# The Flat Earth Society

## Flat Earth Discussion Boards => Flat Earth Q&A => Topic started by: holybrain on October 10, 2006, 04:41:04 PM

Title: Gravity Question
Post by: holybrain on October 10, 2006, 04:41:04 PM
The FAQ says that some FE'ers believe that the underside of the FE is rocks, but wouldn't the rocks fly off because gravity would be reversed?
Title: Gravity Question
Post by: Unimportant on October 10, 2006, 06:02:03 PM
They are obviously attached the the earth somehow.
Title: Gravity Question
Post by: soggycrouton on October 10, 2006, 06:03:18 PM
No, they think gravity is created by the earth constantly accelerated.
Title: Gravity Question
Post by: holybrain on October 10, 2006, 06:04:39 PM
How do we know that a FE has rocks on the bottom? Is there any evidence of the depth of a FE
Title: Gravity Question
Post by: holybrain on October 10, 2006, 06:05:58 PM
Quote from: "soggycrouton"
No, they think gravity is created by the earth constantly accelerated.

In a FE, the Earth is flying up at the spped of gravity (see FAQ), so gravity would be reversed on the bootom of a FE.
Title: Gravity Question
Post by: TheEngineer on October 10, 2006, 06:36:29 PM
Quote from: "holybrain"
Quote from: "soggycrouton"
No, they think gravity is created by the earth constantly accelerated.

In a FE, the Earth is flying up at the spped of gravity (see FAQ), so gravity would be reversed on the bootom of a FE.

Not quite.  There is no 'gravity'.  On the upper surface, we are 'pinned' down by the earth's acceleration.  On the bottom surface, those things attached to the earth are also accelerated up with the earth.  Things not attached to the earth are left behind.
Title: Gravity Question
Post by: Dioptimus Drime on October 10, 2006, 06:38:35 PM
Theoretically, yes, but it's pretty much safe to assume that the "Rocks" aren't just a few pebbles; it most likely means like a rock-face, not just rocks in general.
Plus, it's also pretty much safe to assume that the force that is contsantly accelerating us to form the gravity is pushing from the underside of the Earth (where else would it push from?), and therefore even if it was just a bunch of pebbles, they would be going along for the ride.

~D-Draw
Title: Gravity Question
Post by: holybrain on October 10, 2006, 06:42:02 PM
Quote from: "DiegoDraw"
Theoretically, yes, but it's pretty much safe to assume that the "Rocks" aren't just a few pebbles; it most likely means like a rock-face, not just rocks in general.
Plus, it's also pretty much safe to assume that the force that is contsantly accelerating us to form the gravity is pushing from the underside of the Earth (where else would it push from?), and therefore even if it was just a bunch of pebbles, they would be going along for the ride.

~D-Draw

Are you saying that on a FE there's some sort of object that's shooting the FE into the air?
Title: Gravity Question
Post by: SuperDude on October 10, 2006, 07:23:34 PM
Forget the rocks! theres four elephants and a turtle on the underside
Title: Gravity Question
Post by: Unimportant on October 10, 2006, 08:21:11 PM
Quote from: "holybrain"
Are you saying that on a FE there's some sort of object that's shooting the FE into the air?

Most likely not an "object" in the sense of a gigantic solid mass, but yeah, basically. Something is pushing the earth "up" with a force sufficient to accelerate the disc at 9.8 m/s^2.
Title: Gravity Question
Post by: Ph8 on October 11, 2006, 01:30:42 AM
Quote from: "SuperDude"
Forget the rocks! theres four elephants and a turtle on the underside

Amen to that
Title: Re: Gravity Question
Post by: joffenz on October 11, 2006, 08:25:44 AM
Quote from: "holybrain"
The FAQ says that some FE'ers believe that the underside of the FE is rocks, but wouldn't the rocks fly off because gravity would be reversed?

