The Flat Earth Society

Flat Earth Discussion Boards => Flat Earth Q&A => Topic started by: MikeBob12345 on April 27, 2013, 09:29:27 PM

Title: Gravity. It disproves FE Theory.
Post by: MikeBob12345 on April 27, 2013, 09:29:27 PM
Gravity. At any point on earth the force of gravity is almost the same (because gravity pulls centers of objects to centers of objects and as we move along the surface our distance from the center doesn't change). We observe gravitational forces between all masses.

If the earth is a disc, then people on the edges would feel less gravity than the people in the middle since their distance from the centre is higher. But this isn't the case.

If the disc is accelerating at 9.8 m/s^2 upwards, then we'd observe that level of acceleration towards the earth at every point above the earth. But that number of 9.8m/s^2 only applies to the acceleration on the surface. As you move further from the surface we records lower acceleration rates.....


So, basically, FE theory does not work if you believe in gravitational theory (all masses are attracted to each other in a manner proportional to their masses and inversely proportional to the square of the radius between object centres).
Title: Re: Gravity. It disproves FE Theory.
Post by: Ski on April 27, 2013, 09:35:29 PM
Perhaps you could spend a few minutes perusing the FAQ (Frequently Asked Questions) before you author another dozen threads.
Title: Re: Gravity. It disproves FE Theory.
Post by: mbone99 on April 28, 2013, 04:16:02 PM
FE usually does not involve gravity, so gravity doesn't disprove FE. Also, the UA is only a theory, and everything the FAQ says isn't what's 100% correct.
Title: Re: Gravity. It disproves FE Theory.
Post by: Ze_PilOt on April 29, 2013, 09:35:01 AM
Our own weight and the weight of everything else is sufficient to keep us on the ground on a flat infinite earth, which is the floor of the universe above us.

Yes, you are 100% correct, weight is what keep us on ground.

But.. You do realize what weight is, right ? Because the first part of your reply actually contradict entirely the second part.

(just in case : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Weight (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Weight)).

It's kind of funny to see you instinctively understand what the idea of gravity is, explaining us how it works, while completely reproving the word itself.
Title: Re: Gravity. It disproves FE Theory.
Post by: DuckDodgers on April 29, 2013, 09:59:16 AM
I don't see any need for gravity at all. It's just something that's made up to account for what we are told to perceive as to what we are in the universe and what is happening in the universe.

I don't believe there is any such thing as gravity at all. Our own weight and the weight of everything else is sufficient to keep us on the ground on a flat infinite earth, which is the floor of the universe above us.

Last time I checked, I didn't have to be told to perceive an object falling towards the Earth, except by my own brain. 

And what causes weight?  By your logic, it would seem that more massive objects should fall faster than less massive objects.
Title: Re: Gravity. It disproves FE Theory.
Post by: sandmanMike on April 29, 2013, 10:01:09 AM
Our own weight and the weight of everything else is sufficient to keep us on the ground on a flat infinite earth, which is the floor of the universe above us.

Gravity is just a made up word to describe a force that nobody knows about,

So you agree, there is a force that keeps us on the ground then.  And that society has named that force gravity.  Glad you agree gravity exists :D
Title: Re: Gravity. It disproves FE Theory.
Post by: DuckDodgers on April 29, 2013, 10:16:24 AM
I don't see any need for gravity at all. It's just something that's made up to account for what we are told to perceive as to what we are in the universe and what is happening in the universe.

I don't believe there is any such thing as gravity at all. Our own weight and the weight of everything else is sufficient to keep us on the ground on a flat infinite earth, which is the floor of the universe above us.

Last time I checked, I didn't have to be told to perceive an object falling towards the Earth, except by my own brain. 

And what causes weight?  By your logic, it would seem that more massive objects should fall faster than less massive objects.
More mass objects will fall faster than less mass ones up to a point but the point is, they simply fall and hit the ground and stay there by their own weight.

This has been prove false time and time again.  Do an experiment and fill a box with shirts and another with books, make sure these boxes are the same size. Time each box as it falls from a specific height.  You would see that it takes approximately the same time for both to hit the ground, leaving some room for human error of course.  But alas, I know you will not even take the time to do this simple and quick experiment.
Title: Re: Gravity. It disproves FE Theory.
Post by: DuckDodgers on April 29, 2013, 10:47:45 AM
I don't see any need for gravity at all. It's just something that's made up to account for what we are told to perceive as to what we are in the universe and what is happening in the universe.

I don't believe there is any such thing as gravity at all. Our own weight and the weight of everything else is sufficient to keep us on the ground on a flat infinite earth, which is the floor of the universe above us.

Last time I checked, I didn't have to be told to perceive an object falling towards the Earth, except by my own brain. 

And what causes weight?  By your logic, it would seem that more massive objects should fall faster than less massive objects.
More mass objects will fall faster than less mass ones up to a point but the point is, they simply fall and hit the ground and stay there by their own weight.

This has been prove false time and time again.  Do an experiment and fill a box with shirts and another with books, make sure these boxes are the same size. Time each box as it falls from a specific height.  You would see that it takes approximately the same time for both to hit the ground, leaving some room for human error of course.  But alas, I know you will not even take the time to do this simple and quick experiment.
Air resistance will make the falls differ by a little. If the objects were heavier and made the air resistance pointless, then yes they would hit the ground at the same time. So what's your point here?

My dear Scepti, you've made my point for me.  Absent of air resistance, objects fall at the same speed.  Meaning weight cannot be the cause of the fall or else the objects would not fall at the same speed.

It also amazes me that you can not only contradict yourself in a matter of one post to the next but also within a single post.  But I'm glad you accept the idea if gravity if not the name of it.
Title: Re: Gravity. It disproves FE Theory.
Post by: Rama Set on May 01, 2013, 12:38:15 PM
I don't see any need for gravity at all. It's just something that's made up to account for what we are told to perceive as to what we are in the universe and what is happening in the universe.

I don't believe there is any such thing as gravity at all. Our own weight and the weight of everything else is sufficient to keep us on the ground on a flat infinite earth, which is the floor of the universe above us.

Last time I checked, I didn't have to be told to perceive an object falling towards the Earth, except by my own brain. 

And what causes weight?  By your logic, it would seem that more massive objects should fall faster than less massive objects.
More mass objects will fall faster than less mass ones up to a point but the point is, they simply fall and hit the ground and stay there by their own weight.

This has been prove false time and time again.  Do an experiment and fill a box with shirts and another with books, make sure these boxes are the same size. Time each box as it falls from a specific height.  You would see that it takes approximately the same time for both to hit the ground, leaving some room for human error of course.  But alas, I know you will not even take the time to do this simple and quick experiment.
Air resistance will make the falls differ by a little. If the objects were heavier and made the air resistance pointless, then yes they would hit the ground at the same time. So what's your point here?

My dear Scepti, you've made my point for me.  Absent of air resistance, objects fall at the same speed.  Meaning weight cannot be the cause of the fall or else the objects would not fall at the same speed.

It also amazes me that you can not only contradict yourself in a matter of one post to the next but also within a single post.  But I'm glad you accept the idea if gravity if not the name of it.
I never said weight was the cause of a fall. If things leave the ground, they fall back down as long as they are heavier than air. There is no gravity needed for anything.

You have most definitely said that objects fall because of their weight.  If it is not their own weight, but an outside force, you are describing gravity in all but name.
Title: Re: Gravity. It disproves FE Theory.
Post by: darknavyseal on May 01, 2013, 12:50:17 PM
Skepti, you have stated multiple times that the reason we stay on the ground is weight. This force of nature you call weight cannot be seen. Why DOES weight keep us on the ground? I don't see any magical thing pushing us down. Nice try, trying to trick us into believing your made up force called weight.

In all seriousness, you are exactly describing gravity. Some unknown force in the universe that brings objects towards eachother.
Title: Re: Gravity. It disproves FE Theory.
Post by: Rama Set on May 02, 2013, 09:00:49 AM
The thing that on your view that is inherent in mass and brings it to the ground?  That's a force, nothing spooky there.  This force, lets call it weight, follows a predictable law that was discovered by a scientist, lets call him Sceptimatic senior, hundreds of years ago.  Some people like to call this gravity, some like to call it weight.  That is semantics really because it behaves exactly the same no matter what you call it.

How this force arises is unclear at this point.  You say it is inherent in mass, many disagree, but there is no conclusive evidence for how it arises yet.
Title: Re: Gravity. It disproves FE Theory.
Post by: Rama Set on May 02, 2013, 09:26:05 AM
I am saying you believe there is a force that is inherent in mass that causes it to fall.  That is pretty consistent with everything you have said.  A few definitions so we are not confused:

Force-Something that causes a change in movement, direction or geometric construction.

Going from not moving to moving is a change in movement and direction, so the action of a falling object has a force acting on it.

Inherent-Existing in something as permanent, essential or characteristic attribute.

You say that it is the mass itself that makes it fall.  So the force that makes the mass fall is inherent in the mass.

Mass-The quantity of matter in an object.

The force you believe in (a force inherent in mass that makes it fall down) behaves in a way that has been accurately described for hundreds of years.  You can easily predict that all mass falls at 9.8m/s^2.  This is what orthodox science also believes.  No difference there.  The disagreement you have is not how it behaves on Earth, but how it arises.  Orthodox science says it arises from an external force, you say the force is inherent in matter. 

You could be right about how it arises, but what is not true is that what we are talking about is radically different.  Your about the burglary is not totally off the mark: we disagree about how your house is burgled, but we do not disagree that burglary took place.
Title: Re: Gravity. It disproves FE Theory.
Post by: Tausami on May 07, 2013, 05:15:24 PM
Because the natural position of Earthly objects is the center of the universe, of course  ::)

In seriousness, though, the prevailing theories are that the Earth is either accelerating upwards at 9.81 m/s2 or that the Earth is infinitely large.
Title: Re: Gravity. It disproves FE Theory.
Post by: Manarq on May 08, 2013, 09:18:39 AM
Because the natural position of Earthly objects is the center of the universe, of course  ::)

In seriousness, though, the prevailing theories are that the Earth is either accelerating upwards at 9.81 m/s2 or that the Earth is infinitely large.
So does an Earth that is an infinite plane have gravity?
Title: Re: Gravity. It disproves FE Theory.
Post by: Roundy the Truthinessist on May 08, 2013, 10:14:38 AM
Things fall at a measurable rate.  I don't see how that fact disproves FE Theory.  And that's really all we have to go on as far as "gravity" is concerned.
Title: Re: Gravity. It disproves FE Theory.
Post by: Shmeggley on May 08, 2013, 10:15:05 AM
Because the natural position of Earthly objects is the center of the universe, of course  ::)

In seriousness, though, the prevailing theories are that the Earth is either accelerating upwards at 9.81 m/s2 or that the Earth is infinitely large.
So does an Earth that is an infinite plane have gravity?
No. Gravity does not exist.
There is magnetism and atmospheric pressure and that's roughly about it. There's no reason for gravity at all, it's simply made up.

Sceptimatic, are you suggesting air pressure holds us down? And/or magnetism attracts us to the Earth?
Title: Re: Gravity. It disproves FE Theory.
Post by: DuckDodgers on May 08, 2013, 10:30:54 AM
Because the natural position of Earthly objects is the center of the universe, of course  ::)

In seriousness, though, the prevailing theories are that the Earth is either accelerating upwards at 9.81 m/s2 or that the Earth is infinitely large.
So does an Earth that is an infinite plane have gravity?
No. Gravity does not exist.
There is magnetism and atmospheric pressure and that's roughly about it. There's no reason for gravity at all, it's simply made up.

Sceptimatic, are you suggesting air pressure holds us down? And/or magnetism attracts us to the Earth?

He had suggested it before and will undoubtedly do so again even though he abandoned the last attempt to defend his distance.
Title: Re: Gravity. It disproves FE Theory.
Post by: Roundy the Truthinessist on May 08, 2013, 10:37:32 AM
Okay, guys, keep focusing on the easy target if that's what you feel you need to do (I understand, arguing for RE when the Earth is so obviously flat is hard!).  Just remember that you're arguing with a single goofball with, um, opinions of his own that most of us consider, um, controversial, and not the FES when you go after him.
Title: Re: Gravity. It disproves FE Theory.
Post by: DuckDodgers on May 08, 2013, 11:46:05 AM
Trust me, I realize who I'm talking to and that he doesn't reflect TFES directly. 

And Scepti, proofs on gravity weren't presented, but reasons why pressure and magnetism can't be the cause were.  But that is behind us now.
Title: Re: Gravity. It disproves FE Theory.
Post by: Shmeggley on May 08, 2013, 12:00:38 PM
Because the natural position of Earthly objects is the center of the universe, of course  ::)

In seriousness, though, the prevailing theories are that the Earth is either accelerating upwards at 9.81 m/s2 or that the Earth is infinitely large.
So does an Earth that is an infinite plane have gravity?
No. Gravity does not exist.
There is magnetism and atmospheric pressure and that's roughly about it. There's no reason for gravity at all, it's simply made up.

