Gravity, and how it works.

For those too stupid to comprehend gravity I am about to explain it in laymans terms, and how this makes a flat earth impossible.

All matter experiences a small attraction to other matter. A pencil, for example, is mildy pulled towards my lampshade. The mass of the two objects is very low, therefore the pull is neglible.

The earth is another story. It is very large, and its mass is very spread out. However, if you think about it, the center of gravity is in the very middle, therefore where ever you stand on the globe gravity pulls you straight down.

On a flat earth gravity doesn't pull from below. If I stood on the edge of a flat earth, I would be pulled towards the centre quite strongly. I live in New Zealand, and the fact gravity isn't sucking me in the general direction of Germany is proff enough the world is a sphere.

Also the fact that the center of gravity is in the center of the earth proves its round because there is equel force acting on the matter of the earth from all sides ergo a sphere

The flat-earthers believe that the flat, cd-shaped earth is constantly flying up, and our bodies want to stay in the same place (i forget what its called). So it feels like we are being pulled down, but really the earth is moving up.

The flat-earthers believe that the flat, cd-shaped earth is constantly flying up, and our bodies want to stay in the same place (i forget what its called). So it feels like we are being pulled down, but really the earth is moving up.

If this were true, then the Sun, moon and planets would all have to be moving "up" at the same rate to avoid complications.

If the earth were moving "up", then what caused the movement in the first place? There would need to be some sort of force to produce the initial movement of the earth, which flat-earthers haven't yet specified. Yet another hole in their rediculous half-baked hypothesis.

Conversely, the spherical earth-orbits-the-sun model shows us that the movement of the earth is attributed to the gravitational pull of the sun, which is a uniform centripetal force.

I don't even know why I actually bother telling you all this, its OBVIOUS to anyone with an IQ of 30 and above that the earth is SPHERICAL AND ORBITS THE SUN.

The Flat Earth's Upward Movement

Gravity on our Flat Earth is a result of upward movement in space.
Since the Earth travels at a constant velocity with the stars and other objects, .... we maintain a constant level of gravity.
............

This scientific illustration should put an end to the theory that Gravity is because "The Earth Sucks".

Dr_Bill, I believe I understand your theory, and I believe it neglects to account for the parabolic velocity of projectiles, or acceleration due to gravity.

If I threw a ball up into the air, it might leave my hand at 10km/s, and accelerate negatively (deaccelerate) at the constant rate of approximately -9.81m/s/s.

At some point, it would reach the climax of its flight, and cease all movement (only for a moment of theoretical minutae).

Then, it would close distance with Earth (according to your theory, due to the Earth's upward movement) at the identical rate of approximately 9.81m/s/s (positive this time, because velocity is increasing, not decreasing).

For your theory to support this undeniable truth (throw a ball up in the air, there's proof for you), it is presumable that you would say that this movement is due to the constant decrease in velocity of the ball operating on the same plane as the constant velocity of the Earth, which eventually catches up to the accelerated ball.

This leads us to believe that Earth is rocketing upward at a constant speed of 9.81m/s.  NOT 9.81m/s/s, as that would be a measure of ACCELERATION, and the ball experiment clearly proves you think that the earth is moving at a constant rate.

Basically, according to your theory, we should be pressed against the Earth's surface like pancakes.

You see, the 9.81m/s/s operates over time--all objects fall at a velocity deduced from that measure of acceleration.  It is NOT true that all object fall at that speed--object will fall slower, faster, or exactly at that speed at any given point, depending on the amount of time the object has been freefalling.

If you dropped that same ball 1 foot off the ground, it would NOT fall at 9.81m/s, it would simply fall at a velocity beginning at 0 and APPROACHING faster speeds at a RATE of an additional 9.81m/s each second (9.81m/s/s).

However, if the EARTH is moving CONSTANTLY upwards at 9.8 m/s, simply jumping would result in falling with a force multiple times greater than anything we experience, and ALSO--because it is presumed that the only movement comes from the Earth, and all other object remain at rest--means that even if I jumped out of an airplane, I would hit the ground at a velocity identical in feel to that which I would experience had I jumped from an object (on a round earth) from which falling would take precisely one second.

In mose concise terms:

Let us presume jumping from 6 feet results in a falling time of exactly 1 second.

According to your theory, should I jump from an airplane 10,000 feet above the earth, I could plummet like a falcon to the ground, HEAD FIRST, and survive with a headache if I happened to land on a mat.