No because whatever is pushing the Earth up, (dark energy, etc) would be pushing up the rocks as well.
Title: Gravity Question
Post by: Mad_Aussie on October 12, 2006, 09:02:16 AM
Quote from: "Unimportant"
Quote from: "holybrain"
Are you saying that on a FE there's some sort of object that's shooting the FE into the air?

Most likely not an "object" in the sense of a gigantic solid mass, but yeah, basically. Something is pushing the earth "up" with a force sufficient to accelerate the disc at 9.8 m/s^2.

No. If that where the case then we wouldnt be able to see the rest of our solar system, or anything in space for that matter, because if we've been accelerating at 9.8m/s^2 for thousands of years, we would be going so infathomably fast that quite literally we wouldnt be able to see anything for long enough to register what it is/was. Not to mention that you're suggesting a perfectly vertical accelleration through the vaccum of space, what happens when another large object gets in our way, or even if we pass something like a planet etc, what about their gravitational forces affecting this 'disk'.

Im sorry but its not plausible to try to dismiss something like gravity. And I thought that someone saying that the skys apparant colour isnt really blue was bad.
Title: Gravity Question
Post by: Unimportant on October 12, 2006, 10:05:02 AM
No. If that where the case then we wouldnt be able to see the rest of our solar system, or anything in space for that matter, because if we've been accelerating at 9.8m/s^2 for thousands of years, we would be going so infathomably fast that quite literally we wouldnt be able to see anything for long enough to register what it is/was.

Everything we see is moving just about the same speed we are. Of course we'll be able to see them.

Quote
Not to mention that you're suggesting a perfectly vertical accelleration through the vaccum of space, what happens when another large object gets in our way,

Quote
or even if we pass something like a planet etc, what about their gravitational forces affecting this 'disk'.

I could ask the same question of the round earth model. The universe is a big place.

Quote
Im sorry but its not plausible to try to dismiss something like gravity.

Why not? Or is this just another baseless assertion the we all love so much.
Title: Gravity Question
Post by: Mad_Aussie on October 12, 2006, 10:11:10 AM
Quote

Quote:
or even if we pass something like a planet etc, what about their gravitational forces affecting this 'disk'.

I could ask the same question of the round earth model. The universe is a big place.

To answer your question then, our planet reacts to gravitational forces like every other planet in our solar system. We orbit a sun, and our orbit varies depending on the proximity of other objects in that system.

Now what i'm getting at is that if we are just accelerating upwards at a constant rate, and this is the only reason that stuff sticks to the 'disks' surface, then if we happen to pass something massive, say a planet the size of jupiter, then suddenly things wont just be accellerating down, they would also move towards that gravitational pull as we pass it.I.e. drop a stone, it shoots sideways for a brief moment. Not down.

Now, if you want to start dismissing gravity aswell, then please wander off the side of your flat earth. Because gravity is infact a byproduct of the electromagnetic forces holding everything in this existance together. Our atoms, and their components, are held together by the same fundamental force that keeps our feet on the ground, that also keeps large masses of rock in space like planets sperical, or at least, not flat.
Title: Gravity Question
Post by: Unimportant on October 12, 2006, 10:19:11 AM
Because gravity is infact a byproduct of the electromagnetic forces holding everything in this existance together. Our atoms, and their components, are held together by the same fundamental force that keeps our feet on the ground,

Wow, and you say we are the ones just throwing conventional science out the window!

Hate to be the one to break it to you, but gravity has nothing to do with the electromagnetic force, or the nuclear forces. Really, you've lost quite a bit of credibility with that one.
Title: Gravity Question
Post by: Mad_Aussie on October 12, 2006, 10:25:22 AM
no, i ran off the tracks there i must admit. Im having good fun arguing this however, but i mixed my forces up a little bit.

Let me go back to my flat earth model I was talking about in my other thread, and throw a cup of water on my lap.

eureka, gravity! Stuff falling down is much more plausible than the floor moving rapidly towards the stuff.
Title: Gravity Question
Post by: TheEngineer on October 12, 2006, 12:59:56 PM

Let me go back to my flat earth model I was talking about in my other thread, and throw a cup of water on my lap.

eureka, gravity! Stuff falling down is much more plausible than the floor moving rapidly towards the stuff.

