Earth

Quote

If gravitation exists doesn't that mean the earth would attract the sun/moon?  Or am I missunerstanding or confusing gravity/gravitation?

Yes, gravitation does attract the Sun and Moon to the Earth. Luckily the Sun and Moon are attempting to accelerate away from the earth to counteract this effect. If they weren't they'd have crashed into the Earth eons ago. There is a delicate balance going on. It's an imperfect imbalance, however. The sun is actually gradually moving towards the earth at the rate of around a millimeter a year.

By contrast, the moon is moving away from the Earth at a rate of about 1.8 millimeters a year

More like the moon is orbiting the earth which is orbiting the sun. 

1.8 mm, hahahahahahaha another number pulled out of your ass. 

Quote

If gravitation exists doesn't that mean the earth would attract the sun/moon?  Or am I missunerstanding or confusing gravity/gravitation?

By contrast, the moon is moving away from the Earth at a rate of about 1.8 millimeters a year

How on Earth did you get to those numbers?

    It is because RE proponents like you post these kinds of 'proofs' on these forums that the Society still manages to defy common sense.

Of course such logic couldn't POSSIBLY tie in to your emmy-award winning posts. 

If you read the whole thing it gets even stupider. I couldn't fit the whole proof in because of the damn character limit, but it goes something like this:

1: Look at your home floor
2: Notice it is flat, not curved
3: Realize that the earth consists of billions of flat surfaces, all parrallel to each other
4: Write a note to your parents, "Omg the world is flat, you liars"
5: Put the note on your table stand
6: Hang yourself for effect
QED, world is flat

Great stuff.

The Conspiracy is very convenient for Flat Earth Theory.  It doesn't matter if an observation, calculation, or experiment was made by the government or not, if it proves a round earth, it's part of the conspiracy.

Yet, like I've pointed out before and have not gotten a response to by a FE supporter (throw something up they don't have an answer for and they just ignore you, of course), there is no contemporary evidence of a conspiracy.  Just the word of some guy who died a century ago, and who wrote the book that spawned the modern Flat Earth movement, "Earth Not A Globe".

The earth is flat but they can't make an accurate map.
There is a conspiracy to cover up the truth but there is no evidence of such a conspiracy.
You have to take a lot of leaps of faith to be a FEer.

You have to take a lot of leaps of faith to be a FEer.

And RE'ers don't?  You just accept gravity don't you?

Quote from: duuuuh on April 05, 2007, 12:32:49 PM

You have to take a lot of leaps of faith to be a FEer.

And RE'ers don't?  You just accept gravity don't you?

I accept mass can bend spacetime. 

Sounds like a leap of faith to me.

Sounds like a leap of faith to me.

If you believe the earth is flat, then ye it is.  But when you know the earth is round and space travel is possible then it isn’t.  Moon=less gravity then the earth. Why? less mass.

Who really has the faith? 

Sure, I accept gravity.  Something's keeping my feet on the ground, and that's as good an explanation as any.

Scientists have been able to measure gravity and the force it exerts.  Scientists have proven that the earth and planets circle the sun, and the moon circles the earth.  Gravity is the name they came up with to explain this phenomenon.  So whether gravity is what scientists think it is or not (and who knows?), clearly it exists.

What I take on faith, I am taking on the word of real experts who have devoted a lot more time and energy than me to finding evidence of their laws and theories, something sadly lacking in Flat Earth Theory.

There are no experts providing evidence of a global conspiracy hiding the existence of a flat earth, and there are no experts providing an accurate map of a flat earth.  Therefore the things I "take on faith" have a lot more validity than the things you take on faith.

You'll say I'm just putting my trust in people involved in this Conspiracy.  I say, you can't show me ANY EVIDENCE that a Conspiracy exists.  I'm not asking for proof here.  I'm asking for evidence.  Something suggesting that a Conspiracy that millions around the world must have historically been on but nobody else knows about even MIGHT exist.  Without evidence that I'm being lied to by all these people, why NOT trust their word, given that it rests on the back and confirms what has been discovered and explained by generations of learned people in the past?