How can you CONCEIVABLY explain this, or your apparant lack of any real scientific support?  I'm a high school junior and this is flagrantly obvious.

Those of you who understand physics will have noted that the above is based on the presumption that the ball WILL, at some point, slow down.  Realistically, because the only force restraining the objects unceasing movement (law of inertia) would be air resistance or other objects.  This means that I could also jump into space, should I have the strength to propel myself upward at a force greater than 9.81m/s.

Of course, if that whole thing was a joke, pardon this long-winded rebuttal.  It's hard to tell on this site.

Wouldn't a flat earth have to constantly accellerate upwards, rather than just move at a constant speed to keep pulling things down?

Here is something to show how Gravity works.



See it goes up, THEN down.

Not it goes up, and up, and up, and up as some of you are saying.

That looks very simmilar as to what would happen if the earth would be rising, and we were being forced down

It can all be explained by pusher particles....

The existence of gravity is still theoretical and only persists in science through  the fact that it is a falsifiable tenet.  You may say that if you drop a ball it falls to the ground and obeys (rather limited it might be said) "laws of gravity".  However to use this, or any such demonstration as proof of the existence of gravity one would need to repeat it an INFINITE number of times.  Since this has not been done the existence of gravity is a mere statistical truth. Admitedly the probability of a type I statistical error is low, but it is not non existent. As such there is a possibility that our socially constructed understanding of gravity may indeed, in the future, prove to be erroneous.   Also I bet if you go and drop a ball now and it goes up you will shit youself.

tldr

tldr

Yes you did.  You were just shocked that you took your hand of your knob for once and it went up. :shock:

Quote from: "rotten.com is rebellious"

tldr

Yes you did.  You were just shocked that you took your hand of your knob for once and it went up. :shock:

ya

heres how gravity REALLY works guys haha




lol get it

OMG I am jus sooooooooooo shocked :shock:  :shock:  :shock:  :shock: wut wit me wking in medic prof never c nythng lke tht.  ahhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh!  I've also been blinded by orriginality :lol:  :lol:  :lol:  :lol:  :lol:

im bored

poOo0o

hahahaa do you get it

NO, this doesnt look similar to as if the Earth was constantly moving upward at a certain velocity.  If you get in an elevator, and it ACCELERATES upward, you feel heavier, like a gravitational force...but once it stops accelerating and continues to move upward at a certain velocity or speed, then you feel the normal gravitational force.  SO if the Earth was moving upward at a constant velocity, then you would feel weightless.

And, if the Earth is either moving or accelerating upward at all, wouldn't it lose energy in the ether and what not in which you believe?

Also, if you believe this, how can you believe the flat earth theory that the earth is undergoing a tilt, in which it tilts from one side to the other, allowing the south pole to freeze.  

And on that topic, how exactly do you believe the sun has been burning for even 100 years, let alone thousands or millions, whichever you believe.  If it is only 32 feet in diameter, smaller than most water towers, what magical fuel allows it to burn that bright and that long.

And how do you explain the tides without gravitational pull of the moon?

How does the sun light up the moon if it is on the underside of the Earth at night?

AND HERE IS MY BIGGEST POINT.  If the Earth is flat, how does the sun not rise at the same time for different places on the Earth?  If it were flat, then once it rose to a few thousand feet, it would light up the whole planet at once.  And if you have ever flown across time zones or even DRIVEN, you will know this is not true.  Or do you believe that some conspirator from NASA flies up there in a hot air balloon and blocks it out from certain parts of the globe until its the right time?

NO, this doesnt look similar to as if the Earth was constantly moving upward at a certain velocity.  If you get in an elevator, and it ACCELERATES upward, you feel heavier, like a gravitational force...but once it stops accelerating and continues to move upward at a certain velocity or speed, then you feel the normal gravitational force.  SO if the Earth was moving upward at a constant velocity, then you would feel weightless.

And, if the Earth is either moving or accelerating upward at all, wouldn't it lose energy in the ether and what not in which you believe?

Also, if you believe this, how can you believe the flat earth theory that the earth is undergoing a tilt, in which it tilts from one side to the other, allowing the south pole to freeze.  

And on that topic, how exactly do you believe the sun has been burning for even 100 years, let alone thousands or millions, whichever you believe.  If it is only 32 feet in diameter, smaller than most water towers, what magical fuel allows it to burn that bright and that long.

And how do you explain the tides without gravitational pull of the moon?

