1

Flat Earth Debate / Re: Flight time below the equator

« on: August 03, 2012, 09:06:53 PM »

How would you know how right/not right that is, considering that the true flat earth has yet to be mapped in all its glory?

One does not need to know what a correct map would look like in order to determine that a given map is incorrect. For example, North America and Australia are now known to be nothing like the shapes depicted in that map.

According to that theory...Antarctica is now well known to exist to be nothing like the shapes depicted in FE model.

2

Flat Earth Q&A / Re: Gravity proportion

« on: August 03, 2012, 08:57:57 PM »

Well I will rephrase my original question.

Most FE's agree that gravitation exists and that mass attracts mass. What proportion of the "gravity" (ie 9.81 m/s/s holding us to the ground) we feel on earth is from acceleration of the earth? and what proportion is from the gravitational field from our mass attracting the Earths mass.

I'm not sure that most FE advocates agree that mass attracts mass. Perhaps they do. I can only speak for myself and repeat the same answer I gave to you earlier today:

I've said for years that if GR is true the earth must exhibit some sort of gravitation... If the earth exhibits gravitation it is so weak as to be negligible.

You just sourced your own thoughts, and provided no reasoning or scientific explanation. Anyone else have a thought on the proportions?

3

Flat Earth Q&A / Re: Gravity proportion

« on: August 03, 2012, 08:28:59 PM »

Well I will rephrase my original question.

Most FE's agree that gravitation exists and that mass attracts mass. What proportion of the "gravity" (ie 9.81 m/s/s holding us to the ground) we feel on earth is from acceleration of the earth? and what proportion is from the gravitational field from our mass attracting the Earths mass.

4

Flat Earth Q&A / Re: Gravity proportion

« on: August 03, 2012, 07:55:23 PM »

Can you please explain how the celestial bodies exhibit gravitaiton, and the Earth must exhibit gravitation, but you do not believe in gravity? Sure, you may not agree with the gravitational constant, but obviously you agree that a similar form of gravity exists? No?

No, I do not believe in gravity or gravity in a similar form (regardless of the value of G). Newton was wrong in several respects. If GR is true (or some reasonable approximation) than gravity does not exist. Gravitation is not a force. Newton's gravity does not exist. Even the latest quantum models describe gravitation a geometrical property and not a force. Do you see now how one can say that gravitation exists but that gravity is not a force or does not exist?

You must have different definitions of gravity and gravitation then me. Could you please define your understanding of the terms clearly showing the difference between them?

5

Flat Earth Q&A / Re: Gravity proportion

« on: August 03, 2012, 05:59:11 PM »

Most FET's tend to agree that gravity definitely exists. My question is does anyone have an idea what proportion of our "gravity" we feel is from acceleration of the earth upwards, and what proportion is from the gravitational field from the mass of the Earth?

Here we go again. No FE theorist to my knowledge believes in "gravity". Everyone agrees that celestial objects exhibit gravitation. The infinite plane model of John Davis has no issue with classical measurement of G (perhaps John himself does, I am not sure. His model can work equally well with any given value of G by varying the minimum depth of the plane). If GR is true the earth must exhibit some gravitation.

Can you please explain how the celestial bodies exhibit gravitaiton, and the Earth must exhibit gravitation, but you do not believe in gravity? Sure, you may not agree with the gravitational constant, but obviously you agree that a similar form of gravity exists? No?

6

Flat Earth Q&A / Re: Please explain

« on: August 03, 2012, 05:52:40 PM »

Do any FES'ers have an explanation for Soler/Lunar elipses or the phases of the Moon? Please explain with something you can backup 100%. Thanks.

In the model I support, the phases of the moon are attributed to biolumenecent lunar-life migrating across the surface of the moon. This accounts for why you can still see parts of the lunar surface even when the moon's phase is too far waned -- something for which round earth theory has no satisfying answer. In addition, this biolumenecent light accounts for why moonlight is harmful to animals and plants alike. Another problem that round-earth theories simply deny rather than confront.

As for eclipses, it's when the sun passes behind the moon.


Also, I'm moving this to Q&A.

This is hilarious

Your post had absolutely no content in it. I'm not even a moderator, and that was annoying. Don't laugh at people for their religious beliefs.

This thread asked for an explanation with something you can back up.  Your religious theory has zero supporting evidence.

7

Flat Earth Debate / Re: Gravity

« on: August 03, 2012, 05:46:22 PM »

He said there is no clear evidence that it exists as a force; he did not say the phenomena was not extant

What is your definition of force? Most would say a force is any influence (either in movement, shape or direction) on an object. As gravity falls under this category - this would make your statements disagree.

However as we both now agree that gravity exists. Do you agree that gravity is proportional to mass?