The only basis you have for believing in a conspiracy is that you believe there is a flat earth, and rational, intelligent people in the field of science tell you you're wrong.

I invite you to a challenge.

1) Show me some actual evidence of a worldwide conspiracy.
2) Show me an accurate map of a flat Earth.

Until these things can be done, FE Theory will never have a widespread base of believers, and FE Theory will be looked on as nothing but crackpot pseudoscience.  If you can do either of these things, you're well on your way to actually proving your case.

But given how much time has passed since the publication of "Earth Not A Globe", not to mention the logistically unbelievable fact that nobody involved in the conspiracy has come forward and no one has ever actually seen any evidence of it, the only rational explanation for the absence of either of these things is that they don't exist.

Give me a day, some scary pictures, and creepy ass music, coupled with some shitty looking documents and photoshop, and I could get you some 'evidence' of a conspiracy easily. So throw that one out. Get a map...

"Earth: Not a Globe"? How about, "Earth: Not a Book, The Real Thing"?

Sure, I accept gravity...

I invite you to a challenge.

1) Show me some actual evidence of a worldwide conspiracy.
2) Show me an accurate map of a flat Earth.

Until these things can be done...

I invite you to a challenge.

1) Show me some evidence for this force of gravity.

One simple thing.  Until this thing can be done...

The movement of the planets in relation to the sun and the moons in relation to the planets is evidence of gravity.  The fact that they can be predicted using gravity is evidence of gravity.  The fact that when I jump I don't shoot off into the air, but rather stay on the ground, is evidence of gravity.

I'm not asking for proof of the conspiracy, Engineer.  I'm asking for evidence.  Something besides "It must be there because everybody believes the earth is round", as this is the epitome of circular logic.

The movement of the planets in relation to the sun and the moons in relation to the planets is evidence of gravity.  The fact that they can be predicted using gravity is evidence of gravity.  The fact that when I jump I don't shoot off into the air, but rather stay on the ground, is evidence of gravity.

That seems like evidence of acceleration.  I don't see any evidence of gravity in there.

I'm not asking for proof of the conspiracy, Engineer.  I'm asking for evidence.  Something besides "It must be there because everybody believes the earth is round", as this is the epitome of circular logic.

I'm not asking for proof of gravity, just evidence of this force.  Something besides "I jump and don't fly off into space."

No, you misunderstand.  The movement of the celestial bodies as we see them on earth can be accurately predicted using gravity.  For that matter, the acceleration rate of a falling object can be accurately measured using gravity.  That is evidence.  Do you know what "evidence" means?

So show me contemporary evidence of the conspiracy.

No, you misunderstand.  The movement of the celestial bodies as we see them on earth can be accurately predicted using gravity.  For that matter, the acceleration rate of a falling object can be accurately measured using gravity.  That is evidence.  Do you know what "evidence" means?

How do you measure the acceleration of something using gravity? 

Quote from: duuuuh on April 05, 2007, 05:40:05 PM

No, you misunderstand.  The movement of the celestial bodies as we see them on earth can be accurately predicted using gravity.  For that matter, the acceleration rate of a falling object can be accurately measured using gravity.  That is evidence.  Do you know what "evidence" means?

How do you measure the acceleration of something using gravity? 

You find the acceleration needed to keep a mass from crashing into another mass.  Since we know how far the moon is and how much its mass is, we can calculate the acceleration required to keep it in orbit. 

You find the acceleration needed to keep a mass from crashing into another mass.  Since we know how far the moon is and how much its mass is, we can calculate the acceleration required to keep it in orbit. 

So...how does that use gravity?

Quote

If gravitation exists doesn't that mean the earth would attract the sun/moon?  Or am I missunerstanding or confusing gravity/gravitation?

Yes, gravitation does attract the Sun and Moon to the Earth. Luckily the Sun and Moon are attempting to accelerate away from the earth to counteract this effect. If they weren't they'd have crashed into the Earth eons ago. There is a delicate balance going on. It's an imperfect imbalance, however. The sun is actually gradually moving towards the earth at the rate of around a millimeter a year.

