The Flat Earth Society
Flat Earth Discussion Boards => Flat Earth Q&A => Topic started by: bullhorn on December 03, 2005, 09:12:02 PM
-
I have explained several times on this forum how the idea of gravity cannot possibly work. I will give the example of how you round Earthers believe that the more mass an object has the greater its gravitational index/force. If we were to believe this as true, then how come when the Earth is bombarded by comets and asteroids and its weight is increased by tons upon tons everyday it is not harder for use to move on this "planet". Why after millions of years are we still able to move? How is it possible that every year human beings are breaking records in sports, running faster, jumping higher? That should be proof enough that the Earth is not round. dont say becuase of advances in training. This may help becasue since the earth has no gravity we are able to advance on an equal plane. TELL ME HOW THIS COULD NOT BE CORRECT
-
Mass of earth: 5.97 x 10^24 kg.
Mass of Ceres (largest asteroid in the solar system, comprising approximately one-third of the total mass of all such asterioids): 8.7 x 10^20 kg.
If Ceres were, somehow, to become attached to the Earth, then the increase in mass would be approximately 0.0015%.
The masses of objects recorded in various locations on the Earth's surface using the same equipment changes by more than this amount, and therefore the additional mass would have no measurable effect on anybody's perceived weight, or the performance of athletes.
I say nothing as to whether gravity exists or not: the above merely states that even adding every asteroid in the solar system to the mass of our planet would have almost no proportional effect on its mass. If gravity exists, and does depend on mass, then the gravitational attraction would change, even over millions of years, by such a small amount that the overall effect on the Earth's mass would produce an overall difference in gravitation not particularly different from walking up a very small hill.
To summarize: even a lot of asteroids doesn't change the overall mass of the Earth by anything which makes any difference; it follows that the gravitational attraction, were it to exist, would not change either.
Your counter-example is therefore not applicable, and hence doesn't prove or disprove anything.
Do you have another?
-
No, I believe that I am correct. I ask you how do you know the weight of the earth? How do you know the effect constant bombardment of mass to our planet effects it in the way you are sasying
-
Well first off, it doesn't matter if we know the exact wieght of the planet, he was just explaining how the effect of being struck by meteorites would be negligable compared to the huge size of the planet.
And second, the meteorites that strike the planet do not "increase the wieght by tons upon tons everyday" because most of the meteorites that hit are about the size of a golf ball, usually smaller.
-
EnragedPenguin is correct in stating that it is not the exact masses of any object which make a difference: it is clear that, no matter what asteroid or meteorite may fall to the Earth, it is so much smaller than the Earth that no difference proportionally in mass occurs.
This we can see by just direct observation. We can measure distances on the Earth, and we can measure the diameter of objects which land on the Earth. Since the objects which land are made of (very) roughly the same kind of material of the Earth itself, i.e. rocks, we know that the added mass of a meteorite makes almost no difference to the mass of the Earth.
It is therefore still the case that bullhorn's counter-example is invalid. Does he or she have another?
-
Some comets and asteroids from space ar the size of golf balls and they could be smaller as well even the shabe of sand, but the constant bombardment of matter into the planet should effect it in some way, what im saying is I have not noticed any change in my day to day life.
-
Some comets and asteroids from space ar the size of golf balls and they could be smaller as well even the shabe of sand, but the constant bombardment of matter into the planet should effect it in some way, what im saying is I have not noticed any change in my day to day life.
There isn't a constant bombardment though, the only "constant bombardment" is from dust particles that hit the atmosphere, the particles never reach earth however, because they burn up in the atmosphere.
About a hundred meteorites hit the earth every year, which to me, doesn't constitute a "constant bombardment of matter into the planet".
-
Even if they "burn up" they are still part of the planet just in a gas state, what im asying is all the fine particals will effect the planet in some way due to their mass together
-
Even if they "burn up" they are still part of the planet just in a gas state, what im asying is all the fine particals will effect the planet in some way due to their mass together
Has the dust that builds upon your furniture caused it to collapse? has it had any noticeable effect on it at all? no? the reason is because the weight of the the dust is insignificant compared to the size of the piece of furniture, you'd have to have dust piled up to your ceiling before it would begin to have a noticeable effect (and even then it probably wouldn't be enough).
-
As stated in now several previous posts, and to risk belaboring the point, the matter falling to the Earth, even over millions of years, makes no appreciable difference to the mass of the planet.
It could come to several millions of tons (which is an vast overestimate of what actually does make it to Earth by several factors), turn into gas, whatever: even if it were millions of tons (and it's not, but no matter), it would still make no proportional difference AT ALL to the mass of the Earth.
It follows that there would be no appreciable difference to the gravitational attraction, should gravity exist.
So, for the third time, I state: the counter-example does not have any merit. Does bullhorn have another one?
(For he or she seems to be stalling.)
-
Well, I think it is fare to say that we dont have all the facts that are nessisary to come up with a valid conclusion. I am simply stating one of the many ways in which the earth could not possibly be a sphere.
-
Perhaps we do not have all the facts. But I certainly have enough facts, observable by anyone, to know the following are true.
(a) The earth is larger than the objects falling into it by a factor of many, many millions.
(b) The mass of an object is related to its size, if it's made of the same material.
It is impossible, therefore, for it to be the case that the gravity on Earth (should it exist), due to foreign bodies entering the Earth's system, increases over time to such an extent that it becomes noticeable to anyone.
Your original point (that the fact that we should not be able to move, but yet we are, makes gravitational attraction impossible) is therefore still invalid.
Do you have a new point, bullhorn? You still haven't shown anything, and this discussion seems not to be going in your favor. Perhaps you something else to prove your case.
-
Even if they "burn up" they are still part of the planet just in a gas state, what im asying is all the fine particals will effect the planet in some way due to their mass together
If they become part of the atmosphere they would not contribute to Earth's gravitational pull as we feel it at ground level. They would however, increase mean atmopheric pressure very very very slightly. So, have you noticed that theoretical increase in pressure throughout your day to day life?
-
I think it is clear that the facts that you need to say with all accuracy that the material that enters the atmosphere does not effect the gravitational pull are not present, Nor have you stated why my theroy is false, really the only thing that you have said is you dont think the mass of the forign bodies will affect the World in which we live. Phisics and science would dictate that there is SOME effect and I am simply pointing out is why havent we even been able to measure the change on the most sensitive of all scientific devices.
-
It's also clear that the facts needed to say with all accuracy that the material that enters the atmosphere does effect the gravitational pull, are not present, so your point is moot and you need to give us a new one.
-
No my point is not mute. The earth is flat so my point is VERY VALID. The fact that the more mass something has the more gravity force it presents simmilar to why the Sun has intense gravity. THE sun is all gas as my example of the comets and asteroids breaking up in the atmosphere of the earth it All contributes to the overall mass of the planet, YOU have not shown why it cannot be true
-
The amount that gas contributes to the mass of the earth is less than the amount that the meteorites do. The reason the sun has such a strong gravitational pull is because it is HUGE. Pretend this 'O' is the earth, and your computer is the sun, thats about the proportional difference in size between them.
We have already explained to you how meteorites hitting the earth would not have a noticable effect on the gravitational pull (which, stop me if I'm wrong, is your whole point) so that is in no way evidence that the earth isn't round and you need to come up with a new argument.
-
Seconded.
The purpose of the original post in this thread was to attempt to discredit the existence of gravity. If gravity were to exist, bullhorn argues in that post, and since gravity is apparently proportional to the mass of the objects involved, then after millions of years of matter falling into the Earth, the mass of the Earth would increase to such an extent that the gravity would prevent people from even moving. Since we can still move, he points out, it must follow that gravity does not exist.
What has been pointed out so far is that that the matter falling into the Earth, whether it becomes gas or stays in rock form, whether it is in the Earth's atmosphere or on the ground, the amount of matter relative to the size of the Earth is very, very tiny. It follows that any increase in gravity would be in proportion to this increase: that is to say, very, very small.
Using the hypothesis that bullhorn himself put forward in the first post, it would seem that his conjectured huge increase in gravity is not possible using meteorites, or even larger objects like asteroids, falling into the Earth.
It follows that his counter-example is not a counter-example.
I had trouble understanding the grammar of some of more recent posts which argue against the above, so I shall leave them for now. Suffice to say that, since there isn't enough material entering the Earth from space to make any difference in the gravitational attraction (if it does indeed exist) then the original point made is not a counter-example to the existence of gravity.
I'm awfully sorry: you really are going to have to come up with something better (I believe this thread was started with the purpose of proving gravity non-existent: that has not been shown, because a counter-example which is false proves nothing).
-
That argument is valid. We will leave it at rest becuase its time to talk about another proof of a flat earth. Lets think of the "round earth" in space. How does the earth continue to fly through space without stopping
Space is not a vaccum as we know it contains Gas and different elements, including objects such as asteroids and comets. How would the earth be able to maintain a constant speed without slowing down because there is nothing that we know about in the universe that can maintain a certain speed in the face of friction. What is pushing the earth? I bet you are going to tell me its Atlas.
