Gravitational Pull and Such

Just would like one thing cleared up:

How is it that a force of gravity can not exist on a FE yet gravitational pull can? I would have thought the two go hand in hand.

There probably is an answer, but i'm just curious.

Well, gravitational pull can be mimicked by an object being accelerated.

D'oh!

I was wondering the same thing...

They must realize that gravitation cannot explain uniform vertical acceleration over the entire surface of a FLAT earth. Simply because the acceleration due to gravity acts towards the center of mass and thus would not be uniform over the entire earths surface.

how they can use gravitation as an explanation for some things yet use "universal acceleration" to justify a complete disregard of the earths own force of gravity is beyond me... (as if the earth somehow has no mass to cause gravitation of its own??)

 

antimoon solves the problem.

How is it that a force of gravity can not exist on a FE yet gravitational pull can?

Because...the two are not the same thing...   

The point is the FE Earth accelerates simulating 'gravity'. However the Earth is also made up of mass, thus has a gravitational pull of its own. Therefore our apparent "force of gravity" should be even stronger.

Quote from: paradiselost on November 19, 2007, 04:31:38 PM

How is it that a force of gravity can not exist on a FE yet gravitational pull can?

Because...the two are not the same thing...   

This isn't a physics discussion...

Give him a break why don't you, or at least explain the difference. I often hear the two terms being used interchangeably but unless you are discussing physics its usually doesn't hurt anything.

If anyone is wondering:

Gravitation is the very real attractive influence which all massive objects (any object with mass) exert on each other.

Gravity on the other hand is a force which all massive objects are (or should say were) theorized to exert on each other as the cause of gravitation. Even though physics has since done away with the concept of gravity as a force it is still useful in many cases to describe it as such.

Gravitation is the very real attractive influence which all massive objects (any object with mass) exert on each other.

Gravity on the other hand is a force which all massive objects are theorized to exert on each other as the cause of gravitation.

No and no.
Gravitation is the deformation of spacetime by all objects with mass or otherwise, causing objects passing through these deformations to follow geodesics through spacetime.

Gravity is a pseudo force that arises by the transformation of a non inertial frame of reference into an inertial one.

"Why doesn't the Earth have a gravitational pull?"

Why doesn't a fish have lungs?

"Why doesn't the Earth have a gravitational pull?"

Why doesn't a fish have lungs?

Fish don't have lungs because they evolved to extract oxygen from water. Gills need water. Lungs need air. It's environmental.
Flat Earth believers hold that gravitation exists and attracts objects with mass, yet no attraction towards Earth beyond that of the 9.8 due to acceleration is detected. Is the Earth not made of mass? Since it is, There must be a reason for this problem. Oh maybe its because the Earth's not flat.

i pointed this out in a different thread:
objects weigh less at the equator than elsewhere, which supports RE,
objects also weigh less at high altitude than low altitude, which supports gravity.

it's a small but measureable difference, which ANYONE can test with a spring-style scale. (a ballance scale wouldn't work)

Quote from: sypher001 on November 19, 2007, 05:34:00 PM

Gravitation is the very real attractive influence which all massive objects (any object with mass) exert on each other.

Gravity on the other hand is a force which all massive objects are theorized to exert on each other as the cause of gravitation.

No and no.
Gravitation is the deformation of spacetime by all objects with mass or otherwise, causing objects passing through these deformations to follow geodesics through spacetime.

Gravity is a pseudo force that arises by the transformation of a non inertial frame of reference into an inertial one.

Yes I am aware but not everyone has studied (or wants to study) physics enough to understand that so I made my explanation straightforward to get the point across. I do not believe paradiselost was looking for a lecture in physics, I could be wrong about that but he is the one who made the thread so please let HIM decide what the topic should be.

Yes I am aware but not everyone has studied (or wants to study) physics enough to understand that so I made my explanation straightforward to get the point across. 

Straightforward and wrong?  How is that going to educate anyone?

How is it that a force of gravity can not exist on a FE yet gravitational pull can? I would have thought the two go hand in hand.

A large mass distorts space-time, causing a curvature in which smaller masses roll towards it. Thus, gravitation. On a rubber sheet representing space-time, place a heavy disc (flat Earth) at the center of it. The disk deforms the sheet, creating a curve (space-time curvature). Now, place a small ball (spotlight Sun) and watch it rolls towards the disk.

Other stars in the flat Earth universe have the same gravitational pull, but stronger due to mass.

Quote from: paradiselost on November 19, 2007, 04:31:38 PM

How is it that a force of gravity can not exist on a FE yet gravitational pull can? I would have thought the two go hand in hand.

A large mass distorts space-time, causing a curvature in which smaller masses roll towards it. Thus, gravitation. On a rubber sheet representing space-time, place a heavy disc (flat Earth) at the center of it. The disk deforms the sheet, creating a curve (space-time curvature). Now, place a small ball (spotlight Sun) and watch it rolls towards the disk.

Other stars in the flat Earth universe have the same gravitational pull, but stronger due to mass.

So if the pull of the other stars is stronger, why doesn't the sun become attracted to them?