Did you just leave a high school debate class? There is no evidence to support any theory of gravity. All we know is mass attracts mass, and we call it gravity. No carrier-particle (if that's the term you want to use) has been discovered in which this force propagates, and it has not been shown that space-time actually bends to cause gravity in mass, as we have no way of observing space-time bending. So, there is no evidence. They are correct, they did not disagree. It clearly exists, but there's nothing supportive like there is for another seeming mystery force, magnetism.

Is mass attracting mass not supporting evidence of gravity?

8

Flat Earth Q&A / Gravity proportion

« on: August 03, 2012, 08:42:42 AM »

Most FET's tend to agree that gravity definitely exists. My question is does anyone have an idea what proportion of our "gravity" we feel is from acceleration of the earth upwards, and what proportion is from the gravitational field from the mass of the Earth?

9

Flat Earth Q&A / Re: Please explain

« on: August 03, 2012, 08:26:04 AM »

Do any FES'ers have an explanation for Soler/Lunar elipses or the phases of the Moon? Please explain with something you can backup 100%. Thanks.

In the model I support, the phases of the moon are attributed to biolumenecent lunar-life migrating across the surface of the moon. This accounts for why you can still see parts of the lunar surface even when the moon's phase is too far waned -- something for which round earth theory has no satisfying answer. In addition, this biolumenecent light accounts for why moonlight is harmful to animals and plants alike. Another problem that round-earth theories simply deny rather than confront.

As for eclipses, it's when the sun passes behind the moon.


Also, I'm moving this to Q&A.

This is hilarious

10

Flat Earth Debate / Re: Gravity

« on: August 03, 2012, 08:04:20 AM »

He said there is no clear evidence that it exists as a force; he did not say the phenomena was not extant

What is your definition of force? Most would say a force is any influence (either in movement, shape or direction) on an object. As gravity falls under this category - this would make your statements disagree.

However as we both now agree that gravity exists. Do you agree that gravity is proportional to mass?

11

Flat Earth Debate / Re: Gravity

« on: August 03, 2012, 02:42:37 AM »

How can something "clearly" exist without any solid evidence? I thought this was going to be a debate between RE and FE, not between two FE'ers

12

Flat Earth Debate / Re: Gravity

« on: August 03, 2012, 02:25:30 AM »

I have a simple question I would like answered (with evidence please).

Mass has gravity - A rock pulled out of the ground it will have its own gravitational field. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Newton's_law_of_universal_gravitation
As we are standing on at least 40000 feet of proven 'rock' of increasing density - this would create a nice little gravitational field for us. FE theory seems to object to this? Thoughts?

I know similar has been asked before but after searching I am yet to find a logical answer

I don't really see what you are trying to ask, or debate. It is a tenant of FET that Newton's Law of Universal Gravitation is wrong. After all, there is no solid evidence that gravity as a force exists. The mechanism in which it works cannot be explained. No graviton has been discovered. It also seems odd that in quantom mechanics, gravity is ignored, as well as the fact that the three understood fundamental forces are said to arise from a single interaction and thus are related to each other and yet gravity, the unknown force, is all by itself.

It seems a bit hypocritical that you ask evidence from us, when you actually have none of your own.

Clearly gravitation exists. FET questions the accepted mechanism and model of gravitation.


And for the record, no current scientist who dares take himself seriously believes in Newton's Principia anymore regardless of his or her stance on the RE-FE cosmology debate. Why even bring it up?

So your saying EnglishGentleman is wrong?

13

Flat Earth Q&A / Re: Newton

« on: August 03, 2012, 01:58:54 AM »

I've said for years that if GR is true the earth must exhibit some sort of gravitation. I very much dispute the value of the gravitational constant and Cavendish. If the earth exhibits gravitation it is so weak as to be negligible.

Extremely naive to dispute a basic law of physics without reason, yes. Could even be seen as something that is holding human kind back.....

14

Flat Earth Q&A / Re: Newton

« on: August 03, 2012, 01:45:08 AM »

I've said for years that if GR is true the earth must exhibit some sort of gravitation. I very much dispute the value of the gravitational constant and Cavendish. If the earth exhibits gravitation it is so weak as to be negligible.

You may dispute however much you want, however without any evidence or scientific reasoning - it is pointless and therefore meaningless to this discussion.

15

Flat Earth Debate / Re: Gravity

« on: August 03, 2012, 01:34:10 AM »

I have a simple question I would like answered (with evidence please).

Mass has gravity - A rock pulled out of the ground it will have its own gravitational field. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Newton's_law_of_universal_gravitation
As we are standing on at least 40000 feet of proven 'rock' of increasing density - this would create a nice little gravitational field for us. FE theory seems to object to this? Thoughts?