-
Again, I'm so sorry: you don't appear to be doing any better than before. This is unfortunately another example of precisely the same flaws in argumentation which were evident in similar posts. That's too bad.
Your so-called counter-example to the movement of the Earth through space, using the argument that the gas in the near-vacuum that the Earth is travelling through would eventually slow the Earth down, is again not a counter-example.
When objects move through liquids or gases there exists what is called drag, which is a slowing down of the object due to the friction of particles the object has to move in order to be in the space which the liquid or gas was occupying previously. The denser the medium in which the object travels, the greater the friction (more particles to move).
The example given is therefore not good since the medium of the near-vacuum is almost devoid of matter (we know that vacuums produced on Earth have almost no matter in them, and no drag can be observed there: the vacuum in space, called a 'hard' vacuum, is even more devoid; the drag would be even less), and therefore producing almost no friction. There is so little matter in space that the friction produced is unimaginably small (almost no particles to move). If there were a slowing down from this, it would be almost impossible to measure.
You're really not doing too well here, are you? That's a pity. I do hope you're remembering that you're supposed to be proving that the Earth is flat. Proof usually takes the form of logical arguments in a sequence, starting from agreed data or precepts and using an agreed method of moving from one point to the next. Perhaps you need to have someone give you a little help on this one?
-
Actually you are the one who is not doing very well. I have demonstrated two ways in which the round Earth cannot possibly exist. over billions of years we should notice some sort of change in the speed, After all you stated that there is little affect on the Earth, but over billions of years little equals alot. An example that you may understand becuase you have a hard time understanding what I am saying. Go to your bathroom and put the tap on so only a drip occours every second. Now leave that bathtub for 1 day and go back and see how full it is. You would probably have a hard time understanding this, but after alot of those little drips enter the tub it will eventuall fill up. If you have a hard time understanding this I suggest you try out this example. And I pitty you for being so gullable as to believe that we live on a round earth,
-
Bullhorn, that really isn't a experiment. It's a bad metaphor.
EnragedPenguin and Mundi has quite precisely given facts and commen sense in favor of his arguement, and you give guesswork such as, "Well .... space can't be completely empty, so if the earth was moving through it, wouldn't it slow down?"
Then EnragedPenguin or Mundi gives some very specific reasons why this isn't true, and then you dodge and bring up another topic instead of directly rebuting his evidence.
Not to mention numerous examples, evidence and arguements that you just side-step with some usually illogical statement that usually doesn't make sense.
-
over billions of years we should notice some sort of change in the speed, After all you stated that there is little affect on the Earth, but over billions of years little equals alot.
That argument is seriously flawed, for us to notice a change we'd have to have actually been around a billion years ago.
-
Regrettably, bullhorn, I can assure you that I do completely understand the points you make (grammar and punctuation notwithstanding). It's just a shame they do not have any relevance to the topic in question.
I have stuck to using observable data that we can see for ourselves here on Earth, and in particular make no claims as to the Earth being round, or that gravity exists (the original point, and one which you have yet to successfully argue): in fact, I have not been proposing that either of these exist, and none of my refutations of your counter-examples have relied on any such claims.
But, as has been demonstrated and agreed upon by all the posters here but yourself, your examples are either irrelevant or false.
In this thread, the burden of proof is on you to make your case. If your examples have any flaws in them at all, they have to be discounted, since a flawed proof is no proof at all (a point which you have relied upon in other threads, I observe).
You will notice that in this particular thread (where you are offering "proofs" for a flat Earth, but they are of course just examples, which are not proofs anyway), people who disagree with you do not have to prove their case: that is a topic for those threads which are dealing with that subject. Here, they only have to point out the flaws in your arguments. But you do have to prove your case, and any example you raise which has a mistake in it must be disregarded since it needs to be without error in order to count as part of a proof. Any reasonable error which is brought up (where what we see around us does not match up with your example) negates the whole thing, and you have to give us another.
So bad examples, irrelevant examples, and bad metaphors might be what you think of as reasonable argument, but, unfortunately, they are not. Sidestepping issues when you are not doing very well, in particular the rather unsatisfactory conclusion:
That argument is valid. We will leave it at rest becuase its time to talk about another proof of a flat earth.
is hardly a sparkling rejoinder, or a witty repartee. I was so disappointed.
Like I said, you have to come up with something better if you want to prove your case. Do try harder: you were almost doing okay! So, as I have said now several times before: next!
-
Well, You have not seen the round earth. You have not been to space to observe it. You have to look at other peoples work and you beleive what they tell you. They have been deceved as you have. Space contains gas. The movment against it creates friction. Small ammounts yes, but nevertheless friction. Over billions of years it should have an effect. I have explained myself mundie and endangered. The fact that you have chosen to ignore the facts presented is funny and of a concerne to me. I am a man who doesent take things at face value. You on the otherhand believe anything that someone tells you. My grammer is very good, you seem to spend alot of time talking about it as If it has something to do with the issue. Again I have showed you 2 ways in which the Earth cant be round.
-
I make no claims about the roundness or otherwise of the Earth: I haven't argued either way on that in this thread.
Space does contain gas. But there would have to be something even denser than our atmosphere in space (which is instead a hard vacuum) to create enough drag to have any observable effect on the slowing of the Earth's motion through space, in our lifetimes at least.
But space is a near vacuum (almost no gas at all). Not enough to create an effect which we could notice.
I haven't ignored the facts: indeed, they have been accounted for as above and in previous posts. Taking the above at face value, as you say, one would conclude that the lack of enough gas in space to make a difference to the speed of the Earth does not prove or disprove anything.
If you are arguing for something, you must make sure that what you state is true in all of its details, not just some. That there is gas in space is undeniable. But is there enough to create drag? We have shown that there is not. Your example, therefore, is still false. This would be like claiming a glass of water is full because there is some water in it: of course, if there is only a drop of water, then it's not full. What went wrong? The details of how much water was in the glass were omitted from the argument, nullifying its applicability.
And [sic]: (bold emphasis added)
My grammer is very good, you seem to spend alot of time talking about it as If it has something to do with the issue.
Never mind. And it's really just as well I don't believe anything that someone tells me: if I'd listened to certain people on this site, for example, or learned logic from about half of the posters here, I'd be in trouble.
Oh well: I guess you gave it a go. But I think you might have to try a little harder next time. Isn't this fun?
Next!
-
It looks like Mundi has this well in hand withuot my help so I'll just add one thing, I enjoy debating this issue with flat earthers because it makes me look at why I believe what I believe, and if you can provide enough proof I might decide to change my mind and believe the earth is flat after all, but so far the flat earthers have been unable to do that and so I will continue to think the earth is round until you can.
I don't just blindly believe what other people tell me, I look at the evidence suporting their claims and then decide whether to believe it or not.
-
You have to look at other peoples work and you beleive what they tell you. They have been deceved as you have.
Space contains gas.
Sooooo ... you've been to space and seen the gas hanging out? It seems you believe what people tell you too.
-
. . . which just shows the kind of logic which is employed to "prove" that the Earth is flat. Of course, we haven't had the promised proof in this thread yet; I wonder if it's ever going to appear. The original proposer seems to be a bit quiet of late. I am beginning to wonder if a conversion has taken place . . .
-
Allow me to answer this question.
Lets speak hypothetically and say that we can neither confirmed nor deny the specific increase or decrease in Earth's mass over any measurable period of time.
Instead, let us look at the hypothetical view that there may be a steady increase or decrease in Earth's mass. This increase or decrease is perhaps so steady that we adapt to the increase or decrease of gravity so gradually that we cannot tell a noteably increasing challenge to move or act.
Also look at the ratio -as others have- of space mass and Earth mass. The change is so minor that if and when it does play a part in gravitation increase that we certainly can't notice it.
To see animators play with this -and I know this sounds too unrealistic and mostly unrelated (it is)- watch the Dragon Ball Z episode where a character goes to a planet 10x denser than earth.
"One more thing." Bullhorn, where do you get your facts about "tons" of matter hitting Earth? Is or is not this source different from the same source that has supposively decieved us in believing in a spherical Earth?
Many seek for consistancy but snatch at it randomly.
-
Wait...Bullhorn, even if we accept your "fact" that enough foreign matter enters the earth's atmosphere and alters it's weight to such a degree that gravity would be affected over billions of years, your logic is still flawed.
Even if we accept your hypothesis (Oh no! Science! Run awaaaaaay) that the theory of gravity being related to mass would mean that gravity would have to increase over billions of years, evolution explains why people can still move. Are you saying that you don't believe in evolution bullhorn? Please do...
See, humans would adapt to this gradual increase in gravity, as it's completely unreasonable to believe that tonnes of meteorites enter our atmosphere every year, meaning this increase MUST be gradual. So, not surprisingly, you can still move, unfortunately for all of us, as you can type these ridiculous "proofs".