Sceptimatic, are you suggesting air pressure holds us down? And/or magnetism attracts us to the Earth?
Nope. I'm saying that is basically all that is acting upon our bodies, not what holds us to the earth.
We don't need any outside force to hold us onto the earth, as we cannot fall off a flat infinite earth, either side ways or upwards, because the earth is the floor, all the way down, infinitely.
Above us is the sky and what we know as space.
Gravity does not exist, it doesn't need to.

You can say that no force is necessary all you like. The fact is there is a force, which we can measure. If you don't like calling it gravity, call it whatever you want, Sceptilition, Thorkitude, Fred, whatever.

I'm still not sure why you say it doesn't need to exist. It's a useful concept in physics, engineering, etc. It explains why the planets have the orbits they do and why mass coalesces into spheres.

And I don't think you've ever explained why you think magnetism is real but gravity isn't. Can you explain that?
Title: Re: Gravity. It disproves FE Theory.
Post by: Shmeggley on May 08, 2013, 12:25:39 PM
I see magnets stick together, so I know there is a magnetic force. I can also feel the repelling of magnets.
I see and feel nothing of gravity.

You also see a ball drop when you let it go, and feel pressure on the soles of your feet when you stand, yet you deny gravity exists.

You could just as easily say there is no magnetic force, that it's just the nature of magnets to do what they do, yet you don't. Why not?
Title: Re: Gravity. It disproves FE Theory.
Post by: Jingle Jangle on May 08, 2013, 12:26:41 PM
Gravity theories I find to be utterly fallacious and hypocritical.  If gravity were related to mass really, then a bowling ball and a feather would not fall at the same rate in a vacuum.  Yet what is seen is that everything falls at the same rate.  The disc rises upward at 32 feet squared.  Case is closed and chalk one up for the home team.  Parallax already proved the earth was flat and thusly disproved even the electronic surveying equipment.  This is because if light really bends so that you see through the telescope, technically the range finder instrument would not detect a curve either.  Its all hypocrisy and reverse mind bending.  I will prove it to you.  Go out 80 miles from the shore and use a telescope.  When you see the coast line,  everyone just needs to hang it up and say the earth was flat actually...
Title: Re: Gravity. It disproves FE Theory.
Post by: Shmeggley on May 08, 2013, 12:46:46 PM
Gravity theories I find to be utterly fallacious and hypocritical.  If gravity were related to mass really, then a bowling ball and a feather would not fall at the same rate in a vacuum.  Yet what is seen is that everything falls at the same rate.  The disc rises upward at 32 feet squared.  Case is closed and chalk one up for the home team.  Parallax already proved the earth was flat and thusly disproved even the electronic surveying equipment.  This is because if light really bends so that you see through the telescope, technically the range finder instrument would not detect a curve either.  Its all hypocrisy and reverse mind bending.  I will prove it to you.  Go out 80 miles from the shore and use a telescope.  When you see the coast line,  everyone just needs to hang it up and say the earth was flat actually...

You could only say that about the feather and bowling ball, if you did not understand how gravity works. Therefore you have no grounds to call it fallacious.

I would like to see the telescope results though. Somehow I doubt you will get the results you expect.
Title: Re: Gravity. It disproves FE Theory.
Post by: Shmeggley on May 08, 2013, 01:05:17 PM
Trust me, I realize who I'm talking to and that he doesn't reflect TFES directly. 

And Scepti, proofs on gravity weren't presented, but reasons why pressure and magnetism can't be the cause were.  But that is behind us now.
I've never said magnetism and air pressure keeps us on earth. I said no force was needed, except for our own weight.

So where does this weight come from?
Title: Re: Gravity. It disproves FE Theory.
Post by: Jingle Jangle on May 08, 2013, 02:59:04 PM
Its simple, if it applies to bowling balls and feathers it applies to a giant boulder and a feather as well.  The earth rising upward is a more plausible statement.  Gravity being related to mass is disproven by the before mentioned experiment.
Title: Re: Gravity. It disproves FE Theory.
Post by: Jingle Jangle on May 08, 2013, 03:07:42 PM
In addition to the above information, I would like to add that in certain portions of Hudson Bay, Canada there is absolutely no force to pull down on objects.  Some just spring off the table.  This situation opens the door to the paranormal and supernatural... It represents that there is some phenomena not explained by science.  You can even google this phenomena and discover the mystery.  I know how gravity works by the way.  Gravity is proportional to mass; however this postulate is disproven when a boulder and a feather are dropped side by side in a vacuum...
Title: Re: Gravity. It disproves FE Theory.
Post by: Shmeggley on May 08, 2013, 03:13:14 PM
Its simple, if it applies to bowling balls and feathers it applies to a giant boulder and a feather as well.  The earth rising upward is a more plausible statement.  Gravity being related to mass is disproven by the before mentioned experiment.

The difference in mass between a feather, bowling ball or boulder is negligible compared to the mass of the Earth. That's why their acceleration is seen to be the same in a vacuum. (EDIT: Not exactly. see my other post as to why the acceleration is the same) You would know this if you took high school physics and understood it. That's why I recommend you study the accepted theory before you dismiss it based on your intuitions about how you think nature should work.

While it's true acceleration is indistinguishable from gravity on short scales, gravity also explains the motions of the planets, and why the sun and planets are spheres. Acceleration can't do this.
Title: Re: Gravity. It disproves FE Theory.
Post by: Shmeggley on May 08, 2013, 03:23:26 PM
In addition to the above information, I would like to add that in certain portions of Hudson Bay, Canada there is absolutely no force to pull down on objects.  Some just spring off the table.  This situation opens the door to the paranormal and supernatural... It represents that there is some phenomena not explained by science.  You can even google this phenomena and discover the mystery.  I know how gravity works by the way.  Gravity is proportional to mass; however this postulate is disproven when a boulder and a feather are dropped side by side in a vacuum...

You mean the very small deviation in gravity in Hudson Bay? http://science.howstuffworks.com/environmental/earth/geophysics/missing-gravity.htm (http://science.howstuffworks.com/environmental/earth/geophysics/missing-gravity.htm)

This doesn't break the theory of gravity in the slightest, variations in the gravitational field on Earth are well known and we know why they occur.

EDIT: In fact this disproves the idea the acceleration of the Earth causes objects to fall. If there were a uniform acceleration (and it would have to be uniform or the Earth would rip apart) then there should be no local variations.

Also, yes it's true that gravity is proportional to the mass - the Force of gravity. The acceleration due to gravity is the same though. Consider a 1Kg mass vs a 10Kg mass. The Force on the 10Kg mass is ten times greater. However the acceleration is also proportional to the mass (F=ma) and the mass cancels out. In other words, it takes a ten times greater force to accelerate a ten times greater mass. Sorry man, this is high school stuff, and I graduated a long time ago. Either you haven't got there yet, or you slept through it.
Title: Re: Gravity. It disproves FE Theory.
Post by: Jingle Jangle on May 08, 2013, 03:40:08 PM
Gravity fails to explain the motion of planets.  And it always fails to explain the reason why the orbits of planets have lasted as long as they have.  If the universe was really billions of years old, the orbits of many planets would have decayed already and entered the sun.  There is a deity hence there has to be a flat earth model.  There is another force at work besides gravity that makes the orbits established.  Just mere Big Bang does not suffice...
Title: Re: Gravity. It disproves FE Theory.
Post by: DuckDodgers on May 08, 2013, 03:55:43 PM
In addition to the above information, I would like to add that in certain portions of Hudson Bay, Canada there is absolutely no force to pull down on objects.  Some just spring off the table.  This situation opens the door to the paranormal and supernatural... It represents that there is some phenomena not explained by science.  You can even google this phenomena and discover the mystery.  I know how gravity works by the way.  Gravity is proportional to mass; however this postulate is disproven when a boulder and a feather are dropped side by side in a vacuum...

You fail to understand the proof which finds the value of acceleration on Earth, g. 

F=(G*(m1/r2)*m2  m1 is the mass of the Earth and m2 is the mass of the object
F=m2a,  since we are solving Earthly gravitational acceleration, a=g.
m2g = (G*(m1/r2)*m2
g=G*(m1/r2)

This shows that gravitational acceleration on the surface of Earth is dependent only on the mass and radius of Earth, and not dependent on the falling object at all.

Title: Re: Gravity. It disproves FE Theory.
Post by: Shmeggley on May 08, 2013, 03:59:29 PM
Gravity fails to explain the motion of planets.  And it always fails to explain the reason why the orbits of planets have lasted as long as they have.  If the universe was really billions of years old, the orbits of many planets would have decayed already and entered the sun.  There is a deity hence there has to be a flat earth model.  There is another force at work besides gravity that makes the orbits established.  Just mere Big Bang does not suffice...

I wasn't talking about the age of the universe or its origins.

There's no other force necessary to explain the motion of the planets. I don't know where you're getting that idea other than someone (maybe from your church?) told you that, or that just "seems right" to you.

I don't see why the existence (or not) of a deity impacts the shape of the Earth, unless you hold to some particular Creation story, like Genesis, as being literally true.
Title: Re: Gravity. It disproves FE Theory.
Post by: DuckDodgers on May 08, 2013, 04:09:29 PM
Gravity fails to explain the motion of planets.  And it always fails to explain the reason why the orbits of planets have lasted as long as they have.  If the universe was really billions of years old, the orbits of many planets would have decayed already and entered the sun.  There is a deity hence there has to be a flat earth model.  There is another force at work besides gravity that makes the orbits established.  Just mere Big Bang does not suffice...

I wasn't talking about the age of the universe or its origins.

There's no other force necessary to explain the motion of the planets. I don't know where you're getting that idea other than someone (maybe from your church?) told you that, or that just "seems right" to you.

I don't see why the existence (or not) of a deity impacts the shape of the Earth, unless you hold to some particular Creation story, like Genesis, as being literally true.

Even Genesis literalists tend to believe in a RE that is the center of the universe, not the floor of it.
Title: Re: Gravity. It disproves FE Theory.
Post by: Shmeggley on May 08, 2013, 04:15:58 PM
Gravity fails to explain the motion of planets.  And it always fails to explain the reason why the orbits of planets have lasted as long as they have.  If the universe was really billions of years old, the orbits of many planets would have decayed already and entered the sun.  There is a deity hence there has to be a flat earth model.  There is another force at work besides gravity that makes the orbits established.  Just mere Big Bang does not suffice...

I wasn't talking about the age of the universe or its origins.

There's no other force necessary to explain the motion of the planets. I don't know where you're getting that idea other than someone (maybe from your church?) told you that, or that just "seems right" to you.

I don't see why the existence (or not) of a deity impacts the shape of the Earth, unless you hold to some particular Creation story, like Genesis, as being literally true.

Even Genesis literalists tend to believe in a RE that is the center of the universe, not the floor of it.

That's true, although there are a few that get flatness out of the Bible, something about the corners of the Earth I think. Apparently some Muslims think it's flat too, again there's no consensus I'm aware of. It's JJ that claims a deity means the Earth is flat. My point is that a "deity" is non specific, therefore has no bearing on the Earth's shape. I don't know where exactly he gets it, but apparently some deity in particular that he believes in created a flat Earth (I guess?).
Title: Re: Gravity. It disproves FE Theory.
Post by: DuckDodgers on May 08, 2013, 04:30:57 PM
Gravity fails to explain the motion of planets.  And it always fails to explain the reason why the orbits of planets have lasted as long as they have.  If the universe was really billions of years old, the orbits of many planets would have decayed already and entered the sun.  There is a deity hence there has to be a flat earth model.  There is another force at work besides gravity that makes the orbits established.  Just mere Big Bang does not suffice...

I wasn't talking about the age of the universe or its origins.

There's no other force necessary to explain the motion of the planets. I don't know where you're getting that idea other than someone (maybe from your church?) told you that, or that just "seems right" to you.

I don't see why the existence (or not) of a deity impacts the shape of the Earth, unless you hold to some particular Creation story, like Genesis, as being literally true.

Even Genesis literalists tend to believe in a RE that is the center of the universe, not the floor of it.

That's true, although there are a few that get flatness out of the Bible, something about the corners of the Earth I think. Apparently some Muslims think it's flat too, again there's no consensus I'm aware of. It's JJ that claims a deity means the Earth is flat. My point is that a "deity" is non specific, therefore has no bearing on the Earth's shape. I don't know where exactly he gets it, but apparently some deity in particular that he believes in created a flat Earth (I guess?).

Yeah, I'm with you on wondering why a deity means the Earth is flat.  It'd be just as easy to argue that since a deity exists the Earth must be round.
Title: Re: Gravity. It disproves FE Theory.
Post by: Shmeggley on May 08, 2013, 04:44:17 PM
Okay, guys, keep focusing on the easy target if that's what you feel you need to do (I understand, arguing for RE when the Earth is so obviously flat is hard!).  Just remember that you're arguing with a single goofball with, um, opinions of his own that most of us consider, um, controversial, and not the FES when you go after him.