I know similar has been asked before but after searching I am yet to find a logical answer

I don't really see what you are trying to ask, or debate. It is a tenant of FET that Newton's Law of Universal Gravitation is wrong. After all, there is no solid evidence that gravity as a force exists. The mechanism in which it works cannot be explained. No graviton has been discovered. It also seems odd that in quantom mechanics, gravity is ignored, as well as the fact that the three understood fundamental forces are said to arise from a single interaction and thus are related to each other and yet gravity, the unknown force, is all by itself.

It seems a bit hypocritical that you ask evidence from us, when you actually have none of your own.

I asked for thoughts on the subject. Is that not provoking a debate?

Q: "Why does g vary with altitude if the Earth simply accelerates up?"

A: The celestial bodies have a slight gravitational pull. Furthermore, a non-inertial relativistic object experiences different rates of acceleration along its length according to Special Relativity, as it is impossible for both ends to accelerate at the same rate without FTL communication between them. The front end accelerates at a lower rate than the rear end. This is why g decreases at higher altitude

Since you went off on a tangent explanation before, I will give you a simple yes or no question. Are you saying gravity does exist or does not exist?

I did provide evidence - a law that has held since it was first theorised ~300yrs ago. I would enjoy seeing your evidence that it is "wrong".

16

Flat Earth Q&A / Re: Newton

« on: August 03, 2012, 12:52:55 AM »

I imagine they would counter that the law of universal gravitation is wrong.  Although masses attracting other masses can be observed with the Cavendish experiment, and the best counter I've seen to that is a link to a rather insane alternative physics site.

Thankfully, FET is not based on the shortcomings of your imagination. The earth, most likely, does have a slight gravitational pull from its mass. However, as even round-earth physicists will tell you, gravity is an incredibly weak force. It cannot account for the strength required to keep people grounded, that's what universal acceleration is for.

Could you provide me with the ratio of gravity:universal acceleration that keeps us grounded - otherwise your statement is pointless and my question still stands.

Also I think the FAQ may need to be updated now:

Q: "What about gravity?"

A1: In the dark energy model, DE accelerates the Earth and all celestial bodies in the universe at 9.81m/s2. This is commonly known as Universal Acceleration, which produces the same effect as "gravity" in our local reference frame. See: Equivalence Principle.

A2: In both the McIntyre and the Bishop model, the Earth is being pushed up by the Universal Accelerator underneath it at 9.8m/s2. This mediates observable gravitational effects in our local reference frame.

A3: In the Davis model, the infinite plane produces a finite gravitational field with a downward pull. Click here for the mathematical formulation behind this model.

According to your statement, you just proved the dark energy model, McIntyre and Bishop model "most likely" wrong.

17

Flat Earth Q&A / Newton

« on: August 03, 2012, 12:19:03 AM »

Interested in your theories...however looking through the FAQ:

Q: "How is it that the Earth does not have a gravitational pull, but stars and the moon do?"

A: This argument is a non-sequitur. You might as well ask, "How is it that snakes do not have legs, but dogs and cats do?" Snakes are not dogs or cats. The Earth is not a star or the moon. It does not follow that each must have exactly the properties of the others, and no more.

This directly breaks Newton's law of universal gravitation. Could someone please explain how this is possible?

18

Flat Earth Debate / Gravity

« on: August 02, 2012, 11:56:41 PM »

I have a simple question I would like answered (with evidence please).

Mass has gravity - A rock pulled out of the ground it will have its own gravitational field. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Newton's_law_of_universal_gravitation
As we are standing on at least 40000 feet of proven 'rock' of increasing density - this would create a nice little gravitational field for us. FE theory seems to object to this? Thoughts?

I know similar has been asked before but after searching I am yet to find a logical answer

19

Flat Earth Q&A / Re: Clarifications on 'Gravity'

« on: October 14, 2009, 11:31:35 PM »

Have you measured all mass, or are you just abusing inductive reasoning? 

It's a denial of inductive reasoning to insist that all mass must be measured.

Great, you know the definition of the word.  You are quickly becoming less and less worth my time.

Somethings without mass have a pull.  So where does that leave us.

Things without mass have a gravitational influence or not is completely irrelevant.  The fact that things with mass do have a gravitational influence and its ramifications on FET is the topic of discussion.

As I said, its an abuse of inductive reasoning to say that everything in the universe that has mass has a gravitational pull.  Much like if I were to say, well every cat I've seen in my town is black, so every cat in the world must be black.

Possibly the worst analogy I've ever seen.
It is a law of physics that every cat is black? No
It is a law of physics that everything with mass has gravitational pull? Yes

Are you trying to say that the laws are wrong?

