The Flat Earth Society
Flat Earth Discussion Boards => Flat Earth Q&A => Topic started by: o0mofo0o on September 06, 2008, 02:59:42 PM
-
Q: "Why does gravity vary with altitude?"
A: The moon and stars have a slight gravitational pull.
Q: Follow-up to previous question: How is it that the Earth does not have a gravitational pull, but stars and the moon do?
A: This argument is a non sequitur. You might as well ask, "How is it that snakes do not have legs, but dogs and cats do?" Snakes are not dogs or cats. The Earth is not a star or the moon. It doesn't follow that each must have exactly the properties of the others, and no more.
I could've sworn gravity works from space curvature, and space curvature is caused by an mass in space. If the Earth is in fact a plane of existence we live on then it would constitute mass. So why does it not cause space to curve?
Look up general relativity and how it's been proven.
-
Gravity doesnt exist. If you had "looked up GR" then you would have known that.
-
Gravity doesnt exist. If you had "looked up GR" then you would have known that.
Then update your horrible FAQ instead of screaming "READ THE FAQ!".
According to your FAQ it does in fact, EXIST!
-
Gravitation, not gravity.
-
According to your FAQ it does in fact, EXIST!
Where does it say this?
-
I could've sworn gravity works from space curvature, and space curvature is caused by an mass in space. If the Earth is in fact a plane of existence we live on then it would constitute mass. So why does it not cause space to curve?
Look up general relativity and how it's been proven.
And Fëanor was the most gifted jeweller of all the Elves...look up The Silmarillion and how it's been proven. ::)
It's clear that you don't even know how your own fictitious force works.
-
Gravitation, not gravity.
Simple semantics. Either add to the discussion or don't reply at all. Gravitation = the effects of gravity. So how does the effects of gravity exist without gravity?
-
I could've sworn gravity works from space curvature, and space curvature is caused by an mass in space. If the Earth is in fact a plane of existence we live on then it would constitute mass. So why does it not cause space to curve?
Look up general relativity and how it's been proven.
And Fëanor was the most gifted jeweller of all the Elves...look up The Silmarillion and how it's been proven. ::)
It's clear that you don't even know how your own fictitious force works.
Sadly, this argument wouldn't work at all because I could say the same thing about your FAQ. Stop adding to your post count and contribute.
-
Simple semantics.
No.
Gravitation = the effects of gravity
Really, no.
-
Simple semantics.
No.
Gravitation = the effects of gravity
Really, no.
Really, yes. Where's this going?
-
Really, yes. Where's this going?
Towards the fact that gravity doesnt exist.
-
Read the Gravity sticky please.
-
Read the Gravity sticky please.
Ok, now that we're done with technicalities why doesn't FE create space curvature?
Oh and for Oscar Wild's post about Einstein's work being fiction why can't your quote in the gravity sticky be fiction?
-
The composition of FE is probably not one or more of the main sources of a gravitational field.
-
The composition of FE is probably not one or more of the main sources of a gravitational field.
And what would the "other" main sources of a gravitational field be?
As I recall Stanford detected space-time curvature (http://einstein.stanford.edu/ have fun), unless, oh my dear god, all the universities in the world could be in on it too? Wouldn't that make our dear conspiracy theory sticky defunct? Because there's a lot more people involved now too.
-
And what would the "other" main sources of a gravitational field be?
Energy, momentum, and stress-tensor.
-
And what would the "other" main sources of a gravitational field be?
Energy, momentum, and stress-tensor.
E=MC^2 we have energy and how do we not have momentum if we are supposedly accelerating upwards buddy? Again last time I checked, in another one of these threads also, FE has an electromagnetic field(here http://theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=23019.0).
Also, don't ignore the other half of my post.
-
Ok, now that we're done with technicalities why doesn't FE create space curvature?
Perhaps there is an interaction of the DE and the underlying structure of the Earth which neutralizes the curvature.
-
Ok, now that we're done with technicalities why doesn't FE create space curvature?
Perhaps there is an interaction of the DE and the underlying structure of the Earth which neutralizes the curvature.
What about the curve probe then? Why does the data show a curve?
If DE is in fact the UA then wouldn't it do the same to all planets and such?
-
According to your FAQ it does in fact, EXIST!
Where does it say this?
Q: "Why does gravity vary with altitude?"
A: The moon and stars have a slight gravitational pull.
Q: Follow-up to previous question: How is it that the Earth does not have a gravitational pull, but stars and the moon do?
