The Flat Earth Society
Flat Earth Discussion Boards => Flat Earth General => Topic started by: Antithecyst on October 22, 2016, 07:47:34 AM
-
Their standard model is the moon is falling around the earth, and the earth is falling around the sun.
If the earth is falling around the sun, why wouldn't the moon be falling around the sun?
You may say because, although the gravity of the sun is stronger than the gravity of the earth, the moon is closer to the earth, but the trouble with that is, the earth is closer to itself than it is to the sun, so the earth should be falling around itself, or held in place, if it's able to pull the moon towards itself.
There's no consistency.
-
Their standard model is the moon is falling around the earth, and the earth is falling around the sun.
If the earth is falling around the sun, why wouldn't the moon be falling around the sun?
You may say because, although the gravity of the sun is stronger than the gravity of the earth, the moon is closer to the earth, but the trouble with that is, the earth is closer to itself than it is to the sun, so the earth should be falling around itself, or held in place, if it's able to pull the moon towards itself.
There's no consistency.
http://www.physics4kids.com/files/motion_gravity.html
-
Not only should the moon being falling to or around the sun, rather than earth, but everything on or near the earth, from rocks, trees and dirt to human beings, should be falling around or to the sun, rather than the earth.
-
Gravity gets weaker with the square of distance, and stronger with total mass.
That is why the moon orbits the earth instead of the sun, the earth is much closer than the sun is big. (Xkcd reference)
The sun does tug on the moon and on the things on earth, which is why the biggest tides occur when the sun and moon are aligned. But gravity is 100% consistent. Nowhere yet has it been measured to behave differently than we expect
-
Gravity gets weaker with the square of distance, and stronger with total mass.
That is why the moon orbits the earth instead of the sun, the earth is much closer than the sun is big. (Xkcd reference)
The sun does tug on the moon and on the things on earth, which is why the biggest tides occur when the sun and moon are aligned. But gravity is 100% consistent. Nowhere yet has it been measured to behave differently than we expect
The earth is even closer to itself than the sun is big.
Therefore, it should be immobile, or falling around itself, or imploding.
-
That is why it is stuck in a ball, and doesn't randomly fall apart. It's own gravity force snit into a sphere shape. But those forces are internal, meaning they have zero effect on an outside system.
-
Not only should the moon being falling to or around the sun, rather than earth, but everything on or near the earth, from rocks, trees and dirt to human beings, should be falling around or to the sun, rather than the earth.
Everything is falling towards the sun. The thing they are all falling at largely the same rate. Then you must consider that the acceleration due to gravity at the surface of the earth is greater than the acceleration due to gravity of the sun.
-
If the earth can pull the moon, something further from itself than itself, to itself, countering the sun's gravity, it should be able to pull itself, something closer to itself than the moon, to itself, holding its position and countering the sun's gravity.
-
Again, the forces of the earth's gravity on itself are internal and do nothing in an external system.
Imagine this, the world's strongest man is in a car, and the car is driving at 5 mph. He then pushes backwards as hard as he can (while inside the car) the car isn't going to change speed. The external system doesn't care about internal forces.
-
Gravity gets weaker with the square of distance, and stronger with total mass.
That is why the moon orbits the earth instead of the sun, the earth is much closer than the sun is big. (Xkcd reference)
The sun does tug on the moon and on the things on earth, which is why the biggest tides occur when the sun and moon are aligned. But gravity is 100% consistent. Nowhere yet has it been measured to behave differently than we expect
DOGMA. And 100% false. But hey, by all means, retain your brand fundamentalism.
-
Oh. Please elaborate.
-
I think we're about to be taken on a dark matter non sequiter. You may want to qualify you statement about gravity yo interstellar space.
-
Gravity gets weaker with the square of distance, and stronger with total mass.