Haha, sorry Roundy, Sceptimatic just comes up with stuff that seems to demand a response. Not that you don't I guess, but he's on another level.

Anyway, to your previous comment:


Yes, things fall at a measurable rate. However that's not all we have to go on. It just turns out that not only does gravity explain trajectories of falling objects on Earth, it also explains the motion of the Moon, stars and planets. Also, local variations of acceleration can't be explained by the Earth simply accelerating at a constant rate.
Title: Re: Gravity. It disproves FE Theory.
Post by: Roundy the Truthinessist on May 08, 2013, 04:54:58 PM
Okay, guys, keep focusing on the easy target if that's what you feel you need to do (I understand, arguing for RE when the Earth is so obviously flat is hard!).  Just remember that you're arguing with a single goofball with, um, opinions of his own that most of us consider, um, controversial, and not the FES when you go after him.

Haha, sorry Roundy, Sceptimatic just comes up with stuff that seems to demand a response. Not that you don't I guess, but he's on another level.

I understand, and you're probably performing a service.   I think he desperately needs to be taught.

Quote
Anyway, to your comment, yes, things fall at a measurable rate. However that's not all we have to go on. It just turns out that not only does gravity explain trajectories of falling objects on Earth, it also explains the motion of the Moon, stars and planets.

I don't believe this has been definitively proven.  It is just accepted because it appears to elegantly explain something that was once considered a mystery, based on long-held assumptions about the nature of the universe.

Quote
Also, local variations of acceleration can't be explained by the Earth simply accelerating at a constant rate.

I agree that if this phenomenon is a real one it is a problem with the accelerating Earth model.  It's one reason why as a zetetic I feel I can only definitively conclude that things appear to fall at a measurable rate.
Title: Re: Gravity. It disproves FE Theory.
Post by: Rama Set on May 08, 2013, 05:08:32 PM
Okay, guys, keep focusing on the easy target if that's what you feel you need to do (I understand, arguing for RE when the Earth is so obviously flat is hard!).  Just remember that you're arguing with a single goofball with, um, opinions of his own that most of us consider, um, controversial, and not the FES when you go after him.

Haha, sorry Roundy, Sceptimatic just comes up with stuff that seems to demand a response. Not that you don't I guess, but he's on another level.

I understand, and you're probably performing a service.   I think he desperately needs to be taught.

Quote
Anyway, to your comment, yes, things fall at a measurable rate. However that's not all we have to go on. It just turns out that not only does gravity explain trajectories of falling objects on Earth, it also explains the motion of the Moon, stars and planets.

I don't believe this has been definitively proven.  It is just accepted because it appears to elegantly explain something that was once considered a mystery, based on long-held assumptions about the nature of the universe.

Quote
Also, local variations of acceleration can't be explained by the Earth simply accelerating at a constant rate.

I agree that if this phenomenon is a real one it is a problem with the accelerating Earth model.  It's one reason why as a zetetic I feel I can only definitively conclude that things appear to fall at a measurable rate.

Newton's law of gravitation can be shown to be mathematically equivalent to Kepler's laws and can be used as an accurate descriptor of all classical orbits.  Richard Feynman shows the equivalence rather quickly in his lecture, "The Character of Natural Law".
Title: Re: Gravity. It disproves FE Theory.
Post by: Shmeggley on May 08, 2013, 05:24:08 PM
Okay, guys, keep focusing on the easy target if that's what you feel you need to do (I understand, arguing for RE when the Earth is so obviously flat is hard!).  Just remember that you're arguing with a single goofball with, um, opinions of his own that most of us consider, um, controversial, and not the FES when you go after him.

Haha, sorry Roundy, Sceptimatic just comes up with stuff that seems to demand a response. Not that you don't I guess, but he's on another level.

I understand, and you're probably performing a service.   I think he desperately needs to be taught.

Quote
Anyway, to your comment, yes, things fall at a measurable rate. However that's not all we have to go on. It just turns out that not only does gravity explain trajectories of falling objects on Earth, it also explains the motion of the Moon, stars and planets.

I don't believe this has been definitively proven.  It is just accepted because it appears to elegantly explain something that was once considered a mystery, based on long-held assumptions about the nature of the universe.

Quote
Also, local variations of acceleration can't be explained by the Earth simply accelerating at a constant rate.

I agree that if this phenomenon is a real one it is a problem with the accelerating Earth model.  It's one reason why as a zetetic I feel I can only definitively conclude that things appear to fall at a measurable rate.

I don't know that any theory is ever definitively proven. Newton's theory worked extremely well for centuries, but turned out to be incomplete when Einstein came along. There's nothing wrong with accepting the best available theory, as long as you leave room for the better one that comes next.

As for the local differences, it's pretty well established that they are real, but if you want to measure it yourself, that would definitely be interesting.
Title: Re: Gravity. It disproves FE Theory.
Post by: Roundy the Truthinessist on May 08, 2013, 05:28:55 PM
Okay, guys, keep focusing on the easy target if that's what you feel you need to do (I understand, arguing for RE when the Earth is so obviously flat is hard!).  Just remember that you're arguing with a single goofball with, um, opinions of his own that most of us consider, um, controversial, and not the FES when you go after him.

Haha, sorry Roundy, Sceptimatic just comes up with stuff that seems to demand a response. Not that you don't I guess, but he's on another level.

I understand, and you're probably performing a service.   I think he desperately needs to be taught.

Quote
Anyway, to your comment, yes, things fall at a measurable rate. However that's not all we have to go on. It just turns out that not only does gravity explain trajectories of falling objects on Earth, it also explains the motion of the Moon, stars and planets.

I don't believe this has been definitively proven.  It is just accepted because it appears to elegantly explain something that was once considered a mystery, based on long-held assumptions about the nature of the universe.

Quote
Also, local variations of acceleration can't be explained by the Earth simply accelerating at a constant rate.

I agree that if this phenomenon is a real one it is a problem with the accelerating Earth model.  It's one reason why as a zetetic I feel I can only definitively conclude that things appear to fall at a measurable rate.

Newton's law of gravitation can be shown to be mathematically equivalent to Kepler's laws and can be used as an accurate descriptor of all classical orbits.  Richard Feynman shows the equivalence rather quickly in his lecture, "The Character of Natural Law".

Right, as I said, the conclusion is based on assumptions about the nature of the universe.
Title: Re: Gravity. It disproves FE Theory.
Post by: Rama Set on May 08, 2013, 05:38:35 PM
Okay, guys, keep focusing on the easy target if that's what you feel you need to do (I understand, arguing for RE when the Earth is so obviously flat is hard!).  Just remember that you're arguing with a single goofball with, um, opinions of his own that most of us consider, um, controversial, and not the FES when you go after him.

Haha, sorry Roundy, Sceptimatic just comes up with stuff that seems to demand a response. Not that you don't I guess, but he's on another level.

I understand, and you're probably performing a service.   I think he desperately needs to be taught.

Quote
Anyway, to your comment, yes, things fall at a measurable rate. However that's not all we have to go on. It just turns out that not only does gravity explain trajectories of falling objects on Earth, it also explains the motion of the Moon, stars and planets.

I don't believe this has been definitively proven.  It is just accepted because it appears to elegantly explain something that was once considered a mystery, based on long-held assumptions about the nature of the universe.

Quote
Also, local variations of acceleration can't be explained by the Earth simply accelerating at a constant rate.

I agree that if this phenomenon is a real one it is a problem with the accelerating Earth model.  It's one reason why as a zetetic I feel I can only definitively conclude that things appear to fall at a measurable rate.

Newton's law of gravitation can be shown to be mathematically equivalent to Kepler's laws and can be used as an accurate descriptor of all classical orbits.  Richard Feynman shows the equivalence rather quickly in his lecture, "The Character of Natural Law".

Right, as I said, the conclusion is based on assumptions about the nature of the universe.

That's not what I said. Feel free to specifically address my comment in a substantial way.
Title: Re: Gravity. It disproves FE Theory.
Post by: Shmeggley on May 08, 2013, 05:38:46 PM
Okay, guys, keep focusing on the easy target if that's what you feel you need to do (I understand, arguing for RE when the Earth is so obviously flat is hard!).  Just remember that you're arguing with a single goofball with, um, opinions of his own that most of us consider, um, controversial, and not the FES when you go after him.

Haha, sorry Roundy, Sceptimatic just comes up with stuff that seems to demand a response. Not that you don't I guess, but he's on another level.

I understand, and you're probably performing a service.   I think he desperately needs to be taught.

Quote
Anyway, to your comment, yes, things fall at a measurable rate. However that's not all we have to go on. It just turns out that not only does gravity explain trajectories of falling objects on Earth, it also explains the motion of the Moon, stars and planets.

I don't believe this has been definitively proven.  It is just accepted because it appears to elegantly explain something that was once considered a mystery, based on long-held assumptions about the nature of the universe.

Quote
Also, local variations of acceleration can't be explained by the Earth simply accelerating at a constant rate.

I agree that if this phenomenon is a real one it is a problem with the accelerating Earth model.  It's one reason why as a zetetic I feel I can only definitively conclude that things appear to fall at a measurable rate.

Newton's law of gravitation can be shown to be mathematically equivalent to Kepler's laws and can be used as an accurate descriptor of all classical orbits.  Richard Feynman shows the equivalence rather quickly in his lecture, "The Character of Natural Law".

Sadly I could not get Sceptimatic to even look at this lecture because he said he switched it off as soon as he heard about Feynman being involved in the Manhattan project. It's really too bad, because Feynman was a true Zetetic at heart, I think. He loved to perform his own experiments himself, and he only made some of the discoveries he did because he insisted on working things out from first principles in terms he could understand. In fact he may have missed out on some Nobel prizes due to this. Once he solved a problem to his own satisfaction he often lost interest, while other physicists would carry through on his ideas and publish them. He had to be goaded into publishing his own ideas.

Anyway, I digress. But if Zetetics are inclined to trust anyone elses work, Feynman would be the logical choice.
Title: Re: Gravity. It disproves FE Theory.
Post by: Rama Set on May 08, 2013, 05:40:19 PM
I am not sure you can even win the Nobel  more than once.
Title: Re: Gravity. It disproves FE Theory.
Post by: Lolflatdisc on May 08, 2013, 05:43:32 PM
Gravity fails to explain the motion of planets.  And it always fails to explain the reason why the orbits of planets have lasted as long as they have.  If the universe was really billions of years old, the orbits of many planets would have decayed already and entered the sun.  There is a deity hence there has to be a flat earth model.  There is another force at work besides gravity that makes the orbits established.  Just mere Big Bang does not suffice...

The 'magic' is the mass of the globe. Space is like a fabric, although it is not a real fabric the same principle works. Lay down on your bed. Put a marble next to you. Where does the marble go? It will move towards you. You have lots of mass, the mass of the marble is very tiny, so it moves towards you. You bent your matress and form a slope.

Now in space the same principle applies. The mass forms a slope. Objects with lower mass are pulled towards the objects with high mass. Hence we orbit the sun, because it has a huge mass.

Put two marbles on your bed and nothing will happen, move them closer to each other and see them move towards eachother. Use some heavy marbles though, because your mattress is pretty stiff. Or use a cloth you span across horizontally over some object (with the middle clear of any obstructions).

Now why don't we move towards the sun is because of our speed. We have an orbital speed, which allows us to stay in our track around the sun. The same thing as a roulette table. The ball is located on a slope, but due to the high speed it maintains its path and spins around. It slows down due to friction with the table and the air, slowly going towards the middle. The same would happen to the earth if you were able to stop it from moving around. In space there is no friction and all the planets are nicely lined up so they do not affect each other's path. This was different about 4.5 billion years ago when our solar system was formed. It just all settled in the many, many years that were to come.

Edit: It needs to be explained that mass and weight are two complete different things. Weight is the force that is acting down on you, where mass is the actual 'weight' an object has. If you take a plane and make a parabolic flight, once you go down you feel weightless. Zero gravity. It is expressed in g-force and 0 g-force is when you could float through the air. You also experience this in a rollercoaster (much cheaper alternative). Once you go down with high speed, you will actually start to become weightless, hence the safety harness to keep you aboard. Once you go up, you feel very heavy, and you are pushed inside your seat.

However do you actually lose weight while on a ride in a rollercoaster? Would a scale tell you, you weigh different when measuring before or after the ride? The answer is no (unless you puked, but that is never a significant change). You remain your same body as you go along in the ride, yet you feel heavier. You did not gain in mass, obviously, you are still the same person, but you feel heavier and that has to do with the kind of force that (what's in the word?) weighs upon you.
Title: Re: Gravity. It disproves FE Theory.
Post by: Shmeggley on May 08, 2013, 05:47:28 PM
Okay, guys, keep focusing on the easy target if that's what you feel you need to do (I understand, arguing for RE when the Earth is so obviously flat is hard!).  Just remember that you're arguing with a single goofball with, um, opinions of his own that most of us consider, um, controversial, and not the FES when you go after him.