To which I say, eureka, acceleration!  The earth accelerating is much more plausible than stuff interacting with an unkown force that causes things not in contact to react to each other.
Title: Gravity Question
Post by: Erasmus on October 12, 2006, 02:14:35 PM
if we've been accelerating at 9.8m/s^2 for thousands of years, we would be going so infathomably fast that quite literally we wouldnt be able to see anything for long enough to register what it is/was.

Wrong!
Title: Gravity Question
Post by: Erasmus on October 12, 2006, 02:17:01 PM
our planet reacts to gravitational forces like every other planet in our solar system.

No it doesn't.

Quote
We orbit a sun,

No we don't.

Quote
if we happen to pass something massive, say a planet the size of jupiter,

Doesn't happen.

Quote
Because gravity is infact a byproduct of the electromagnetic forces holding everything in this existance together.

No it isn't.

Quote
Our atoms, and their components, are held together by the same fundamental force that keeps our feet on the ground,

No they aren't.
Title: Gravity Question
Post by: beast on October 12, 2006, 04:57:20 PM

eureka, gravity! Stuff falling down is much more plausible than the floor moving rapidly towards the stuff.

What's the difference?  Surely the question of which is falling towards the other can only be based around our frame of reference.

According to RE theory we are moving at 1,800 km per hour in terms of the spin of the Earth, 108,000 km/hr in terms of the orbit of the Earth around the Sun, 900,000 km/hr in terms of the Solar System moving in the Milky Way and 1,080,000 km/hr in terms of our galaxy relative to the other local galaxies.  So I'm moving at more than 1 million km/hr and yet I don't notice anything.  Frame of reference.

Of course that is assuming the Earth is Round, which it isn't, but newtonian physics work just as well in flat Earth theory too.
Title: Gravity Question
Post by: soggycrouton on October 13, 2006, 10:20:05 AM
Quote
Of course that is assuming the Earth is Round, which it isn't, but newtonian physics work just as well in flat Earth theory too.

Except for gravity, which you guys have trouble explaining some aspects of, like why we weight slightly less at high altitudes.
Title: Gravity Question
Post by: GeoGuy on October 13, 2006, 04:13:05 PM
Quote from: "soggycrouton"

... why we weight slightly less at high altitudes.

We don't.
Title: Gravity Question
Post by: holybrain on October 13, 2006, 04:16:51 PM
Quote from: "GeoGuy"
Quote from: "soggycrouton"

... why we weight slightly less at high altitudes.

We don't.

In a FE world, either we weigh slightly less at high altitudes and the sun, moon, etc. are responsible, are we weigh the same everywhere and the aforementioned objects make no difference.
Title: Gravity Question
Post by: Unimportant on October 15, 2006, 04:12:41 PM
Yeah, it's one of those.
Title: Gravity Question
Post by: phaseshifter on October 15, 2006, 10:02:08 PM
Quote from: "holybrain"
Quote from: "GeoGuy"
Quote from: "soggycrouton"

... why we weight slightly less at high altitudes.

We don't.

In a FE world, either we weigh slightly less at high altitudes and the sun, moon, etc. are responsible, are we weigh the same everywhere and the aforementioned objects make no difference.

What do you mean either? Which is it? How could the sun and moon be responsible if gravity doesn't exist?
Title: Gravity Question
Post by: woopedazz on October 15, 2006, 10:04:23 PM
OH SNAP!!!

haha, and i just had another thought...ill make a new post for it  :lol:
Title: Gravity Question
Post by: phaseshifter on October 16, 2006, 09:09:47 AM
Title: Gravity Question
Post by: TheEngineer on October 16, 2006, 09:39:42 AM
Just because the earth is gravatationally 'neutral' doesn't mean everything else in the universe is.
Title: Gravity Question
Post by: soggycrouton on October 16, 2006, 02:23:34 PM
Quote from: "TheEngineer"
Just because the earth is gravatationally 'neutral' doesn't mean everything else in the universe is.