That is why the moon orbits the earth instead of the sun, the earth is much closer than the sun is big. (Xkcd reference)
The sun does tug on the moon and on the things on earth, which is why the biggest tides occur when the sun and moon are aligned. But gravity is 100% consistent. Nowhere yet has it been measured to behave differently than we expect
DOGMA. And 100% false. But hey, by all means, retain your brand fundamentalism.
If this is dogma, it would not work in practice: all telecommunication satellites use the same principle, hoovering over one steady spot over the earth. This is also proof that the earth spins.
-
Gravity gets weaker with the square of distance, and stronger with total mass.
That is why the moon orbits the earth instead of the sun, the earth is much closer than the sun is big. (Xkcd reference)
The sun does tug on the moon and on the things on earth, which is why the biggest tides occur when the sun and moon are aligned. But gravity is 100% consistent. Nowhere yet has it been measured to behave differently than we expect
DOGMA. And 100% false. But hey, by all means, retain your brand fundamentalism.
If this is dogma, it would not work in practice: all telecommunication satellites use the same principle, hoovering over one steady spot over the earth.
We all know what geostationary orbit is, We also know about time dilation in satellites. I would be interested as to how you believe satellites in geostationary orbit prove gravity to be 100% correct. Being able to put them in orbit doesn't imply we understand the universe. Just that we have a working understanding of our solar system.
I'm sure OSG meant gravity is consistent on a smaller scale as crutonius pointed out.
Even then I did get confused when we were calculating the bartenders position. xD
-
We all know what geostationary orbit is, We also know about time dilation in satellites. I would be interested as to how you believe satellites in geostationary orbit prove gravity to be 100% correct. Being able to put them in orbit doesn't imply we understand the universe. Just that we have a working understanding of our solar system.
I'm sure OSG meant gravity is consistent on a smaller scale as crutonius pointed out.
Even then I did get confused when we were calculating the bartenders position. xD
You say you know. You don't know if you ask this. Gravity, speed, related distance and mass are integral parts to this system.
-
Very good, now how does any of that prove gravity to be 100% consistent?
-
Very good, now how does any of that prove gravity to be 100% consistent?
Sorry, this time I don't catch what you mean. Can you elaborate your question?
-
Gravity gets weaker with the square of distance, and stronger with total mass.
That is why the moon orbits the earth instead of the sun, the earth is much closer than the sun is big. (Xkcd reference)
The sun does tug on the moon and on the things on earth, which is why the biggest tides occur when the sun and moon are aligned. But gravity is 100% consistent. Nowhere yet has it been measured to behave differently than we expect
DOGMA. And 100% false. But hey, by all means, retain your brand fundamentalism.
If this is dogma, it would not work in practice: all telecommunication satellites use the same principle, hoovering over one steady spot over the earth. This is also proof that the earth spins.
Well, how does that actually prove that we completely understand gravity or that the earth spins?
You are doing what so many RE's accuse FE's of making assertions without any evidence.
-
Well, how does that actually prove that we completely understand gravity or that the earth spins?
You are doing what so many RE's accuse FE's of making assertions without any evidence.
Here is the answer:
http://sciencelearn.org.nz/Contexts/Satellites/Science-Ideas-and-Concepts/Gravity-and-satellite-motion
-
Well that proves that we understand orbital mechanics that is great, I hope we do otherwise satellites would fall out of the sky.
However,
how does that actually prove that we completely understand gravity or that the earth spins?
-
Well that proves that we understand orbital mechanics that is great, I hope we do otherwise satellites would fall out of the sky.
However,
how does that actually prove that we completely understand gravity or that the earth spins?
Oh, I have no power to improve your comprehension.
-
My comprehension you say?
-
Their standard model is the moon is falling around the earth, and the earth is falling around the sun.
If the earth is falling around the sun, why wouldn't the moon be falling around the sun?
You may say because, although the gravity of the sun is stronger than the gravity of the earth, the moon is closer to the earth, but the trouble with that is, the earth is closer to itself than it is to the sun, so the earth should be falling around itself, or held in place, if it's able to pull the moon towards itself.