By contrast, the moon is moving away from the Earth at a rate of about 1.8 millimeters a year

    The fact that T.B. pointed out about the Moon moving away is true. (I am not sure about the Sun getting closer, though). But, in RE this is explianed by the tidal effect. Due to it, the Earth is slowing its rotation with respect to its axis (losing energy) and the Moon is moving away (gaining energy). Note that, due to third Kepler's law, the farther the Moon is, the greater is period of revolution is (the months will get longer). Also, the period of rotation of the Earth will get longer (the days get longer, too), but at a faster rate, so the months will have fewer days. This process will stop when these two periods become the same and the Moon stays at one point on the sky relative to the Earth (kind of what it's already doing in the FE model, but it is a geostationary satellite and is still revolving). The thing is that these results CAN be CALCULATED with a high degree of precision using Newton's Law of Universal Gravitation and the RE model and are consistent with the astronomic measurements. Unlike the proposed solution by T.B. 

'The Engineer' this proves to me that you are a lame person when it comes to science:

...
1) Show me some evidence for this force of gravity.

One simple thing.  Until this thing can be done...

     Sure, the principle of equivalence states that it is impossible to make a difference between the presence of a ‘real’ gravitational field at a point and acceleration with respect to an inertial reference frame where there is no gravity. But, what you FE-ers fail to grasp is that the principle of equivalence is only valid locally. This means you can choose an accelerated frame at any point in space to simulate gravity locally, but this frame is not necessarily the same for all points. Put another way, the behavior of the ‘simulated field’ by an accelerated frame is always different from the gravitational field for a given mass distribution. This is most obvious for large distances. While the gravitational field diminishes as we move farther away from the body, the ‘simulated field’ remains constant (for a uniformly accelerated translational motion) or even increases (like in a centrifuge).

     That is why the evidence that you are looking must be found on a larger scale. When narcbery posted his evidence

The movement of the planets in relation to the sun and the moons in relation to the planets is evidence of gravity.  The fact that they can be predicted using gravity is evidence of gravity. 
...

you failed to realize (possibly on purpose) that this is such an example that can not be predicted by a uniformly accelerated frame (of course, if we follow Occam’s razor doctrine).

     BTW, new evidence = proof is needed when you present something that is contradicting the accepted views. Since FE is conflicting the accepted RE model, it is You who needs to present evidences for the mechanism that produces gravity in your model. Try explaining the motion of the celestial bodies as viewed from the Earth, for starters!

Your last post proves to me that you are lame when it comes to science.  Look at any post where I have stated what the equivalence principle is, and notice how I always state that the EP is only valid locally.  Now, as for the planets, they sure look like they are in an accelerated FOR to me.  Since you are disagreeing with me, how about you show me where in his example there is evidence of this force of gravity.  All I see is evidence of acceleration.

Your last post proves to me that you are lame when it comes to science.  Look at any post where I have stated what the equivalence principle is, and notice how I always state that the EP is only valid locally.  Now, as for the planets, they sure look like they are in an accelerated FOR to me.  Since you are disagreeing with me, how about you show me where in his example there is evidence of this force of gravity.  All I see is evidence of acceleration.

If gravity = acceleration, how does gravity not exist while acceleration does.  That would mean acceleration=0.  Equivalence means they both exist.

Gravity is a pseudo force.  The effects of being in a gravitational field are equivalent to being in an accelerated FOR.

You don't understand my point and go on with what you believe in. So, instead of quarrelling with you, I will paraphrase from Confucius:

He who knows and is aware of it, learn from him.
He who knows and is not aware of it, show him.
He who doesn’t know and is aware of it, teach him.
He who doesn’t know and is not aware of it, run from him.

Ponder on this and have a nice life.

I fail at science.

I know.

Planetary orbits are proof of gravity.

All I see is proof of acceleration.  Care to tell me where I can see this 'gravity'?

Gravity is created by mass. The more mass something has, the more gravity it generates.

So...where is that proof of gravity?  I only see acceleration.