The Flat Earth Society

Flat Earth Discussion Boards => Flat Earth Q&A => Topic started by: kaimason1 on October 18, 2011, 10:15:59 PM

Title: FET's gravity
Post by: kaimason1 on October 18, 2011, 10:15:59 PM
From the FAQ, I understand that you sincerely believe that the supposedly FE does not provide strange gravitational effects because gravity does not apply, but at the same time gravity somehow applies (and in pretty unreasonably strong quantities, if I understand your numbers right) to celestial objects. How does it not apply to Earth's mass? All that happened in FAQ to explain it was a wave of the hand and a claim that Earth is special. How, then, do you explain the Cavendish Experiment (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cavendish_experiment)? I can see you claiming that, since the metal balls are not Earth, they can have gravitational pull. However, the metal was once part of the earth, was it not? Then  at what point and how would it gain gravitation?
Title: Re: FET's gravity
Post by: Zogg on October 18, 2011, 11:19:34 PM
In 1818, Doctor John Cleves Symmes, Jr. proved without any doubt that earth is hollow (and who would questions the genius of such a great man?).
On the other side, according to FE'ers, Samuel Birley Rowbotham proved without any doubt that Earth is flat.

The earth must hence be flat and hollow, a hollow cylinder of some sort, with insignificant mass in comparison. 

8)

P.S.: Am I doing this right ? I am new to this cosmological-conspiracy-theory-based-on-writings-of-an-obscure-19th-century-amateur-cosmologist business...

Title: Re: FET's gravity
Post by: PizzaPlanet on October 18, 2011, 11:53:43 PM
Am I doing this right ?
That depends on your definition of "right". You're a verbatim copy of the template angry noob, around and about since 2006 or so.
Title: Re: FET's gravity
Post by: Zogg on October 19, 2011, 12:06:06 AM
Wait, I made a picture:

(http://img196.imageshack.us/img196/3363/hollowflatearth.gif)
Title: Re: FET's gravity
Post by: Lord Xenu on October 19, 2011, 03:31:53 AM
Wait, I made a picture:

(http://img196.imageshack.us/img196/3363/hollowflatearth.gif)
That is truly lovely.   :)
Title: Re: FET's gravity
Post by: EmperorZhark on October 19, 2011, 12:37:25 PM
As hollow as the mind of some people here!
Title: Re: FET's gravity
Post by: kaimason1 on October 19, 2011, 04:21:19 PM
So... How does any of that relate to my question? Great theory, though, reminds me of Norse mythology; I like it.

Can someone acknowledge the Cavendish experiment's contradiction to FET, and how that can be reconciled?
Title: Re: FET's gravity
Post by: Lord Xenu on October 20, 2011, 02:02:57 AM
So... How does any of that relate to my question? Great theory, though, reminds me of Norse mythology; I like it.

Can someone acknowledge the Cavendish experiment's contradiction to FET, and how that can be reconciled?
Have you considered that there might be forces at work between those metal balls other than "gravity"?
Title: Re: FET's gravity
Post by: penguins_demise on October 20, 2011, 05:40:24 AM
So... How does any of that relate to my question? Great theory, though, reminds me of Norse mythology; I like it.

Can someone acknowledge the Cavendish experiment's contradiction to FET, and how that can be reconciled?
Have you considered that there might be forces at work between those metal balls other than "gravity"?

Such as? More to the point, experiments have been done to determine G (i.e. the value the Cavendish experiment measures) that do not use the force between metal balls, so any 'other forces' are a moot point, as experiments have been done that would not have these forces.
Title: Re: FET's gravity
Post by: Lord Xenu on October 20, 2011, 06:57:26 AM
Such as?
Magnetism, for example.
More to the point, experiments have been done to determine G
Such as what?
Title: Re: FET's gravity
Post by: hoppy on October 20, 2011, 11:53:37 AM
All hail this great thread!
Title: Re: FET's gravity
Post by: Tausami on October 20, 2011, 12:26:58 PM
In answer to the OP: Cavendish was a very poorly performed experiment. Even many globularist scientists agree with this. It completely failed to take other factors into account.
Title: Re: FET's gravity
Post by: penguins_demise on October 20, 2011, 01:45:02 PM
More to the point, experiments have been done to determine G
Such as what?

Atom interferometer measurements: Basically, they can determine very accurately how a collection of atoms has moved. By placing a mass near by and determinging any differences, they can determine G.

In answer to the OP: Cavendish was a very poorly performed experiment. Even many globularist scientists agree with this. It completely failed to take other factors into account.