-
Wait...Bullhorn, even if we accept your "fact" that enough foreign matter enters the earth's atmosphere and alters it's weight to such a degree that gravity would be affected over billions of years, your logic is still flawed.
Even if we accept your hypothesis (Oh no! Science! Run awaaaaaay) that the theory of gravity being related to mass would mean that gravity would have to increase over billions of years, evolution explains why people can still move. Are you saying that you don't believe in evolution bullhorn? Please do...
See, humans would adapt to this gradual increase in gravity, as it's completely unreasonable to believe that tonnes of meteorites enter our atmosphere every year, meaning this increase MUST be gradual. So, not surprisingly, you can still move, unfortunately for all of us, as you can type these ridiculous "proofs".
Read the last 10 Dec post please. I beat you to it. No offense of course. ¦)
-
The promised proof is still not forthcoming. We have been astray by bullhorn: he says he will prove that the Earth is flat; when his counter-examples have flaws he is unable to correct them satisfactorily; a flawed counter-example is not a proof.
Ergo: no proof.
I do wish people would make good on their promises: every time an argument from someone supporting flat-Earth theory gets a good challenge, the challenge goes unanswered; yet round-Earthers tend to follow up on challenges to their arguments remarkably well.
It's kind of rude to start something and then not finish it.
-
Ooop, sorry Lykos, didn't catch that. But wait, is it just me or does the extent of this conversation (and all other conversations with bullhorn) go like this:
Bullhorn: Ridiculous claim about there eing no evidence against a flat earth
Anyone else: Competent rebutal, pointing out one, or several proofs
Bullhorn: Restes his original statement, ignoring yours
Anyone else: Angerly responds that bullhorn has yet failed to produce an argument that defeats his
Bullhorn: Ingnores person's statement, and says the only reason you believe the facts you brought up are true is because you've been brainwashed, and still fails to present a valid argument.
-
Mundi: Yes. That is indeed how this thread goes.
Bullhorn needs to make good on his promises . . . one might lose what respect one had for someone who doesn't even attempt to do what he says he will.
-
I enjoy debating the subject with you Mundie.
-
So: let's have it. Where's the proof? Your examples haven't worked, and we're waiting.
-
The quest for proof is fruitless since proof is a lofty goal that cannot ever be achieved (as the philosophical tennets of science show us-remember Hume). Evidence is of course another matter, but however the evidence mounts it can never be 100% conclussive. The forum is interesting since it shadows more than one basis for the attainment of knowledge. To this end we witness attempts to falsify and attempts to prove either of the two standpoints. As I have previously stated the principle of falsification is the most sound mode of questioning since this implies that an experimenter will deliberately choose tests that may challenge their theory whilst at the same time adhering to the principles of logic. The alternative road, choosing tests to prove a theory, is historically frought with problems due to some well studied innate facets of the human psyche. By this I refer to the phenomena of "confirmation bias" (Evans is a good starting point here) which is a problem solving pathology well documented by cognitive psychologists. Human fallibility besides. Even if we adopt the principle of falsifiability one has to ask the question of how much evidence do we need before we concede to the alternative hypothesis ( at the same time realising that this is indeed a concession and not proof!). If I were to take a supposedly unbiased coin and flip it a number of times with your bet being on the tail, just how many consecutive heads would it take before you questioned the supposed bias free nature. 2, 4, 1000? The higher this value the more "proof" you are seeking. Regardless of this value however, the coin may still be unbiased. This may be the crux of the problem facing opposers to the flat earth hypothesis. Whereas they are looking for proof of a flat earth, flat earthers are merely waiting for conclusive falsification. By awaiting falsification the flat earth posse are adopting the more biased free approach to science since it removes the postulation from the confirmation bias pathology. Whether one considers that the asking of so many "coin flips" before a concession is made is unreasonable or not is subjective and therefore unscientific in itself.
mbe :D
answers on a postcard
-
None of my proofs will make you happy because you will always find something wrong with them. The fact that the Earth looks flat doesn’t phase you. All your evidence for a round earth can just as easily be thrown down as a lie. Please provide some evidence for a round earth and I will tell you what is wrong with it. And I did give you some evidence in my first statement.
-
Uh, uh: no you don't! There are plenty places on the boards where round-Earthers are putting forward reasons/evidence/arguments for a round Earth. This thread is your opportunity to do the same (and was titled in that way by yourself, as I recall: that's really the only reason I'm pressing the point). If we find flaws in your argument, that's too bad; we don't have to present our case if you are the one with the burden of proof (which you are in this thread). If that's frustrating to you, I'm sorry: that argument can be made in other threads you're posting in, not here: stay on topic, please.
Logic, as far as I am aware, is only a tool for deciding how propositions relate to one another. As far as pure (mathematical) logic goes, I'm aware of only one version (but posters may be able to enlighten me as to more: there are fuzzy logics, of course). So far, logically, your two examples have plenty o' holes.
So, to restate: really, any flaw in your argument, where what you propose does not match up with what we observe, negates the whole example. But in the case of your examples, they are so flawed there's not even anything to salvage, because there just is no basis for the claims that you've made (excessive gravity from meteorites which don't have enough mass to make a difference; friction in space from material which isn't there). It's not just that there is a small flaw with these examples: they are totally baseless: they don't even match up with what we observe, let alone with what we know from experience.
Proof (unless it's mathematical proof) is, as has been pointed out above, about gathering enough evidence to convince the people you're talking to that you are correct, or that there might at least be something in your theory. A claim by you that turns out to be even slightly flawed, let alone very flawed, is really not worth anything, so you have to come up with another if you want to convince us. I would be more inclined to take seriously anything you might have to say if you were to provide examples which at least match up with experience, or which have some logical truth in them, but this is not the case so far. It's really easy to be illogical; but this does not convince many, since you're presumably using reasoned argument to do so. If you're not, then you're just spouting what you happen to think without any evidence to back you up, and that, my friend, is just dogma and belief: if this is the case then you have convictions which are rooted in something more like religion than fact.
Remember that you were supposed to be convincing us, not the other way around. If you want me to believe, then you'll have to come up with something that doesn't collapse the moment you think about it logically (not even necessarily scientifically).
If I can find something wrong with your example, then that should be a sign it's not very good. It's not nit-picking: you have to make your theories match up with reality, otherwise you might as well put forward any idea at all and claim it's the truth. We're talking about what is real here, not philisophical ideas; you are attempting to present what is true about the world, not theories about what could be true.
And, finally: the evidence which you presented in your first statement didn't hold up very well when we looked at it a little closer: you'll have to find something more difficult to counter if you want to convince me.
-
I will try to help you understand my point of view. You believe that space is empty. It is not. It is not a vacuum. Space contains asteroids and comets, it contains small amounts of gas not a lot but it is not completely devoid of substance. My argument is over millions of years wouldn’t the earth as you say flying in space be impacted at all by this. Because even if there is a very very small amount of material in space and there is more than I say. That will have an impact or should on the Earths velocity.
Friction can be casued in space Mundi, and I have backed my facts up very well.
-
All true. I don't dispute the facts of the above.
Your original point, I believe, was that gravity couldn't exist. You used the following argument to "prove" your case, which is an argument based on the principle of "reductio ad absurdum", that is to say, you assume that the opposite of what you want to prove is true, and show that there is a contradiction in the process. It then follows that what you wanted, that gravity doesn't exist, is true after all:
1. Suppose gravity exists.
2. A phenomenon called friction causes things to slow down.
3. Friction arises from the drag produced by a gas or liquid acting against the motion of a travelling object through that medium.
4. There is gas in space.
5. The Earth is travelling through space.
6. It therefore follows that drag acts upon the Earth.
7. The conclusion: the Earth is slowing down.
8. The Earth is not slowing down.
9. This is a contradiction: it therefore follows that our assumption, that gravity does exist, is false.
10. Therefore gravity does not exist.
The problem is with the magnitude of step 7: by how much is the Earth actually slowing down? The question then becomes: is there enough matter in space to cause such a massive amount of drag that the Earth noticably slows down, perhaps in our lifetimes? That is, the flaw in your argument is in the magnitude of the phenomena discussed (the same flaw with your gravity/meteorites argument).
Merely because something is true in theory says nothing as to whether it is noticable in practice. For example: dust falls onto everything. Left long enough, it accumulates. The dust falls everywhere, so it must fall on people as well. I could argue that the dust falling on people should become so heavy that people are weighed down by it, but that would be ridiculous, because during a day there isn't enough dust to fall on someone to make them any noticably heavier. Are they actually heavier: yes. But does it make a difference in a short period of time like one day: no.
To observe any effect that drag caused by (a very small amount of) space dust has on the Earth we'd have to be around for plenty longer than even our lifetimes to notice it: you in fact point out that the effect would only be noticable after billions of years. Your argument therefore relies upon the fact that space dust should be causing a drag on the Earth which would slow it down; but of course you acknowledge that it would have to be observed over billions of years, which we haven't had the time to do.