There's no consistency.
Wrong, there is no inconsistency, you just showed us all that you don't understand basic Newtonian physics. I suspect you might be thinking of the barycenter, but the question is so poorly phrased, I doubt you understand the concept.
-
Their standard model is the moon is falling around the earth, and the earth is falling around the sun.
If the earth is falling around the sun, why wouldn't the moon be falling around the sun?
You may say because, although the gravity of the sun is stronger than the gravity of the earth, the moon is closer to the earth, but the trouble with that is, the earth is closer to itself than it is to the sun, so the earth should be falling around itself, or held in place, if it's able to pull the moon towards itself.
There's no consistency.
What about you explaining on the flat earth, just how the sun and moon are supported some 3,000 miles[1] above the earth?
The Sun
The sun is a sphere. It has a diameter of 32 miles and is located approximately 3000 miles above the surface of the earth.
The Moon
The moon is a sphere. It has a diameter of 32 miles and is located approximately 3000 miles above the surface of the earth.
What about you explaining on the flat earth just how the planets are kept in their orbits around the sun?
Solar System
Q. What does the Solar System look like in FET?
A. In FET the planets are revolving around the sun, while the sun itself revolves around the Northern Hub.
You question well explained features of the Heliocentric Globe, while swallowing a whole plethora of guesses in the Flat Earth hypothesis.
[1] Mind you even this 3,000 miles is disputed.
-
Well that proves that we understand orbital mechanics that is great, I hope we do otherwise satellites would fall out of the sky.
However,
how does that actually prove that we completely understand gravity or that the earth spins?
Oh, I have no power to improve your comprehension.
If a person is living by a lake their whole life, and only black swans visits this lake, is it correct for the person to say that only black swans exist?
Our scientists are pretty certain that we don't know everything about gravity. However they are very certain (to as close to 100% as possible) that what we already know about gravity is correct. That means that we do not understand gravity to 100%, but what we already know about gravity is certain to basically 100%.
An example of this is the classic transition from newtons law of gravitation to general relativity. Newtons law of gravitation was basically 100% correct, IF you limited it to low gravitational field strengths and low relativistic velocities, like earth conditions. But scientists didn't know this until they tried to e.g. predict mercurys orbit using newtonian mechanics, which did not work because the planet was too close to the sun so the gravitational field and orbital velocity threw off the newtonian formulas. When general relativity was published it could correctly predict mercurys orbit without breaking down, amongst other things (time dilation for objects in orbit around earth etc.) so it became the more correct model for gravitation. But if you inserted a few zeroes here and there where the relativistic components were negligible, like on earth, the formula could be simplified to newtons law of gravitation. So in the end newton was not wrong, but at the same time he did not know everything. And the same thing is probably true for our current model for gravitation.
-
Gravity gets weaker with the square of distance, and stronger with total mass.
That is why the moon orbits the earth instead of the sun, the earth is much closer than the sun is big. (Xkcd reference)
The sun does tug on the moon and on the things on earth, which is why the biggest tides occur when the sun and moon are aligned. But gravity is 100% consistent. Nowhere yet has it been measured to behave differently than we expect
Very good, now how does any of that prove gravity to be 100% consistent?
I suspect disputeone is questioning your "100% consistent". Newtonian Gravitation is certainly not "100% consistent", though it's accuracy within the Solar System is very high. Einstein's GR is more accurate, but noone would claim even that "100% consistent".
I doubt any scientist in would ever claim 100% consistency. Many very minor anomalies have been detected, almost all being resolved by realising some minor effect (eg "heat recoil" Pioneer anomaly) had been ignored.
As disputeone's name suggests, he always tries to pick out these little inconsistencies - he's worse that I am. ;)
-
well, if we talk about greater scales than our solar system our understanding coud be quite poor. The postulation for dark matter and dark energy could be a sign that gravity works different on large scales than we think.