And money has been disproved as a motive, look it up.
The ice wall. What is the scientific evidence for this invisible ice wall? It appears to just be a mechanism invented by Flat Earthers to try to explain phenomena that would be totally impossible if a flat Earth really existed.
Scott of the Antarctic's murder is a good pointer that there's something fishy in Antarctica. The Conspiracy systematically murders or bribes everybody who reaches the Ice Wall, Scott being the first.
Joke right? That would make millions of people thathave been killed or bribed, including thousands of scientists that have gone and returned, just shut up.
I'd like to understand how this contradiction is explained.
Those are alternative possible explanations, believed by different FE factions.
WHat contradiction?
Ironic that you answer with this statement, considering the curious complete lack of evidence for the stance you are taking. And there, of course, is mountains of evidence for this. Airline pilots do this quite often.
Yeah, that particular FAQ answer is a rather twatish and unhelpful one. Sorry for that. The key to answering the question posed lies in the geography of the Flat Earth. A cursory glance at one of our maps will make the answer to the "over the edge" criticism glaringly obvious.
Again, I am lost here.
I think that the accepted theory is that it does exist and that the SUn and Moon have a slight gravitational pull, causing this. This would cause many things that they also believe to not be true, but they continue to believe conflicting theories.
It's impossible for these bodies to exert gravitational pull, because gravity does not exist! I still hold that no serious Flat Earther truly believes in this contradictory and absurd claim.
Yet, your theory has as much need of gravity as ours does. But since your contradicting your theory anyway, how do the SUn and Moon go around?
Well, that's it. Hope I was of some help. I'm also sorry that my answers aren't more lengthy or comprehensive, there was a lot to deal with in a single post. However, I guarantee that almost all questions or criticisms will have "precedent" on these forums already - previous posts are a valuable resource in finding rebuttals, counter-rebuttals, counter-counter-rebuttals, etc., etc.
Yay!
-
I don't like fundies.
-
You must have seen all the debate & discussion about the force of gravity being non-existent! Foolishness...
Yea, the force of gravity doesn't exist at any speed!
I'm saying that the Newtonian theory of gravity is accurate at slow speeds, and that this theory includes the force of gravity, so considering the force of gravity makes sense at slow speeds.
Is there something wrong with this? (Perhaps there is still a contradiction with the whole "force acting at a distance" business, but I don't know.)
For most of my purposes, and those of our geologist friend (in a different thread), using the concept of the force of gravity is fine.
-
Is there something wrong with this? (Perhaps there is still a contradiction with the whole "force acting at a distance" business, but I don't know.)
Not really wrong, just gravity as a force doesn't exist according to GR.
-
Is there something wrong with this? (Perhaps there is still a contradiction with the whole "force acting at a distance" business, but I don't know.)
Not really wrong, just gravity as a force doesn't exist according to GR.
But what if we're doing business according to Newton's theory? (IE measuring the mass of a mountain)
-
Then you have created a pseudo force based on your frame of reference. That is what you consider to be gravity.
-
Then you have created a pseudo force based on your frame of reference. That is what you consider to be gravity.
Suits me.
-
Is there some word we could agree on other than force? Force implies some sort of energy thing.
-
Is there some word we could agree on other than force? Force implies some sort of energy thing.
People could just say gravitation instead of gravity and the problem would be solved.
-
Okey. I'm a total non-science type but the whole "gravity" argument is wonderfully disturbing. So, does gravity have a speed?
-
Okey. I'm a total non-science type but the whole "gravity" argument is wonderfully disturbing. So, does gravity have a speed?
Yes, in GR, gravity travels at the same speed as light. To make the point clear though, it's the "force" that travels at the speed. Rather it's the propagation of the change of the force. So if "God" in an instant removed the Sun, we'd go dark and go straight (rather than around the Sun) at the same time, 8 minutes later.
Reference: Google calculator "1 AU in light minutes".
