Ok, I think I have found a gravity that would work.

Ok this is for you FEers (I am a REer)

So based on this pic :



I have developped my thought :
Let's say matter is charged positiv, anti-matter is charged negativ.

The center of the universe has the highest positiv electro static charge due to the huge amount of matter (regrouping of suns).

The earth being matter aswell, is charged positiv, as is everyone and everything upon it.

Because the center of the universe's charge is much higher that the earth's, we are pushed against the earth (gravity).

The positiv charge of the moon, sun and earth leads to a higher density of anti-matter gathered around them. So each "bit" of matter has a higher density of anti-matter around it than empty space.

The positiv charge of the earth pulls the negativ charge of the moon and vice-versa, the pull is higher than the push between Sun-earth/moon earth (I haven't had time to really think about it) so the speed of the moon/sun + Coulombic pull = the orbit of the sun/moon around the earth.

Sheme :


What do you think ?

Anti mater + normal matter = boom

That doesnt help your theory.

Another thing, the earth would have a much higher charge then the people on it and would there fore would be pushed away from the center at a much faster rate.

Also I'm not maginetic I dont attract negativly charged stuff to me. Also Anti-Matter isn't negativly charged it is jsut reversed, so the electrons are positive the protons are negative. All stable matter in the universe has a neutral charge it's jsut how it gets this neutral charge that changes. Anything that has a positive or negative charge will seek out and react with matter untill it reaches a point where it is stable and neutrally charged. For this reason a region of space with a positive charge taht lasts indefiently cannot exist. And as stated the Earth is not positivly charged.

yeah... well flat earthers don't really seem to believe in science.
>_>
<_<

"Also I'm not maginetic I dont attract negativly charged stuff to me"

LOL, you shouldn't be insulting anyone's grasp or application of physics.

"Also I'm not maginetic I dont attract negativly charged stuff to me"

LOL, you shouldn't be insulting anyone's grasp or application of physics.

Er, well, it seems that the anyone in question is trying to show that I stick to the ground because of the electromagnetic force.  So the observation that I am not in fact magnetically charged, I think, is a good refutation of this claim.

-Erasmus

Sharky, your constant misspellings of 'positive' and 'negative' are really starting to annoy me. 'E' is the most common letter in English, you know.

And for more on the question of antimatter gravitation, I give you: Wikipedia!

Er... that was kind off a stupid mistake ^_^

And I don't actually believe in this, I'm a REer.
I was just bored and decided to invent something just as crazy as their accelaration theory

YAY! Some one else is smart and know that the earth is round.

So just out of curiosity, how many flat earthers are left on this forum?

Cause it seems that everyone who has put forward things in support of a flat earth has turned out not to support the flat Earth.

I was just bored and decided to invent something just as crazy as their accelaration theory

Grrrr.... why is the acceleration theory crazy, according to you?

Quote from: "johnsmith"

"Also I'm not maginetic I dont attract negativly charged stuff to me"

LOL, you shouldn't be insulting anyone's grasp or application of physics.

Er, well, it seems that the anyone in question is trying to show that I stick to the ground because of the electromagnetic force.  So the observation that I am not in fact magnetically charged, I think, is a good refutation of this claim.

-Erasmus

 :roll:

Magnetism doesn't have anything to do with electrical charge. Well, it does, but not in the way the guy who I was making fun of thinks.

You can be negatively charged, and not be magnetic.
You can be magnetic, and not be negatively charged.
You can be neither magnet or negatively charged.
You can be both magnetic and negatively charged.

A magnetic object won't neccesarily attract a negatively charged object.
A negatively charged object won't neccesarily attract a magnetic object.

Magnetism doesn't have anything to do with electrical charge. Well, it does, but not in the way the guy who I was making fun of thinks.

After some fumbling attempts to rectify my position, I merely stand corrected.... maybe I should have read the stuff before I tried to defend it.

-Erasmus

But i'm still not negativly or positivly charged. Matter and Anti-matter both have neutral charges.

But i'm still not negativly or positivly charged. Matter and Anti-matter both have neutral charges.

Are you trying to tell me that a "positron" is not positively charged?

No i'm talking about atoms as a whole not the parts that make them. All stable matter has a neutral charge.

Quote from: "Sharky"

I was just bored and decided to invent something just as crazy as their accelaration theory

Grrrr.... why is the acceleration theory crazy, according to you?

