Proof of Gravity

Step one, take a telescope, and set it up properly, taking care to follow the directions. We don't want any horrible injuries being inflicted if any Flat Earthers fail to understand the complicated workings, plus there are lots of moving metal parts.

Step two: point the telescope at Saturn (use the internet to find it’s location at a given time from a given location). See those ring like structures floating around the outside. Yep, those are called rings, and guess what? They're the result of... GRAVITY. Not a government conspiracy or an atmospheric distortion, but particles of dust and rock orbiting around the planet because of gravity.

Oh, and take care to notice the roundy-ness of Saturn while you're at it.

Wow...you're totally right.  This proves, empirically, beyond a shadow of a doubt, that gravity exists.  Wow.  I'm shocked that none of us ever thought to use this as proof of gravity.  Well, that's that, we can all go home now.

Congratulations JesusFreak03, for bringing absolutely nothing new, nay, nothing remotely intelligent, into the conversation.  For Christ's sake, unless you're actually giving proof of something, don't pretend that what you're saying is a proof.  Moron.

Actually, if the so-called "particles of dust and rock" are just floating there, doesn't that mean that there can't be gravity?  Otherwise, like, they would fall.

Just like when you pour sand on a beach ball, it slides down the side...

Anyway, I'm not convinced by your argument.

-Erasmus

Erasmus you claim to be a round earth supporter and you rather then filling in his errors you just shoot down the facts. What the hell is wron with you anyway?

Erasmus = rebel without a cause  

Actually, if the so-called "particles of dust and rock" are just floating there, doesn't that mean that there can't be gravity?  Otherwise, like, they would fall.

Just like when you pour sand on a beach ball, it slides down the side...

Anyway, I'm not convinced by your argument.

-Erasmus

the stones would probably be moving at a certain speed, preventing them to fall staight onto the planet

Erasmus you claim to be a round earth supporter and you rather then filling in his errors you just shoot down the facts. What the hell is wron with you anyway?

Arrgh, you found me out!  I'm really a flat-Earther pretending to be a round-Earther pretending to be a flat-Earther!

Anyway, what's wron with me is that when somebody offers a "proof", I think it really should be a proof.  A proof is not, "Look, X!  X is caused by gravity, so gravity must exist."  That sort of reasoning is exactly what is employed by flat-Earthers, intelligent design-ists, biblican creationists, and other hm, eccentrics.  Do you want to be counted among their number?

-Erasmus

It shows Saturn has gravity, not the Earth.

Besides, you could of course be really cheap and say "it's dark energy". :p

It shows Saturn has gravity, not the Earth.

How?

All it shows is that something is causing these things to form a ring around saturn, not that Saturn generates gravity.

All it shows is that something is causing these things to form a ring around saturn, not that Saturn generates gravity.

That's what I meant to say.

But I also meant, even if Saturn has gravity, the Earth doesn't also necessarily have gravity. After all, if Saturn, the Sun, and the Moon are round and the Earth is flat, there is probably some signifacant difference betwene the Earth and other celestial bodies. Perphaps they are composed of different kinds of matter.

I wouldn't like to speculate too much though, no doubt Flat-Earther's will invent something to explain this soon.

Here is a real test.

Take a bucket, fill it with water. Tip it upside down.

What happened?(The water fell out)

Ok, now, refill the bucket. Has to be a bucket with some type of handle. Now flip it in circles going up and down as fast as you can. Just spin your arm. The water stays in. So that proves there is *some* force that is using its momentum to grip onto another object. We have named that force gravity. Another test, take a a sharp corner in your vehicle, you will notice the vehicle hugs the turn. Same idea. So we have named that force Gravity. And us on the earth work in the very same manner.

Now... here is something else you can do to prove your own theory wrong. Take a telescope and watch Saturn like the guy above said. You can also watch Mars, Jupiter, or any other planet. I would also like to ask... is our entire solar system cased in by this ice wall? Anyways, if the earth is really being propelled up, wouldnt those planets eventualy lose go out of sight?

As well, I still havent even seen any reasonable arguments for the sun theory. Claiming its closer and smaller than we RE guys believe. All I see is "your wrong and its true that its smaller" with no real evidence.
My argument for it being as us RE believe is that taking the heat we recieve on earth. As well as calculating our rotation, or the cycle the sun makes. We can take the time it takes for the earth and sun to make one complete cycle. And from that, confirm its distance using the idea of gravity stated above. The heat temperatures we can gather from outside we can use to support that. As we determine the sun is X distance from earth, and the temerature outside also tells us the sun is X distance from earth.