Yet you then complain that gravity doesn't make any sense. Either it's not part of your theory, and you can use it to criticize the RE model, or it IS part of your theory, and you shouldn't critisize the RE model for utilizing gravity.

Quote
We don't.

Title: Gravity Question
Post by: GeoGuy on October 16, 2006, 02:51:50 PM
Quote from: "soggycrouton"

I know, but until someone provides solid evidence that says we do I have no reason to accept it.
Title: Gravity Question
Post by: soggycrouton on October 16, 2006, 02:55:18 PM
Quote from: "GeoGuy"
Quote from: "soggycrouton"

I know, but until someone provides solid evidence that says we do I have no reason to accept it.

How solid does would the evidence have to be?
Title: Gravity Question
Post by: holybrain on October 16, 2006, 02:56:41 PM
Quote from: "soggycrouton"

Quote from: "The FAQ"
The opinions and beliefs expressed in any posts do not necessarily reflect the beliefs of The Flat Earth Society Forums.
The Flat Earth Society Forums' goal is to promote the free discussion of The Flat Earth Theory as well as the free discussion of and debate of any topic of interest to our members that do not contradict Forum Rules.
The views of any individual or organization (including that of the old Flat Earth Society run by Charles K Johnson) are not nessecarily shared in whole or in part by The Flat Earth Society Forums. The only person qualified to give the official position of the Forums (if required) is Daniel.
Also please remember that views of the Forum are not necessarily shared by the Forum Staff who come from both sides of The Flat/Sphere Debate and whose sole unifying purpose is to promote a smooth running forum so as to encourage the victory of truth throught free disscussion and argument.
Title: Gravity Question
Post by: GeoGuy on October 16, 2006, 02:58:33 PM
Quote from: "soggycrouton"

How solid does would the evidence have to be?

Solid enough to show that we weigh less the higher we go.
Title: Gravity Question
Post by: soggycrouton on October 16, 2006, 03:15:11 PM
Quote from: "holybrain"
Quote from: "soggycrouton"

Quote from: "The FAQ"
The opinions and beliefs expressed in any posts do not necessarily reflect the beliefs of The Flat Earth Society Forums.
The Flat Earth Society Forums' goal is to promote the free discussion of The Flat Earth Theory as well as the free discussion of and debate of any topic of interest to our members that do not contradict Forum Rules.
The views of any individual or organization (including that of the old Flat Earth Society run by Charles K Johnson) are not nessecarily shared in whole or in part by The Flat Earth Society Forums. The only person qualified to give the official position of the Forums (if required) is Daniel.
Also please remember that views of the Forum are not necessarily shared by the Forum Staff who come from both sides of The Flat/Sphere Debate and whose sole unifying purpose is to promote a smooth running forum so as to encourage the victory of truth throught free disscussion and argument.

I know, I was just pointing it out.

Quote
Solid enough to show that we weigh less the higher we go.

But if I linked you to a study or something that demonstrated this, or claimed to have demonstrated this, you would not believe it, correct? I would have to actually demonstrate this for you.
Title: Gravity Question
Post by: GeoGuy on October 16, 2006, 03:18:44 PM
Quote from: "soggycrouton"

But if I linked you to a study or something that demonstrated this, or claimed to have demonstrated this, you would not believe it, correct? I would have to actually demonstrate this for you.

It would basically need to be an experiment I could perform myself, yes. And one that wouldn't require to spend thousands of dollars to perform, as I haven't got that kind of cash just lying around.
Title: Gravity Question
Post by: soggycrouton on October 16, 2006, 03:23:18 PM
Quote from: "GeoGuy"
Quote from: "soggycrouton"

But if I linked you to a study or something that demonstrated this, or claimed to have demonstrated this, you would not believe it, correct? I would have to actually demonstrate this for you.

