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

Wow Solace.... suddenly your not so loud now are you?

REALLY?


for your information solace, i have read the FAQ.

and no where does it explain why g varies at differnet points of the earth.

So would you like to be so kind and explain to me why?


No? i didn't think so..

Quote from: lucky on February 28, 2007, 04:53:13 AM

Wow Solace.... suddenly your not so loud now are you?

"Q: "Why does gravity vary with altitude?"

A: The moon and stars have a slight gravitational pull."


Ouch. Guess I don't need to be loud to be right, Do I?
Your reading skills impress me. No, really, they do.

Quote from: lucky on February 28, 2007, 03:35:02 AM

REALLY?


for your information solace, i have read the FAQ.

and no where does it explain why g varies at differnet points of the earth.

So would you like to be so kind and explain to me why?


No? i didn't think so..

Where there does it say altitude?

Yes solace..... VERY IMPRESSIVE READING SKILLS YOU HAVE!!!       

Because g does not only vary with altitude but your position on earth, due to the fact that the world is roughly a sphere but flattened at the poles. SO if you are closer to the centre of the earth i.e. at the poles as opposed to the equator you weight more.

As i have asked now, for what? the 4th time is it?

EXPLAIN

I am sorry where is the answer to my question? I don't see it?

Can you please tell me why g on earth, value around 9.81 varies depending upon height?

WHERE HERE HAS THIS BEEN ANSWERED?

NOT ONLY THIS BUT LIKE A HUNDRED OTHER QUESTIONS YOU REFUSE TO ANSWER?

I WONDER WHY?

Quote from: Solace on February 28, 2007, 06:23:49 AM

Quote from: lucky on February 28, 2007, 04:53:13 AM

Wow Solace.... suddenly your not so loud now are you?

"Q: "Why does gravity vary with altitude?"

A: The moon and stars have a slight gravitational pull."


Ouch. Guess I don't need to be loud to be right, Do I?
Your reading skills impress me. No, really, they do.

The real answer is due to the graitational constant equation.
Fgravity=GMaMb/r^2. 
Gravity on MT Everest is less because the radius is bigger.  Thats why you weigh less not because the stars which are 1000's of lightyears away.

Quote from: sokarul on February 28, 2007, 06:45:21 AM

Quote from: Solace on February 28, 2007, 06:23:49 AM

Quote from: lucky on February 28, 2007, 04:53:13 AM

Wow Solace.... suddenly your not so loud now are you?

"Q: "Why does gravity vary with altitude?"

A: The moon and stars have a slight gravitational pull."


Ouch. Guess I don't need to be loud to be right, Do I?
Your reading skills impress me. No, really, they do.

The real answer is due to the graitational constant equation.
Fgravity=GMaMb/r^2. 
Gravity on MT Everest is less because the radius is bigger.  Thats why you weigh less not because the stars which are 1000's of lightyears away.

FE model doesnt have "Gravity". Which makes that formula sort of pointless.May be good to note the Model your arguing against has the stars alot, alot closer then 1000's of lightyears. theres probably a thread detailing that better elsewhere.

Quote from: Solace on February 28, 2007, 06:57:04 AM

Quote from: sokarul on February 28, 2007, 06:45:21 AM

Quote from: Solace on February 28, 2007, 06:23:49 AM

Quote from: lucky on February 28, 2007, 04:53:13 AM

Wow Solace.... suddenly your not so loud now are you?

"Q: "Why does gravity vary with altitude?"

A: The moon and stars have a slight gravitational pull."


Ouch. Guess I don't need to be loud to be right, Do I?
Your reading skills impress me. No, really, they do.

The real answer is due to the graitational constant equation.
Fgravity=GMaMb/r^2. 
Gravity on MT Everest is less because the radius is bigger.  Thats why you weigh less not because the stars which are 1000's of lightyears away.

FE model doesnt have "Gravity". Which makes that formula sort of pointless.May be good to note the Model your arguing against has the stars alot, alot closer then 1000's of lightyears. theres probably a thread detailing that better elsewhere.

WHAT? A CONTRADICTION?

FE-ers don't believe in gravity... ERR in your FAQ gravity is mentioned several times.... ESPECIALLY when the stars gravitational pull makes you lighter if you are "higher" up...

Quote from: Solace on February 28, 2007, 06:57:04 AM

Quote from: sokarul on February 28, 2007, 06:45:21 AM

Quote from: Solace on February 28, 2007, 06:23:49 AM

Quote from: lucky on February 28, 2007, 04:53:13 AM

Wow Solace.... suddenly your not so loud now are you?

"Q: "Why does gravity vary with altitude?"

A: The moon and stars have a slight gravitational pull."


Ouch. Guess I don't need to be loud to be right, Do I?
Your reading skills impress me. No, really, they do.

The real answer is due to the graitational constant equation.
Fgravity=GMaMb/r^2. 
Gravity on MT Everest is less because the radius is bigger.  Thats why you weigh less not because the stars which are 1000's of lightyears away.

FE model doesnt have "Gravity". Which makes that formula sort of pointless.May be good to note the Model your arguing against has the stars alot, alot closer then 1000's of lightyears. theres probably a thread detailing that better elsewhere.

WHAT? A CONTRADICTION?

FE-ers don't believe in gravity... ERR in your FAQ gravity is mentioned several times.... ESPECIALLY when the stars gravitational pull makes you lighter if you are "higher" up...

Quote from: lucky on February 28, 2007, 07:10:49 AM

Quote from: Solace on February 28, 2007, 06:57:04 AM

Quote from: sokarul on February 28, 2007, 06:45:21 AM

Quote from: Solace on February 28, 2007, 06:23:49 AM

Quote from: lucky on February 28, 2007, 04:53:13 AM

Wow Solace.... suddenly your not so loud now are you?