A: This argument is a non sequitur. You might as well ask, "How is it that snakes do not have legs, but dogs and cats do?" Snakes are not dogs or cats. The Earth is not a star or the moon. It doesn't follow that each must have exactly the properties of the others, and no more.
Although the FAQ states that gravity doesn't exists on Earth, it say's that Gravity exists on other planets, stars, and moons.
-
What about the curve probe then? Why does the data show a curve?
The funding of the project is about to be canceled. Hmm...just before they are done with the data analysis, too. Sounds like the conspiracy doesn't want them to finish...
-
According to your FAQ it does in fact, EXIST!
Where does it say this?
Q: "Why does gravity vary with altitude?"
A: The moon and stars have a slight gravitational pull.
Q: Follow-up to previous question: How is it that the Earth does not have a gravitational pull, but stars and the moon do?
A: This argument is a non sequitur. You might as well ask, "How is it that snakes do not have legs, but dogs and cats do?" Snakes are not dogs or cats. The Earth is not a star or the moon. It doesn't follow that each must have exactly the properties of the others, and no more.
Although the FAQ states that gravity doesn't exists on Earth, it say's that Gravity exists on other planets, stars, and moons.
Read the whole thing before you post.
-
What about the curve probe then? Why does the data show a curve?
The funding of the project is about to be canceled. Hmm...just before they are done with the data analysis, too. Sounds like the conspiracy doesn't want them to finish...
It doesn't matter, they still have enough data to prove space curvature.
-
What about the curve probe then? Why does the data show a curve?
The funding of the project is about to be canceled. Hmm...just before they are done with the data analysis, too. Sounds like the conspiracy doesn't want them to finish...
Dun dun duuuuuuuuuuunnnnnnnnnnnn!!! The conspiracy strikes again
-
Dun dun duuuuuuuuuuunnnnnnnnnnnn!!! The conspiracy strikes again
Wouldn't the burden of proof be on someone to explain the theory that the funding was cut on account of a global conspiracy? Occam's razor would state that the lack of funding would be caused by the simplest and most common explanation... politics as usual. Someone else wants government funding for their project, funding has been cut, project leaders are wrangling with one another... etc. These things crop up anytime large sums of money are spent.
To say that zomg the governments must be cutting the funding on account of a conspiracy that only a fringe minority believes in, and then to say that the burden of proof is on everyone else to discount that conspiracy, works contrary to the standard operation of logical discourse.
For once, would you please show us proof of the conspiracy instead of simply replying with the challenge: "show us proof of your theory"? It's impossible to prove your theory in this manner. Every time someone attempts to explain Round earth, it's simply met with an upturned nose and a point to the FAQ, or a self-satisfied claim that the proof provided is simply erroneous and part of the conspiracy.
-
For once, would you please show us proof of the conspiracy
What about the curve probe then? Why does the data show a curve?
The funding of the project is about to be canceled. Hmm...just before they are done with the data analysis, too. Sounds like the conspiracy doesn't want them to finish...
Pretty good proof right there.
-
For once, would you please show us proof of the conspiracy
What about the curve probe then? Why does the data show a curve?
The funding of the project is about to be canceled. Hmm...just before they are done with the data analysis, too. Sounds like the conspiracy doesn't want them to finish...
Pretty good proof right there.
Read the article, it says "new info" implying that info on a space curvature has already been reached.
-
Dun dun duuuuuuuuuuunnnnnnnnnnnn!!! The conspiracy strikes again
Wouldn't the burden of proof be on someone to explain the theory that the funding was cut on account of a global conspiracy? Occam's razor would state that the lack of funding would be caused by the simplest and most common explanation... politics as usual. Someone else wants government funding for their project, funding has been cut, project leaders are wrangling with one another... etc. These things crop up anytime large sums of money are spent.
To say that zomg the governments must be cutting the funding on account of a conspiracy that only a fringe minority believes in, and then to say that the burden of proof is on everyone else to discount that conspiracy, works contrary to the standard operation of logical discourse.
For once, would you please show us proof of the conspiracy instead of simply replying with the challenge: "show us proof of your theory"? It's impossible to prove your theory in this manner. Every time someone attempts to explain Round earth, it's simply met with an upturned nose and a point to the FAQ, or a self-satisfied claim that the proof provided is simply erroneous and part of the conspiracy.
I can't tell you, you're probably part of the conspiracy too
-
i agree with professor stinkwrinkle.