It follows that your argument is invalidated at step 8, not on a yes/no question over whether the phenomenon is or is not happening; your argument is invalidated simply because we wouldn't be able to observe the effect even over several lifetimes anyway. And who knows if the Earth used to go around the Sun faster than now, perhaps, five billions years ago? I don't know, but it's possible. We just can't see the effect you claim should be there in the kind of magnitude you'd need to disprove that gravity exists.
Because your argument therefore is invalidated at step 8, the whole argument is invalidated. A faulty proof is no proof at all, as I have said several times before. You complain that I have pointed out flaws in your proofs, but that's what we're supposed to be doing: if you're proving something and part of your argument is faulty, so is the whole thing.
It follows that you haven't actually managed to prove anything yet. You'll need some evidence which is not satisfactorily explained in order to prove anything using reductio ad absurdum.
But you did do your best, I suppose. Never mind.
-
Well said, it does address the point I was making. I just finished working and I have thought about what you said. I admit that my theory needs further work, but in all fairness, I do wonder why we have not seen the effects of the impact of debris from space. My point is that there should be some noticeable affect over time that could possibly be measured. I will l have to do further investigation to determine why that is as it is. You seem to be the one with the most scientific knowledge on the forum so I would like to say it is good discussing with someone who knows an argument. You should also understand that my argument has some validity. I am working against a curve that has its proofs and heavy research to support the round earth theory. I try to use science to explain why the earth cannot be round. I have pointed contradictions to you guys on the forum and, I am glad Mundi does the investigation to attack it.
-
The only reply I would make to the preceding remarks is that my scientific knowledge is quite probably less than some on this forum. While I have studied science, my field is math, and it was on a logical basis that I found fault with some of your proposals.
I do appreciate your point of view, but without a sound logical basis for your arguments, they hold less weight (no pun intended) than they might. I await the next response.
-
No my point is not mute. The earth is flat so my point is VERY VALID. The fact that the more mass something has the more gravity force it presents simmilar to why the Sun has intense gravity. THE sun is all gas as my example of the comets and asteroids breaking up in the atmosphere of the earth it All contributes to the overall mass of the planet, YOU have not shown why it cannot be true
How... how did you come upon this theory?
This ice wall you speak of - have you ever come into contact with it?
Also - until you have been up high enough to see this 'flat earth', I should think that this theory is void. That means that, until someone has truly proved the ideal of our earth being flat, the thory should be put on the shelf for a while.
Do you have any hard evidence? Photographs? I wopuld like to see some hard evidence, not just theories. Look at the evidence for the fact that the Earth is round. We have satellites maintaining a steady orbit around the Earth. How do I know this? I have seen them with my own eyes. The Earth is curved. I know this, as well, because I have been in an aeroplane, and the earth from above looks curved (although, this may be ingrained into your theory as well, curved but not totally rounded? Explain-is it totally flat or a little curved?).
These arew some of my ideas. Prove them wrong. Show me some hard evidence. I am all for a good discussion over this.
-
ok Bullfrog, keep in mind that the earth, round or flat, is also slowing it's spin. Also I would like to know what you think the stars are. Do you think that they are flat aswell??? Are we like a boomerang wooshing around the sun??? if so, it pretty much nullifies your theory that the un flag is an acurate representation of the earth's surface.
Somewhere else you said that the sea level would not be constant if there was a round earth. SURPIRSE!!! it isn't. Did you ever hear of a tide? It occurs because of the gravity from our round moon.
-
No my point is not mute. The earth is flat so my point is VERY VALID. The fact that the more mass something has the more gravity force it presents simmilar to why the Sun has intense gravity. THE sun is all gas as my example of the comets and asteroids breaking up in the atmosphere of the earth it All contributes to the overall mass of the planet, YOU have not shown why it cannot be true
ok im tired of your fucking bullshit. lets assume that all these meteorites "Are" hitting the planet just like for us. they are hitting your "flat earth" and your flat earth is flying upward in space and making it seem as if gravity is there right? so the added weight of all of your asteriods would eventually become to much for the flying earth to handle and we would experience less and less resistence over time and soon would be stuck with an earth that is no longer flying "upward" and we would all be buttfucked into oblivion. make sense?
-
On the topic of gravity existing or not:
Hey kids. Lets play: Use the scientific method. Ready? Ok.
Stand up.
Walk outside.
Pull out your handy-dandy science notebook and jot down the fact that your feet fall to the ground after each step.
Now, the big experiment.
Jump, a few times if necessary.
Did you float away?
If you didn't float away into oblivion, and you fell back to the earth, that means that you just proved gravity existed.
Gravity is the pull and/or force of a massive object's (like the earth's!) effect on a much smaller object (like you!).
And you just got to experience it! Congratulations! Now wipe the dirt off of your rear, wipe the tears out of your eyes, and suck it up. You just got disproven, and you did it all by yourself.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Seriously, overthink much? All you had to do was walk around and prove this to yourself. Given, obviously out there in space the effects are far more epic in scope and scale, and therefore that much more impressive, but come on.
Another thing: If the earth is just a flat disc in space, and it gets hit by a meteor or asteroid, or what have you, what happens? Objects aren't bolted into the nothingness. Taking a note from another post about one of your comrades, "Believe," who, by the way, you took the time to immediately bow down to the "wisdom" of here ( http://theflatearthsociety.org/forums/viewtopic.php?t=777 ), apparently the lot of you is of the belief that the sun, moon, and stars just hang in the sky in place where they are no matter what. Well, given that you are privy to the notion of objects being able to move around in space, and taking your example of the "tons of [matter]" hitting the earth, eventually this "disc" of which you speak would begin to spin like a coin being flipped. This would explain the rotation of the sun, moon, and stars in the sky, true. However, given the factual notion that there have been instances in which one person on this planet has seen the sun/moon/stars while another person on the opposite end could not see the same celestial objects, and given that the whole basis of your belief is that the entire earth rests on one side of a disc-shaped object (lest we fall off the "bottom," according to your own belief system, so don't try and pull any mystical "dark-side-of-the-disc-dwellers" jazz here), this is a paradoxical situation.
Given that, in reality, no instance in which a paradoxical flaw exists is true, we can very simply conclude that, since I have shown that your belief contains at least (although I doubt this is the only) paradoxical flaw, we may conclude that it is false.
Good game.
-
Indeed, if gravity really were how scientist say it is, we would be crushed to death by all the weight of the meteorites!
and also, if the world were round we would just slip off!
And don't tell me anyone here thinks that a spinning earth will somehow keep us on! That's NONSENSE!
No, it's just COMMON SENSE: THE EARTH IS FLAT!
-
Please don't respond to the guy above me. He is trolling, just like that Ass clown Bullhorn. No one can be this stupid.
Stop responding to this shit, it fuels these hoes.
-
Indeed, if gravity really were how scientist say it is, we would be crushed to death by all the weight of the meteorites!
Ummm . . . do you read all of the posts before you start replying to them? Or do you just read the ones on the last page, think that's all there is to it, and then start writing? This question has been answered to death, and not in the positive, either. Sorry.
-
Point by point again? Alrighty.
Indeed, if gravity really were how scientist say it is, we would be crushed to death by all the weight of the meteorites!
I just love how you back all your opinions up with proof...oh no, wait...Apparently your understanding of how scientists explain gravity is somewhat lacking, in fact it's so lacking that it would have required you to not read the first two pages of this thread (as stated by Mundi). The added mass of meoteorites to the planet are neligible, and would make no noticeable difference in gravity's pull.
the world were round we would just slip off!
Again, this simply serves to show how lacking your understanding of gravity is. This should be required reading before posting: http://theflatearthsociety.org/forums/viewtopic.php?t=691
Go educate yourself before posting such tripe.
And don't tell me anyone here thinks that a spinning earth will somehow keep us on! That's NONSENSE!
Congratulations, you don't understand gravity. Hurray!!
Any given mass exerts a gravitational pull on every other mass.
No, it's just COMMON SENSE: THE EARTH IS FLAT!
Uh oh Horus, that statement doesn't prove anything! It has nothing to substantiate it, and the thread you made about it was blown apart (http://theflatearthsociety.org/forums/viewtopic.php?t=896), so kindly don't say anything you can't back up.
-
ok im tired of your fucking bullshit. lets assume that all these meteorites "Are" hitting the planet just like for us. they are hitting your "flat earth" and your flat earth is flying upward in space and making it seem as if gravity is there right? so the added weight of all of your asteriods would eventually become to much for the flying earth to handle and we would experience less and less resistence over time and soon would be stuck with an earth that is no longer flying "upward" and we would all be buttfucked into oblivion. make sense?