Our Sun, along with the solar system, is orbiting around the Milky Way galaxy.

Straightforward and wrong?  How is that going to educate anyone?

I never said it was completely correct, just thought it might be good to give a general idea of the difference between "gravitation" and "gravity" so they wouldn't incur your wrath for using the terms incorrectly, and as you seem to like telling people they are wrong without explaining why. If anyone on these forums were looking for scientific knowledge they came to the wrong place. And since when have the "simplified" versions of scientific theory ever completely explained them, where did you think misconceptions about science came from?

If you think picking apart everyones posts is time well spent ill leave you to it.

If anyone on these forums were looking for scientific knowledge they came to the wrong place.

I've actually learned more from being here and reading up on these subjects than I ever learned in school.

And since when have the "simplified" versions of scientific theory ever completely explained them, where did you think misconceptions about science came from?

So you compound that misconception?

The basic part of it is this, the simplified version (being taught in school) is there so you have an understanding, limited or not. Should a student choose a path in the sciences dealing with said subject, they will find out more intricacies and truth. For the purposes of debating and inquiring about an FE or RE on these forums, it helps if people are corrected as soon as possible.

I was wondering the same thing...

They must realize that gravitation cannot explain uniform vertical acceleration over the entire surface of a FLAT earth. Simply because the acceleration due to gravity acts towards the center of mass and thus would not be uniform over the entire earths surface.

how they can use gravitation as an explanation for some things yet use "universal acceleration" to justify a complete disregard of the earths own force of gravity is beyond me... (as if the earth somehow has no mass to cause gravitation of its own??)

 

Gravity n'existe pas.

Gravitation does. Learn the difference. This is all explained somewhere. Search for it. Knowledge can only be gained with effort you lazy ass hobos.

Quote from: sypher001 on November 19, 2007, 04:59:50 PM

I was wondering the same thing...

They must realize that gravitation cannot explain uniform vertical acceleration over the entire surface of a FLAT earth. Simply because the acceleration due to gravity acts towards the center of mass and thus would not be uniform over the entire earths surface.

how they can use gravitation as an explanation for some things yet use "universal acceleration" to justify a complete disregard of the earths own force of gravity is beyond me... (as if the earth somehow has no mass to cause gravitation of its own??)

 

Gravity n'est pas existe.

Gravitation does. Learn the difference. This is all explained somewhere. Search for it. Knowledge can only be gained with effort you lazy ass hobos.

Shouldn't that existe and pas switch places?

yeah, and i don't think i need the est.

French is dumb and i've not spoken it for a year.

I think it's suppose to be this:

gravite n'existe pas

Stupid Canadian French classes.

Lol, i had changed it to that just before you posted. 

Quote from: paradiselost on November 19, 2007, 04:31:38 PM

How is it that a force of gravity can not exist on a FE yet gravitational pull can?

Because...the two are not the same thing...   

ThEngineer,

This was not the topic of the original post.  We are, once more, getting needlessly bogged-down in gravity.

You know full well what is being asked here:  How come there is no noticeable gravitation caused by the earth's mass?   

For example:
    (a) Why don't we (to some extent) gravitate towards the centre of mass?
    (b) Why doesn't the earth colapse in on itself (and produce a round planet)?

You know full well what is being asked here:  How come there is no noticeable gravitation caused by the earth's mass?   

Two possible answers come to mind:

A) The Earth is of a mass that is so low, it isn't strong enough to have gravitational pull. (At least to the point that the UA's effect masks it)
B) The Earth is special and has no mass, or at least is not subject to the aspect of attracting the masses above or on it.

Quote from: Moon squirter on November 20, 2007, 06:27:08 AM

You know full well what is being asked here:  How come there is no noticeable gravitation caused by the earth's mass?   

Two possible answers come to mind:

A) The Earth is of a mass that is so low, it isn't strong enough to have gravitational pull. (At least to the point that the UA's effect masks it)
B) The Earth is special and has no mass, or at least is not subject to the aspect of attracting the masses above or on it.

A) Pancake earth?  Mmmm.  Could be a runner.
B) Earth is special. But not that special.

A) Pancake earth?  Mmmm.  Could be a runner.

Shape or size != mass

According to Einsteins relativity theory, as something approaches the speed of light its mass increases.. (Is this right?)

So wouldnt the earths gravity be increasing as it becomes larger?

It does not get 'larger' in our frame of reference.

Quote from: TheEngineer on November 19, 2007, 05:19:23 PM

Quote from: paradiselost on November 19, 2007, 04:31:38 PM

How is it that a force of gravity can not exist on a FE yet gravitational pull can?

Because...the two are not the same thing...   

ThEngineer,

This was not the topic of the original post.  We are, once more, getting needlessly bogged-down in gravity.

You know full well what is being asked here:  How come there is no noticeable gravitation caused by the earth's mass?   

For example:
    (a) Why don't we (to some extent) gravitate towards the centre of mass?
    (b) Why doesn't the earth colapse in on itself (and produce a round planet)?

The DEF keeps the Earth from collapsing in on itself from it's own gravitation, along with the gravitation of the moon and anti-moon.