# The Flat Earth Society

## Flat Earth Discussion Boards => Flat Earth Debate => Topic started by: Skyburn on March 17, 2007, 09:20:59 AM

Title: Gravity...
Post by: Skyburn on March 17, 2007, 09:20:59 AM
Gravity exists, but is likely not a force. How gravity works is still a theory, best explained through Einstien's Spacetime.
A home-done example, as long as you have a round-object that you can throw a decent distance. A sports ball is preferable.

A ball held in your hand is moving as fast as you are, and you are moving as fast as the Earth is at any given point. Throw the ball horizontally. If gravity does not exist, only one force can be acting on it when it is a state of free-fall, and that is air resistance. However, such air resistance/air pressure also acts on it in a downward manner, and should cause it to fall downward at the same rate that it slows, thus, a 45 degree angle would be the maximum over-angle from the point of release to the point of contact on a flat-earth. You could not throw it further than your height.

An accelerating Earth would only narrow angle and cause it to fall even faster.

But this is not so. If you find it to be that way, you are incredibly weak and need to work out more, or your round object is too heavy for you to apply that amount of force.

What, praytell, is accelerating the Earth?
Title: Re: Gravity...
Post by: TheEngineer on March 17, 2007, 09:29:51 AM
That doesn't even make sense.
Title: Re: Gravity...
Post by: Skyburn on March 17, 2007, 09:34:55 AM
Crap. I found the flaw in it. You flat-earthists bend all of your own ideas to fit in a manner that concurs with gravity on an Earthly scale.

I recant that experiment and pose a question:
What is accelerating the Earth?
Round-Earthists know how their model works.
Do Flat-Earthists?

Title: Re: Gravity...
Post by: Kasroa Is Gone on March 17, 2007, 09:36:01 AM
Take the strike-through out I can't read it.
Title: Re: Gravity...
Post by: TheEngineer on March 17, 2007, 09:46:02 AM
Crap. I found the flaw in it. You flat-earthists bend all of your own ideas to fit in a manner that concurs with gravity on an Earthly scale.
Actually, Einstein did that for us.

Quote
I recant that experiment and pose a question:
What is accelerating the Earth?
The mechanism is unknown.

Quote
Round-Earthists know how their model works.
So, can you give me the mechanism behind gravity?
Title: Re: Gravity...
Post by: Kasroa Is Gone on March 17, 2007, 09:47:37 AM
Title: Re: Gravity...
Post by: TheEngineer on March 17, 2007, 09:51:39 AM
Then please stop posting in it.
Title: Re: Gravity...
Post by: Kasroa Is Gone on March 17, 2007, 09:52:36 AM
Title: Re: Gravity...
Post by: Skyburn on March 17, 2007, 09:53:39 AM
Gravity is caused by Mass. Why?
(Not an answer to the above) Inertia is often found in congruence with Mass. Why?
What is mass? (Mass is the stuff that we are made of... any more detailed that that? We can't say)
... I'd like to find one person in the universe who could tell any of us  any of those answers.
There are some things we can never know.
But Flat-Earthists have only one true arguement: "You're all conspiring because you want money!" The government knows more than anyone that money is only worth as much as the value you put on the pieces of paper and coins.

If there is something to apply an accelerating force on such a massive scale, and not on a much smaller scale (on the ball in my example), one would reason that you can find it.

I put the strike through that example because it was flawed.
Title: Re: Gravity...
Post by: Kasroa Is Gone on March 17, 2007, 09:54:40 AM
So the thread is just ask what is accelerating the Earth in FE theory? Easy, nobody knows. It even says in the FAQ.
Title: Re: Gravity...
Post by: wastedplaque on March 17, 2007, 10:49:55 AM
Quote
Round-Earthists know how their model works.
So, can you give me the mechanism behind gravity?

As another said, it'd be mass.  Everything has the tendency to go to a higher mass.  And if you didn't know it by now, Earth has slightly more mass than a pencil, apple, etc.  I'm a junior in HS, gravity is common knowledge.  If earth is accelerating through space, why don't we even get any closer to the moon, sun, other planets, etc?
Title: Re: Gravity...
Post by: Kasroa Is Gone on March 17, 2007, 10:54:56 AM
The magical forces accelerating the Earth also accelerate the sun and moon. They also cause the sun and moon to circulate at their own free will and change the radius of their circulation every 6 months for no reason. So we have three unexplained "forces" in FE compared with one in RE. Good going.
Title: Re: Gravity...
Post by: Skyburn on March 17, 2007, 11:50:16 AM
Quote
Round-Earthists know how their model works.
So, can you give me the mechanism behind gravity?