To support oblivion: even if we assume gravity does not exist, we can still believe that without a doubt, through experiments, force = mass * acceleration. If the force of the earth is a constant "upward" motion, rushing at 9.81 m/s/s, then adding mass would decrease the acceleration. Which, in turn, would decrease the feel of "gravity." If the accleration is constant and the mass is forever growing, then the force would be forever growing. if that is the case, then the planets, the sun, and the moon, would constantly be changing their distances with respect to the earth, assuming that they don't all receive space matter at the same rate, because it would be very improbable for EVERYTHING to be attaining the same amount of mass at the same time, over many many eons. Another thing, bullhorn, stop stating that your argument is valid. just accept the fact that others are more learned than you. Yes, learned is a word. it's pronounced Lur-ned. pick up a book.
-
To be fair to their theory, if they don't believe in gravity, they could, hypothetically state, that somehow (magic most likely), as the mass on a planet, or the earth (because they don't think it's really a planet), it gains a proportional amount of force, to keep it at a constant rate of acceration with all the other bodies in space. It makes about as much sense as their other theories...
Or, even better, you're right, and we're getting gradually closer to the sun, explaining global warming! Wow, I'm a better flat earther than anyone else on this forum...kinda sad really...
-
I was not going to respond to this as Mundi has it well in hand but I cannot contain my rage.
Bullhorn I have realized why its pointless to argue with you and your flat-earther comrades. Your not trolling (the stupidity of people is unlimited) but due to your conspiracy theory all evidence of the earth being round (photos atlases math gravity etc) you assume are merely proof of the elaborateness of the conspiracy.
However I feel obligeded to point out you must have INTERNAL CONSISTENCY IN YOUR ARGUMENTS. All your arguments so far focus on one aspect of the real (or as you view it round earther) univers. However our view of the univers as its reflective of the actual universe has other factors you dont take in to consideration so your so called flaws are torn to shreds.
You can keep doing this ad nauseum.
What I would like to see is you and your fellow fools (freudian slip) to present an complete flat earther view of the univers.
See sometimes you guys (or gals) say their can be no gravity other times you point out that a round earth is absurd as it would mean people stay on the bottom side of the earth without falling. Bullhorn if their is no gravity why would we not float off a flat earth? See NO INTERNAL CONSISTENCY
So what I and many other people you seek to enlighten about the earths shape would like is for you to present a concise INTERNALLY CONSISTENT model of the flat earth and its univer. This must be able to take into account all the observable phenomenones we cant throw at it.
As guidelines unless you can explain how and why it works in your univers mode and under your rulesl you cannot use it (ex atmospheric phenomenones.) Unless you can do it just admit the earth is round and shut up
Dont imply I'm a naive trusting sap either. I questiopn things but science makes sense cause it has internal consistency and its rules explain all oberservable phenomenones I have observed. I joined this forum because I love truth and wont permit you to murder her and replace her with whoeres like illogic and ignorance who seel themselves to the lowest commen denominator.
I shall not permit you to say Vichi Veritas. Truth shall instead say Veni Vidi flat earthers Vichi Flat earthers
PS IF you say I only believe this cause textbooks have brainwashed me and then dodge my demand I shall devote the rest of my life to tracking you down and punching you in the face
An enraged
Cinlef
-
Bullhorn, are you Foxtrot Uniform Charlie Kilo India November high? The earth was created by the devil in 6 days, 6 nights and 6 dead whores. In the Anton Lavey bible it says that the earth is a square and that we all were created in the image of the 4th whore's bottom.
Don't you see every day is blessed by the fires of hell. The reason there is day and not only night is because our lord Lucifer is so kind to us. He is SHARING his fires with us so that we can tan, read and grow genetically modified fruits in the garden.
By saying the earth is flat you are breaking one of the 431 commandments and that is a sin. Read your bible more carefully and you will see - we are all build up of square particals. The fact that the devils says it can only proof it - so it's true.
-
I'm detecting a slight note of sarcasm here, but I'll say it anyways:
Religious text is not viable proof purely because there are other religions that exist that are just as viable.
-
Two things that must be said before I say anything relevant to the topic:
1.) Sorry for the revival of such an old topic
2.) I didn't notice whether or not this was mentioned earlier in the topic, so I'm trying it now.
That said, let's proceed.
The round earth model states that the earth has a mass of 5.98x10^24kg, and an average radius of 6.38x10^6m. The force of gravity is given by F=GMm/R^2, where G=6.67x10^-11 (with units N m^2/kg^2) is a constant that can be measured with a torsion balance M is the mass of the earth, m is the mass of an object on the earth (say, a person), and R is the radius of the earth.
Still with me? Good. Now suppose we have a man with a mass of 68.182kg (150lbs.) standing on the surface of the earth. The force of gravity acting on him is:
(6.67x10^-11)(5.98x10^24)(68.182)/(6.38x10^6)^2 = (68.182)(9.8; acceleration due to gravity) = 668.1836N.
Now suppose we also have a 68.636kg (151lbs) man as well. The force on him would be:
(68.636)(9.8) = 672.6328N. So now the question is:
How much would the mass of the earth have to increase by for the 150lb man to suddenly feel like he weighs 151 lbs (or how much mass must be added to the earth for the force on the 150lb man to become 672.6328N)?
Well, let's say M = the mass added to the earth. Then we have F=G(M+M)m/R^2. Now we can solve the equation for M. It becomes:
M = F(R^2)/(Gm) - M
Where F is our target force of 672.6328N. Then:
M = [(672.6328)(6.38x10^6)^2]/[(6.67x10^-11)(68.182)] - 5.98x10^24 = 4.0379x10^22kg
So the mass of the earth must increase by 4.0379x10^22kg in order for the 150lb man to suddenly feel as though he weighs 151lbs, just one pound more.
What does this result mean? It means that if the earth were hit by 1,000,000,000kg (10^9kg) of debris per day, it would only take:
4.0379x10^22kg/(10^9kg/day) = 4.0379x10^13 days
or simply
4.0379x10^13 days/(365.25 days/year) = 1.1055x10^11 years
Or 110.5 billion years.
CONCLUSION:
The earth would have to be bombarded by 1 billion kg of debris per day every day for over 100 billion years in order for a 150lb man to suddenly feel as though he weighs 151 lbs.
And that is why you don't notice any difference.
Notice I also didn't take into consideration the volume that such great amounts of mass would add, which would help to decrease the force of gravity.
-
Regarding the idea that gravity doesn't exist in the form round earth believers see it .. try the http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cavendish_experiment. Done with very simple means, you can see the pull a great, heavy ball of iron has on a small ball of iron. I've done this experiment myself, the results corresponded to the pre-calculated results. Gravity exists, anyone interested in seeing this can try it out on his/her own.
-
Some comets and asteroids from space ar the size of golf balls and they could be smaller as well even the shabe of sand, but the constant bombardment of matter into the planet should effect it in some way, what im saying is I have not noticed any change in my day to day life.
The planet loses atmospheric gas at a constant level. Asteroid strikes can't and don't make up for that - if anything, Earth is getting lighter by the day.
-
Two things that must be said before I say anything relevant to the topic:
1.) Sorry for the revival of such an old topic
2.) I didn't notice whether or not this was mentioned earlier in the topic, so I'm trying it now.
That said, let's proceed.
Now you've done it! : )
Actually using Bullshi....sorry..BullHorn's idea of Meteor hits, the world would be more effected by them under the accelerating disk model.
As his "Tons and tons" of stellar stuff crash into the world, not only would the accelerating mass of the earth be slowed down by their mass, but it would also be slowed down by their kinetic energy. Still almost 0 effect, but greater than simply adding mass to the RE. We would be getting lighter on the FE.
-
Sorry, now that this has gone on to a new page I feel I have to repost this important bit of info because I know a lot of people aren't going to look back. And considering how much time it took to get to this conclusion...
The earth would have to be bombarded by 1 billion kg of debris per day every day for over 100 billion years in order for a 150lb man to suddenly feel as though he weighs 151 lbs.
But now that you bring it up Curious, what does the FE model say about meteors? Are they just small particles floating somewhere in the path of the accelerating earth, so that when the earth reaches them they seem to be moving fast? If they were just floating stationary above the earth, they'd have reached relativistic speeds LONG before the earth got to them.
-
I have explained several times on this forum how the idea of gravity cannot possibly work. I will give the example of how you round Earthers believe that the more mass an object has the greater its gravitational index/force. If we were to believe this as true, then how come when the Earth is bombarded by comets and asteroids and its weight is increased by tons upon tons everyday it is not harder for use to move on this "planet". Why after millions of years are we still able to move? How is it possible that every year human beings are breaking records in sports, running faster, jumping higher? That should be proof enough that the Earth is not round. dont say becuase of advances in training. This may help becasue since the earth has no gravity we are able to advance on an equal plane. TELL ME HOW THIS COULD NOT BE CORRECT
Wow, shocking. Shocking that anyone would even consider this a legitimate argument.
Gravity is one of the weakest forces in all of physics. It takes the combined mass of something monumentally huge, such as the Earth (which on a celestial scale is incredibly small), rather than the negligible mass of meteors, which usually break up in the atmosphere and become vaporous. Gases have extremely low densities and hence exert even less gravity.