How does the sun light up the moon if it is on the underside of the Earth at night?

AND HERE IS MY BIGGEST POINT.  If the Earth is flat, how does the sun not rise at the same time for different places on the Earth?  If it were flat, then once it rose to a few thousand feet, it would light up the whole planet at once.  And if you have ever flown across time zones or even DRIVEN, you will know this is not true.  Or do you believe that some conspirator from NASA flies up there in a hot air balloon and blocks it out from certain parts of the globe until its the right time?

To me the whole flat earth thing is simply a challenge to mainstream scientific thought. Which is not in itself a bad thing since it reminds folks that there are other ways to interpret observed experience.  Kelly (the psychologist) asserted that we are all "naive scientists" and as such live in a socially constructed world where shared experience of the same is accepted as the norm.  Despite the fact that no so called observed evidence exists to support flat earth theory it remains a possibility since our experience of the rising sun and elevators going up is finite, meaning that it may be observed differently in the future (though "probably" not).  I dont want to get all metaphysical on your ass but consider this.  "If you sit on a chair how do you KNOW it will not turn into a bear trap".  The answer is of course that you have sat on many chairs and they have of course not bit your butt, but how many chairs have you sat on in the sum total of possible chair sittings?  The possible number of chair sittings is of course infinite which makes the sum total of your chair sitting experiences (say 1,000,000 sittings) negligible. Considering this, how reliable is pure and simple naive observation (and science is of course a simple extension of this).  Many folks have had their socially constructed world torn down by, for example, being mugged on a quiet street they have walked down many hundreds of times.  Does the quiet street now become a dangerous street? Or is it still the same quiet street of old experience?

answers in a postcard!

Actually I dont totally disagree.  However there is a mathematical theory that does make some sense on the topic.

If we look at the total possible most finite volumes of space (plank length cubed), before quantum randomness takes over and space-time becomes all ripply and weird, then we can add up the sum of all of these little blocks in the universe.  We can estimate how many there are and this tells us every possible point in space in which a physical event could ever happen.  Then we take the smallest interval in time in which any event could ever happen using the same approach.  If we allow any event to occur at any point in time in any of these blocks of space, then we get a number of total possible events that could occur in the existence of the universe.  And this is using theories of a very long existing and large universe, which is very generous...and we come up with a number.  I dont remember what it is off hand but its on the web and ive done it by hand too.  So if the probability of an event happening is less than 1 in this number, it is deemed impossible mathematically and physically.

I know the flat earthers wont buy this because they refuse to follow any line of logic that they didnt create, but mikolaj_koppernigk=cojon who posted this might be interested in it.

And quantum physics tells us that everything is just a probability.  So the chair you are sitting on could turn into a bear trap, although it is so improbable that it becomes impossible.

In other words, yes, challenge to scientific thought is great, and it continues to go on inside and outside of the scientific community, but its when those challengers becomes illogical, self-deluded, and ignorant, that it loses its purpose and just becomes an annoyance (much along the line of conspiracy theorists).

In other words, yes, challenge to scientific thought is great, and it continues to go on inside and outside of the scientific community, but its when those challengers becomes illogical, self-deluded, and ignorant, that it loses its purpose and just becomes an annoyance (much along the line of conspiracy theorists).

wow really :shock:  lol thats verry interesting

Actually I dont totally disagree.  However there is a mathematical theory that does make some sense on the topic.

If we look at the total possible most finite volumes of space (plank length cubed), before quantum randomness takes over and space-time becomes all ripply and weird, then we can add up the sum of all of these little blocks in the universe.  We can estimate how many there are and this tells us every possible point in space in which a physical event could ever happen.  Then we take the smallest interval in time in which any event could ever happen using the same approach.  If we allow any event to occur at any point in time in any of these blocks of space, then we get a number of total possible events that could occur in the existence of the universe.  And this is using theories of a very long existing and large universe, which is very generous...and we come up with a number.  I dont remember what it is off hand but its on the web and ive done it by hand too.  So if the probability of an event happening is less than 1 in this number, it is deemed impossible mathematically and physically.

I know the flat earthers wont buy this because they refuse to follow any line of logic that they didnt create, but mikolaj_koppernigk=cojon who posted this might be interested in it.

And quantum physics tells us that everything is just a probability.  So the chair you are sitting on could turn into a bear trap, although it is so improbable that it becomes impossible.