20

Flat Earth Q&A / Re: infinite plane?

« on: October 14, 2009, 11:56:24 AM »

infinite area  = infinate mass        IMPOSSIBLE
                 = infinite gravitation  IMPOSSIBLE
                 = infinite energy        IMPOSSIBLE

Why don't you try justifying one of these statements?

OK

E=mc2
c2 = E/m
c2 = infinity/infinity

infinity/infinty cannot be determineed

21

Flat Earth Q&A / Re: infinite plane?

« on: October 14, 2009, 11:31:51 AM »

We just proved it cannot be infinite.

No, you made the claim that it cannot be infinite and are refusing to justify it.

infinite area  = infinate mass        IMPOSSIBLE
                 = infinite gravitation  IMPOSSIBLE
                 = infinite energy        IMPOSSIBLE

or are you going to tell me otherwise? and then divide by zero?

22

Flat Earth Q&A / Re: infinite plane?

« on: October 14, 2009, 11:24:12 AM »

Gravity on a large scale would curve the flat earth into a sphere....

Not if it is infinite.

We just proved it cannot be infinite.

This is over. You are argueing pointlessly.

23

Flat Earth Q&A / Re: infinite plane?

« on: October 14, 2009, 11:22:00 AM »

No, in your infinite plane model there is no gravitation on a large scale remember?

Source?

Gravity on a large scale would curve the flat earth into a sphere....

24

Flat Earth Q&A / Re: infinite plane?

« on: October 14, 2009, 11:16:58 AM »

Is that a serious statement? I don't even know what trying to say? If we had equal infinite gravity all around us, we would be crushed into 1 dimension.

Imagine you and a friend are holding onto either side of a rope. You are pulling one way, and your friend is pulling the other way with equal force. What is the net force on the rope?

Gravity acts towards the centre.... Exact opposite of what you just said...

Do you really need me to explain this?

Take the plus as the centre of the object
<----+----> was your analogy

---->+<---- is my analogy

That is in 2 dimensions. obviously gravity acts in 3 but I couldnt be bothered drawing a picture.

25

Flat Earth Q&A / Re: infinite plane?

« on: October 14, 2009, 11:04:43 AM »

I'm puzzled by your statement.  Knowing an objects volume (in the infinite plane of a finite thickness argument) and it's mass, it should be elementary math to discover it's density.

Only if its volume and mass are finite.

Also, what if any value is the acceleration due to gravity.  Does this not exist either?
How can an infinite plane (of thickness absolute or differential) possibly have gravity?  I've never heard of such a thing

http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=32568.0

Exactly, you just answered your own question. It can't. Therefore an infinite body of mass cannot exist.

No, you just have a horribly malformed understanding of how gravitation works.

You stated that a plane does not have a center.  I agree with you, it by definition, has infinite centers.

And mtarlo11 just claimed that gravitation acts towards the centre of an object. I was wondering how an object with multiple centres can gravitate to them all at once.

I just answered that question.... Obviously the object cannot exist.

The End

26

Flat Earth Q&A / Re: infinite plane?

« on: October 14, 2009, 10:30:16 AM »

Correct, it has infinite centers.

And how exactly does it gravitate towards more than one centre simultaneously?

Exactly, you just answered your own question. It can't. Therefore an infinite body of mass cannot exist.

27

Flat Earth Q&A / Re: The FAQ

« on: October 14, 2009, 10:26:21 AM »

Because you think the Earth is flat.

What gave you that idea?

No, gravitation acts mutually between any two masses. Besides, an infinite plane does not have a centre.

That did.....? Are you high?

28

Flat Earth Q&A / Re: The FAQ

« on: October 14, 2009, 10:19:45 AM »

he believes the Earth has no gravity

What gave you that idea?

Because you think the Earth is flat. Gravity would turn it into a sphere over time.

29

Flat Earth Q&A / Re: infinite plane?

« on: October 14, 2009, 10:15:53 AM »

Gravity acts towards the centre.... Exact opposite of what you just said...

No, gravitation acts mutually between any two masses. Besides, an infinite plane does not have a centre.

Gravity attracts masses together. It would be two friends accelerating at each other with infinite force, destroying each other.
I agree, an infinite plane does not have a centre as it is 2D.
FE is not an infinite plane. It is 3D. and has a centre in the y direction

30

Flat Earth Q&A / Re: Clarifications on 'Gravity'

« on: October 14, 2009, 10:05:19 AM »

Im saying Gravity is the reason we are stuck to the Earth, not acceleration.
Are you saying the Earth is a combination of both?

That is one possibility.

Well we have came to the conclusion that is can only exist with a combination of Gravity and Accel..or just Gravity
We are getting somewhere