Reference: Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Speed_of_gravity)
Also, since FE discounts all of the proofs of GR, it's precocious to talk about "gravity is not a force" on this Forum. If you accept FE you must reject GR. If you accept GR, then you must reject FE. So, there's absolutely no reason to debate the nature of gravity here. Please feel comfortable to talk about "earth's gravity" as a force. Even Wikipedia does here (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Earth%27s_gravity).
-
Also, since FE discounts all of the proofs of GR, it's precocious to talk about "gravity is not a force" on this Forum.
And where does the FE do this? I think the FAQ is absent of the suggestion that it discounts GR.
-
So, there's absolutely no reason to debate the nature of gravity here.
::) Do I need a reason other than curiosity?
-
Also, since FE discounts all of the proofs of GR, it's precocious to talk about "gravity is not a force" on this Forum.
And where does the FE do this? I think the FAQ is absent of the suggestion that it discounts GR.
Look up all the proofs of GR. They all rely on features of RE that cannot be supported by FE. The precession of the orbit of Mercury is predicted by GR only when we use the RE values for the Solar mass and the AU. The GR predicted bending of light from distant stars as seen during a Solar eclipse also requires those values. Other proofs require sustained space flight.
FE directly and inherently rejects one of GR's basic tenets--that all matter bends space-time.
So FE destroys all proofs of GR and rejects a basic tenet. That's discounting.
I've previously posted this argument in more detail with the "tag" of GRiiFER in several threads.
-
So, there's absolutely no reason to debate the nature of gravity here.
::) Do I need a reason other than curiosity?
I think you misunderstand me. Please ask any question and challenge any statement you like in understanding gravity. Please don't left some loaf abuse you when you talk about gravity.
-
I (and I suspect Divito) don't give a hoot in hell about FE vs. RE.
If mass is bending space/time, why, if the sun were to be suddenly removed, would it take 8 minutes for the earth to experience the effects? Does the earth experience the sun's gravitational attraction as the sun's position is now or is there an 8 minute delay?
-
I (and I suspect Divito) don't give a hoot in hell about FE vs. RE.
If mass is bending space/time, why, if the sun were to be suddenly removed, would it take 8 minutes for the earth to experience the effects? Does the earth experience the sun's gravitational attraction as the sun's position is now or is there an 8 minute delay?
For all intents and purposes, I don't care about FE versus RE, but the other aspects are fun.
As for the gravitational attraction, I'm thinking that the effects would be instant. Unless I'm mistaken, only light would take the eight minutes to seemingly vanish.
-
I (and I suspect Divito) don't give a hoot in hell about FE vs. RE.
If mass is bending space/time, why, if the sun were to be suddenly removed, would it take 8 minutes for the earth to experience the effects? Does the earth experience the sun's gravitational attraction as the sun's position is now or is there an 8 minute delay?
Gee, maybe it's time for the two of you to find a forum dedicated to a topic about which you're passionate.
Consider a simpler analogy. Imagine a latex sheet stretched tightly over a Olympic-sized, empty swimming pool. In the center is a sphere with the weight of 10Kg, as a analog of the Sun. The sheet will stretch downward from the weight, the same way the Sun stretches space-time in another, unseen dimension. About the first weight a much smaller weight, "Earth" is moving is a circle about the first. You can imagine, I hope, that the "Earth" follows that curve created by the "Sun".
Imagine now that you reach out and lift the "Sun" off the sheet. The sheet returns to a flat(ter) state slowing starting at the center and working its way out. Earth would in short order, but not instantly, find that the sheet is flat now and go straight.
The Earth always experiences the Sun's gravity based on the mass and position of the Sun 8 minutes ago.
Good questions!
-
I agree it's fun. And I should modify my question about the sun's position and add "the sun's position 'relative to the earth's'."
-
I (and I suspect Divito) don't give a hoot in hell about FE vs. RE.
If mass is bending space/time, why, if the sun were to be suddenly removed, would it take 8 minutes for the earth to experience the effects? Does the earth experience the sun's gravitational attraction as the sun's position is now or is there an 8 minute delay?
