Gravity Moves at the Speed of Light

The gravitational center will be at the north pole.  Everything would be pulled to the north pole.  I have already proved this on this site.  Try and keep up. 

Quote from: sokarul on February 13, 2008, 01:47:37 PM

The gravitational center will be at the north pole.  Everything would be pulled to the north pole.  I have already proved this on this site.  Try and keep up. 

No, there would be more downward force.

You say you have proved something you have no means to prove.  You don't know how fast the earth is accelerating or how much gravitaitonal pull from mass you on the flat earth.

Try and not to make shit up.

Quote from: sokarul on February 13, 2008, 01:47:37 PM

The gravitational center will be at the north pole.  Everything would be pulled to the north pole.  I have already proved this on this site.  Try and keep up. 

No, there would be more downward force.

You say you have proved something you have no means to prove.  You don't know how fast the earth is accelerating or how much gravitaitonal pull from mass you on the flat earth.

Try and not to make shit up.

If you read the OP you would see that I was questioning the validity of the Flat Earth from the very beginning.

Quote from: shadowstrife on February 13, 2008, 10:38:48 AM

If you read the OP you would see that I was questioning the validity of the Flat Earth from the very beginning.

Which is why I asked what the title of the thread had to do with the topic.  You have not answered that.

In FE theory there's no such thing as gravitation due to mass. Forget mass attracting mass and all that shizzle it doesn't happen in FE theory.

So all the observable evidence of Gravitation (such as the original article I linked) is what, a lie?

Quote from: Username on February 13, 2008, 01:53:16 PM

Quote from: sokarul on February 13, 2008, 01:47:37 PM

The gravitational center will be at the north pole.  Everything would be pulled to the north pole.  I have already proved this on this site.  Try and keep up. 

No, there would be more downward force.

You say you have proved something you have no means to prove.  You don't know how fast the earth is accelerating or how much gravitaitonal pull from mass you on the flat earth.

Try and not to make shit up.

Actually he is right. We have observed the 9.8m/s^2 acceleration. For the FE to be true, it must match that observation.

Can you clarify something, so are you saying the FE is accelerating upwards AND has a gravitational pull?

Quote from: shadowstrife on February 13, 2008, 02:13:32 PM

Quote from: Username on February 13, 2008, 01:53:16 PM

Quote from: sokarul on February 13, 2008, 01:47:37 PM

The gravitational center will be at the north pole.  Everything would be pulled to the north pole.  I have already proved this on this site.  Try and keep up. 

No, there would be more downward force.

You say you have proved something you have no means to prove.  You don't know how fast the earth is accelerating or how much gravitaitonal pull from mass you on the flat earth.

Try and not to make shit up.

Actually he is right. We have observed the 9.8m/s^2 acceleration. For the FE to be true, it must match that observation.

Can you clarify something, so are you saying the FE is accelerating upwards AND has a gravitational pull?

No, actually he isn't.

How much of that 9.8m/s/s is from the earth accelerating and how much of it is from mass?   There is an important difference. 

Sok, I believe if you were to think 10 seconds about that lovely neon green crap diagram you would see it.

Explian how the guy on top can have an acceleration of 9.8m/s^2 downwards and the guy on the side have an acceleration of 9.8m/s^2 sideways. 

No, it doesn't.  Look at it again and think.

Quote

Explian how the guy on top can have an acceleration of 9.8m/s^2 downwards and the guy on the side have an acceleration of 9.8m/s^2 sideways.

 


First try to realize why this is a faulty question.

Quote from: Username on February 14, 2008, 02:17:45 AM

No, it doesn't.  Look at it again and think.

Yes it does.  It's not my fault you don't know what vectors are.

Quote

Quote

Explian how the guy on top can have an acceleration of 9.8m/s^2 downwards and the guy on the side have an acceleration of 9.8m/s^2 sideways.

 


First try to realize why this is a faulty question.

Nope.  Gravitation by mass would be a gravitaitonal field.  On a flat earth it would be an oval.  A round earth makes a sphere. 
So once again flat earths cannot have gravitaiton from mass.   

Quote from: sokarul on February 14, 2008, 11:46:18 AM

Quote from: Username on February 14, 2008, 02:17:45 AM

No, it doesn't.  Look at it again and think.