It would basically need to be an experiment I could perform myself, yes. And one that wouldn't require to spend thousands of dollars to perform, as I haven't got that kind of cash just lying around.

So you believe nothing unless it has been demonstrated to you personally?
Title: Gravity Question
Post by: GeoGuy on October 16, 2006, 03:28:45 PM
Quote from: "soggycrouton"

So you believe nothing unless it has been demonstrated to you personally?

Myself no, I'm willing to accept many scientific theories that I believe have strong enough supporting evidence, but I doubt the FE's will be convinced so easily.
Title: Gravity Question
Post by: Erasmus on October 16, 2006, 03:34:19 PM
Quote from: "soggycrouton"
Yet you then complain that gravity doesn't make any sense. Either it's not part of your theory, and you can use it to criticize the RE model, or it IS part of your theory, and you shouldn't critisize the RE model for utilizing gravity.

We criticize the RE model for utilizing gravity universally.
Title: Gravity Question
Post by: Ambassadork on October 16, 2006, 04:29:40 PM
Yes, it makes much more sense to utilize it only when it benefits your agenda.
Title: Gravity Question
Post by: holybrain on October 16, 2006, 05:03:19 PM
Yes, it makes much more sense to utilize it only when it benefits your agenda.

Yes, and it also makes sense to troll this forum instead of asking for clarification.
Title: Gravity Question
Post by: Ambassadork on October 16, 2006, 05:09:37 PM
Well, isn't the "law" of gravity considered a "law" because it is universal? Why would gravity apply to some objects and not others?
Title: Gravity Question
Post by: holybrain on October 16, 2006, 05:12:17 PM
Well, isn't the "law" of gravity considered a "law" because it is universal? Why would gravity apply to some objects and not others?

It is the law of gravity in the RE model. Not in the FE model.
Title: Gravity Question
Post by: Kryptid on October 16, 2006, 05:15:46 PM
Well, isn't the "law" of gravity considered a "law" because it is universal? Why would gravity apply to some objects and not others?

In a technical sense, a law doesn't have to apply to everything in the Universe; just some subset of objects in the Universe. The strong nuclear force, for example, has laws written regarding its strength, range, etc., but it only affects certain types of subatomic particles. Likewise, the laws that govern electrical attraction only apply to charged objects, not neutral ones like neutrinos.
Title: Gravity Question
Post by: Ambassadork on October 16, 2006, 05:17:47 PM
So in the FE model it's a magical mystical force that affects everything except Earth?

I'm really just trying to understand all of this. It just seems odd that the flat earth people denounce gravity, yet at the same time use gravity as an explanation for something.
Title: Gravity Question
Post by: holybrain on October 16, 2006, 05:25:48 PM
So in the FE model it's a magical mystical force that affects everything except Earth?

I'm really just trying to understand all of this. It just seems odd that the flat earth people denounce gravity, yet at the same time use gravity as an explanation for something.

The FE model is by no means finished. There may not exist gravity at all in the FE model. In an FE, the Earth doesn't have a gravitational pull, but instead is accelerating upwards. Read the FAQ. If you can prove that people weigh a bit less at high altitudes, then the sun, moon, and stars emit gravity in The FE theory. If you weigh the same everywhere, then there is no gravity, but just the aforementioned acceleration.
Title: Gravity Question
Post by: Rainer on October 16, 2006, 05:33:48 PM
OK, so if gravity is simply the Earth thrusting upwards by some personaly unknown force, then we would be movin at the same velocity.  If that is true then why do we fall back to Earth?  If we jump and we are moving at the same speed then wouldn't we be going at the current speed of the Earth plus the speed just added by the jump?  Or if we were to throw something into the air, then why does it come back if it was already moving at the same speed as the Earth when trown?
Title: Gravity Question
Post by: Ambassadork on October 16, 2006, 05:36:32 PM
Because the earth is constantly accelerating not just moving at a constant speed.
Title: Gravity Question
Post by: TheEngineer on October 16, 2006, 05:37:01 PM
Because the earth is accelerating.
Title: Gravity Question
Post by: Rainer on October 16, 2006, 05:41:59 PM
but we would be accelorating at the same rate as the earth
Title: Gravity Question
Post by: phaseshifter on October 16, 2006, 05:44:40 PM
Quote from: "Rainer"
OK, so if gravity is simply the Earth thrusting upwards by some personaly unknown force, then we would be movin at the same velocity.  If that is true then why do we fall back to Earth?  If we jump and we are moving at the same speed then wouldn't we be going at the current speed of the Earth plus the speed just added by the jump?  Or if we were to throw something into the air, then why does it come back if it was already moving at the same speed as the Earth when trown?