As another said, it'd be mass.  Everything has the tendency to go to a higher mass.  And if you didn't know it by now, Earth has slightly more mass than a pencil, apple, etc.  I'm a junior in HS, gravity is common knowledge.  If earth is accelerating through space, why don't we even get any closer to the moon, sun, other planets, etc?
Inertia.

In the FE theory, there are many different suns that somehow have a mathematical, non-collisonal, series of paths. To support these paths and keep the suns from colliding, the FE's had to rule out gravity. So they had to make the Earth being accelerated, so on, so forth.
The FE theorists don't simplify things, they make them more complex and unknown. True, the RE's have their unknowns, but they've solved the forces applied on big things to smaller things. Quarks (perhaps even strings, if you like the String-theory) - though at a quark's level, some of the laws of physics are utterly shot.

We've narrowed it down to six different probable-point-particles and the Theory of Spacetime, FE's, which we can basically use to expand our arguements.
You still don't know what keeps everything moving like you say it does, or what keeps everything in earth. If nothing else, we have theories. You've got an invisible (or perhaps visible!) hand pushing you through the universe, who's sole purpose is to explain why we don't float in the air.
Maybe it's not a hand. Maybe it's an superstrong-technicolor oyster with a tophat that's pushing you through the universe, using it's pulse detonation engines to power it, and secretly dining with the Heads of State that are behind the conspiracy!
Title: Re: Gravity...
Post by: Stray on March 17, 2007, 12:18:50 PM
Anyone claiming to have an open, skeptical mind will look at the evidence and ask him/herself "what does the evidence suggest?". He or she will not ask "how can this fit with my view?".

Furthermore, I'd love to see the calculated proportional effects of wind resistence to air pressure. If Flat Earth propagators believe what Skyburn brings up in his opening post, then I have to roll my eyes (not at you, Skyburn). The single effect of everything falling is caused by airpressure? Why would the air pressure force everything down, as opposed to from every angle as it actually would if gravity was a myth? Why don't we increase in weight as the high pressures settle over our heads, or vice versa for low pressures? Why won't matter float when we put something in a vacuum chamber?
Title: Re: Gravity...
Post by: Skyburn on March 17, 2007, 12:30:24 PM
Because, according to them, the Earth is not only moving, it is accelerating in it's velocity towards anything on it. And I thought you almost had them stumped. Looks like we'll have to retreat to the "Horizon Line" thing they keep beating around and trying to avoid.
That's why I struck out my experiment, because I forgot that they said it's not just moving, it's accelerating, simulating gravity.

I'd also like to know how they explain Magellan's Circumnavigation, and that accomplished many times since.
Title: Re: Gravity...
Post by: Stray on March 17, 2007, 12:43:51 PM
Uhm.. but if the Earth is accelerating.... then so are we, at the same speed. Or is Earth a huge jet engine?
Title: Re: Gravity...
Post by: Skyburn on March 17, 2007, 12:59:49 PM
They say it's constantly getting faster, so whenever something is in freefall, it will come back down.
Wait one moment! How do satellites stay up?!?!? Shuttles? Man made things in space?
Title: Re: Gravity...
Post by: Stray on March 17, 2007, 01:12:18 PM
Good question. And if the earth is a jet engine, how does our atmosphere stick to the earth instead of floating off at the ridges? Argh, there are too many holes. It's hard to pick one thing to argue about when even what you argue against presupposes a set of premises that are simply speculation. It's sort of like arguing over if ghost giraffes eat green or pink pixies.
Title: Re: Gravity...
Post by: TheEngineer on March 17, 2007, 03:38:48 PM
Yes, the earth is accelerating.  Why we stay on the ground has nothing to do with air pressure.
Title: Re: Gravity...
Post by: Stray on March 17, 2007, 04:30:53 PM
Explain a comprehensive model of the working solar system from a FE perspective.
Title: Re: Gravity...
Post by: physics_guy on March 17, 2007, 05:38:19 PM
Explain a comprehensive model of the working solar system from a FE perspective.

A solar system? naahh, whats the point on trying to explain something that doesnt exist?
Actually, nothing rotates around anything, they just rotate around themselves sometimes and accelerate. As there is no gravity, planets dont need to rotate to prevent collapsing.

You explain this from a RE perspective if you can
Title: Re: Gravity...
Post by: sokarul on March 17, 2007, 05:56:52 PM
Explain a comprehensive model of the working solar system from a FE perspective.

A solar system? naahh, whats the point on trying to explain something that doesnt exist?
Actually, nothing rotates around anything, they just rotate around themselves sometimes and accelerate. As there is no gravity, planets dont need to rotate to prevent collapsing.