Haha, sorry Roundy, Sceptimatic just comes up with stuff that seems to demand a response. Not that you don't I guess, but he's on another level.

I understand, and you're probably performing a service.   I think he desperately needs to be taught.

Quote
Anyway, to your comment, yes, things fall at a measurable rate. However that's not all we have to go on. It just turns out that not only does gravity explain trajectories of falling objects on Earth, it also explains the motion of the Moon, stars and planets.

I don't believe this has been definitively proven.  It is just accepted because it appears to elegantly explain something that was once considered a mystery, based on long-held assumptions about the nature of the universe.

Quote
Also, local variations of acceleration can't be explained by the Earth simply accelerating at a constant rate.

I agree that if this phenomenon is a real one it is a problem with the accelerating Earth model.  It's one reason why as a zetetic I feel I can only definitively conclude that things appear to fall at a measurable rate.

Newton's law of gravitation can be shown to be mathematically equivalent to Kepler's laws and can be used as an accurate descriptor of all classical orbits.  Richard Feynman shows the equivalence rather quickly in his lecture, "The Character of Natural Law".

Right, as I said, the conclusion is based on assumptions about the nature of the universe.

When assumptions are made in science it is usually with good reason. Nevertheless if the assumptions are proven false by experiment they have to be thrown out. I'm not sure what assumptions you're referring to specifically, but the fact that the theories about gravity lasted so long suggests they probably are right.

Title: Re: Gravity. It disproves FE Theory.
Post by: Rama Set on May 08, 2013, 05:50:48 PM
That the theory predicted the existence and neighborhood of Neptune should be taken as proof that it is a good theory.
Title: Re: Gravity. It disproves FE Theory.
Post by: Shmeggley on May 08, 2013, 05:55:26 PM
I am not sure you can even win the Nobel  more than once.

You can, but maybe not in the same field? Marie Curie won one in Physics and one in chemistry.
Title: Re: Gravity. It disproves FE Theory.
Post by: markjo on May 08, 2013, 06:30:50 PM
I am not sure you can even win the Nobel  more than once.

You can, but maybe not in the same field? Marie Curie won one in Physics and one in chemistry.

It looks like you can win more than once in the same field, but you'll probably have to share.
http://www.nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/nobelprize_facts.html (http://www.nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/nobelprize_facts.html)
Quote
  Multiple Nobel Laureates  The work of the International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC) has been honoured by a Nobel Peace Prize three times. Besides, the founder of the ICRC, Henry Dunant (http://www.nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/peace/laureates/1901/index.html), was awarded the first Nobel Peace Prize in 1901.
 
 Linus Pauling is the only person to have been awarded two unshared Nobel Prizes - the 1954 Nobel Prize in Chemistry and the 1962 Nobel Peace Prize.
 
(http://www.nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/physics/laureates/1972/bardeen_thumb.jpg)(http://www.nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/chemistry/laureates/1911/marie-curie_thumb.jpg)(http://www.nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/peace/laureates/1962/pauling_thumb.jpg)
J. BardeenM. CurieL. Pauling
Physics 1956 (http://www.nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/physics/laureates/1956/index.html)
 Physics 1972 (http://www.nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/physics/laureates/1972/index.html)
Physics 1903 (http://www.nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/physics/laureates/1903/index.html)
 Chemistry 1911 (http://www.nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/chemistry/laureates/1911/index.html)
Chemistry 1954 (http://www.nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/chemistry/laureates/1954/index.html)
 Peace 1962 (http://www.nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/peace/laureates/1962/index.html)
(http://www.nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/chemistry/laureates/1980/sanger_thumb.jpg)(http://www.nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/peace/laureates/1917/red-cross_thumb.jpg)(http://www.nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/peace/laureates/1954/refugees_thumb.jpg)
F. Sanger ICRCUNHCR
Chemistry 1958 (http://www.nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/chemistry/laureates/1958/index.html)
 Chemistry 1980 (http://www.nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/chemistry/laureates/1980/index.html)
Peace 1917 (http://www.nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/peace/laureates/1917/index.html)
 Peace 1944 (http://www.nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/peace/laureates/1944/index.html)
 Peace 1963 (http://www.nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/peace/laureates/1963/index.html)
Peace 1954 (http://www.nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/peace/laureates/1954/index.html)
 Peace 1981 (http://www.nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/peace/laureates/1981/index.html)
Title: Re: Gravity. It disproves FE Theory.
Post by: Tausami on May 08, 2013, 07:15:39 PM
Because the natural position of Earthly objects is the center of the universe, of course  ::)

In seriousness, though, the prevailing theories are that the Earth is either accelerating upwards at 9.81 m/s2 or that the Earth is infinitely large.
So does an Earth that is an infinite plane have gravity?

Yes
Title: Re: Gravity. It disproves FE Theory.
Post by: markjo on May 08, 2013, 07:35:54 PM
Because the natural position of Earthly objects is the center of the universe, of course  ::)

In seriousness, though, the prevailing theories are that the Earth is either accelerating upwards at 9.81 m/s2 or that the Earth is infinitely large.
So does an Earth that is an infinite plane have gravity?

Yes

Except for Tom Bishop's infinite plane which doesn't.
Title: Re: Gravity. It disproves FE Theory.
Post by: darknavyseal on May 08, 2013, 09:38:26 PM
I would like to thank Roundy for his intelligent input on this subject.

http://i.imgur.com/anTo0.gif (http://i.imgur.com/anTo0.gif)
Title: Re: Gravity. It disproves FE Theory.
Post by: Son of Orospu on May 08, 2013, 11:10:30 PM
The 'magic' is the mass of the globe. Space is like a fabric, although it is not a real fabric the same principle works. Lay down on your bed. Put a marble next to you. Where does the marble go? It will move towards you. You have lots of mass, the mass of the marble is very tiny, so it moves towards you. You bent your matress and form a slope.

If I do this, will the marble go in circles around me for billions of years?
Title: Re: Gravity. It disproves FE Theory.
Post by: Scintific Method on May 08, 2013, 11:46:42 PM
The 'magic' is the mass of the globe. Space is like a fabric, although it is not a real fabric the same principle works. Lay down on your bed. Put a marble next to you. Where does the marble go? It will move towards you. You have lots of mass, the mass of the marble is very tiny, so it moves towards you. You bent your matress and form a slope.

If I do this, will the marble go in circles around me for billions of years?

That is an incredibly stupid (trollish?) question, but anyway, the answer is no. There is a tremendous amount of friction between the marble and your mattress, which will slow the marble drastically. In the near-total vacuum of space however, there is no friction, no drag, and it is possible for objects to reach a state of equilibrium, where all forces - such as the centripetal force pulling a planet out of it's orbit, and gravity pulling it in - are equally balanced, and an orbit can be sustained for many billions of years.
Title: Re: Gravity. It disproves FE Theory.
Post by: Son of Orospu on May 09, 2013, 01:05:23 AM
The 'magic' is the mass of the globe. Space is like a fabric, although it is not a real fabric the same principle works. Lay down on your bed. Put a marble next to you. Where does the marble go? It will move towards you. You have lots of mass, the mass of the marble is very tiny, so it moves towards you. You bent your matress and form a slope.

If I do this, will the marble go in circles around me for billions of years?

That is an incredibly stupid (trollish?) question, but anyway, the answer is no. There is a tremendous amount of friction between the marble and your mattress, which will slow the marble drastically. In the near-total vacuum of space however, there is no friction, no drag, and it is possible for objects to reach a state of equilibrium, where all forces - such as the centripetal force pulling a planet out of it's orbit, and gravity pulling it in - are equally balanced, and an orbit can be sustained for many billions of years.

Who is trolling here?  You are the one who comes to a web forum that you do not believe in just to ridicule the people on it.

Anyway, yes a marble will roll towards me if I lay in my bed.  That does not explain gravity or  even planetary motion. 
Title: Re: Gravity. It disproves FE Theory.
Post by: Scintific Method on May 09, 2013, 01:33:15 AM
Who is trolling here?  You are the one who comes to a web forum that you do not believe in just to ridicule the people on it.

Anyway, yes a marble will roll towards me if I lay in my bed.  That does not explain gravity or  even planetary motion.

I originally came to see if there was any credible evidence to support the idea of a flat earth. So far, I haven't really seen any. There have been a couple of interesting ideas, but nothing really solid that can explain everyday observations. Now I just try to point out and clarify errors when I see them. I try to avoid responding to sarcastic questions, but sometimes I just can't help myself!

The marble isn't exactly meant to be an explanation, more a demonstration of a concept. Not so much a "this is how it works", more "this is a rough representation of the observed behaviour".
Title: Re: Gravity. It disproves FE Theory.
Post by: Son of Orospu on May 09, 2013, 01:53:11 AM
The marble isn't exactly meant to be an explanation, more a demonstration of a concept. Not so much a "this is how it works", more "this is a rough representation of the observed behaviour".
So, it is kind of like that, but not really?
Title: Re: Gravity. It disproves FE Theory.
Post by: Lolflatdisc on May 09, 2013, 02:36:42 AM
The 'magic' is the mass of the globe. Space is like a fabric, although it is not a real fabric the same principle works. Lay down on your bed. Put a marble next to you. Where does the marble go? It will move towards you. You have lots of mass, the mass of the marble is very tiny, so it moves towards you. You bent your matress and form a slope.

If I do this, will the marble go in circles around me for billions of years?

I really appreciate if you did actually test it yourself to see it. To answer your question. The marble could circle around you if you give it some speed to turn around you. I am not sure if your matress is going to be big enough, but if you sit on it you will have more room. Give the marble some speed parallel to you. You will see it will bend around you. The problem with your matress though is that it is pretty rough, so the marble loses its speed before it could encircle you completely. It is friction. Also if you do not give the marble enough speed, you are not going to see it bend, instead it will come right to you.

Now a way to test it better is if you could span a cloth over some points, with the middle clear of anything. There should be enough room for the cloth to bend downwards. You could then also test different masses of marbles. You could put a small one on the cloth first, and start testing with a bigger one around it. This is for you to test and see for yourself how more mass influences the path of the marbles you put to the test.

But also in this experiment, friction with the cloth will prevent the marbles to encircle it nicely. Hence I also gave the example of a roulette table. I hope you know what it looks like and especially the wheel where they spin the ball in?
The surface of the wheel is sloped. Furthermore the surface is smoother, so there is less friction. The employee spins the ball around at high speed, but as you know, the surface is sloped. The ball will maintain its path around the sloped surface, due to its high speed. That is called the orbital speed. However since they do not expect the  employee to spin the the ball around at exactly the orbital speed, they build a small vertical wall, to prevent the ball from flying outwards. But just like the marbles on the cloth, the ball experiences friction from the air and moreover the surface, slowing it down. At some point the ball will start to roll towards the center and enter into one of the number slots.

In space there is no friction from cloth, air or a roulette table. The planets move around in vacuum and are not stopped by anything. If you were able to stop the earth from moving around, it would also start to go towards the sun. Objects which did not have enough speed would have gone into the sun. Objects which have higher speed than the orbital speed just simply fly past the sun, earth, and other planets. The earth and the other planets got their orbital speed and maintained their path around the sun, because nothing was there to stop it from going around. Allowing them to go round and round and round for billions of years.
Title: Re: Gravity. It disproves FE Theory.
Post by: Jingle Jangle on May 09, 2013, 03:57:01 AM
Gravity fails to explain the motion of planets.  And it always fails to explain the reason why the orbits of planets have lasted as long as they have.  If the universe was really billions of years old, the orbits of many planets would have decayed already and entered the sun.  There is a deity hence there has to be a flat earth model.  There is another force at work besides gravity that makes the orbits established.  Just mere Big Bang does not suffice...

The 'magic' is the mass of the globe. Space is like a fabric, although it is not a real fabric the same principle works. Lay down on your bed. Put a marble next to you. Where does the marble go? It will move towards you. You have lots of mass, the mass of the marble is very tiny, so it moves towards you. You bent your matress and form a slope.

Now in space the same principle applies. The mass forms a slope. Objects with lower mass are pulled towards the objects with high mass. Hence we orbit the sun, because it has a huge mass.

Put two marbles on your bed and nothing will happen, move them closer to each other and see them move towards eachother. Use some heavy marbles though, because your mattress is pretty stiff. Or use a cloth you span across horizontally over some object (with the middle clear of any obstructions).

Now why don't we move towards the sun is because of our speed. We have an orbital speed, which allows us to stay in our track around the sun. The same thing as a roulette table. The ball is located on a slope, but due to the high speed it maintains its path and spins around. It slows down due to friction with the table and the air, slowly going towards the middle. The same would happen to the earth if you were able to stop it from moving around. In space there is no friction and all the planets are nicely lined up so they do not affect each other's path. This was different about 4.5 billion years ago when our solar system was formed. It just all settled in the many, many years that were to come.