Now.... you FE seem to feel a lot of us RE are "retarded" etc. Since you dont seem to feel you are, im going to assume you all understand clear and simple english.

That said.

NO more flames. Just simple evidence and proof that the earth is flat. If you cannot come up with a reasonable arguement, then please dont say anything at all.

You know, we Round Earthers do insult the flat earthers' intelligence a lot, but it occurs to me that there are Round earthers such as yourself who demonstrate comparable levels of intelligence.

Ok, now, refill the bucket. Has to be a bucket with some type of handle. Now flip it in circles going up and down as fast as you can. Just spin your arm. The water stays in. So that proves there is *some* force that is using its momentum to grip onto another object. We have named that force gravity. Another test, take a a sharp corner in your vehicle, you will notice the vehicle hugs the turn. Same idea. So we have named that force Gravity. And us on the earth work in the very same manner.

While the Earth's rotation does contribute somewhat to gravity, this isn't the "very same manner" by which gravity works, in fact, a simple google search will tell you that gravity caused by the presence of an enormous mass which (I think according to Einstein...I'm not quite sure though, and of course, this is only one theory as to what causes gravity) bends space-time, and pulls things towards it.

Now... here is something else you can do to prove your own theory wrong. Take a telescope and watch Saturn like the guy above said. You can also watch Mars, Jupiter, or any other planet. I would also like to ask... is our entire solar system cased in by this ice wall? Anyways, if the earth is really being propelled up, wouldnt those planets eventualy lose go out of sight?

This is generally explained by stating that whatever force (I think we settled on dark energy) is propelling the earth upwards is also propelling the rest of the solar system upwards as well (in some theories they are contained within a dome).

My argument for it being as us RE believe is that taking the heat we recieve on earth.  As well as calculating our rotation, or the cycle the sun makes. We can take the time it takes for the earth and sun to make one complete cycle. And from that, confirm its distance using the idea of gravity stated above.

This is, quite honestly, gibberish.  It also doesn't help that the "idea of gravity stated above" was also false.

The heat temperatures we can gather from outside we can use to support that. As we determine the sun is X distance from earth, and the temerature outside also tells us the sun is X distance from earth.

More gibberish, remember that FEers contend that we have never been to outer space.

Now.... you FE seem to feel a lot of us RE are "retarded"

You've given them good reason to.

Since you dont seem to feel you are, im going to assume you all understand clear and simple english.

Most of that wasn't clear and simple english.

If you cannot come up with a reasonable arguement, then please dont say anything at all.

Take your own advice and kindly shut up.

Ok, now, refill the bucket. Has to be a bucket with some type of handle. Now flip it in circles going up and down as fast as you can. Just spin your arm. The water stays in. So that proves there is *some* force that is using its momentum to grip onto another object. We have named that force gravity.

I wouldn't exactly call that gravity.  I think that's what commonly (and erroneously) referred to as the centrifugal "force".  Of course, any physics teacher will tell you "Centrifugarl force is not a real force" and give you a long explanation on how centripetal force works.

Of course, what you see is what you get with FEers, so centrifugarl force might be enough.

Yes, The rings around Saturn are the result gravity.

Yes, the moon staying in orbit is a result of gravity (BTW the moon will eventually hit the earth :O)

With out gravity, the moon would simply float off into space, same as the rings of Saturn. Now if gravity were fake as many of you have suggested, the moon wouldnt orbit the earth. And i can assure you, there is no cover up in the case of the moon, records date back to the begining of recorded history about the moon.

So a flat earth has enough gravity to keep it in orbit? Wrong, it wouldnt nearly have enough mass to hold us on the ground let alone a whole moon.
It is a proven fact that the moon is round, like every other planet in the solar system.

Gravity Pulls from all sides to the center of an object. When the earth was being formed, the molten surface was pulled down twards the very center of the earth. (in the center you feel no gravity) It is proven that liquid mass will form a sphere when gravity is pulling from all angles to the center. This example can be seen in bubbles, like in soda. If there is enough gravity on the earth to keep a moon in orbit, then there is more than enough gravity to have the earth be round.

If the earth were flat, then it would crush its self into a sphere.

Now i am not like the people that cuss in the flaming section. I explain my argument calmly. And i would really appriciate not being called remotely Intelligent or any other name questoning my IQ.

This is my argument, whats yours?