...
As for the gravitational attraction, I'm thinking that the effects would be instant. Unless I'm mistaken, only light would take the eight minutes to seemingly vanish.
Sorry, but you're mistaken. See the Wikipedia link to "Speed of gravity" above.
-
I wish to modify my "hoot in hell" comment. I do enjoy all the Flat Earth Defense Team. I meant the remark only for those who wish to destroy the challenge of the debates that give this forum its spark.
-
NO FE'ers have replied to my question I dunno how the subject changed cause I said the post everyone is discussing is not from my post but the post below...
-
Also, since FE discounts all of the proofs of GR, it's precocious to talk about "gravity is not a force" on this Forum.
Then please feel free to stay out of said discussions.
-
My bad - response moved.
-
I stand At the furthest point of the continental US... One the far end far across the Ocean someone stands on the closest continetal Europe/Africa point. We both hold a piece of string at the same height and tightness so the middle would not sag.
This objective experiment has already been conducted and documented by a member of this forum, albeit not with string but with a laser.
See: http://theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=9343.msg111765#msg111765
-
I stand At the furthest point of the continental US... One the far end far across the Ocean someone stands on the closest continetal Europe/Africa point. We both hold a piece of string at the same height and tightness so the middle would not sag.
This objective experiment has already been conducted and documented by a member of this forum, albeit not with string but with a laser.
See: http://theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=9343.msg111765#msg111765
Have you actually read that experiment, Tom? He actually indirectly agrees in the RE in there...
(3)This is taking into account adjustments made because of a slight, imperceptable(4) breeze that was heading towards the Dun Laoghaire peer.
(4)The breeze was completely impossible to feel but it was obviously there as the fishing line was angling towards Dun Laoghaire peer.
Right there he's saying that there was 'obviously' a breeze towards the other pier because his fishing line was angling that way. He couldn't feel this breeze, but it had to be present because the world is flat. If you take away the breeze (that didn't exist) you'll see that the Earth is round.
-
;D midgard was funny. I wish he still posted here.
-
gravity doesn't exist at fast speeds?
You must have seen all the debate & discussion about the force of gravity being non-existent! Foolishness...
Welcome to the word games based on gravity, gravitation, pseudo-forces and the like. If you want to get a straight answer you are in the wrong forum.
If you ask the people here (with a few exceptions) to illustrate these concepts with a simple experiment that includes a diagram of the forces, accelerations and frames of reference involved you will get absolutely nothing, because that would require actual physics, not cheap rhetoric.
-
You act like it goes against all physics to say that gravity doesn't exist. ::)
-
You act like it goes against all physics to say that gravity doesn't exist as a force. ::)
Fixed
-
Ahem. If you accept GR, then gravity doesn't exist. Gravitation (which is different) exists. In GR, the effects of gravitation are ascribed to spacetime curvature rather than a force.
Gravity is the name of a force that doesn't exist, therefore gravity doesn't exist.
From Wikipedia:
In scientific terminology gravitation and gravity are distinct. "Gravitation" is the attractive influence that all objects exert on each other, while "gravity" specifically refers to a force which all massive objects (objects with mass) are theorized to exert on each other to cause gravitation.
-
You act like it goes against all physics to say that gravity doesn't exist. ::)
I am saying that it goes against all physics to ignore that physics is an experimental science.
If you are not predicting the outcome of a specific experiment or observation or at least working towards that goal you are not talking physics, you are just blabbering. For example, if you are saying gravitational force is a pseudo-force you have to be able to show an experiment where all the forces are accounted for and where forces and acceleration of the objects that form the experimental setup are all there for us to see.
In fact, you will be very hard-pressed to find a single physicist that does not predict the outcome of his experiments and publishes his predictions. Some, like Einstein, left the actual experiments to others but he did the predictions himself.
-
You act like it goes against all physics to say that gravity doesn't exist. ::)
I am saying that it goes against all physics to ignore that physics is an experimental science.