Incidentally, it's that very same gravity which pulls meteors to the Earth, which keeps us all from flying out into space, which keeps a spherical planet in orbit around the sun, etc etc.
-
1. Your life bullhorn, is too short for you to ever notice the effect of added mass over millenia. You would be dead long before any noticable change would happen.
2. The earth does gain some mass from metor falls, it is almost insignificant but it is there.However, the earth also looses mass due to the centrifugal effect ,itself due to its rotation. In case you're wondering,it is mostly lost at the equator (look up equatorial bulge if you wish to know more about that) which again negligible. That loss and gain tends to nullify each other, so that the earth does not significantly increase or decrease in mass.
So there you have it, it's pretty simple. And it doesn't even need any unexplainable illusions or a conspiracy.
-
Ah, I spent all that time getting those numbers and not one person has said a thing about it. Doesn't that amaze anybody? 1 billion kg a day every day for 110 billion years just for a guy to gain a pound?
-
you are SO right, fathomak.
you see, that's the kind of evidences that FE belivers do not have.
I've been reading about Galileo's life and there's a nice thing that remembers me about FE belivers... it's about how supporters of tolemaic system simply refused to look through his telescope because it was such a clear evidence of what him and Copernicus were talking about. your simple calculations are our telescope... great job. =)
-
"Q: "What about gravity?"
A1: The Earth is accelerating upwards at 1g (9.8m/s-2) along with every star, sun and moon in the universe. This produces the same effect as gravity. "
The earth would have to be constantly accelerating, IE, gaining speed. If it were doing this, yes, a disc shaped earth could maintain gravity, but wouldn't it eventually reach the speed of light?
-
No.
-
"Q: "What about gravity?"
A1: The Earth is accelerating upwards at 1g (9.8m/s-2) along with every star, sun and moon in the universe. This produces the same effect as gravity. "
The earth would have to be constantly accelerating, IE, gaining speed. If it were doing this, yes, a disc shaped earth could maintain gravity, but wouldn't it eventually reach the speed of light?
A common misconception. Actually Einstein's theory of special relativity clearly demonstrates that an obect could accelerate indefinitely and never reach the speed of light. Of course strange things would happen for somebody standing still watching this object constantly accelerate - most noticably significant time dialation would occur.
-
Ah, I spent all that time getting those numbers and not one person has said a thing about it. Doesn't that amaze anybody? 1 billion kg a day every day for 110 billion years just for a guy to gain a pound?
That was pretty damn cool.
-
"Q: "What about gravity?"
A1: The Earth is accelerating upwards at 1g (9.8m/s-2) along with every star, sun and moon in the universe. This produces the same effect as gravity. "
The earth would have to be constantly accelerating, IE, gaining speed. If it were doing this, yes, a disc shaped earth could maintain gravity, but wouldn't it eventually reach the speed of light?
A common misconception. Actually Einstein's theory of special relativity clearly demonstrates that an obect could accelerate indefinitely and never reach the speed of light. Of course strange things would happen for somebody standing still watching this object constantly accelerate - most noticably significant time dialation would occur.
Which would be a problem with a Universe with finite duration.
-
Sorry, now that this has gone on to a new page I feel I have to repost this important bit of info because I know a lot of people aren't going to look back. And considering how much time it took to get to this conclusion...
The earth would have to be bombarded by 1 billion kg of debris per day every day for over 100 billion years in order for a 150lb man to suddenly feel as though he weighs 151 lbs.
But now that you bring it up Curious, what does the FE model say about meteors? Are they just small particles floating somewhere in the path of the accelerating earth, so that when the earth reaches them they seem to be moving fast? If they were just floating stationary above the earth, they'd have reached relativistic speeds LONG before the earth got to them.
As I said, the earth would be more affected by meteors...either they are affected by the "Dark Energy" acceleration and can not fall, or they are not and would hit with greater and greater relative velocity.
The Flat earth would have as many holes in it as the theories do! :wink:
-
or they are not and would hit with greater and greater relative velocity.
They seem to be going pretty fast to me.
-
They seem to be going pretty fast to me.
Classically, if we spent even 1 year accelerating at 9.8m/s^2 we'd have just passed the speed of light.
Yes, they hit fast, but they don't hit that fast.
-
Classically, if we spent even 1 year accelerating at 9.8m/s^2 we'd have just passed the speed of light.
Yes, using Newtonian mechanics we would. But we're not.
-
It's a good thing that Newtonian mechanics don't apply at relativistic speeds.
-
Why on Earth would Earth be constantly accelerating? Does the magic turtle that's carrying it have rocket feet?
-
No, there is a (currently unknown) mechanism that is accelerating the Earth and most of the major bodies in the visible universe at a constant rate of 9.8m/s/s.
-
Currently unknown. See, when the whole of science is against you, you can't just say "It exists! But we have no idea how where when or why."
The FErs won't be taken seriously until they can provide ample evidence for their case, and despite what they claim, I still haven't seen any.
-
Why not? The RE says the same thing about gravity. It works, but you don't know why.
-
If the moon and sun are directly above us and the same unknown thing is accelerating them, wouldn't we be able to observe whatever it is that is accelerating them?
-
If in the RE there is some force that keeps pulling me to the earth, wouldn't we be able to see whatever it is that is doing this to me?
-
Um big red gravity arrows pointing down follow me everywhere so...
-
You can't see electromagnetism, so why would you be able to see gravity?
-
Classically, if we spent even 1 year accelerating at 9.8m/s^2 we'd have just passed the speed of light.
Yes, using Newtonian mechanics we would. But we're not.
The point is that we'd be at relativistic speeds.
You can't see electromagnetism, so why would you be able to see gravity?
Electromagnetism is consistent with FE theory, but gravity isn't, so they must have some excuse to throw it out.
-
The point is that we'd be at relativistic speeds.
And?
-
Engineer,
I think what fathomak is trying to say is that if the UA actually exists, the Earth would be moving at roughly the speed of light relative to the rest of the universe.
Consequentially, the meteors that enter our atmosphere would be moving at roughly the speed of light.
Now we have collected meteorites on the ground, we understand their composition and properties very well, we have even seen some of them enter our atmosphere, and they are not moving at 3*10^m/s. They are moving fast, but not that fast.
In fact, as near as we can tell, meteors enter our atmosphere at about 30 km/s, which coincidentally is the speed RE says that the Earth rotates around the sun!
I think this is strong evidence that the UA is the incorrect model.
-
Who said the metors are not traveling at roughly the same speed as us?
-
I Have proof that the sun emits heat. ANd is everything that the RE'ers say it is.
Check this out
-
Why not? The RE says the same thing about gravity. It works, but you don't know why.
But we do know why. Just because we can't see it working with our eyes doesn't mean we don't understand how or why it works. Gravity occurs because all objects distort the 4-dimensional space in which they exist. Objects with higher density or higher mass will distort space more than lower ones do. Thus, we are pulled into the space-distortion created by the Earth, just as it is pulled into the distortion caused by the sun, and etc.
Conversely, centrifugal force keeps the Earth from crashing into the sun.
The whole of physics is firmly founded on the theory of General Relativity. You can't dispute this universally accepted principle with "I don't know why, but it doesn't exist."
-
I agree with this. If FEers want to use relativity to show how the Earth could be accelerating forever, they also should accept that gravity is a logical consequence of relativity.
-
Who said the metors are not traveling at roughly the same speed as us?
So why does the acceleration stop? Up until a short time before their fall they had to accelerate along with us, then the acceration slowly decreased.
Really shakey.
-
If the meteors were traveling at a constant velocity very near to lightspeed, then even though the Earth has a constant acceleration relative to some things, it would have very little acceleration relative to these meteors by now, and so would only catch up to them rather slowly.
-
If the meteors were traveling at a constant velocity very near to lightspeed, then even though the Earth has a constant acceleration relative to some things, it would have very little acceleration relative to these meteors by now, and so would only catch up to them rather slowly.
So meteors were shot out into ?space? ahead of the earth at various speeds, and we have been catching up to them over time?
I guess that almost works, but if we ever hit a comet (since we see them periodically, they msut be accelerating along with us), then there'll be a lot of explaining to do!
-
I guess that almost works, but if we ever hit a comet (since we see them periodically, they msut be accelerating along with us), then there'll be a lot of explaining to do!
How does that apply only to the FE?
-
Why not? The RE says the same thing about gravity. It works, but you don't know why.
But we do know why. Just because we can't see it working with our eyes doesn't mean we don't understand how or why it works.
We know how it works? Then please explain to me how spacetime knows how and by how much to distort based on it's distance from, and in response to, a variable mass.
You are telling me what happens, not why it happens.
-
I agree with this. If FEers want to use relativity to show how the Earth could be accelerating forever, they also should accept that gravity is a logical consequence of relativity.
I accept that acceleration is a logical consequence of relativity.
-
Some points to counter-point a flat earth.
If the earth is flat, how deep is it? If its not very deep, than explain underground mining, volcanoes, and oceans/seas.