If you say that your theory is contradictory to hundereds of years of science... then im sorry but you've got some 'splaining to do. If i was saying that mickey mouse assasinated JFK, wouldn't i have to explian myself. I mean, if you FE-ers weren't some internet-based FAQ-worshiping people that are made up of only a few members that actually know aht they are talking about then i may see it fit for us RE-ers to prove our stuff.
We do anyways, but thats not the point. Stop hiding behind a FAQ, the reason for this forum is to debate and discuss... not to say: "Stop asking that question N00b! Lurk Moar!! FAQ!!"
im here for some answers, not to hear people say that i have some 'splaining to do... because i dont. You do.
-
If i was saying that mickey mouse assasinated JFK, wouldn't i have to explian myself.
Only if you were attempting to convince someone else. The FES is not out recruiting converts. You came here, remember?
-
E=MC^2 we have energy and how do we not have momentum if we are supposedly accelerating upwards buddy? Again last time I checked, in another one of these threads also, FE has an electromagnetic field(here http://theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=23019.0).
Maybe there are some mechanisms that can cancel out the process of space-time curvature, while the Earth still achieves an upward acceleration.
Also, don't ignore the other half of my post.
I ignored it because it was stupid and I didn't see any point of responding it.
-
Other FE'ers have suggested that G is much smaller than the currently accepted value of 6.67e-11 N m^2/kg^2 due to flaws in the Cavendish experiment. This could make the space-time curvature caused by the Earth undetectable.
Others simply deny that mass/energy bends space-time at all.
-
E=MC^2 we have energy and how do we not have momentum if we are supposedly accelerating upwards buddy? Again last time I checked, in another one of these threads also, FE has an electromagnetic field(here http://theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=23019.0).
Maybe there are some mechanisms that can cancel out the process of space-time curvature, while the Earth still achieves an upward acceleration.
Also, don't ignore the other half of my post.
I ignored it because it was stupid and I didn't see any point of responding it.
IE you didn't know how to respond.
Anyways back up your "maybe"s.
-
Oh and for Oscar Wild's post about Einstein's work being fiction why can't your quote in the gravity sticky be fiction?
He didn't say Einstein's work was fiction. ::)
-
Who cares?
The FAQ is all theory, No reliable sources, And not worth quoting.
-
Who cares?
The FAQ is all theory, No reliable sources, And not worth quoting.
No reliable sources? Have you read Earth Not a Globe or are you just making a baseless accusation?
It's kind of moot because Oscar wasn't quoting the FAQ, he was quoting modern physics.
-
Who cares?
The FAQ is all theory, No reliable sources, And not worth quoting.
No reliable sources? Have you read Earth Not a Globe or are you just making a baseless accusation?
It's kind of moot because Oscar wasn't quoting the FAQ, he was quoting modern physics.
Well have you read modern physics? It's kind of moot that you always quote the FAQ and this "bible" of yours while making accusations on well established truth. See what I did there?
-
Who cares?
The FAQ is all theory, No reliable sources, And not worth quoting.
No reliable sources? Have you read Earth Not a Globe or are you just making a baseless accusation?
It's kind of moot because Oscar wasn't quoting the FAQ, he was quoting modern physics.
Well have you read modern physics? It's kind of moot that you always quote the FAQ and this "bible" of yours while making accusations on well established truth. See what I did there?
No. Can you explain? ???
-
Who cares?
The FAQ is all theory, No reliable sources, And not worth quoting.
No reliable sources? Have you read Earth Not a Globe or are you just making a baseless accusation?
It's kind of moot because Oscar wasn't quoting the FAQ, he was quoting modern physics.
Well have you read modern physics? It's kind of moot that you always quote the FAQ and this "bible" of yours while making accusations on well established truth. See what I did there?
No. Can you explain? ???
Should I really waste my time on this to be shot down by a mod with odd flawed logic?
-
Who cares?
The FAQ is all theory, No reliable sources, And not worth quoting.
No reliable sources? Have you read Earth Not a Globe or are you just making a baseless accusation?
It's kind of moot because Oscar wasn't quoting the FAQ, he was quoting modern physics.
Well have you read modern physics? It's kind of moot that you always quote the FAQ and this "bible" of yours while making accusations on well established truth. See what I did there?
No. Can you explain? ???
Should I really waste my time on this to be shot down by a mod with odd flawed logic?
I don't know... if you don't want to debate with people who use logic you feel is flawed why are you even here? ??? ???