*Puts on Flat Earther Hat*

First off thats not a bad argument. And makes a wonderful target.

And i can assure you, there is no cover up in the case of the moon, records date back to the begining of recorded history about the moon.

Unfortunately, speaing temporarily as a FE, it's not your word that we're after. I'm not sure whose it is (I'll pass on the President until the US gets one who is believable), but yours is not likely to suffice.

So a flat earth has enough gravity to keep it in orbit? Wrong, it wouldnt nearly have enough mass to hold us on the ground let alone a whole moon.
It is a proven fact that the moon is round, like every other planet in the solar system.

There are a lot of holes in the FE system of gravity, I'm not sure how they are planning on fixing them, but the general consensus seems to be that gravity is not required.  It seems to be accelerating with the earth (you get used to this type of arguing around here) and somehow orbitting above it at the same time.

If the earth were flat, then it would crush its self into a sphere.

Just like pennys do. Is it a question of gravity? Will a solid rock disk the size of the Flat Earth be able to withstand it's own gravity? I think you'll find the rund earth theory assumes that the earth was entirely molten at one stage, FE seems to leave that out of the theory.

You're doing very well, Icekiller. See if you can patch those holes.

ahh finnaly, a good arument without choice words.

There are a lot of holes in the FE system of gravity, I'm not sure how they are planning on fixing them, but the general consensus seems to be that gravity is not required. It seems to be accelerating with the earth (you get used to this type of arguing around here) and somehow orbitting above it at the same time.

But thats just it, It is orbiting, even if it is accelerating with the world, it is indeed orbiting. Moons dont just orbit without gravity. They need gravity to grab objets and make them orbit. Like the rings of saturn. Like i said before, the Moon would simply float off if the earth had no gravity. If the moon was just floating there with us as we were being shot upward. The it would never move, we would always be abel to see it.

orbit does not occur without gravity. This is a plain example of the earth having its own self generated gravity. Not caused by a constant upward motion. But caused by the mass of the earth. And with the moon orbiting, the earth (if flat) would have too much gravity to keep its flat shape.

Thus, like i said before, the earth would crush its self together.

Just like pennys do. Is it a question of gravity? Will a solid rock disk the size of the Flat Earth be able to withstand it's own gravity?

Pennys are a different from a giant planet that is billions of tons. A penny does probuce its own gravity, everthing in and on the earth does. A penny has very little mass, but it is made out of a strong material. So in fact it wont crush its self into a sphere. But in the case of the massive earth, it would.

I am very shure that Earth was molten at one stage. If it wernt, then there would be no way we would be here on this planet right now stating this argument. Gravity, generated by the earth's core would have made the panet into a round shape.

Now, once again its your turn.

But thats just it, It is orbiting, even if it is accelerating with the world, it is indeed orbiting. Moons dont just orbit without gravity. They need gravity to grab objets and make them orbit. Like the rings of saturn. Like i said before, the Moon would simply float off if the earth had no gravity. If the moon was just floating there with us as we were being shot upward. The it would never move, we would always be abel to see it.

Hmm...good point...er....God makes them do it?  If we accept the theory Cheesejoff (I know for certain it's his now :wink: ) proposed, I suppose the moon and sun could ordit around the same mass who's gravity is pulling on the earth, of course, we'd have to determine the shape first...But you're right in that the current FE model doesn't explain this.

But caused by the mass of the earth. And with the moon orbiting, the earth (if flat) would have too much gravity to keep its flat shape.

Thus, like i said before, the earth would crush its self together...Pennys are a different from a giant planet that is billions of tons. A penny does probuce its own gravity, everthing in and on the earth does. A penny has very little mass, but it is made out of a strong material. So in fact it wont crush its self into a sphere. But in the case of the massive earth, it would.

I think that was just dealt with here: http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forums/viewtopic.php?t=777&postdays=0&postorder=asc&start=45

I am very shure that Earth was molten at one stage. If it wernt, then there would be no way we would be here on this planet right now stating this argument. Gravity, generated by the earth's core would have made the panet into a round shape.

Seriously, maybe God made it.  Or, if you was a less theological explanation, maybe we're really just a shard, broken off a very large asteroid.

you state a good argument.

But i see some major flaws in that subject.

Like they had suggested, the earth to keep its self from crushing into a sphere must have something pulling on it. But like the FE model stated, the sun is very small. so it wouldnt nearly have enough gravity to keep it flat.