In other words, yes, challenge to scientific thought is great, and it continues to go on inside and outside of the scientific community, but its when those challengers becomes illogical, self-deluded, and ignorant, that it loses its purpose and just becomes an annoyance (much along the line of conspiracy theorists).

Interesting. This is indeed true, though it is sobering to remember that maths (and particularly quantum physics as an extension of maths) is full of cheats.  Factorial 0 comes to mind as does square root -1 as an unreal number ( after all it only exists in theory).  No matter how improbable something becomes it does not become impossible until 0 is reached, the trend may be asymptotic, but ive always felt that the steady incline of an asymptote is a matter of perspective, things change more slowly the closer infinity is approached but the closer your observation of these changes the more apparrent they are.  Again I dont want to get metaphysical on ur ass but consider the concept of possible worlds.  The main assertion is that there is an infinite number of possible worlds ranging from the vastly diverse to two different universes where you decided to have cornflakes on a particular morning rather than toast.  Through the whole existence of this universe that is the only difference.  So what! Well we may just happen to inhabit the one possible universe (world) where despite our closest observation and investigation of our worldm, it turns out to be flat.  it is simply a possibility amongst the infinite number of possible worlds. In the many worlds viewpoint it is possible that we may wake up to a flat world one day.
im drunk

answers on a postcard

I can see this becoming a recurring theme in my posts and it may need thread of its own.  The nature of logic and the methods of science do not always come hand in hand.  In his History of Western philosophy Bertrand Russell said of Hume  "Hume has proved that pure empiricism is not a sufficient basis for science.  But if this one principle (induction) is admitted everything else can proceed in accordancewithe theory that all our knowledge is based on experience.  It must be granted that this is a serious departure from pure empiricism and that those who are empirisists may ask why, if one departure is allowed, others are to be forbidden.  These, howeverare questions not directly raised by Humes arguments.  Whatb these arguments prove- and I do not believe tyhe truth can be controverted- is that induction is an independent logical principle, incapable of being inferred from either experience or other logical principles and that without this principle science is impossible"

Induction is of course the basis of all empirical scientific enquiry which means that if Hume is right the whole of scientific knowledge is formed from principles that themselves cannot be proven.  This can be seen as a very real skeleton in the closet of scientific knowledge.
Hume was of course one of the first to popularise the concepts i mentioned above. That is to say that from a logical standpoint the observation that one event follows another, no matter how many times that observation is made, does not guarantee that the same thing will occur on further observations.  It simply means that the probability of that occurring becomes progressively more improbable with each new observation. BUT never impossible.  Popper of course expands on these thoughts with the assertion that all knowledge is conditional.  That for a future post.

Answers on a postcard

LOL @ stupid people who don't understand maths.

How can you be confused about 0! = 1, and sqrt(-1) = i

How many different ways can you do zero things?
And i is just a pictoral representation for an abstract concept, just like 2 is. We could have made sqrt(i) = picture of a duck, or a new picture that's an upside down 7, but i seems good/

Quote

The flat-earthers believe that the flat, cd-shaped earth is constantly flying up, and our bodies want to stay in the same place (i forget what its called). So it feels like we are being pulled down, but really the earth is moving up.

If this were true, then the Sun, moon and planets would all have to be moving "up" at the same rate to avoid complications.

If the earth were moving "up", then what caused the movement in the first place? There would need to be some sort of force to produce the initial movement of the earth, which flat-earthers haven't yet specified. Yet another hole in their rediculous half-baked hypothesis.

In order to create an illusion of gravity, the Earth would have to be constantly accelerating at 9.8 meters per second squared. That requires not only an initial force, but a continuous force. Something would have to be pushing the Earth upwards at this very moment. The speed of light is a problem, also.

Since the Sun and Moon are clearly not attached to the Earth, something would need to push them up as well, or they would fall down.

The Flat Earth theory also requires all spaceflight to be a hoax, along with the round appearance of the Earth that anyone who flew aboard a Concorde would have seen.

Satellites cannot exist according to the Flat Earth theory. They are only possible if there is a such thing as an orbit. This means that GPS units can't work. The mathematics used in interpreting the GPS signal would only work on a round Earth. This is important, because airline pilots are using this supposedly non-functional, satellite-based technology to land on runways they can't see.

Galileo, you have to realize that airplane pilots are part of the conspiracy, so was Eistein, relativity is bull.

Also, couldn't we just explain the constant force the way "round earthers" explain the accelerating expantion of the universe?  With something like dark matter?