This is the paradox of the"moving upwards" thing that I keep wondring about. People beleive in it even though they can throw objects up themselves and see them come back down. But I'm not even sure if they will understand the concept tha tan object that accelerates in the same direction as an other below it at greater speed would never come back down.

Quote
for example, has laws written regarding its strength, range, etc., but it only affects certain types of subatomic particles. Likewise, the laws that govern electrical attraction only apply to charged objects, not neutral ones like neutrinos.

That is incorrect. Object that have a neutral charge are still subject to the magnetic force. In order to be neutral, an object needs to have it's positive charge equal to it's negative charge. A neutral charge is not the same as an abcense of therof.
Title: Gravity Question
Post by: holybrain on October 16, 2006, 05:45:49 PM
Quote from: "Rainer"
but we would be accelorating at the same rate as the earth

Not unless you had a jetpack.
Title: Gravity Question
Post by: Erasmus on October 16, 2006, 05:56:48 PM
Well, isn't the "law" of gravity considered a "law" because it is universal?

What do you think the "law of gravity" is?  I'm aware that Newton proposed a "Law of Universal Gravitation", in which he stated all objects attract each other in such and such a fashion.

It's not the word "law" that makes it universal, it's the word "universal".
Title: Gravity Question
Post by: Rainer on October 16, 2006, 06:04:27 PM
Quote from: Erasmus
Well, isn't the "law" of gravity considered a "law" because it is universal?

What do you think the "law of gravity" is?  I'm aware that Newton proposed a "Law of Universal Gravitation", in which he stated all objects attract each other in such and such a fashion.

Quote
It's not the word "law" that makes it universal, it's the word "universal".

I agree and am glad that someone said it.  Its a law because its a fact.  It is only universal when it applies to everything.  I am currently unaware of a law of universal gravitation in the FE theory.  If I am wrong or just sound stupid, please tell me.
Title: Gravity Question
Post by: Kryptid on October 16, 2006, 06:11:41 PM
Quote
That is incorrect. Object that have a neutral charge are still subject to the magnetic force. In order to be neutral, an object needs to have it's positive charge equal to it's negative charge. A neutral charge is not the same as an abcense of therof.

Hence why I used neutrinos as an example. They are electrically neutral, and are not composed of more fundamental charges.
Title: Gravity Question
Post by: phaseshifter on October 16, 2006, 06:16:07 PM
Quote from: "Kryptid"
Quote
That is incorrect. Object that have a neutral charge are still subject to the magnetic force. In order to be neutral, an object needs to have it's positive charge equal to it's negative charge. A neutral charge is not the same as an abcense of therof.

Hence why I used neutrinos as an example. They are electrically neutral, and are not composed of more fundamental charges.

Neutrinos complacate everything. They refuse to obey the same laws as other memebrs of their family, like water.
Title: Gravity Question
Post by: holybrain on October 16, 2006, 06:26:21 PM
Quote from: "phaseshifter"
Quote from: "Kryptid"
Quote
That is incorrect. Object that have a neutral charge are still subject to the magnetic force. In order to be neutral, an object needs to have it's positive charge equal to it's negative charge. A neutral charge is not the same as an abcense of therof.

