Do you believe in just about evry astronomical definition, law, or anythign evr?

If this was true, wouldn't anything that fly have to continually have to force itself from the gound (birds continually flapping, planes with thusters on the bottom)? I don't know any of this shit, just throw stuff at me and I'll learn.

They would work the same in both models.

Please tell me what you think the following things are...

...Gravity;
Weight;
Weightlessness;
Acceleration;
Centripetal force...

1. Acceleration
2. Acceleration*mass
3. Acceleration without mechanical resistance or being in an inertial frame not in a gravitational field.
4. The rate of change of velocity.
5. The external force required to make a body follow a curved path at a constant speed.

Quote from: kasroa on February 26, 2007, 06:17:10 PM

Please tell me what you think the following things are...

...Gravity;
Weight;
Weightlessness;
Acceleration;
Centripetal force...

1. Acceleration
2. Acceleration*mass
3. Acceleration without mechanical resistance or being in an inertial frame not in a gravitational field.
4. The rate of change of velocity.
5. The external force required to make a body follow a curved path at a constant speed.

I don't think I quoted you did I? Why would you answer my question?

Quote from: TheEngineer on February 26, 2007, 07:08:22 PM

Quote from: kasroa on February 26, 2007, 06:17:10 PM

Please tell me what you think the following things are...

...Gravity;
Weight;
Weightlessness;
Acceleration;
Centripetal force...

1. Acceleration
2. Acceleration*mass
3. Acceleration without mechanical resistance or being in an inertial frame not in a gravitational field.
4. The rate of change of velocity.
5. The external force required to make a body follow a curved path at a constant speed.

I don't think I quoted you did I? Why would you answer my question?

Yes you did.  However it was an embedded quote, my bad.

It helped in emphasising his stupidity if I quoted everything

um.. still no FEer gonna say anything about the diagram of the light and sphere?  how it proves day and night.

I don't see anywhere in his post where he explains day and night. Besides. Day and night are explained in the FE model if you took the time to read the FAQ.
What he is trying to prove is why things look 2D in Round-Earth space. I guess. Not sure how an Object not on this planet makes a difference whether or not this planet is flat or round, though

I'm not sure if this even applies, but would the FE have a terminal velocity?

The speed of light.  Sadly, we will never reach it...

Can i make a point?

Gravity is a property of mass. An undenaibale law of physics... even down to the quantum level.

there is a force of g (9.81) acting on us because of the mass of the earth... which if you do the calculation and assume the earth is spherical works out PERFECTLY.... i suppose you FE-ers see that as coincidence?

There is an acceleration of 9.8m/s^2, which was determined through observation.

BTW engineer, it says under your name

"GPS does not require satellites."

Could you please explain to me that (or post the link if you have already explained) as to how they work....

They work by using very accurate clocks.  There is no part of the GPS location process that requires the transmitter to be in orbit.

yes, you can obtain the value 9.81 through observation AND by using newtons law of gravitation. Which fits in perfectly assuming the world is round.... another "coincidence" i suppose?

accurate clocks can tell you your location on earth? please do go into more detail....

yes, you can obtain the value 9.81 through observation AND by using newtons law of gravitation. Which fits in perfectly assuming the world is round.... another "coincidence" i suppose?

as i already said before, I did an experiment from which i could calculate earths acceleration.

yes, you can obtain the value 9.81 through observation AND by using newtons law of gravitation. Which fits in perfectly assuming the world is round.... another "coincidence" i suppose?

How do you think Newton's law of Gravitation was conceived?

An "experiment"?.... i am not denying the value of g on earth is not 9.81, but the reason why it is 9.81

Not only can it be done by observation (experiment) but by using newtons law of gravitation which assumes the world is round.

accurate clocks can tell you your location on earth? please do go into more detail....

By using a reference time, a receiver can calculate the distance an EM signal traveled using the time stamp embedded in the signal.  Knowing the location of the transmitter, which is also encoded in the signal, the receiver can calculate it's possible locations on a sphere whose radius is the distance the signal traveled before it reached the receiver.  Using three signals, the possible locations can be narrowed down to two, and using the earth as a fourth sphere, the location determined.