The other suggestion is that the earth is too strong to with stand its gravity. true that bridges dont collapse under there own gravity. But i dont even think a bridge is one hundredth of the mass the earth is. More mass = greater gravity. There is no way the earth would be able to keep its shape under that great gravity.

And if the earth is a piece of an asteriod broken off, then how do u explain the atmosphere on earth?

Seriously, maybe God made it.  

If we're going down that path, all bets are off ladies (you never know...) and gentlemen. God playing a long cruel and somewhat tasteless joke on the entirity of humanity rates up there with putting an apple tree in the middle of your home and telling you not to eat any apples.

Perhaps we just need a deity-scaled sense of humour.

There is no way the earth would be able to keep its shape under that great gravity.

This suggestion, as well as its incarnations in your previous post, is wildly speculative.  How do you know how the internal tensile forces would interact to change the shape of the Earth over the course of its existence?

This suggestion, as well as its incarnations in your previous post, is wildly speculative. How do you know how the internal tensile forces would interact to change the shape of the Earth over the course of its existence?

The reason i belive this is because I rely on science. Now i know what many of you say. Scientific findings that denounce the FE model are clamed to be fake by you guys. Now i have taken a class on mass and gravity, and it simply is, the more dence an object, the more gravity you have.

And to me and what i can observe, the earth seems way to dence to keep its self flat.

But anyway. We have agreed that the earth has gravity right?

But anyway. We have agreed that the earth has gravity right?

Good lord, what gave you that impression?

FE'ers believe that the Earth does not generate a gravitational field, but rather, that it is accelerating upwards at 1g.  This would produce all the gravitational effects we see, and despite what you may think, does not violate any laws of special or general relativity.

-Erasmus

and despite what you may think, does not violate any laws of special or general relativity.

Heh, just had to throw that in, didn't you Erasmus?

Anyway, I think Icekiller is referring to Cheesejoff's model, wherin the earth generates gravity, but it's counter-acter by the mass above it, in which case, he's right, FEers would believe in gravity.

I think Icekiller is referring to Cheesejoff's model, wherin the earth generates gravity, but it's counter-acter by the mass above it, in which case, he's right, FEers would believe in gravity.

Hmm.... I thought cheesejoff's model was just an extension to whatever gravity model is already being adopted by FE'ers.

Actually, if the Earth does generate a gravitational field, then that field will weaken as you get farther from the Earth, even without a massive object above the Earth to counteract the gravity.  So it's only really useful for the gravity-as-acceleration model.

Ugh. Ok i really think we can come to agreements that the earth generates it own gavitiational feild.

I mean the moon orbits us, and if the earth did not generate its own gravity, the moon would float off, or stay in one place the whole time.

i hope we can come to agreements.

the moon orbits us, and if the earth did not generate its own gravity, the moon would float off, or stay in one place the whole time.

...or be fixed to a dome or track attached to the Earth.

A dome or a track?

Made by who. I mean come now, that is just a far feched answer. There is obiously nothing attached to the moon. I mean i can look at the damn thing with my telescope. The moon is orbiting us, by gravity, gravity that the earth has.

Please Erasmus. tell me that you were kidding.

I mean everything seemed to be beliveable untill you made that statement there. And if there was a track, what would it be powered by? i mean come on. I honestly dont think that there is anything attached to the moon.

There is obiously nothing attached to the moon. I mean i can look at the damn thing with my telescope. The moon is orbiting us, by gravity, gravity that the earth has.

In the Flat Earth Society's model, the moon does not orbit the earth but rather, a point above the earth.  Therefore, the earth does not have to have gravity, and indeed cannot have gravity in this model, because that would literally cause the sky to fall.

And at this point, I would like to point out to ALL the people who wants to talk about "earth's gravity is too great for blah blah blah", that a spherical Earth's crust contributes considerably less than .01% of the mass of Earth.  If the Flat Earth is relatively thin (like a pancake, as FEers usually say), then the gravity it provides is almost negligible.

And if there was a track, what would it be powered by?

Force-labored angels with 2 pairs of wings each?  Apollo's chariot?  Oh wait no, that's the Sun...  Maybe the moon is a sentient being, going around in circles eating stars, like Pac-man.  *wakka wakka*

Scientists have worked with the spherical earth model for a long time, so most things in the ordinary world are explained with it, for it.  For Flat Earth, not as much.  So, it's an incomplete theory.  Feel priviledged that you may get to add to it.  Just don't credit me...  For the love of God, please don't.