Edit: It needs to be explained that mass and weight are two complete different things. Weight is the force that is acting down on you, where mass is the actual 'weight' an object has. If you take a plane and make a parabolic flight, once you go down you feel weightless. Zero gravity. It is expressed in g-force and 0 g-force is when you could float through the air. You also experience this in a rollercoaster (much cheaper alternative). Once you go down with high speed, you will actually start to become weightless, hence the safety harness to keep you aboard. Once you go up, you feel very heavy, and you are pushed inside your seat.

However do you actually lose weight while on a ride in a rollercoaster? Would a scale tell you, you weigh different when measuring before or after the ride? The answer is no (unless you puked, but that is never a significant change). You remain your same body as you go along in the ride, yet you feel heavier. You did not gain in mass, obviously, you are still the same person, but you feel heavier and that has to do with the kind of force that (what's in the word?) weighs upon you.

But still, the speed that keeps the orbits stable cannot occur by just a chance of big bang.  A sudden explosion wouldn't be able to create that level of order and balance in the solar system.
Title: Re: Gravity. It disproves FE Theory.
Post by: Lolflatdisc on May 09, 2013, 04:42:37 AM

But still, the speed that keeps the orbits stable cannot occur by just a chance of big bang.  A sudden explosion wouldn't be able to create that level of order and balance in the solar system.

Although we cannot know for sure what the universe was like when it started, it must have been quite chaotic, true. However our solar system was not created right when the big ban occured. The estimated age of the universe is about 14 billion years, while our solar system is dated not to be older than 4.6 billion years. How they know the universe is 14 billion years old? The thruth is, they don't know for sure. They have been measuring the expand rate of other galaxies and based on that, they calculated the age. However we do not know if the galaxies are actually slowing down, accelerating or they have maintained the same speed of expanding. So 14 billion is the most valid, based on current findings.

As for our solar system, they have studied isotopes. Isotopes have a very linear decay time. Some isotopes have a decay rate of just nanoseconds, others have decay rate of billions of years. Using them allow you to determine the age of a rock after it was last melted or disturbed sufficiently to re-homogenize its radioactive elements. Now again, the age 4,6 billion is not truly certain. One has to find a rock which isotopes have decayed further, to show the earth is even older than thought. Again, 4,6 billion is the most valid, based on current findings.

How come there came order and balance in our solar system? It has to do with clumping of mass. As with the experiment I have explained earlier, the marbles move together once they get close to each other. Add enough marbles and you end up with a planet, or a sun (though it would be made out of glass edit: if you only use marbles). The mass of the planets as of today were distant enough from the mass of the sun, not to be taken in. Although our solar system may seem stable and balanced right now, it is far from stable. The planets have formed and are in a stable orbital path around the sun, that much order and balance has taken place. But apart from that it is still very much chaotic as we humans experienced just recently this year. A meteor of significant size crashed into the earth. There are still many asteroids out there, not ordered and balanced nicely and still form a threath to life on earth.  Luckily for earth however, we have Jupiter and Neptune. Two large planets, with greater gravitational pull than the earth. Asteroids coming from the outskirts of the solar system, or from outside the solar system, first have to pass those two. Chances are higher they are taken in by Neptune and Jupiter.
Title: Re: Gravity. It disproves FE Theory.
Post by: Roundy the Truthinessist on May 09, 2013, 08:13:26 PM
Okay, guys, keep focusing on the easy target if that's what you feel you need to do (I understand, arguing for RE when the Earth is so obviously flat is hard!).  Just remember that you're arguing with a single goofball with, um, opinions of his own that most of us consider, um, controversial, and not the FES when you go after him.

Haha, sorry Roundy, Sceptimatic just comes up with stuff that seems to demand a response. Not that you don't I guess, but he's on another level.

I understand, and you're probably performing a service.   I think he desperately needs to be taught.

Quote
Anyway, to your comment, yes, things fall at a measurable rate. However that's not all we have to go on. It just turns out that not only does gravity explain trajectories of falling objects on Earth, it also explains the motion of the Moon, stars and planets.

I don't believe this has been definitively proven.  It is just accepted because it appears to elegantly explain something that was once considered a mystery, based on long-held assumptions about the nature of the universe.

Quote
Also, local variations of acceleration can't be explained by the Earth simply accelerating at a constant rate.

I agree that if this phenomenon is a real one it is a problem with the accelerating Earth model.  It's one reason why as a zetetic I feel I can only definitively conclude that things appear to fall at a measurable rate.

Newton's law of gravitation can be shown to be mathematically equivalent to Kepler's laws and can be used as an accurate descriptor of all classical orbits.  Richard Feynman shows the equivalence rather quickly in his lecture, "The Character of Natural Law".

Right, as I said, the conclusion is based on assumptions about the nature of the universe.

That's not what I said.

No, that is what you said.  You said Newton's Law of Gravity is mathematically equivalent to Kepler's Laws.  Kepler's Laws are based on the assumption that the Earth is not flat and that the planets are revolving around the sun.  In other words, it's based on assumptions about the nature of the universe.  And I see no reason to put blind faith in that.

Sorry about the delay in response.  I've been feeling kind of groggy lately.  I blame the painkillers.  And I went back to work today.
Title: Re: Gravity. It disproves FE Theory.
Post by: Rama Set on May 09, 2013, 08:36:39 PM
Okay, guys, keep focusing on the easy target if that's what you feel you need to do (I understand, arguing for RE when the Earth is so obviously flat is hard!).  Just remember that you're arguing with a single goofball with, um, opinions of his own that most of us consider, um, controversial, and not the FES when you go after him.

Haha, sorry Roundy, Sceptimatic just comes up with stuff that seems to demand a response. Not that you don't I guess, but he's on another level.

I understand, and you're probably performing a service.   I think he desperately needs to be taught.

Quote
Anyway, to your comment, yes, things fall at a measurable rate. However that's not all we have to go on. It just turns out that not only does gravity explain trajectories of falling objects on Earth, it also explains the motion of the Moon, stars and planets.

I don't believe this has been definitively proven.  It is just accepted because it appears to elegantly explain something that was once considered a mystery, based on long-held assumptions about the nature of the universe.

Quote
Also, local variations of acceleration can't be explained by the Earth simply accelerating at a constant rate.

I agree that if this phenomenon is a real one it is a problem with the accelerating Earth model.  It's one reason why as a zetetic I feel I can only definitively conclude that things appear to fall at a measurable rate.

Newton's law of gravitation can be shown to be mathematically equivalent to Kepler's laws and can be used as an accurate descriptor of all classical orbits.  Richard Feynman shows the equivalence rather quickly in his lecture, "The Character of Natural Law".

Right, as I said, the conclusion is based on assumptions about the nature of the universe.

That's not what I said.

No, that is what you said.  You said Newton's Law of Gravity is mathematically equivalent to Kepler's Laws.  Kepler's Laws are based on the assumption that the Earth is not flat and that the planets are revolving around the sun.  In other words, it's based on assumptions about the nature of the universe.  And I see no reason to put blind faith in that.

Sorry about the delay in response.  I've been feeling kind of groggy lately.  I blame the painkillers.  And I went back to work today.

Every single scientific theory is based on some sort of assumption, it has to.  The assumptions are not blind assumptions either, they are one of potentially more than one plausible description of nature.  There is also evidence to support that view of the universe.  But what makes Kepler's Laws and Newton's Laws worth anything, what makes them special, and what makes them completely unlike FE hypotheses, is that they accurately describe the motion of the planets.  If you think that predicting the existence of Neptune and where to find it within one degree of its position is trivial, then that is your prerogative, but I think that is spectacular, and that it is prohibitively unlikely to be chance.  But this site offers nothing that can come remotely close to that level of success and they did this 400 hundred years ago.

That is what you have contend with, and it is the standard you should hold yourselves to.  Any theory you come up with to describe a Flat Earth should be able to make bold predictions, they should be testable, and the predictions will have to prove true.

Title: Re: Gravity. It disproves FE Theory.
Post by: Roundy the Truthinessist on May 09, 2013, 10:25:04 PM
Every single scientific theory is based on some sort of assumption, it has to.

One reason why I generally distrust science.

Quote
But what makes Kepler's Laws and Newton's Laws worth anything, what makes them special, and what makes them completely unlike FE hypotheses, is that they accurately describe the motion of the planets.

Only if you assume that the planets revolve around the sun in the first place.   You'll understand if I'm not ready to do that.

Quote
If you think that predicting the existence of Neptune and where to find it within one degree of its position is trivial, then that is your prerogative, but I think that is spectacular, and that it is prohibitively unlikely to be chance.

I don't understand how you can say with any certainty that it wasn't by chance.  The degree of accuracy was even accused of being blind luck by members of the scientific commnity when it was first discovered.  Apparently they disagreed that it was prohibitively unlikely.

Quote
That is what you have contend with, and it is the standard you should hold yourselves to.  Any theory you come up with to describe a Flat Earth should be able to make bold predictions, they should be testable, and the predictions will have to prove true.

Predictive power is overrated.  Astrologers have been accurately predicting the positions of the planets since long before it was a widespread belief that the Earth is spherical.  It didn't mean that their model was right.
Title: Re: Gravity. It disproves FE Theory.
Post by: Rama Set on May 09, 2013, 11:34:58 PM
One reason why I generally distrust science.

Every single pursuit of any sort of knowledge relies on assumptions at some point.  I am not sure why science should be held in any less regard.  Indeed, science should earn more trust for all the ideas they throw out on bad evidence.

Quote
Quote
But what makes Kepler's Laws and Newton's Laws worth anything, what makes them special, and what makes them completely unlike FE hypotheses, is that they accurately describe the motion of the planets.

Only if you assume that the planets revolve around the sun in the first place.   You'll understand if I'm not ready to do that.

I won't understand unless you explain it.  There are many motions of the planet that have only been adquately explained on a heliocentric view.  The model fits -perfectly-.

Quote
I don't understand how you can say with any certainty that it wasn't by chance.  The degree of accuracy was even accused of being blind luck by members of the scientific commnity when it was first discovered.  Apparently they disagreed that it was prohibitively unlikely.

Anecdotes about the disdain of colleagues is much less impressive than predicting an as yet unknown planet, purely on mathematics.  It is an astoundingly strong test of the theory.  If they did not find the planet, or even if it were in the wrong place, the Theory of Gravitation would have been dealt a crippling blow.  The evidence speaks for itself in this case.  Whatever superlatives I add on are essentially inconsequential when you get down to the basic fact that the theory -is- an astoundingly accurate tool for understanding how the physical world works.

Quote
Quote
That is what you have contend with, and it is the standard you should hold yourselves to.  Any theory you come up with to describe a Flat Earth should be able to make bold predictions, they should be testable, and the predictions will have to prove true.

Predictive power is overrated.  Astrologers have been accurately predicting the positions of the planets since long before it was a widespread belief that the Earth is spherical.  It didn't mean that their model was right.

It certainly means that Astrologers could predict the location of known planets, and in that respect their theory was right.  I would not take that away from them, and they should be accorded their place in history for it.  They certainly have done better at modelling the movement of the heavens than the FE hypothesis has.

Title: Re: Gravity. It disproves FE Theory.
Post by: Scintific Method on May 09, 2013, 11:52:46 PM
If you think that predicting the existence of Neptune and where to find it within one degree of its position is trivial, then that is your prerogative, but I think that is spectacular, and that it is prohibitively unlikely to be chance.

I don't understand how you can say with any certainty that it wasn't by chance.  The degree of accuracy was even accused of being blind luck by members of the scientific commnity when it was first discovered.  Apparently they disagreed that it was prohibitively unlikely.

Anecdotes about the disdain of colleagues is much less impressive than predicting an as yet unknown planet, purely on mathematics.  It is an astoundingly strong test of the theory.  If they did not find the planet, or even if it were in the wrong place, the Theory of Gravitation would have been dealt a crippling blow.  The evidence speaks for itself in this case.  Whatever superlatives I add on are essentially inconsequential when you get down to the basic fact that the theory -is- an astoundingly accurate tool for understanding how the physical world works.

They predicted the position of an as yet unknown planet within one degree. The chances of doing that by accident are at best 1 in 360. Either they were really, really lucky, or they were right. I tend to think they were right.
Title: Re: Gravity. It disproves FE Theory.
Post by: Tausami on May 10, 2013, 12:03:33 PM
Let's stop being silly. The gravitational constant in RET is .0000000000667, and to find gravitational attraction you multiply that number by mass and divide by distance squared. Your mass will do exactly nothing to a marble, even according to the globularists, lolflatdisk
Title: Re: Gravity. It disproves FE Theory.
Post by: Rama Set on May 10, 2013, 12:22:21 PM
Let's stop being silly. The gravitational constant in RET is .0000000000667, and to find gravitational attraction you multiply that number by mass and divide by distance squared. Your mass will do exactly nothing to a marble, even according to the globularists, lolflatdisk

I think he was using the compression of the mattress as an analogy for mass' effect on space-time, which gives rise to gravity.
Title: Re: Gravity. It disproves FE Theory.
Post by: Lolflatdisc on May 10, 2013, 04:52:40 PM
Let's stop being silly. The gravitational constant in RET is .0000000000667, and to find gravitational attraction you multiply that number by mass and divide by distance squared. Your mass will do exactly nothing to a marble, even according to the globularists, lolflatdisk

I think he was using the compression of the mattress as an analogy for mass' effect on space-time, which gives rise to gravity.