If a meteor hit a supposed "flat earth" on the side, meaning the 'thin' side, wouldn't the "flat earth" rip? (logically speaking) If the meteor hit the earth from above, wouldn't it go right through the earth? (If being flat of course, because if not, than the world would be a cube or prism)
How does water stay on a flat earth? Is there a wall on the edges of the world preventing it from falling off? If there is NO wall, than why is there still oceans on Earth?
A flat Earth is illogical. A cubed one is more like it. =]
-
Some points to counter-point a flat earth.
If the earth is flat, how deep is it? If its not very deep, than explain underground mining, volcanoes, and oceans/seas.
It's very deep.
If a meteor hit a supposed "flat earth" on the side, meaning the 'thin' side, wouldn't the "flat earth" rip? (logically speaking) If the meteor hit the earth from above, wouldn't it go right through the earth?
No.
How does water stay on a flat earth? Is there a wall on the edges of the world preventing it from falling off? If there is NO wall, than why is there still oceans on Earth?
There is a wall.
-
If the Earth is very deep, than there must mean there is a side of the earth, making the earth not flat, but a polygon of some sorta. Meaning it's NOT FLAT.
If the earth IS flat, than there cannot be sides to the Earth. Thus meaning it isnt flat. It is a cube.
check.
-
If the Earth is very deep, than there must mean there is a side of the earth, making the earth not flat, but a polygon of some sorta.
check.
Thanks for the info, Captain Obvious.
-
A 3-dimensional disk is a polygon?
-
A 2 sided object is not a polygon.
-
A 2 sided object is not a polygon.
Neither is a cylinder.
-
Technically, its not 2 sided. It has a non-flat side? =]
-
Why not? The RE says the same thing about gravity. It works, but you don't know why.
But we do know why. Just because we can't see it working with our eyes doesn't mean we don't understand how or why it works.
We know how it works? Then please explain to me how spacetime knows how and by how much to distort based on it's distance from, and in response to, a variable mass.
You are telling me what happens, not why it happens.
If you read my following post, I explained in rather simple terms exactly how it works.
-
If you read my following post, I explained in rather simple terms exactly how it works.
I assume you mean this:
Gravity occurs because all objects distort the 4-dimensional space in which they exist. Objects with higher density or higher mass will distort space more than lower ones do. Thus, we are pulled into the space-distortion created by the Earth, just as it is pulled into the distortion caused by the sun, and etc.
Once again, you are explaining what gravity does, not how it does it. Which should be an easy answer for you since, as you pointed out:
Just because we can't see it working with our eyes doesn't mean we don't understand how or why it works.
-
I think we need a big flashing banner saying that no one actually knows what causes gravity. Radius and mass determines how much, but we don't know how it's caused. It's said too much :(
-
The entire reason I started the whole gravity thing is because RE'ers get all upset when the FE can't explain how something works, like the UA. It's a double standard when they can't even explain how something so fundamental as gravity works.
-
At least RE makes more sense, uniform acceleration requires infinite energy, gravity doesn't.
Major Edit
Sorry about the hypocritical comment, I was aiming that at the FE.
-
WTF??? I explained how it works, dinkus. Gravity is the force of objects being pulled into depressions in space time caused by objects of even greater mass. What the hell else were you looking for? You can't look at my plain as day explanation, then demand I explain, then call me a hypocrite for not explaining.
Here, let me help you: Space. Curved. Earth. Big ball. Earth curve space. We fall in.
And I'm still dumbfounded by the fact that FErs refuse to acknowledge that they can witness the curvature of the Earth with their own eyes on any ocean in the world. The curvature of the Earth is plainly visible if you just freaking look at it!
-
WTF??? I explained how it works, dinkus. Gravity is the force of objects being pulled into depressions in space time caused by objects of even greater mass. What the hell else were you looking for? You can't look at my plain as day explanation, then demand I explain, then call me a hypocrite for not explaining.
WHAT CAUSES THE SPACE TO WARP? What mechanism tells space to deform and by how much? Objects being pulled into depressions by what? Extra gravity?
-
At least RE makes more sense, uniform acceleration requires infinite energy, gravity doesn't.
So when I accelerate at a constant rate in my car, I should run out of gas instantly?
-
WTF??? I explained how it works, dinkus. Gravity is the force of objects being pulled into depressions in space time caused by objects of even greater mass. What the hell else were you looking for? You can't look at my plain as day explanation, then demand I explain, then call me a hypocrite for not explaining.
WHAT CAUSES THE SPACE TO WARP? What mechanism tells space to deform and by how much? Objects being pulled into depressions by what? Extra gravity?
Space is warped by the objects that exist in it! It is the physical nature of space to be warped by mass. That resulting warpage is called gravity. Gravity causes objects in space to be pulled to one another, as they all exert that warping of space.
There are mathematical equations which clearly demonstrate the exact amount of gravity that is exerted between masses. Would you like to see them?
-
Space is warped by the objects that exist in it! It is the physical nature of space to be warped by mass. That resulting warpage is called gravity. Gravity causes objects in space to be pulled to one another, as they all exert that warping of space.
Let me spell this out for you. You say that space interacts with matter to warp. So, how does space know how much matter is in an object? How does space know how far away it is from the object? Since space distorts in response to these two variables, how does matter communicate with space?
There are mathematical equations which clearly demonstrate the exact amount of gravity that is exerted between masses. Would you like to see them?
Why? They don't tell me what gravity is.
-
When you drop a rock into water, how does water know how much of itself to displace to fit that rock?
-
Unless you are claiming that water knows how to displace by gravity, that analogy is moot.
-
It's the exact same concept!
-
Hmm, so mass pushes on the intermolecular bonds of empty space and expands space? How does that explain gravity?
-
Hmm, so mass pushes on the intermolecular bonds of empty space and expands space? How does that explain gravity?
That is the explanation of gravity. The resultant depression on space is gravity.
Except I don't think it could be described as an intermolecular bond. You'd have to get someone more familiar with quantum mechanics to describe the specific makeup of the spacetime fabric.
-
So when I accelerate at a constant rate in my car, I should run out of gas instantly?
No, but you'll run out eventually.
Any and every massive body, from the smallest particle to the largest galaxy, creates a gravitational field. Fields move radially outward with constant flux, which accounts for the proportionality to 1/r^2. The space around masses is essentially "warped," as is directly observable by the bending of light passing through large gravitational fields (for example, starlight passing near the sun during a total eclipse is observably bent). Also note that this effect was predicted before it was observed.
Speaking purely about gravitational fields, I can't explain to you what it is in the inherent nature of mass that causes it to create a gravitational field. I can try to provide you with some rational reasoning about why gravity makes more sense than UA.
In the RE model, nature is not selective. Any laws that apply to one object apply to any other. Gravity affects me just as it affects you, baseballs, bullets, airplanes, the moon, the earth, the other planets, the sun, and galaxies. Gravitational fields (and hence, gravitational forces) occur in the presence of mass, and they have always been observed to be attractive.
In the FE model, UA applies to something under the earth, which holds us to the ground. If it applied to the surface of the earth, I should be able to throw a piece of dirt and never see it hit the ground. It must also somehow apply to the sun, moon, and stars, as they do not crash into the earth. This force does not apply to me, though, nor you, nor any creature on the planet. There is also seemingly nothing causing the force; it just seems to happen by necessity.
I hope, taking nothing else into consideration, this is some clue as to why the FE theory seems illogical.
-
Any and every massive body, from the smallest particle to the largest galaxy, creates a gravitational field.
Interesting assumption.
In the RE model, nature is not selective. Any laws that apply to one object apply to any other.
Then how come neutrons don't interact electromagnetically? How come electrons don't interact strongly? How come REers don't interact intelligently?
[UA]must also somehow apply to the sun, moon, and stars, as they do not crash into the earth.
Not necessarily. There's lots of stuff up in the sky which doesn't fall for one reason or another. Birds are a good example. Rooftops are another.
-
I guess that almost works, but if we ever hit a comet (since we see them periodically, they msut be accelerating along with us), then there'll be a lot of explaining to do!
How does that apply only to the FE?
Because under the RE model the comets are orbiting the sun, due to gravity, and their orbits can be affected by the gravity of the planets and the earth.
Under the FE, the comets must be subject to the "universal acceleration" which must "Fail" for them to fall to the earth.
Not that there will ba anyone left to argue the point if it happens.
-
In the RE model, nature is not selective. Any laws that apply to one object apply to any other.
Then how come neutrons don't interact electromagnetically? How come electrons don't interact strongly? How come REers don't interact intelligently?
Gravity operates on mass. But let's call it gravitational charge (IT IS ONLY BY INCREDIBLE COINCIDENCE THAT GRAVITATIONAL CHARGE IS EXACTLY EQUAL TO MASS. IT DID NOT HAVE TO BE THIS WAY). The electromagnetic forces act on electric charges. Strong forces act in quark interactions. Weak forces act in radioactive decay.
