Another question, good sirs

If indeed the earth is flat, then those living in the outer edges, would experience a pull towards the center, since you people claim that compasses actually point to the earth's center (but then, you also say that gravity does not exist. I am equally confounded by this, but that is another matter).

This, then, is good news, because it means that if I am nearer at the edge of the earth, and I want to get to the center, I would just hop a bit, and I would have moved a considerable amount towards the center. Compared to riding airplanes or buses, this is relatively cheaper.

Ah, but I realize that I would drown at the seas...

But wait, WOULD I drown, or would I still drift towards the center, gravity having its origin therein? This then says that people at the center of the earth have a very hard time walking, for the force of earth's gravity (or any force of gravity, if you believe it exists) is stronger when the distance between the center of gravity and the object is shorter.

what country did you say was at the center of the earth? I want to visit it and see if it is harder to ride a horse there.

again, I thank you good sirs for enlightening me.

Waaaaiiiiit...Are you saying that we're made out of metal?? Magnetism =/= gravity.


~D-Draw

I think you'll find the biggest problem to overcome with regards to the poles is when you decide to travel from north to south and keep going and going....oh wait you end up back north again!

Answer my question, sirs!
I must know.

Also, i am saying, because the direction of gravity is the direction we "fall", then since the center of gravity is on the center of the earth (as you say), then those living in the outer edges would "fall" towards the center, yes?

since the center of gravity is on the center of the earth (as you say)

Who said that? It's uniform.

Yes, yes.
Says the one who summoned the "Shadow Object".

Tell me then, oh knowledgeable one, why a ball thrown a little bit closer to the EAST does not oscillate between EAST and WEST before landing, given that, at any given time, the net pull of gravity is greater at one side.

Do you then say that balls thrown upward from a distance a bit closer to the EAST would have an "S"-like trajectory?

Yes, yes.
Says the one who summoned the "Shadow Object".

Tell me then, oh knowledgeable one, why a ball thrown a little bit closer to the EAST does not oscillate between EAST and WEST before landing, given that, at any given time, the net pull of gravity is greater at one side.

Do you then say that balls thrown upward from a distance a bit closer to the EAST would have an "S"-like trajectory?

Didn't you know?  It's relative!

Gravity is indeed uniform on the surface of both a RE and a FE.

I think you're confusing the FE magnetic pole theory with the FE gravity theory (which says that there is no 'gravity' as such, or at least not one caused by mass, but caused by UA).

Kind Regards,

David F.

You did not answer my question, sir. If gravity is indeed uniform all throughout, instead of centered upon the earth, then why does an object thrown upward not have an S-like trajectory?

Gravity is indeed uniform on the surface of both a RE and a FE.

I think you're confusing the FE magnetic pole theory with the FE gravity theory (which says that there is no 'gravity' as such, or at least not one caused by mass, but caused by UA).

Kind Regards,

David F.

How does it work though with FE?  With RE it makes perfect sense because the planet is a bloody SPHERE.

If you're saying gravity is uniform with RE and FE then you're basically admitting that it isn't acceleration with FE that causes the phenomenon that keeps us on the ground.

However if it IS acceleration, then that doesn't explain why a bowling ball will fall towards the Earth faster than something much less dense like a flower.  If it were acceleration, then the object would essentially be standing still while the Earth moved towards it.  There would be no wind resistance.

Apologies, I have made the classic mistake of using the word 'gravity' loosely.

In that context, I intended gravity to convey the 'downward' force which bodes feel, be it RE gravity or FE UA.

So, allow me to rephrase:

Downward force on bodies on Earth is indeed uniform on the surface of both a RE and a FE.

Unclegravy, I don't understand your question.

When one throws the ball up, it's acceleration steadily decreases after leaving your hand (due to air resistance), then decelerates, continues it's trajectory, before coming to a standstill. Your hand, moments later, catches up with the ball as your hand, body, and the Earth, are accelerating upwards. This means that relative to you, the ball accelerates towards you.

Sincerely,

David F.

When one throws the ball up, it's acceleration steadily decreases after leaving your hand (due to air resistance),
Sincerely,

David F.

A contender for best line I've read on this board.

But that is the same for both FE and RE, is it not? The ball accelerates in your fist, as you move your arm, and as soon as you let go, decelerates (provided you throw it into the air against the force of gravity/UA).

If I've made a mistake, please point it out.

I do not pretend to be a physicist.

Kind Regards,

David F.

But that is the same for both FE and RE, is it not? The ball accelerates in your fist, as you move your arm, and as soon as you let go, decelerates (provided you throw it into the air against the force of gravity/UA).

If I've made a mistake, please point it out.

I do not pretend to be a physicist.

Kind Regards,

David F.

It deccelerates after you throw it up due to the acceleration due to gravity acting in the opposite direction. Yes it would be the same in either RE or FE but it's not air resistance that causes it.

Actually, in RE model, the ball decelerates due to gravity AND air resistance.

It's similar in the FE model, only much of the deceleration is simply relative - the ball is slowed by air resistance, and since it no longer has a force acting upon it, it slows.

Regards,

David F.