Exactly
Title: Re: Gravity. It disproves FE Theory.
Post by: Roundy the Truthinessist on May 10, 2013, 05:29:49 PM
Every single pursuit of any sort of knowledge relies on assumptions at some point.  I am not sure why science should be held in any less regard.  Indeed, science should earn more trust for all the ideas they throw out on bad evidence.

Wrong.  Zeteticism starts with a blank slate and works from there.  No assumptions are necessary.  That's why it's the superior methodology.

Quote
I won't understand unless you explain it.  There are many motions of the planet that have only been adquately explained on a heliocentric view.  The model fits -perfectly-.

It requires that one start with the assumption that the Earth isn't flat.  I believe I've already covered this.

Quote
It is an astoundingly strong test of the theory.  If they did not find the planet, or even if it were in the wrong place, the Theory of Gravitation would have been dealt a crippling blow..

I call BS on that.  If that were the case, observations regarding the expansion of the universe and the cohesiveness of galaxies should have been a crippling blow as well.  But hello dark matter and dark energy.  When mainstream scientists see something that doesn't fit their long-cherished theories they figure out a way to pigeonhole things so they still fit. 

I'd like to add that RET has had centuries to build up its theories while modern FET has had less than two.  I see no reason to assume that given a similar length of time FE zetetics will have the math figured out as accurately as RE scientists do.
Title: Re: Gravity. It disproves FE Theory.
Post by: Scintific Method on May 10, 2013, 05:54:38 PM
Every single pursuit of any sort of knowledge relies on assumptions at some point.  I am not sure why science should be held in any less regard.  Indeed, science should earn more trust for all the ideas they throw out on bad evidence.

Wrong.  Zeteticism starts with a blank slate and works from there.  No assumptions are necessary.  That's why it's the superior methodology.

Start with the assumption the earth is flat, do some measurements, find out you're wrong OR start with the assumption the earth is round, do some measurements, find out you're right OR ask "what shape is the earth?", do some measurements, find out it's round. Whichever way you look at it, if you do the measurements, you'll get the answer.

Quote
I won't understand unless you explain it.  There are many motions of the planet that have only been adquately explained on a heliocentric view.  The model fits -perfectly-.

It requires that one start with the assumption that the Earth isn't flat.  I believe I've already covered this.

Again, you could start with a blank slate and still end up with the same answers. No assumptions necessary.

Quote
It is an astoundingly strong test of the theory.  If they did not find the planet, or even if it were in the wrong place, the Theory of Gravitation would have been dealt a crippling blow..

I call BS on that.  If that were the case, observations regarding the expansion of the universe and the cohesiveness of galaxies should have been a crippling blow as well.  But hello dark matter and dark energy.  When mainstream scientists see something that doesn't fit their long-cherished theories they figure out a way to pigeonhole things so they still fit. 

The revision of theories has been covered elsewhere.

I'd like to add that RET has had centuries to build up its theories while modern FET has had less than two.  I see no reason to assume that given a similar length of time FE zetetics will have the math figured out as accurately as RE scientists do.

Modern FET has had a lot less time to mature, yes, but the idea that the earth is flat has been around far longer than the idea that it's round.
Title: Re: Gravity. It disproves FE Theory.
Post by: Roundy the Truthinessist on May 10, 2013, 06:04:55 PM
Start with the assumption the earth is flat, do some measurements, find out you're wrong OR start with the assumption the earth is round, do some measurements, find out you're right OR ask "what shape is the earth?", do some measurements, find out it's round. Whichever way you look at it, if you do the measurements, you'll get the answer.

With zeteticism, you're not starting with any assumptions.  It all starts with observation.

Quote
The revision of theories has been covered elsewhere.

If you weren't going to address the point why even say anything?

Quote
Modern FET has had a lot less time to mature, yes, but the idea that the earth is flat has been around far longer than the idea that it's round.

Who cares about the "idea" that the Earth was flat if it was never rigorously studied via a well-defined methodology?  As I said, if after two thousand years and change the math hasn't been worked out, then you can complain that FET doesn't explain things or predict things as well as RET.
Title: Re: Gravity. It disproves FE Theory.
Post by: Rama Set on May 10, 2013, 06:39:59 PM
Every single pursuit of any sort of knowledge relies on assumptions at some point.  I am not sure why science should be held in any less regard.  Indeed, science should earn more trust for all the ideas they throw out on bad evidence.

Wrong.  Zeteticism starts with a blank slate and works from there.  No assumptions are necessary.  That's why it's the superior methodology.

You make the assumption that your senses can tell you all you need to know.

Quote
I won't understand unless you explain it.  There are many motions of the planet that have only been adquately explained on a heliocentric view.  The model fits -perfectly-.

It requires that one start with the assumption that the Earth isn't flat.  I believe I've already covered this.[/quote]

There was already reasons to suspect that the Earth was round at that point.  Unless you think there is another was they -should- have interpreted ships disappearing beneath the horizon or that the understanding of astronomy that contradicted the Earth being flat should be ignored?

Quote
Quote
It is an astoundingly strong test of the theory.  If they did not find the planet, or even if it were in the wrong place, the Theory of Gravitation would have been dealt a crippling blow..

I call BS on that.  If that were the case, observations regarding the expansion of the universe and the cohesiveness of galaxies should have been a crippling blow as well.  But hello dark matter and dark energy.  When mainstream scientists see something that doesn't fit their long-cherished theories they figure out a way to pigeonhole things so they still fit. 

I'd like to add that RET has had centuries to build up its theories while modern FET has had less than two.  I see no reason to assume that given a similar length of time FE zetetics will have the math figured out as accurately as RE scientists do.
[/quote]

I don't think you really understand what Dark Energy is, but it does not contradict gravity in the slightest.  In regards to Dark Matter, it does not really contradict Gravity... yet.  Although it could easily turn out to be this centuries Ether.  Scientists looking at a problem the wrong way.  It could very well up end the Theories of Gravitation, we could very well discover the universe works in a new and unanticipated way.  If so the scientific community would welcome it.
Title: Re: Gravity. It disproves FE Theory.
Post by: Roundy the Truthinessist on May 10, 2013, 06:47:56 PM
You make the assumption that your senses can tell you all you need to know.

I do no such thing.

Quote
There was already reasons to suspect that the Earth was round at that point.  Unless you think there is another was they -should- have interpreted ships disappearing beneath the horizon or that the understanding of astronomy that contradicted the Earth being flat should be ignored?

Ships disappearing "beneath" the horizon can be easily explained in a FE framework.  As for astronomy, looking away from the Earth to determine its shape is the last thing we should do.

Quote
I don't think you really understand what Dark Energy is, but it does not contradict gravity in the slightest.

When did I say that dark energy contradicts gravity?  It's reality that contradicts gravity; dark energy is there to fix it.

Quote
In regards to Dark Matter, it does not really contradict Gravity... yet.  Although it could easily turn out to be this centuries Ether.  Scientists looking at a problem the wrong way.  It could very well up end the Theories of Gravitation, we could very well discover the universe works in a new and unanticipated way.  If so the scientific community would welcome it.

See my response to the dark energy objection above.
Title: Re: Gravity. It disproves FE Theory.
Post by: Scintific Method on May 10, 2013, 07:14:54 PM
With zeteticism, you're not starting with any assumptions.  It all starts with observation.

The third option I offered made no assumptions:  "...ask 'what shape is the earth?'..."

Quote
The revision of theories has been covered elsewhere.

If you weren't going to address the point why even say anything?

I didn't want to waffle on about how theories are revised when some new information is found that doesn't quite fit, others have done that plenty of times here in the past. However, I don't think the expansion of the universe contradicts gravity anyway.

Quote
Modern FET has had a lot less time to mature, yes, but the idea that the earth is flat has been around far longer than the idea that it's round.

Who cares about the "idea" that the Earth was flat if it was never rigorously studied via a well-defined methodology?  As I said, if after two thousand years and change the math hasn't been worked out, then you can complain that FET doesn't explain things or predict things as well as RET.

My point here was that there has been more time available to 'rigorously study' the idea of a flat earth, because the idea existed before the idea of the round earth. No one has tried to stop the study of flat earth ideas over the last 2000-odd years (like they did with the study of round earth ideas; I recall a story of a round earth proponent being threatened with execution if he kept promoting his ideas), and there have been plenty of people working on it, but there is still nothing solid because it's almost impossible to reconcile the idea of a flat earth with observations of the world we live on.
Title: Re: Gravity. It disproves FE Theory.
Post by: Roundy the Truthinessist on May 10, 2013, 10:13:29 PM
With zeteticism, you're not starting with any assumptions.  It all starts with observation.

The third option I offered made no assumptions:  "...ask 'what shape is the earth?'..."

And that would be the zetetic approach.

Quote
Quote
The revision of theories has been covered elsewhere.

If you weren't going to address the point why even say anything?

I didn't want to waffle on about how theories are revised when some new information is found that doesn't quite fit, others have done that plenty of times here in the past. However, I don't think the expansion of the universe contradicts gravity anyway.

But Rama Set just said that when information is found that "doesn't quite fit" (a hell of an understatement in this instance), a theory is dealt "a crippling blow"!  Um, apparently not?

Quote
Quote
Modern FET has had a lot less time to mature, yes, but the idea that the earth is flat has been around far longer than the idea that it's round.

Who cares about the "idea" that the Earth was flat if it was never rigorously studied via a well-defined methodology?  As I said, if after two thousand years and change the math hasn't been worked out, then you can complain that FET doesn't explain things or predict things as well as RET.

My point here was that there has been more time available to 'rigorously study' the idea of a flat earth, because the idea existed before the idea of the round earth. No one has tried to stop the study of flat earth ideas over the last 2000-odd years (like they did with the study of round earth ideas; I recall a story of a round earth proponent being threatened with execution if he kept promoting his ideas), and there have been plenty of people working on it, but there is still nothing solid because it's almost impossible to reconcile the idea of a flat earth with observations of the world we live on.

Unfortunately by the time we had developed reason enough to the point where such rigorous study was possible, the Church had already developed a stranglehold on most of the civilized world.  It has been taken for granted by the scientific community ever since that the Earth is round.  Flat Earth Theory really never had a chance to develop until the good Dr Rowbotham dared to challenge the convention of his day.  Give us some time and I'm confident that you will see that the jigsaw puzzle can be filled in just as elegantly, if not more, from a FE perspective, if given more than 2000 years to try to jam the pieces in place.  Hell, I'll even say it should happen a lot sooner, given that FE is reality.  Say, 1000 years.
Title: Re: Gravity. It disproves FE Theory.
Post by: Puttah on May 10, 2013, 10:58:58 PM
Unfortunately by the time we had developed reason enough to the point where such rigorous study was possible, the Church had already developed a stranglehold on most of the civilized world.  It has been taken for granted by the scientific community ever since that the Earth is round.  Flat Earth Theory really never had a chance to develop until the good Dr Rowbotham dared to challenge the convention of his day.  Give us some time and I'm confident that you will see that the jigsaw puzzle can be filled in just as elegantly, if not more, from a FE perspective, if given more than 2000 years to try to jam the pieces in place.  Hell, I'll even say it should happen a lot sooner, given that FE is reality.  Say, 1000 years.

What do you mean round Earth had 2000 years to "jam the pieces in place"? Mass is said to attract other mass by gravity, and as such, from this one axiom alone, you can show Mathematically that a clump of mass would form a sphere, everything would be forced to the centre of the Earth, and thus satellites could orbit if there's no air resistance, the moon orbits for the same reason, planets orbit the sun for the same reason, the tides happen because of gravity from the moon, etc. etc.

I don't see any "jamming the pieces in to fit" going on here. FET on the other hand - to get their puzzle sorted - can only do so by trying to glue the misshaped pieces together by using spit and tears.
Title: Re: Gravity. It disproves FE Theory.
Post by: Puttah on May 11, 2013, 04:28:05 AM
This mass and gravity makes me laugh.
The stuff that's made up to fit a globe borders on the ridiculous  and I'm at a loss as to how, supposedly clever people willingly fall for it.

How can you judge when the clever people are at a level of intelligence far beyond yours?

It's as if it's a worship of scientists that makes people believe this crap, almost the same as someone having pictures of a pop group on their wall, then going to see them, whilst pulling out their hair and screaming when they come onto the stage.
At first I thought it was just an arrogance by some but it goes beyond that. It really is a worship of scientists, either historical or present.

I do. I admire many scientists and mathematicians, both alive and dead.

Some of the things they've figured out - especially in maths - has often had me awestruck in disbelief at how ingenious it is.