You explain this from a RE perspective if you can
Change your name.  You know nothing of physics.
Title: Re: Gravity...
Post by: Geordi la Forge on March 17, 2007, 06:53:27 PM
Explain a comprehensive model of the working solar system from a FE perspective.

A solar system? naahh, whats the point on trying to explain something that doesnt exist?
Actually, nothing rotates around anything, they just rotate around themselves sometimes and accelerate. As there is no gravity, planets dont need to rotate to prevent collapsing.

You explain this from a RE perspective if you can

So, are you saying gravitation doesn't exist?
Title: Re: Gravity...
Post by: Tom Bishop on March 17, 2007, 06:56:42 PM
Quote
So, are you saying gravitation doesn't exist?

Gravitation exists in the FE model. It's Gravity that does not exist.

Title: Re: Gravity...
Post by: Geordi la Forge on March 17, 2007, 07:17:32 PM
Quote
So, are you saying gravitation doesn't exist?

Gravitation exists in the FE model. It's Gravity that does not exist.

So an object that possesses gravitation doesn't rotate?
Title: Re: Gravity...
Post by: Tom Bishop on March 17, 2007, 07:23:35 PM
Quote
So an object that possesses gravitation doesn't rotate?

Yes, they are rotating. They don't need to rotate, however. In my own astronomical research I've concluded that Mercury and Venus must rotate around the sun. Mars and the rest of the planetoids likely rotate above the Flat Earth.
Title: Re: Gravity...
Post by: Geordi la Forge on March 17, 2007, 08:13:10 PM
Actually, nothing rotates around anything, they just rotate around themselves sometimes and accelerate.

You should read Tom's research, which shows Mercury and Venus rotating around the sun.
Title: Re: Gravity...
Post by: Skyburn on March 17, 2007, 09:09:16 PM
Notice how that when Mars mapped as rotating around the Earth at two nearly opposite points of it's orbit, actually comes much closer than it should if it wishes to orbit, then moves backwards, then forwards again after moving back to a more normal orbit distance? It does this twice in one orbital path around the Earth. (Other planets that the RE's say move around the sun have a similar effect, but considerably less noticable.
Around the sun? A nice, clean ellipse.
If you forgive my poor Microsoft Paint skills, here is a rough illustration, not to scale:

(http://i25.photobucket.com/albums/c77/Skyburn117/Marsaroundearth.jpg)

No. I have not observed this myself. I do not physically have the time or tools to do this, but I have seen star-charts.
This was actually observed in the times in which the math and science skills that FE'ers use were developed!
This is one of the reasons several scientists and astronomers, including Copernicus suspected a Sol-Centralized (heliocentric) solar system.
Around the sun, Mars makes a much nicer elliptical orbit. Around the Earth, it makes two double-back turns. How? Why?
Title: Re: Gravity...
Post by: katmarie on March 19, 2007, 10:28:27 AM
Yes, the earth is accelerating.  Why we stay on the ground has nothing to do with air pressure.
Accelerating? Wouldn't that mean air pressure would constantly be rising?
Title: Re: Gravity...
Post by: maelstrom07 on March 19, 2007, 10:43:41 AM
Easy experiment...if you are driving at 60 mph, in reference to your car you feel no change, you aren't pushed to the back of the seat.  But if you are accelerating at a constant rate you will be pushed (or held) to the back of your seat.  This is the same that is stated by having the Earth accelerate at a constant rate to create the effect of gravity.  If the earth stayed a constant speed (in the FE model), the air would also be moving at that same speed and would still leave the earth.

My biggest question, what is the terminal velocity?  If the earth is accelerating constantly for however many thousand, million, or billions of years, how fast is it going?
Title: Re: Gravity...
Post by: TheEngineer on March 19, 2007, 01:21:05 PM
My biggest question, what is the terminal velocity?  If the earth is accelerating constantly for however many thousand, million, or billions of years, how fast is it going?
It's terminal velocity is the speed of light, which it will never reach.  Therefore, we are going less than the speed of light.
Title: Re: Gravity...
Post by: physics_guy on March 19, 2007, 01:29:31 PM
Classically, earth's speed should increase continuously to create a force identical to gravity.
However, this is not necessary in special relativity. As force is the time derivative of momentum, actually "momentum" is what has to increase continuously. The relationship between speed and momentum is not linear at speeds closer to the speed of light, and is infinite at speed of light itself. So, our momentum can increase constantly in time, but our speed would never reach the speed of light.

Briefly calculating, our earth must be moving at a speed of approx. 298635.7263749823827 kilometers per second today, and still increasing.