So, because one experiment performed many years ago was flawed, all the experiments we have done since are flawed, even if they use different methods to account for the - obviously known - flaws in the Cavendish experiment?
Title: Re: FET's gravity
Post by: flat_earth_really? on October 20, 2011, 02:08:16 PM
In answer to the OP: Cavendish was a very poorly performed experiment. Even many globularist scientists agree with this. It completely failed to take other factors into account.
Funny how you're quite happy to take mainstream scientists' opinion on a "poorly performed experiment" that doesn't "take other factors into account" when it suits your belief, yet you disregard the opinion of mainstream scientists who have come to the same conclusion regarding the Bedford Level experiment, the basis for all of this rubbish.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bedford_Level_experiment#Refraction (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bedford_Level_experiment#Refraction)
Title: Re: FET's gravity
Post by: Tausami on October 20, 2011, 02:53:57 PM
In answer to the OP: Cavendish was a very poorly performed experiment. Even many globularist scientists agree with this. It completely failed to take other factors into account.
Funny how you're quite happy to take mainstream scientists' opinion on a "poorly performed experiment" that doesn't "take other factors into account" when it suits your belief, yet you disregard the opinion of mainstream scientists who have come to the same conclusion regarding the Bedford Level experiment, the basis for all of this rubbish.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bedford_Level_experiment#Refraction (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bedford_Level_experiment#Refraction)


Actually, I found the problems for myself and later discovered that many agree with me.

Still too thick. Try adding water
Title: Re: FET's gravity
Post by: kaimason1 on October 20, 2011, 09:46:07 PM
Sure Cavendish has flaws, but that is the textbook example for a measurement of g using small objects. Much better, more advanced experiments have occurred since which still demonstrate gravitation. Your theory, which entirely rests on an extremely flawed, unupdated experiment which you refuse to acknowledge any possible wrong with, contradicts these facts. How do you explain this, other than ignore the question?
Title: Re: FET's gravity
Post by: Lord Xenu on October 21, 2011, 02:47:17 AM
More to the point, experiments have been done to determine G
Such as what?

Atom interferometer measurements: Basically, they can determine very accurately how a collection of atoms has moved. By placing a mass near by and determinging any differences, they can determine G.

Sounds like a science fiction device to me.
Title: Re: FET's gravity
Post by: penguins_demise on October 21, 2011, 02:52:25 AM
More to the point, experiments have been done to determine G
Such as what?

Atom interferometer measurements: Basically, they can determine very accurately how a collection of atoms has moved. By placing a mass near by and determinging any differences, they can determine G.

Sounds like a science fiction device to me.

The paper: http://www.sciencemag.org/content/315/5808/74.abstract

A wikipedia article: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atom_interferometer

So no, they are not science fiction.
Title: Re: FET's gravity
Post by: Lord Xenu on October 21, 2011, 03:25:04 AM
More to the point, experiments have been done to determine G
Such as what?

Atom interferometer measurements: Basically, they can determine very accurately how a collection of atoms has moved. By placing a mass near by and determinging any differences, they can determine G.

Sounds like a science fiction device to me.

The paper: http://www.sciencemag.org/content/315/5808/74.abstract

A wikipedia article: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atom_interferometer

So no, they are not science fiction.
Oh, if it's on Wikipedia it must be real. I apologize for doubting you.
Title: Re: FET's gravity
Post by: penguins_demise on October 21, 2011, 03:34:59 AM
Oh, if it's on Wikipedia it must be real. I apologize for doubting you.

Sorry:
Stanford University: http://www.stanford.edu/group/chugroup/amo/interferometry.html
Berkeley: http://physics.berkeley.edu/research/mueller/Atom%20Interferometry/AI.htm
A book written on the topic: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/book/9780120924608 (You may not be able to access this one, you need a subscription)
A paper on the subject: http://iopscience.iop.org/0953-4075/32/15/201
MIT: http://www.rle.mit.edu/ifm/html/ifm_pubs.html

Would you like more?
Title: Re: FET's gravity
Post by: Lord Xenu on October 21, 2011, 03:46:06 AM
Oh, if it's on Wikipedia it must be real. I apologize for doubting you.

Sorry:
Stanford University: http://www.stanford.edu/group/chugroup/amo/interferometry.html
Berkeley: http://physics.berkeley.edu/research/mueller/Atom%20Interferometry/AI.htm
A book written on the topic: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/book/9780120924608 (You may not be able to access this one, you need a subscription)
A paper on the subject: http://iopscience.iop.org/0953-4075/32/15/201
MIT: http://www.rle.mit.edu/ifm/html/ifm_pubs.html

Would you like more?
I don't deny that conventional Round Earth scientists believe in the existence of such a machine. However, I believe that this device is fictional and is just another method of Conspiracy deceit.
Title: Re: FET's gravity
Post by: markjo on October 21, 2011, 05:36:30 AM
That's all right Xenu, most people believe that you are fictional too.
Title: Re: FET's gravity
Post by: flat_earth_really? on October 21, 2011, 06:37:55 AM
Actually, I found the problems for myself and later discovered that many agree with me.
How zetetic of you, starting with a conclusion, then finding evidence to agree with it.