If you are not predicting the outcome of a specific experiment or observation or at least working towards that goal you are not talking physics, you are just blabbering. For example, if you are saying gravitational force is a pseudo-force you have to be able to show an experiment where all the forces are accounted for and where forces and acceleration of the objects that form the experimental setup are all there for us to see.
In fact, you will be very hard-pressed to find a single physicist that does not predict the outcome of his experiments and publishes his predictions. Some, like Einstein, left the actual experiments to others but he did the predictions himself.
I don't see what all that has to do with the fact that Einstein demonstrated that gravity doesn't exist.
-
Ahem. If you accept GR, then gravity doesn't exist. Gravitation (which is different) exists. In GR, the effects of gravitation are ascribed to spacetime curvature rather than a force.
Gravity is the name of a force that doesn't exist, therefore gravity doesn't exist.
From Wikipedia:
In scientific terminology gravitation and gravity are distinct. "Gravitation" is the attractive influence that all objects exert on each other, while "gravity" specifically refers to a force which all massive objects (objects with mass) are theorized to exert on each other to cause gravitation.
Gravitation is a definition of gravity. Gravity is the effect of matter bending spacetime based on its mass. It is commonly referred to as a force, this is where it is incorrect.
-
;D Well, since the post I put up and the quote therein proved my point, I'm not gonna argue with you.
-
You guys have to remember that Trig has absolutely no idea what he is talking about. So instead of doing a little research himself, he just banters on about research, experiments, etc...
-
You act like it goes against all physics to say that gravity doesn't exist. ::)
I am saying that it goes against all physics to ignore that physics is an experimental science.
If you are not predicting the outcome of a specific experiment or observation or at least working towards that goal you are not talking physics, you are just blabbering. For example, if you are saying gravitational force is a pseudo-force you have to be able to show an experiment where all the forces are accounted for and where forces and acceleration of the objects that form the experimental setup are all there for us to see.
In fact, you will be very hard-pressed to find a single physicist that does not predict the outcome of his experiments and publishes his predictions. Some, like Einstein, left the actual experiments to others but he did the predictions himself.
I don't see what all that has to do with the fact that Einstein demonstrated that gravity doesn't exist.
Some definitions that are popular in this forum (and I have not seen in any other place) are used to say that Einstein demonstrated that gravity does not exist. I will not debate the definitions because Physics is not Philosophy and you can always find quotes that say what you like if you get them out of context.
However you splice it, and whatever terminology you use, there is a true force that pulls you into your chair and the planets into orbit, even if the explanation you use masks this fact slightly. If you are following a geodesic into the chair but the chair does not permit this, or whatever, you are exerting a true, real life force against the chair, whether you believe in FE, RE, Einstein, Newton or God.
-
However you splice it, and whatever terminology you use, there is a true force that pulls you into your chair and the planets into orbit, even if the explanation you use masks this fact slightly.
Like I said.
-
You guys have to remember that Trig has absolutely no idea what he is talking about. So instead of doing a little research himself, he just banters on about research, experiments, etc...
Standard response #5: If you cannot argue your case, try getting personal.
-
We have argued and presented our case, backed by plenty of examples and quotes, yet you refuse to even consider it. Take a look at 'Universal Acceleration 101' for evidence of this.
-
No, gravity AS A FORCE does not exist. Why are people so incapable of reading or using English properly?? Goddamn.
Also, why does Einstein need to state it when it's easily inferred from the results of GR? Do you need to make sure every scientist can put 2 and 2 together and quote it somewhere for you to make sure your thoughts are right?
I've also put a bunch of quotes together showing that gravity is a pseudo-force in another thread, since people seem to keep wanting those authoritative figures to tell them what has already been stated countless times.
-
Since gravity is defined as a force, it doesn't exist. Its effect (gravitation) is explained through different means.
Can you link to that other thread you mention, though? I tried doing a search for gravity and pseudo-force posted by you and it came up empty except for this thread. :(
-
Since gravity is defined as a force, it doesn't exist. Its effect (gravitation) is explained through different means.