We have no chance on this earth as a race.

lol? You're such a troll...
Title: Re: Gravity. It disproves FE Theory.
Post by: Rama Set on May 11, 2013, 04:29:02 AM
With zeteticism, you're not starting with any assumptions.  It all starts with observation.

The third option I offered made no assumptions:  "...ask 'what shape is the earth?'..."

And that would be the zetetic approach.

Quote
Quote
The revision of theories has been covered elsewhere.

If you weren't going to address the point why even say anything?

I didn't want to waffle on about how theories are revised when some new information is found that doesn't quite fit, others have done that plenty of times here in the past. However, I don't think the expansion of the universe contradicts gravity anyway.

But Rama Set just said that when information is found that "doesn't quite fit" (a hell of an understatement in this instance), a theory is dealt "a crippling blow"!  Um, apparently not?

There is an enormous difference between incorporating new information and having a theory be falsified. Dark matter and energy were new information to deal with. In this case there is no reason to toss any theory out based on them, but there is some rethinking to do. Implications must be reconsidered. They have to figure out wtf Dark Matter even is. They have to reconcile why their predictions about the effects of Dark Energy are so much more than what is observed. No theory has been falsified though, so until then they will proceed from what they know they know, and what they know they don't, hoping to find out what they didn't know they didn't know.

Quote
Quote
Quote
Modern FET has had a lot less time to mature, yes, but the idea that the earth is flat has been around far longer than the idea that it's round.

Who cares about the "idea" that the Earth was flat if it was never rigorously studied via a well-defined methodology?  As I said, if after two thousand years and change the math hasn't been worked out, then you can complain that FET doesn't explain things or predict things as well as RET.

My point here was that there has been more time available to 'rigorously study' the idea of a flat earth, because the idea existed before the idea of the round earth. No one has tried to stop the study of flat earth ideas over the last 2000-odd years (like they did with the study of round earth ideas; I recall a story of a round earth proponent being threatened with execution if he kept promoting his ideas), and there have been plenty of people working on it, but there is still nothing solid because it's almost impossible to reconcile the idea of a flat earth with observations of the world we live on.

Unfortunately by the time we had developed reason enough to the point where such rigorous study was possible, the Church had already developed a stranglehold on most of the civilized world.  It has been taken for granted by the scientific community ever since that the Earth is round.  Flat Earth Theory really never had a chance to develop until the good Dr Rowbotham dared to challenge the convention of his day.  Give us some time and I'm confident that you will see that the jigsaw puzzle can be filled in just as elegantly, if not more, from a FE perspective, if given more than 2000 years to try to jam the pieces in place.  Hell, I'll even say it should happen a lot sooner, given that FE is reality.  Say, 1000 years.
[/quote]

I think you are being a little Ethnocentric here. The Islamic world was extremely rationale and scientifically developed while the Christian world was in the dark ages. The Greeks did some amazing scientific and mathematical work before Christianity even existed.

It always struck me as utterly unZetetic to say, "Give us some time and I'm confident that you will see that the jigsaw puzzle can be filled in just as elegantly, if not more, from a FE perspective, if given more than 2000 years to try to jam the pieces in place.  Hell, I'll even say it should happen a lot sooner, given that FE is reality. " or some iteration thereof. You are basically saying the world does not seem to match what I "know" to be true, but it will!  How are you proceeding from observation anymore?
Title: Re: Gravity. It disproves FE Theory.
Post by: Ski on May 14, 2013, 07:33:53 PM
Gravity has a model that does not work. Instead of looking at the data and rebuilding from a blank slate, the Orthodoxy has introduced Dark Energy/Matter to account for the discrepancy. Saying that if you introduce ill-defined, completely hypothetical energy/matter, the theory of gravity is somehow suddenly congruous is misleading at best, or delusional or deliberately deceitful at worst.
Completely hypothetical matter whose only "known" attribute is to "exist" in precisely the right amount with the precisely right properties to reconcile your model with reality is not science. You may as well substitute "fairies" for "Dark Matter".
Title: Re: Gravity. It disproves FE Theory.
Post by: DuckDodgers on May 14, 2013, 07:51:07 PM
Gravity has a model that does not work. Instead of looking at the data and rebuilding from a blank slate, the Orthodoxy has introduced Dark Energy/Matter to account for the discrepancy. Saying that if you introduce ill-defined, completely hypothetical energy/matter, the theory of gravity is somehow suddenly congruous is misleading at best, or delusional or deliberately deceitful at worst.
Completely hypothetical matter whose only "known" attribute is to "exist" in precisely the right amount with the precisely right properties to reconcile your model with reality is not science. You may as well substitute "fairies" for "Dark Matter".

And yet Dark Matter/Energy is what is propelling the Earth under UA theory...
Title: Re: Gravity. It disproves FE Theory.
Post by: Ski on May 14, 2013, 08:08:55 PM
I've already commented on my distaste for "dark energy" elsewhere.

"Dark Energy" is nothing more than a placeholder name. Scientific Orthodoxy loves to name things, because the act of naming something makes it seem less mysterious. Why? "Dark Energy".  What is it? "We have no idea." How do you know that it exists? "Because our entire cosmology collapses unless we make 97% of the known universe something completely hypothetical and otherwise unobserved"  Shouldn't you re-consider the basis of your cosmology? "Why? We know our cosmology is right, and now Dark Energy explains the inconsistency." Orthodoxy abhors the Unknown. The Unknown whispers hints of weakness in the ears of the unwashed masses, and heaven forbid the uninitiated learn that the emperor is not wearing clothes. So they name the Unknown to whitewash and explain the unexplainable. 

The zetetic mind abhors such specious hypothesizing. It is enough to know we are accelerating. The exact mechanism is unknown, indeed perhaps unknowable. This is not unsettling to the mind only set on truth. Yet, after years of hearing globularists attack universal acceleration as "magic", we caved and offered up the placeholder name "Universal Accelerator" or occasionally even adopting the name "Dark Energy" to make the parallel more plain. The term "Dark Energy" in this context is analogous to Scientific Orthodoxy's "Dark Energy". It is not meant to represent the same phenomenon.
Title: Re: Gravity. It disproves FE Theory.
Post by: Roundy the Truthinessist on May 14, 2013, 08:25:10 PM
Unfortunately by the time we had developed reason enough to the point where such rigorous study was possible, the Church had already developed a stranglehold on most of the civilized world.  It has been taken for granted by the scientific community ever since that the Earth is round.  Flat Earth Theory really never had a chance to develop until the good Dr Rowbotham dared to challenge the convention of his day.  Give us some time and I'm confident that you will see that the jigsaw puzzle can be filled in just as elegantly, if not more, from a FE perspective, if given more than 2000 years to try to jam the pieces in place.  Hell, I'll even say it should happen a lot sooner, given that FE is reality.  Say, 1000 years.

What do you mean round Earth had 2000 years to "jam the pieces in place"? Mass is said to attract other mass by gravity, and as such, from this one axiom alone, you can show Mathematically that a clump of mass would form a sphere, everything would be forced to the centre of the Earth, and thus satellites could orbit if there's no air resistance, the moon orbits for the same reason, planets orbit the sun for the same reason, the tides happen because of gravity from the moon, etc. etc.

If it was this simple, why did it take you guys almost two millenia to figure out?  ???
Title: Re: Gravity. It disproves FE Theory.
Post by: Roundy the Truthinessist on May 14, 2013, 08:32:29 PM
Dark matter and energy were new information to deal with.

Why do you keep saying this?  Do you really understand your own model so poorly?

Quote
It always struck me as utterly unZetetic to say, "Give us some time and I'm confident that you will see that the jigsaw puzzle can be filled in just as elegantly, if not more, from a FE perspective, if given more than 2000 years to try to jam the pieces in place.  Hell, I'll even say it should happen a lot sooner, given that FE is reality. " or some iteration thereof. You are basically saying the world does not seem to match what I "know" to be true, but it will!  How are you proceeding from observation anymore?

No, what I know to be true has already been proven.  It is something I can see with my own two eyes.  There's no doubt in my mind that the Earth is flat, and that such a model can be fully supported with an accurate mathematical framework. 
Title: Re: Gravity. It disproves FE Theory.
Post by: Rama Set on May 14, 2013, 08:52:30 PM
Dark matter and energy were new information to deal with.

Why do you keep saying this?  Do you really understand your own model so poorly?

Your implication is unclear, but if you think that a theory should not be able to accommodate new information then you are more dogmatic than I thought. Feel free to dispel any misapprehension I have of your statement.

Quote
Quote
It always struck me as utterly unZetetic to say, "Give us some time and I'm confident that you will see that the jigsaw puzzle can be filled in just as elegantly, if not more, from a FE perspective, if given more than 2000 years to try to jam the pieces in place.  Hell, I'll even say it should happen a lot sooner, given that FE is reality. " or some iteration thereof. You are basically saying the world does not seem to match what I "know" to be true, but it will!  How are you proceeding from observation anymore?

No, what I know to be true has already been proven.  It is something I can see with my own two eyes.  There's no doubt in my mind that the Earth is flat, and that such a model can be fully supported with an accurate mathematical framework.
[/quote]

I always find it incredible when seemingly rational people think that their senses are a limit to their perception. On your view you should not believe in atoms, viruses or chemistry. But you have made a special case of the Earth's shape, where your eyes are the ultimate arbiter of the truth. Its simply absurd to think your naked eyes can tell the truth about the totality of an object with a circumference of 40,000kms.
Title: Re: Gravity. It disproves FE Theory.
Post by: Roundy the Truthinessist on May 14, 2013, 09:12:18 PM
I always find it incredible when seemingly rational people think that their senses are a limit to their perception.

I don't think my senses are a limit to my perception.
Title: Re: Gravity. It disproves FE Theory.
Post by: Rama Set on May 14, 2013, 09:18:56 PM
I always find it incredible when seemingly rational people think that their senses are a limit to their perception.

I don't think my senses are a limit to my perception.

Thanks.
Title: Re: Gravity. It disproves FE Theory.
Post by: Puttah on May 14, 2013, 10:41:07 PM
If it was this simple, why did it take you guys almost two millenia to figure out?  ???

The stranglehold of the church hindered scientific progress for a majority of that time. Things only really kicked off since Newton.
It also wasn't known for a long time that the acceleration due to gravity was independent of mass. Basically, air resistance was a big culprit for skewing all the results.

Given the time we're in, collaboration is as simple as jumping on the net, and data about our world can be found everywhere. Why do you think the UA theory was conceived so quickly since the birth of this forum? If we were in a Universe where the Earth was actually flat, do you think it would've taken just a few years for these ancient people to figure out UA theory? Of course not, it would've also taken them millennia to figure out.

Clearly in this day and age, scientific collaboration happens much, much faster. This speaks volumes about the causes as to why an accurate flat Earth map hasn't been created yet. It's definitely not because you need 2000 years, it's because it's not possible to make.
Title: Re: Gravity. It disproves FE Theory.
Post by: Amalgafiend on May 15, 2013, 02:51:57 AM
Because the natural position of Earthly objects is the center of the universe, of course  ::)

In seriousness, though, the prevailing theories are that the Earth is either accelerating upwards at 9.81 m/s2 or that the Earth is infinitely large.

This is meant to be serious? Okay...
Title: Re: Gravity. It disproves FE Theory.
Post by: Amalgafiend on May 15, 2013, 03:00:29 AM
Every single pursuit of any sort of knowledge relies on assumptions at some point.  I am not sure why science should be held in any less regard.  Indeed, science should earn more trust for all the ideas they throw out on bad evidence.

Wrong.  Zeteticism starts with a blank slate and works from there.  No assumptions are necessary.  That's why it's the superior methodology.

Isn't the fact that you think it starts with a blank slate an assumption?

Quote
Quote
I won't understand unless you explain it.  There are many motions of the planet that have only been adquately explained on a heliocentric view.  The model fits -perfectly-.

It requires that one start with the assumption that the Earth isn't flat.  I believe I've already covered this.

Not with just one assumption but with many others aswell; The flat earth starts with the assumption that perception is accurate, which is demonstrated to be false by many things, not least Gestalt Psychology.

Quote
Quote
It is an astoundingly strong test of the theory.  If they did not find the planet, or even if it were in the wrong place, the Theory of Gravitation would have been dealt a crippling blow..

I call BS on that.  If that were the case, observations regarding the expansion of the universe and the cohesiveness of galaxies should have been a crippling blow as well.  But hello dark matter and dark energy.  When mainstream scientists see something that doesn't fit their long-cherished theories they figure out a way to pigeonhole things so they still fit.

There is a certain amount of truth to this claim. 

Quote
I'd like to add that RET has had centuries to build up its theories while modern FET has had less than two.  I see no reason to assume that given a similar length of time FE zetetics will have the math figured out as accurately as RE scientists do.

I call BS. FE has been falsified time and again; rowbotham was just one new resurgence of the theory, because he wanted to protect his precious religious feels.
Title: Re: Gravity. It disproves FE Theory.
Post by: Puttah on May 15, 2013, 03:24:49 AM
Isn't the fact that you think it starts with a blank slate an assumption?