"Q: "Why does gravity vary with altitude?"

A: The moon and stars have a slight gravitational pull."


Ouch. Guess I don't need to be loud to be right, Do I?
Your reading skills impress me. No, really, they do.

The real answer is due to the graitational constant equation.
Fgravity=GMaMb/r^2. 
Gravity on MT Everest is less because the radius is bigger.  Thats why you weigh less not because the stars which are 1000's of lightyears away.

FE model doesnt have "Gravity". Which makes that formula sort of pointless.May be good to note the Model your arguing against has the stars alot, alot closer then 1000's of lightyears. theres probably a thread detailing that better elsewhere.

WHAT? A CONTRADICTION?

FE-ers don't believe in gravity... ERR in your FAQ gravity is mentioned several times.... ESPECIALLY when the stars gravitational pull makes you lighter if you are "higher" up...

Next line in the FAQ, you supposedly read, which, Chaos quoted. =D
My arguement with you was simply your answer was in the FAQ. You said it wasn't. I Proved you wrong. You tried to dodge the fact it's in there. I proved you wrong again. Yes, in the FE model, supposedly earth doesnt have gravity. Some acceleration.
*shrug*

Quote from: Solace on February 28, 2007, 07:20:43 AM

Quote from: lucky on February 28, 2007, 07:10:49 AM

Quote from: Solace on February 28, 2007, 06:57:04 AM

Quote from: sokarul on February 28, 2007, 06:45:21 AM

Quote from: Solace on February 28, 2007, 06:23:49 AM

Quote from: lucky on February 28, 2007, 04:53:13 AM

Wow Solace.... suddenly your not so loud now are you?

"Q: "Why does gravity vary with altitude?"

A: The moon and stars have a slight gravitational pull."


Ouch. Guess I don't need to be loud to be right, Do I?
Your reading skills impress me. No, really, they do.

The real answer is due to the graitational constant equation.
Fgravity=GMaMb/r^2. 
Gravity on MT Everest is less because the radius is bigger.  Thats why you weigh less not because the stars which are 1000's of lightyears away.

FE model doesnt have "Gravity". Which makes that formula sort of pointless.May be good to note the Model your arguing against has the stars alot, alot closer then 1000's of lightyears. theres probably a thread detailing that better elsewhere.

WHAT? A CONTRADICTION?

FE-ers don't believe in gravity... ERR in your FAQ gravity is mentioned several times.... ESPECIALLY when the stars gravitational pull makes you lighter if you are "higher" up...

Next line in the FAQ, you supposedly read, which, Chaos quoted. =D
My arguement with you was simply your answer was in the FAQ. You said it wasn't. I Proved you wrong. You tried to dodge the fact it's in there. I proved you wrong again. Yes, in the FE model, supposedly earth doesnt have gravity. Some acceleration.
*shrug*

WRONG AS USUAL SOLACE

you said that FE-ers don't believe in gravity, full stop. WHICH IS WRONG. Yes you were wrong. I did read in the FAQ the FE-ers theory about the earth accelerating upwards, maybe you didn't?

And if you had the mental capaity to understnd my question that is clearly NOT explained indepth enough in the FAQ, you would appreciate that the value of g is more at the north pole and the south pole. WHICH IS NOT EXPLAINED IN THE FAQ. N00B.

Now prove me wrong.
 

Quote

Quote from: "dgw2"
This link talks about how gravity varies from the poles to the equator. I have never been to either to prove it one way or another, but assuming it is true how does the FE model explain this? The ground cannot be moving upwards at different speeds otherwise there would be great separations of land masses over time.

http://www.seed.slb.com/qa2/FAQView.cfm?ID=991

Firstly, one of the factors in variation that your site mentions is tides.  It could be that due to the different mechanism by which tides work on the flat Earth, the effect of tides on perceived gravity is different.  For example, if one half of the disc were wobbling upwards, it would create increased gravity.

Also, it is a touchy subject relying on meausurements made at the so-called poles.  Claims that gravity was measured at the south pole are nonsense in the FE; claims of meausrements taken at the north pole, while plausible, might have been faked.

I think refutations to the FE model really need to involve measurements that people can do without leaving the temperate region of N. America, Europe, or Australia (where most of the members seem to be living).

-Erasmus

My internet works on cable lines. I don't even own a Cell-phone. my TV is Cable also. I wish I owned a 2007 Escalade, but sadly I don't, and GPS doesn't require satellites.

Search for pretty much every other post/thread Engineer has responded in. GPS is his favorite argument, i believe

Quote from: Solace on February 28, 2007, 09:23:06 AM

My internet works on cable lines. I don't even own a Cell-phone. my TV is Cable also. I wish I owned a 2007 Escalade, but sadly I don't, and GPS doesn't require satellites.

Search for pretty much every other post/thread Engineer has responded in. GPS is his favorite argument, i believe

 Someone can tell me data that a satellite collected and then I can go to the spot of the data and get the same results, explain.

High altitude balloon could.
yes. they're fake.

And, why cant you go to that satellite picture location and take the same readings? or are you just nervous you wont get the same results as displayed in that picture?

Quote from: Solace on February 28, 2007, 09:43:58 AM

High altitude balloon could.
yes. they're fake.

And, why cant you go to that satellite picture location and take the same readings? or are you just nervous you wont get the same results as displayed in that picture?

I can because I’m in school right now.  Someone else could minus the fact that that picture is from 2004. I can go and compare data of new pictures.  Like those satellite that look for forest fires in places were none is even close too.