Neutrons have no electric charge, hence the name, so they don't interact electromagnetically. Electrons are leptons, not quarks. The grouping also is not arbitrarily done for the purpose of fitting the RE model, it is done based on spin numbers and particle make-up. An electron is an electron, and that's all. A proton is two up-quarks and one down-quark. Quarks must form particles with zero color charge and a unit charge of 0 or +-1.
Gluons, W and Z bosons, and photons have all been experimentally observed. Nothing is contradictory about the way nature is operating.
[UA]must also somehow apply to the sun, moon, and stars, as they do not crash into the earth.
Not necessarily. There's lots of stuff up in the sky which doesn't fall for one reason or another. Birds are a good example. Rooftops are another.
Then there's another problem with the FE, as we now have the moon and sun mysteriously generating lift, or an invisible support beam attached to the bottom of each.
EDIT: Got rid of the first sentence, it was uncalled for, changed some words.
-
Not necessarily. There's lots of stuff up in the sky which doesn't fall for one reason or another. Birds are a good example. Rooftops are another.
Once again, gravity is an incredibly weak force. The mass of birds and their ability to navigate wind currents enables them to counteract the downward force of gravity.
Also fathomak, thanks for summing up gravity in a much better way than I am able to.
-
The mass of birds...enables them to counteract the downward force of gravity.
Um, wouldn't their mass hinder their ability to counteract the force of gravity? :?
Also fathomak, thanks for summing up gravity in a much better way than I am able to.
Again, everything fathomak said is nothing new. You people are always telling us what gravity does, not what it is.
I don't understand why it is so hard for an RE'er to simply admit that the RE does not have all the answers. The reason the question of gravity is posed is not as an argument against it, but as an example that even the RE model does not know how everything works.
So far, fathomak is the only one to admit, although he is trying to cover it up by spitting out a science book, that we don't know what causes gravity.
I can't explain to you what it is in the inherent nature of mass that causes it to create a gravitational field.
RE'ers, why is this so hard to admit?
-
So far, fathomak is the only one to admit, although he is trying to cover it up by spitting out a science book, that we don't know what causes gravity.
I'm not trying to cover it up, but I suppose to be clearer I should have said:
I can't explain to you what it is in the inherent nature of mass that causes it to create a gravitational field because we don't know.
So yes, I spent a lot of time talking about science, but then I tried to approach the issue from a purely philosophical point of view. This was not intended to prove anything, but argue that one view is more feasible than the other.
In the RE model, nature is not selective. Any laws that apply to one object apply to any other. Gravity affects me just as it affects you, baseballs, bullets, airplanes, the moon, the earth, the other planets, the sun, and galaxies. Gravitational fields (and hence, gravitational forces) occur in the presence of mass, and they have always been observed to be attractive.
In the FE model, UA applies to something under the earth, which holds us to the ground. If it applied to the surface of the earth, I should be able to throw a piece of dirt and never see it hit the ground. It must also somehow apply to the sun, moon, and stars, as they do not crash into the earth. This force does not apply to me, though, nor you, nor any creature on the planet. There is also seemingly nothing causing the force; it just seems to happen by necessity.
I suppose I probably should also not have said "nature is not selective," because thinking about it, it sure is. Gravity doesn't have any effect on charged particles, and in the same sense charges "choose" not to create gravitational fields. I guess what I was more or less trying to get at is that there are logical ways to categorize different objects or particles to easily explain why certain forces effect one thing and not another. We can distiguish between a "mass" and a "charge," and these distinctions seem to be absent when explaining forces in FE theory. I hope this explanation is a little clearer.
-
Because under the RE model the comets are orbiting the sun, due to gravity, and their orbits can be affected by the gravity of the planets and the earth.
And if the timing was just right we could hit one. If the acceleration of the earth and a comet were just right, we could hit it. How are these two points any different?
-
or an invisible support beam attached to the bottom of each.
Yep, it kind of reminds me of the invisible bungie cord that keeps me on the earth.
-
Because under the RE model the comets are orbiting the sun, due to gravity, and their orbits can be affected by the gravity of the planets and the earth.
And if the timing was just right we could hit one. If the acceleration of the earth and a comet were just right, we could hit it. How are these two points any different?
Because if they are currently being acted upon by the same force the earth is, then they should continue to maintain their motions in the sky, as there is nothing to change them, their paths are fixed.
In the RE universe, they are constantly affected by gravitational pulls and could come in contact with the earth, since it's gravity would attract them.
-
or an invisible support beam attached to the bottom of each.
Yep, it kind of reminds me of the invisible bungie cord that keeps me on the earth.
No, did you read all of my posts (I don't mean this sarcastically, I just mean if you didn't you should)? I wasn't saying gravity makes perfect sense; I was talking about the consistency of the RE theory of gravity vs. the FE theory of UA.
-
Just because we are accelerating at the same rate does not mean we are traveling at the same speed.
-
Interesting assumption.
It would be an assumption if science wasn't backing him up. Since it is, it is a fact.
Then how come neutrons don't interact electromagnetically? How come electrons don't interact strongly? How come REers don't interact intelligently?
Magnetism still applies to neutrons. Attraction and repulsion require a net charge. You already know this, you're were just hoping that he didn't know weren't you? And insults don't make for a very good argument.
Not necessarily. There's lots of stuff up in the sky which doesn't fall for one reason or another. Birds are a good example. Rooftops are another
Erasmus what's the point? Really? You already know that this comparison doesn't stand.
Birds are not in the sky at all times, the remain aloft through an effort on their part. Ironically, It is easier for them because their bones are hollow thus causing them tohave a lower mass, thus causing earth's gravitationnal field to b weaker when pulling them. And yes, if they try to stay in the sky when they're tired, birds fall as well.
Rooftops do not float in the sky, I doubt you'll find anyone to agree with you on this. They are in contact with their respective buildings at all times, and if they're yanked off they fall.
You do this everytime you are confronted to an irrefutable statment. If you don,t have anything to say then just don't. It's preferable to throwing insults for no reason.
Also, Under the FE model, comets would never come back.
I still don't understand why the earth can't be a sphere if we don't know why gravity exists. We don't know why any fundamental particle exists, and the universe is still there. And no one ever had any trouble saying we don't know. This is at least the 4rth time.
-
Of course I read your posts. If you are going to make a statement about an invisible support structure on the FE, why can't I make a statement about an invisible cord that keeps pulling me to the ground?
-
Of course I read your posts. If you are going to make a statement about an invisible support structure on the FE, why can't I make a statement about an invisible cord that keeps pulling me to the ground?
The comment about the invisible support structure was just a response to Erasmus' post. I was trying to demonstrate that his counter-argument didn't really go anywhere.
You're perfectly entitled to make statements about invisible bungee cords holding you to the ground. I was only saying that the invisible bungee cords work exactly the same for everything that has mass, whereas UA applies only to the earth (but not the surface), possibly to the sun and moon, and not to anyone or anything on the surface, with seemingly no method of distiction other than convention. That was why I originally said "nature is not selective."
-
ATTENTION!!!
This is a raid by the Glorious Victorian Bottom Worldly Expeditionary Party!!! Stand By while we load your swag onto our Attack Zeppelins!!
And dont try any funny stuff chaps, these Muskets arent for show you know!!!
-
And dont try any funny stuff chaps, these Muskets arent for show you know!!!
Those muskets are totally real!
Can any single FEr explain the curvature of the Earth that is easily witnessed at any ocean? It can be seen with the naked eye, plain as day.
-
The curvature really isn't that obvious. What can be obvious at the ocean, on a moderately cloudy day, is you can clearly see the clouds curve over the breadth of the sky.
-
I agree. If the world was flat, than we could go on the highest point on the Earth (CN Tower) and see both edges of the world, but we can't because the world curves ever so slightly. We'd of course have to use a telescope to see both sides. =/
-
Everest?
-
C l o u d s .
-
Indeed. But there's no reason you'd have to go all the way to the top.
-
I fly all the time and have never seen the curvature of the earth.
-
Flat earth'rs: They finally find one insignificant thing to disprove that the earth is round, and keep at it until the round earthers eventully give up
-
What is that?
-
I fly all the time and have never seen the curvature of the earth.
That's Aristotle-ism. I see, therefore it's real.
In order to understand reality, we must question what we see - our senses decieve us.
if! for example, there were a sphere. and it were to spin along its axis, placed in the middle of this sphere.
BUT! It were to be orbiting around some object, and it would spin while orbiting.
Now, suppose we're far below this 'some object'. It would appear to go back and forth then straight across the sky. IT'd then disappear for a bit then come back :\
Does this mean that the object, from our observations, must have an erratical path? No. It means we first have to attempt to rationalize that what we see may, or may not be true.
-
It means we first have to attempt to rationalize that what we see may, or may not be true.
Thanks, Captain Obvious.
-
I fly all the time and have never seen the curvature of the earth.
Try using an airplane instead of a pipe?