An "experiment"?.... i am not denying the value of g on earth is not 9.81, but the reason why it is 9.81

Not only can it be done by observation (experiment) but by using newtons law of gravitation which assumes the world is round.

, what part did you not get?

i droped an object and measured how long it will take to hit the ground, then i repeated the process from a higher altitude, and then again, from the higher altitude, i used a stopping mechanism, and a clock with accuracy down to the fourth decimal spot. I observed the results, and with some calculus, came to the conclusion that the earth accelerated toward the object i dropped, with an acceleration of 9.82 m/s^2 .

yeh, like i said... i am not disputing the value of g on earth.... which does vary slightly, as you found out in your experiment... for many reasons that support a round earth theory. But the fact that g= 9.81 assuming the earth is spherical.... engineer, i will get back to you with newtons law of gravitation..... and prove to you.... with maths..... the earth is spherical...

yeh, like i said... i am not disputing the value of g on earth.... which does vary slightly, as you found out in your experiment... for many reasons that support a round earth theory. But the fact that g= 9.81 assuming the earth is spherical.... engineer, i will get back to you with newtons law of gravitation..... and prove to you.... with maths..... the earth is spherical...

Listen to me , i know that the earth is spherical, and i know newton's laws of gravitation, but that does not mean that the FE model of "gravity" is not possible.

Newtons Law of gravitation can be shown at fundemental levels and not only for earth but other smaler day to day objects, and says that


F is proportinal to M1*M2/r^2

F= gravitational force= 9.81

M1 is mass of earth
M2 is an object on the earth (i.e. a human)

and r is the distance between the centre of the earth and the person
i.e. the radius of the earth (assuming it is spherical)

therefore F on a person on a SPHERICAL earth = G*M1*M2/ r^2

G is gravitational constant

therefore: you do the maths and it works it...

Quote from: lucky on February 27, 2007, 07:29:16 AM

accurate clocks can tell you your location on earth? please do go into more detail....

By using a reference time, a receiver can calculate the distance an EM signal traveled using the time stamp embedded in the signal.  Knowing the location of the transmitter, which is also encoded in the signal, the receiver can calculate it's possible locations on a sphere whose radius is the distance the signal traveled before it reached the receiver.  Using three signals, the possible locations can be narrowed down to two, and using the earth as a fourth sphere, the location determined.

ok...... but this does not explain how you get a reception from floating transmitters on ice bergs from the southpole, when you are in the middle of the sahara desert. Seeing as GPS uses microwave propagation which requires a line of sight link..... how do you get a signal?

No one ever said the only transmitters were floating in the ocean.

Newtons Law of gravitation can be shown at fundemental levels and not only for earth but other smaler day to day objects, and says that


F is proportinal to M1*M2/r^2

F= gravitational force= 9.81

M1 is mass of earth
M2 is an object on the earth (i.e. a human)

and r is the distance between the centre of the earth and the person
i.e. the radius of the earth (assuming it is spherical)

therefore F on a person on a SPHERICAL earth = G*M1*M2/ r^2

G is gravitational constant

therefore: you do the maths and it works it...

9.81 is not gravitational force, it's the gravitational constant for earth, on mars, it's 7.5 or sth like that i think.

g = 9.81 N/kg OR g = 9.81 m/s^2

THAT is the same thing on round earth. It makes no difference if you say that the earth pulls things with a force proportional to it's mass via this constant, or if you say that things accelerate toward the center of the earth, producing a force proportional to it's mass via the gravity's acceleration.

So where are the transmitters?

They can be in the atmosphere, on the ground, just about anywhere.

So if they are in the atmposhere how are they kept their without using some form of propulsion?

lol another person pointing out how GPS needs satellites.

So if they are in the atmposhere how are they kept their without using some form of propulsion?

Lighter than air broadcasting platforms.