Don't fall for his lies. They began with the assumption that the Earth was flat, and then worked from there. They also assume so much to get to where they are today with their multitude of theories.

Just ask them about their bendy light theory. They've never observed light to bend in the way they need it to, but rather they claim it to be the case because it needs to be so their theory can hold some water. Never mind that there are also many other holes in the theory that can't be explained even with unobserved scientific phenomena.
Title: Re: Gravity. It disproves FE Theory.
Post by: Amalgafiend on May 15, 2013, 03:36:15 AM
Isn't the fact that you think it starts with a blank slate an assumption?

Don't fall for his lies. They began with the assumption that the Earth was flat, and then worked from there. They also assume so much to get to where they are today with their multitude of theories.

Just ask them about their bendy light theory. They've never observed light to bend in the way they need it to, but rather they claim it to be the case because it needs to be so their theory can hold some water. Never mind that there are also many other holes in the theory that can't be explained even with unobserved scientific phenomena.

I know about "their" bendy light "theory" - I have been lurking here for a couple of weeks.

I think the assumtion they are working form, if we are to be more accurate, is that the bible is true; or at least this is the assumption rowbotham's re-ignition of the flat earth theory, from which this forum derives its influence, is working from.
Title: Re: Gravity. It disproves FE Theory.
Post by: Puttah on May 15, 2013, 03:40:39 AM
I know about "their" bendy light "theory" - I have been lurking here for a couple of weeks.

I think the assumtion they are working form, if we are to be more accurate, is that the bible is true; or at least this is the assumption rowbotham's re-ignition of the flat earth theory, from which this forum derives its influence, is working from.

I don't think they want to be associated with the bible's viewpoint. From what I've seen, most of the FEers make it sound as though their initial assumption is because it looks flat on a local scale.

I do know of one person however that doesn't believe the Earth is rotating. However, how that leads to the conclusion that Earth must be flat and not simply a geocentric model, I'm not sure.
Title: Re: Gravity. It disproves FE Theory.
Post by: Amalgafiend on May 15, 2013, 03:46:37 AM
I know about "their" bendy light "theory" - I have been lurking here for a couple of weeks.

I think the assumtion they are working form, if we are to be more accurate, is that the bible is true; or at least this is the assumption rowbotham's re-ignition of the flat earth theory, from which this forum derives its influence, is working from.

I don't think they want to be associated with the bible's viewpoint. From what I've seen, most of the FEers make it sound as though their initial assumption is because it looks flat on a local scale.

I do know of one person however that doesn't believe the Earth is rotating. However, how that leads to the conclusion that Earth must be flat and not simply a geocentric model, I'm not sure.

The problem here is that if you were to take perception as seriously as the flat earthers' do we would have to say that the earth seems to be amorphous, or confusing, to say it is flat requires some kind of conjectural process and not mere observation. The fact is this theory is biblical.
Title: Re: Gravity. It disproves FE Theory.
Post by: Roundy the Truthinessist on May 15, 2013, 06:44:54 AM
If it was this simple, why did it take you guys almost two millenia to figure out?  ???

The stranglehold of the church hindered scientific progress for a majority of that time.

FEers face a similar stranglehold.  :(
Title: Re: Gravity. It disproves FE Theory.
Post by: markjo on May 15, 2013, 08:05:11 AM
There's no doubt in my mind that the Earth is flat, and that such a model can be fully supported with an accurate mathematical framework.
I would be very much interested in seeing such a model.
Title: Re: Gravity. It disproves FE Theory.
Post by: Puttah on May 15, 2013, 09:28:58 AM
If it was this simple, why did it take you guys almost two millenia to figure out?  ???

The stranglehold of the church hindered scientific progress for a majority of that time.

FEers face a similar stranglehold.  :(

Has this forum been shut down? You're free to think as you please, conduct experiments as you please, and collaborate as you please. There is no stranglehold for FEers other than the theory they believe in.
Title: Re: Gravity. It disproves FE Theory.
Post by: Jingle Jangle on May 15, 2013, 11:22:20 AM
Gravity, as far as I have understood from the work of even Stephen Hawking, occurs when an object of a certain mass creates a ripple in the space fabric of the universe.  This dimple in the universe pulls in objects from all directions and forms bends in the space-time continuum.  What I am discovering after much research is that there is much guessing and throwing of cards when it comes to such theories.  There could be a form of etheric cohesion which seems more likely than some confession of a real space "fabric" (a term I use loosely)...  The etheric cohesion creates a sensation of a constant upward movement by steady energization.  Please read the FAQ on how we stay on the earth... It answers a lot of question that you may be asking...
Title: Re: Gravity. It disproves FE Theory.
Post by: DuckDodgers on May 15, 2013, 11:32:09 AM
Gravity, as far as I have understood from the work of even Stephen Hawking, occurs when an object of a certain mass creates a ripple in the space fabric of the universe.  This dimple in the universe pulls in objects from all directions and forms bends in the space-time continuum.  What I am discovering after much research is that there is much guessing and throwing of cards when it comes to such theories.  There could be a form of etheric cohesion which seems more likely than some confession of a real space "fabric" (a term I use loosely)...  The etheric cohesion creates a sensation of a constant upward movement by steady energization.  Please read the FAQ on how we stay on the earth... It answers a lot of question that you may be asking...
[/quote

You should do research outside this forum, not just rely on the FAQ to answer your questions.  The FAQ presents more questions than it answers.
Title: Re: Gravity. It disproves FE Theory.
Post by: Tausami on May 15, 2013, 11:45:22 AM
If it was this simple, why did it take you guys almost two millenia to figure out?  ???

The stranglehold of the church hindered scientific progress for a majority of that time.

FEers face a similar stranglehold.  :(

Has this forum been shut down? You're free to think as you please, conduct experiments as you please, and collaborate as you please. There is no stranglehold for FEers other than the theory they believe in.

Shutting us down would be the most effective way of helping us. No, the stranglehold is not the theory itself. It is insufferable, prejudiced globularists such as yourself.
Title: Re: Gravity. It disproves FE Theory.
Post by: DuckDodgers on May 15, 2013, 03:50:46 PM
If it was this simple, why did it take you guys almost two millenia to figure out?  ???

The stranglehold of the church hindered scientific progress for a majority of that time.

FEers face a similar stranglehold.  :(

Has this forum been shut down? You're free to think as you please, conduct experiments as you please, and collaborate as you please. There is no stranglehold for FEers other than the theory they believe in.

Shutting us down would be the most effective way of helping us. No, the stranglehold is not the theory itself. It is insufferable, prejudiced globularists such as yourself.

Globularists are doing nothing to halt your research in FET,  you could ignore every single RE post and work solely on FET if you so chose to.  We are actually helping you identify the holes in your theory.
Title: Re: Gravity. It disproves FE Theory.
Post by: Roundy the Truthinessist on May 15, 2013, 07:16:26 PM
If it was this simple, why did it take you guys almost two millenia to figure out?  ???

The stranglehold of the church hindered scientific progress for a majority of that time.

FEers face a similar stranglehold.  :(

Has this forum been shut down? You're free to think as you please, conduct experiments as you please, and collaborate as you please. There is no stranglehold for FEers other than the theory they believe in.

Shutting us down would be the most effective way of helping us. No, the stranglehold is not the theory itself. It is insufferable, prejudiced globularists such as yourself.

Globularists are doing nothing to halt your research in FET

That's actually not true at all.  It's because of the rigid dogmatism of globularist orthodoxy that so few are able to see the light.  Not only have we not had the time, we have not had the numbers either.
Title: Re: Gravity. It disproves FE Theory.
Post by: Puttah on May 15, 2013, 08:21:16 PM
Shutting us down would be the most effective way of helping us. No, the stranglehold is not the theory itself. It is insufferable, prejudiced globularists such as yourself.
You could all be crying a river about how the government shut down your forum because you believe "they're hiding the truth", but in reality, no one would even bat an eyelash at you. Sadly, FET has no plausibility whatsoever, but fi the same happened for a more reasonably plausible theory such as, say, 9/11 being rigged, and then people would listen.

So we've hurt your feelings, is that it? Has that hindered your progress? Would you rather we massage your shoulders and whisper supportive remarks into your ear as you come up with further nonsense?
By the way, just so you know, I'm only prejudiced against stupidity.

That's actually not true at all.  It's because of the rigid dogmatism of globularist orthodoxy that so few are able to see the light.  Not only have we not had the time, we have not had the numbers either.

How is most of the world believing the Earth is round slowing down your progress? Or is it that all you really want to achieve is a larger community of believers? This sounds awfully like a cult...

You've had plenty of time, and all you've come up with are illogical and completely broken models, and the numbers are everywhere to be found.
Title: Re: Gravity. It disproves FE Theory.
Post by: Roundy the Truthinessist on May 15, 2013, 08:50:42 PM
That's actually not true at all.  It's because of the rigid dogmatism of globularist orthodoxy that so few are able to see the light.  Not only have we not had the time, we have not had the numbers either.

How is most of the world believing the Earth is round slowing down your progress? Or is it that all you really want to achieve is a larger community of believers? This sounds awfully like a cult...

You completely misunderstand.  We don't have as many people researching these things as REers have traditionally had.  Remember it took close to two thousand years to figure out what you yourself claimed to be an incredibly simple (almost like it's something we should just understand intuitively the way you put it!) working model of the universe and that's with the scientific orthodoxy on your side. 

Quote
You've had plenty of time, and all you've come up with are illogical and completely broken models, and the numbers are everywhere to be found.

I entirely disagree.  I think we've made great leaps in the last several years and as more years pass the theory is bound to become more refined and robust. 
Title: Re: Gravity. It disproves FE Theory.
Post by: Scintific Method on May 15, 2013, 09:14:07 PM
I just wanted to complete the quote from DuckDodgers for you, and add a little emphasis:

...you could ignore every single RE post and work solely on FET if you so chose to.  We are actually helping you identify the holes in your theory.

Take bendy light for example. I put a bit of work into figuring out how much it would have to bend both up/down and left/right. You can find all that info (and the related discussion of course) in this thread (http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php/topic,58042.0.html). This should be of great help for someone to work out a proper formula and constant to describe the behaviour of bendy light. Of course, without bendy light, FET just doesn't work at all, it's just too easy to prove wrong.

Back on topic though, gravity is the "explanation of best fit" when it comes to explaining why things fall to earth when dropped. It doesn't have to mean the earth is round, it just means it doesn't have to be accelerating upward at a rate of ~9.81ms-2 (which is totally implausible, especially with variances in the acceleration due to gravity being so well known, and easily measured).

Use the feedback you get to refine your theories into something more coherent and plausible, just like real scientists do.
Title: Re: Gravity. It disproves FE Theory.
Post by: Puttah on May 15, 2013, 09:23:43 PM
You completely misunderstand.  We don't have as many people researching these things as REers have traditionally had.  Remember it took close to two thousand years to figure out what you yourself claimed to be an incredibly simple (almost like it's something we should just understand intuitively the way you put it!) working model of the universe and that's with the scientific orthodoxy on your side.
Like I said, things only really kicked off since Newton's time, and I never said RET is simple, but rather it assumes very little and it all comes together very nicely. Gravity explains just about everything that we can observe about our Earth.

Also, it's dishonest to compare the 2000 years needed to get to where RET is today with FET needing the same amount of time. It took most of that time to just discover all the continents on Earth, while now you can fly pretty much anywhere you want. We also have the internet, and the internet holds all the data you would ever need, yet you still can't build a working model with it all. Hmm...

I entirely disagree.  I think we've made great leaps in the last several years and as more years pass the theory is bound to become more refined and robust.

You're right, you've made more alternative models that don't work either, you've made up more broken theories to try and explain your other broken theories (bendy light?) and all this has done is split up your small community even further, giving them freedom to pick and choose amongst a plethora of broken theories.

Do you like your theory broken along the middle, or chipped off from the edges?
Title: Re: Gravity. It disproves FE Theory.
Post by: Amalgafiend on May 16, 2013, 10:30:40 AM


That's actually not true at all.  It's because of the rigid dogmatism of globularist orthodoxy that so few are able to see the light.  Not only have we not had the time,

Pure rhetoric.

Quote
we have not had the numbers either.

Yeah, but not because of the "globularists"; it is because there is no reasonable explanation of why should even consider the earth to be flat.

Title: Re: Gravity. It disproves FE Theory.
Post by: Amalgafiend on May 17, 2013, 10:39:57 AM
I don't see any need for gravity at all.

That is because you don't unserstand what a theory is.

Quote

 It's just something that's made up to account for what we are told to perceive as to what we are in the universe and what is happening in the universe.

All knowledge takes this form. Name one theory that is not made up to explain what is happening in the universe?

Quote
I don't believe there is any such thing as gravity at all. Our own weight and the weight of everything else is sufficient to keep us on the ground on a flat infinite earth, which is the floor of the universe above us.

That is what gravity explains you eejit (apart from the flat earth bit, obviously)

Regards,

Amalgafiend.