Actually, in RE model, the ball decelerates due to gravity AND air resistance.

It's similar in the FE model, only much of the deceleration is simply relative - the ball is slowed by air resistance, and since it no longer has a force acting upon it, it slows.

Regards,

David F.

of course air resistance plays a part but if I'm just chucking a tennis ball into the air I'm hardly going to be concerned with air resistance which would be very minor. Also you would normally hypothesise about these things as if you were in a vacuum on earth, in which case the ball deccelerates at -g at ground level. In FE and RE the percieved effects are identical* which is why we have the stupid UA theory in the first place!!


*Until you move away from the earth's surface in real life: g get's smaller.

When you throw the ball, it is no longer being propelled by UA, hence the behaviour that you would also see on a RE.

So, are we in agreement?

Regards,

David F.

When you throw the ball, it is no longer being propelled by UA, hence the behaviour that you would also see on a RE.

So, are we in agreement?

Regards,

David F.

It is no longer being accelerated by UA so the Earth catches up with it. Orrr...it gets pulled back to Earth by gravity in the RE model. Both would feel and look exactly the same though. So yes I think we are in agreement. This is the ONLY argument FE theory has to stand on and even it can be disproven with a simple trip around the globe from pole to pole to pole..

it can be disproven with a simple trip around the globe from pole to pole to pole..

Simple? Try finding a pilot and an aircraft that can take you on a non stop flight around the world pole to pole.

Quote

it can be disproven with a simple trip around the globe from pole to pole to pole..

Simple? Try finding a pilot and an aircraft that can take you on a non stop flight around the world pole to pole.

You could do it using multiple vehicles: Planes, boats, cars. I didn't say you had to fly the whole trip. Why would it matter what transport you used?

You could do it using multiple vehicles: Planes, boats, cars. I didn't say you had to fly the whole trip. Why would it matter what transport you used?

If you were to conduct the trip on sea and land you would need to take a capable ship to the Ross Shelf, climb up 150 feet, and proceed on foot across Antarctica.

Walking thousands of miles in freezing temperatures that can dip down to -129 °F is no easy matter.

EiZ: When you say UA, good sir, do you mean "Uniform Acceleration"?

Then, my good fellow, you are wrong.

Consider my train analogy: A man inside a moving train throws a ball upwards. The ball will still land on his feet, yes?


You are forgetting we have an atmosphere.

Quote

You could do it using multiple vehicles: Planes, boats, cars. I didn't say you had to fly the whole trip. Why would it matter what transport you used?

If you were to conduct the trip on sea and land you would need to take a capable ship to the Ross Shelf, climb up 150 feet, and proceed on foot across Antarctica.

Walking thousands of miles in freezing temperatures that can dip down to -129 °F is no easy matter.

I said sea, land and air. Way to go with your selective arguing Tom. Keep it up. Obviously you could fly across the harsher regions. Of course you know all this but you want to deviate the debate away from the fact that you know I'm right and have nothing to respond with. I await your next deviation with great interest.

Consider my train analogy: A man inside a moving train throws a ball upwards. The ball will still land on his feet, yes?

Balls typically do not have feet.

Also, you have not answered my question: Do all FE'ers then believe that the universe is steadily increasing, and this rate of increase is increasing by 9.8 m/s per second?

Expansion of the Universe is a theory well accepted in RE, too.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Accelerating_universe

EiZ: When you say UA, good sir, do you mean "Uniform Acceleration"?

Then, my good fellow, you are wrong.

Consider my train analogy: A man inside a moving train throws a ball upwards. The ball will still land on his feet, yes?


You are forgetting we have an atmosphere.

UA refers to the constant 'upward' acceleration of the FE.

Quote

Consider my train analogy: A man inside a moving train throws a ball upwards. The ball will still land on his feet, yes?

Balls typically do not have feet.

Answer the question.

Answer the question.

It depends. Is the train accelerating?

No, it is not.

Have you not observed this phenomena, while walking, fo instance? This is the reason basketball players are able to dribble balls.

Quote

Also, you have not answered my question: Do all FE'ers then believe that the universe is steadily increasing, and this rate of increase is increasing by 9.8 m/s per second?

Expansion of the Universe is a theory well accepted in RE, too.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Accelerating_universe

My, my, how the contradictions fly. In my other topic, some FE'er summoned Hawkings and his "infinite is finite" theory. At any rate, you then believe that the universe has expanded greatly, given that Earth cannot be the only flat planet with gravity, yes?

Because that means, if the Earth's apparent "gravity" (being caused by all of the stars and planets moving upward, say FE'ers) has affected the universe such that it has increased by 11 billion lightyears, then surely, other flat planets with a greater gravity will have increased the universe's size more significantly.


By that line of logic, all FE'ers believe that a human is a point upon a space that is a point upon a space that is a popint upon a space, and so on, and so on, and so on.

My, my! Then surely, I pity the FE'er who goes on an existensial mode.

Take a step back unclegravy.

Everything can be explained by this:

http://homepage.mac.com/lordkestrel/LOL.swf

Even a FEer can take a joke, and that animation is pure hilarity.