Can you link to that other thread you mention, though? I tried doing a search for gravity and pseudo-force posted by you and it came up empty except for this thread. :(
I'll try to search for it. It was one of those threads where we took the gravity discussion for like 10 pages.
-
Since gravity is defined as a force, it doesn't exist. Its effect (gravitation) is explained through different means.
Can you link to that other thread you mention, though? I tried doing a search for gravity and pseudo-force posted by you and it came up empty except for this thread. :(
Here you go
Gravity: 3. gravitation in general.
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/gravity
Gravitation is a definition of gravity, therefore gravity exists if gravitation exists. Gravity does not exist AS A FORCE, however.
-
Well if you're talking about gravitation, why not just say gravitation? ;D
-
Well if you're talking about gravitation, why not just say gravitation? ;D
I agree with you on that part. ^_^
-
Well if you're talking about gravitation, why not just say gravitation? ;D
That's how all the arguments get started. People seem to enjoy using them interchangeably when they are different.
In other news, I hate this search feature. Still haven't found it. I could always research Google, but that means you could do the same. I guess it just depends on how badly you want it :D
-
We have argued and presented our case, backed by plenty of examples and quotes, yet you refuse to even consider it. Take a look at 'Universal Acceleration 101' for evidence of this.
Example means an observation or an experiment with actual predictions. You can, for example, show me the frame of reference you use to see two people "accelerating due to Earth" from opposite sides of Earth.
Please help andrews with an actual link to one of the plenty examples you gave, to let him check for himself what you call an example.
-
Since gravity is defined as a force, it doesn't exist. Its effect (gravitation) is explained through different means.
Can you link to that other thread you mention, though? I tried doing a search for gravity and pseudo-force posted by you and it came up empty except for this thread. :(
Here you go
Gravity: 3. gravitation in general.
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/gravity
Gravitation is a definition of gravity, therefore gravity exists if gravitation exists. Gravity does not exist AS A FORCE, however.
Remember that GR says that gravity may be considered a fictitious force and that FE rejects all of GR's evidence and at least one of its basic tenets. So, when debating RE vs FE, we can't assume that GR is true.
-
Since gravity is defined as a force, it doesn't exist. Its effect (gravitation) is explained through different means.
Can you link to that other thread you mention, though? I tried doing a search for gravity and pseudo-force posted by you and it came up empty except for this thread. :(
Here you go
Gravity: 3. gravitation in general.
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/gravity
Gravitation is a definition of gravity, therefore gravity exists if gravitation exists. Gravity does not exist AS A FORCE, however.
Remember that GR says that gravity may be considered a fictitious force and that FE rejects all of GR's evidence and at least one of its basic tenets. So, when debating RE vs FE, we can't assume that GR is true.
On the other hand, since they reject the concept of gravity out of hand, we can't assume gravity exists.
-
Remember that GR says that gravity may be considered a fictitious force and that FE rejects all of GR's evidence and at least one of its basic tenets. So, when debating RE vs FE, we can't assume that GR is true.
Has the rejection of GR and evidence been provided in the Primer? Just about to read through it.
-
Remember that GR says that gravity may be considered a fictitious force and that FE rejects all of GR's evidence and at least one of its basic tenets. So, when debating RE vs FE, we can't assume that GR is true.
Has the rejection of GR and evidence been provided in the Primer? Just about to read through it.
The RE Primer does provide a few paragraphs on the topic in the section "Dealing with Gravity and General Relativity (GR)" on page 57 of the current version.
-
The RE Primer does provide a few paragraphs on the topic in the section "Dealing with Gravity and General Relativity (GR)" on page 57 of the current version.
Do you mind if I start chopping up the Primer?
-
The RE Primer does provide a few paragraphs on the topic in the section "Dealing with Gravity and General Relativity (GR)" on page 57 of the current version.
Do you mind if I start chopping up the Primer?
Are you kidding? We've been begging for critics! Please.