Hence why I used neutrinos as an example. They are electrically neutral, and are not composed of more fundamental charges.

Neutrinos complacate everything. They refuse to obey the same laws as other memebrs of their family, like water.

How are neutrinos and water in the same family?
Title: Gravity Question
Post by: Unimportant on October 16, 2006, 07:06:48 PM
Quote from: "phaseshifter"
This is the paradox of the"moving upwards" thing that I keep wondring about. People beleive in it even though they can throw objects up themselves and see them come back down. But I'm not even sure if they will understand the concept tha tan object that accelerates in the same direction as an other below it at greater speed would never come back down.

Everyone understands that scenario. It is also irrelevent. When you throw the baseball, it ceases to accelerate. Thus, it is not accelerating, and the earth below it - which is accelerating - will catch up with it.

That you fail to understand this damages the credibility of your arguments.
Title: Gravity Question
Post by: TheEngineer on October 16, 2006, 09:54:02 PM
Quote from: "phaseshifter"

Neutrinos complacate everything. They refuse to obey the same laws as other memebrs of their family, like water.

Quote from: "phaseshifter"
This is the paradox of the"moving upwards" thing that I keep wondring about. People beleive in it even though they can throw objects up themselves and see them come back down. But I'm not even sure if they will understand the concept tha tan object that accelerates in the same direction as an other below it at greater speed would never come back down.

See that train leaving the station?  Your credibility is on it.
Title: Gravity Question
Post by: phaseshifter on October 16, 2006, 10:15:57 PM
Quote from: "holybrain"
Quote from: "phaseshifter"
Quote from: "Kryptid"
Quote
That is incorrect. Object that have a neutral charge are still subject to the magnetic force. In order to be neutral, an object needs to have it's positive charge equal to it's negative charge. A neutral charge is not the same as an abcense of therof.

Hence why I used neutrinos as an example. They are electrically neutral, and are not composed of more fundamental charges.

Neutrinos complacate everything. They refuse to obey the same laws as other memebrs of their family, like water.

How are neutrinos and water in the same family?

Work on deduction by associations would you? Thay are not in the same family.

Man, how hard can it be?  Neutrinos are to other particles as water is to other liquids. They behave differently. It's no wonder you think the earth is flat.......

Quote
When you throw the baseball, it ceases to accelerate

Why would it cease to accelerate?
Title: Gravity Question
Post by: TheEngineer on October 16, 2006, 11:11:09 PM
Quote from: "phaseshifter"

Why would it cease to accelerate?

Man, how hard can it be?  Once it leaves your hand, it no loger has a force accelerating it.
Title: Gravity Question
Post by: beast on October 17, 2006, 05:35:52 AM
How hard is basic newtonian physics to understand?

This topic is a waste of time.  Phaseshifter go back to school and stay there.  You may or may not be told the truth but if you're level of knowledge of the most simple physics we have is so lacking there is no way you'll be capable of understanding anything on this site.  I enjoy this website because it offers at times stimulating intellectual discussion despite the 90% stupid RE trolls who for some reason think people actually believe the world is flat.  I definitely do not see any purpose in wasting my time educating them about the laws of physics that are the most fundamental in RE science.  There is a very good reason why Newtonian physics is still taught in schools even though it's not really correct.  Go learn it.
Title: Gravity Question
Post by: soggycrouton on October 17, 2006, 05:49:15 PM
Quote
who for some reason think people actually believe the world is flat

Well, a handful here do believe it.
Title: Gravity Question
Post by: beast on October 17, 2006, 06:05:30 PM
Prove it.
Title: Gravity Question
Post by: Unimportant on October 17, 2006, 06:09:39 PM
I do!

(Just kidding.)

((Or am I?))

(((Yeah lol I am)))

((((Or maybe that's what I want you to think...))))
Title: Gravity Question
Post by: soggycrouton on October 17, 2006, 10:31:09 PM
Quote from: "beast"
Prove it.

That some people here do believe it? Well, they have an entire section devoted to those who actually do.