Well, considering the life of the earth and the rate at what it's accelerating that they suposed, we would now be going at a few thousand times the speed of light

Well, considering the life of the earth and the rate at what it's accelerating that they suposed, we would now be going at a few thousand times the speed of light

Yep, I guess we must be!  Whee!!  I keep forgetting that if you accelerate for too long, the speed-of-light police fire up their sirens and pull you over.  I guess I also forgot that when Einstein called it the "theory of relativity" he only through "relativity" in because it sounded more "sciencey".  What a goof!  Lastly, I keep forgetting that I've had this conversation about a hundred times and swore that I would never again negotiate with the barbarians from the League of Relativistic Fucktards (or LORF).


-Erasmus

How do we exist if we're going faster than light ? how does light get to us, if we're going faster than it ? how could you see your feet if you're going faster than light ? how could you see something coming from the side, if you're going upwards faster than it goes sideways ? You could only see above you.

How do we exist if we're going faster than light ? how does light get to us, if we're going faster than it ? how could you see your feet if you're going faster than light ? how could you see something coming from the side, if you're going upwards faster than it goes sideways ? You could only see above you.

Your stupid questions don't even make sense if you use Einstein's theorems either.

What happens according to your Einstein guy if you're going in a spaceship at c - 1 m/s and then walk forward at 1 m/s, does everything go dark according to you?

LOL!!

behind you it would, seeing as your walking at the speed of light, it'll never catch up to you

behind you it would, seeing as your walking at the speed of light, it'll never catch up to you

Einstein was right -- time travel is possible.  Nothing else explains how Sharky's understanding of physics got stuck in the nineteenth century.

Well, without having taken enourmous physics lessons, wouldn't moving as fast as light, make it impossible to get to you ? like if I start to run 50 meters ahead than you start, but we both run at the same speed, you'll never catch me up

Well, without having taken enourmous physics lessons, wouldn't moving as fast as light, make it impossible to get to you ? like if I start to run 50 meters ahead than you start, but we both run at the same speed, you'll never catch me up

Yeah but light isn't subject to the sorts of limitations you and I are.  Even if you're moving the speed of light (relative to, for example, the Earth), light is still moving the speed of light relative to you.

Relativity is based on two principles, the first of which is that no matter what's going on, everybody, everywhere, will *always* measure the same value for the speed of light, regardless of how that observer is moving, and regardless of how fast the light source is moving.

So if and I are on a spaceship departing from Earth at the speed of light, me at the back and you up front, you could still see me, because light bouncing off of me would still travel towards you at the speed of light relative to you and me.

-Erasmus

and what if the source isn't moving ?

It doesn't matter what speed the source travels at, light always travels at the speed of light relative to you. If you are moving faster than the speed of light in a spaceship and you fly past a stationary light source, you will see a stationary person normally.

If you are the stationary person, observing the ship, the ship will appear to move back in time, as it arrives at it's destination before the light from it's origin reaches you, therefore making it appear to travel backwards in time.

However, to someone on the spaceship, the ship appears to be travelling forward in time as light from it's origin reaches the ship before light from it's destination.

Don't you love relativity?

Ok thanks ^_^

And for the record, the flat Earthers still don't have a workable theory of gravity. And we're all so anxious to see one...

And for the record, the flat Earthers still don't have a workable theory of gravity. And we're all so anxious to see one...

Yeah I'm just angry that so few people seem to understand why....

Because you've stated over and over that the "speed of light" limitation isn't actually a limitation, and that your problem with it is the magical froce that causes the earth to continuously accelerate?

Because you've stated over and over that the "speed of light" limitation isn't actually a limitation,

I'm not addicted; I can stop any time I want!

and that your problem with it is the magical froce that causes the earth to continuously accelerate?

Yeah.  Actually, there's an experiment that will tell whether we're accelerating or whether we have "real" gravity: measure the weight of something at two different heights.  If you weighed a 100 kg object at sea level and then at 100 meters, you would see a difference of 0.03 newtons or 0.12 ounces.  I have access to at 67 kg object (me) and an 85 m building; I should see a difference of 0.02 newtons or 0.07 ounces.  Unfortunately I don't have a scale with the necessary precision.  If somebody who has access to more mass or more height than I would like to try this experiment, I'd be really interested to hear the results.

-Erasmus