Still too thick. Try adding water
So you're hiding comments now by using transparent text?
Is that supposed to be of some significance in this thread? Looks more like a response to where you ran away butt-hurt from your previous comments here http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=51150.msg1258855#msg1258855 (http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=51150.msg1258855#msg1258855) and here http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=51150.msg1258744#msg1258744 (http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=51150.msg1258744#msg1258744)
Maybe you should respond to them in the correct thread. While you're at it, if you use non-transparent text it'll be a little easier to read.
Title: Re: FET's gravity
Post by: PizzaPlanet on October 21, 2011, 06:44:10 AM
So you're hiding comments now by using transparent text?
Hello, and welcome to the Flat Earth Society.
Here's a quick newbie-hint: Calling people out on something everyone here does is very silly!
Enjoy your stay!
Title: Re: FET's gravity
Post by: flat_earth_really? on October 21, 2011, 07:25:24 AM
So you're hiding comments now by using transparent text?
Hello, and welcome to the Flat Earth Society.
Here's a quick newbie-hint: Calling people out on something everyone here does is very silly!
Enjoy your stay!
I haven't seen that done anywhere else, and to my knowledge its the first time someone has done that to me. Since when does everyone doing something mean anything? It's still a comment out of context and hidden.

Here's a quick real world hint: Actually thinking the world is flat is very silly. Doesn't seem to stop plenty of people claiming it on this website, so I guess looking silly isn't really much of a problem round here.
Title: Re: FET's gravity
Post by: Sentient Pizza on October 21, 2011, 08:09:10 AM
I don't deny that conventional Round Earth scientists believe in the existence of such a machine. However, I believe that this device is fictional and is just another method of Conspiracy deceit.

I hope you dont have to testify in court much, or string conversations together where they matter. Notice you said this just a couple posts ago?
Sounds like a science fiction device to me.

That in simple terms is a denial that it is real and/or anyone believes in the existance of such a machine.

The problem with text LX is that people can go back and see what you said before. please try to keep it together.
Title: Re: FET's gravity
Post by: PizzaPlanet on October 21, 2011, 08:26:24 AM
I haven't seen that done anywhere else, and to my knowledge its the first time someone has done that to me.
Yes, it's called being new. If you prefer, it's called being a newfag. I tried being friendly and helpful, but apparently you're not into that kind of thing. I'll keep that in mind.
Title: Re: FET's gravity
Post by: Sentient Pizza on October 21, 2011, 08:35:24 AM
If you prefer, it's called being a newfag.

Who spends too much time on 4chan? Pizza planet does.
Title: Re: FET's gravity
Post by: Lord Xenu on October 21, 2011, 08:39:42 AM
Sounds like a science fiction device to me.

That in simple terms is a denial that it is real and/or anyone believes in the existance of such a machine.

Wut? I said it sounds like a science fiction device to me. This implies nothing about whether or not REers believe in the existence of this bizarre contraption.
Title: Re: FET's gravity
Post by: PizzaPlanet on October 21, 2011, 08:41:52 AM
Who spends too much time on 4chan? Pizza planet does.
Unfortunately, I can't link you to search results directly, but with just a bit of your own initiative (http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?action=search) you can find out that "newfag" is a common word round here. With just a bit more (http://knowyourmeme.com/memes/fag-suffix), you can discover that it's a common word everywhere in the Internet.
The Internet is a crazy place. I welcome you to it!
Title: Re: FET's gravity
Post by: flat_earth_really? on October 21, 2011, 09:11:14 AM
I tried being friendly and helpful
No you didn't. You said what I had done was silly:
Calling people out on something everyone here does is very silly!
How is that friendly or helpful?
Helpful would, for example, involve explaining why people do that.
Friendly would, for example, have not included calling me silly.
Title: Re: FET's gravity
Post by: PizzaPlanet on October 21, 2011, 09:23:54 AM
Calling people out on something everyone here does is very silly!
How is that friendly or helpful?
It provided you with essential information in no time!

Helpful would, for example, involve explaining why people do that.
I doubt there's a particular reason to that. People on the Internet often make little sense, as you will surely agree.

Friendly would, for example, have not included calling me silly.
Why? "Silly" is a word used in many friendly contexts, including cartoons for five-year-olds. Unfriendly would be calling your actions retarded or moronic.
Title: Re: FET's gravity
Post by: Sentient Pizza on October 21, 2011, 10:11:38 AM
you can discover that it's a common word everywhere in the Internet.
The Internet is a crazy place. I welcome you to it!

I love your logic here.

It happens in lots of places, so you clearly dont know what your talking about. Even though the link I posted only mentions 4chan as a source for this modern application
-then-
you clearly dont know much about the internet and its uses. Since I am an expert at these things, I invite you to explore it.

can we get back to the Gravity issue?
Title: Re: FET's gravity
Post by: kaimason1 on October 22, 2011, 09:51:18 PM
Yeah, really. No one has answered the fact that G can be measured using small, Earth based objects, in experiments similar to Cavendish. They've just skirted and ignored the issue.

Oh wait, that's every Round Earth thread.