Yes it does.  It's not my fault you don't know what vectors are.

Quote

Quote

Explian how the guy on top can have an acceleration of 9.8m/s^2 downwards and the guy on the side have an acceleration of 9.8m/s^2 sideways.

 


First try to realize why this is a faulty question.

Nope.  Gravitation by mass would be a gravitaitonal field.  On a flat earth it would be an oval.  A round earth makes a sphere. 
So once again flat earths cannot have gravitaiton from mass.   

A sufficiently flat oval with an icewall would be a flat earth... if the acceleration from UA is sufficiently large compared to the that of the mass pull...

Quote from: shadowstrife on February 12, 2008, 11:33:30 AM

Quote from: Kasroa Is Gone on February 12, 2008, 11:30:05 AM

Thems is the answers, like it or lump it. I prefer to pump it myself though.

Again, science requires proof.

Flat Earth can not be scientifically proven. It is a fallacy.

Saying that the conspiracy is responsible for a lack of scientific evidence is a Non sequitur.

Actually science doesn't require proof, science requires disproof. But anyway your search for science will be fruitless here.

Not if the mass pull was weak enough or for certain configurations of mass.

This isn't my theory, i believe in an infinite earth. Nor did I change it, that is what I've said the whole time.  I suggest you learn to read. 

Furthermore the center of gravity would not be at the North Pole, it would be below it.  That is of course assuming many many things we can't really assume.

So would there be a slight pull downwards and towards the south pole?

Sure, but it would be weak enough horizontally that it wouldn't be detectable.  Except perhaps at the South pole.  For the deeper the earth is, the less it would be noticable.

Unless you can provide actual numbers for the mass, depth, and size of the flat earth as well as the topography beyond the icewall you have no feet to stand on.

Quote from: Username on February 14, 2008, 11:30:44 PM

This isn't my theory, i believe in an infinite earth. Nor did I change it, that is what I've said the whole time.  I suggest you learn to read. 

I read the comics to get my daily humor intake.  I don't need anymore from your posts. 

Quote

Furthermore the center of gravity would not be at the North Pole, it would be below it.  That is of course assuming many many things we can't really assume.

Yes it would be below the ground.  We have all the information we need.  We do not need to assume anything. 

Quote

So would there be a slight pull downwards and towards the south pole?

I thought you were smart.  What do the vectors tell you?   

Quote

Sure, but it would be weak enough horizontally that it wouldn't be detectable.  Except perhaps at the South pole.  For the deeper the earth is, the less it would be noticable.

Actually not.  The deeper the earth is the stronger the gravitation.

Quote

Unless you can provide actual numbers for the mass, depth, and size of the flat earth as well as the topography beyond the icewall you have no feet to stand on.

It's not my fault your theory is so shitty you don't even have numbers. 

Actually you know what, nevermind.  I think I'm done conversing with you.  You truely are a stupid and immature version of gulliver.  And I have no  place for that in my schedule.

Quote from: sokarul on February 15, 2008, 12:44:24 AM

Quote from: Username on February 14, 2008, 11:30:44 PM

This isn't my theory, i believe in an infinite earth. Nor did I change it, that is what I've said the whole time.  I suggest you learn to read. 

I read the comics to get my daily humor intake.  I don't need anymore from your posts. 

Quote

Furthermore the center of gravity would not be at the North Pole, it would be below it.  That is of course assuming many many things we can't really assume.

Yes it would be below the ground.  We have all the information we need.  We do not need to assume anything. 

Quote

So would there be a slight pull downwards and towards the south pole?

I thought you were smart.  What do the vectors tell you?   

Quote

Sure, but it would be weak enough horizontally that it wouldn't be detectable.  Except perhaps at the South pole.  For the deeper the earth is, the less it would be noticable.

Actually not.  The deeper the earth is the stronger the gravitation.

Quote

Unless you can provide actual numbers for the mass, depth, and size of the flat earth as well as the topography beyond the icewall you have no feet to stand on.

It's not my fault your theory is so shitty you don't even have numbers. 

I never said it was your fault it was a young theory.  You are the one making claims that we (anyone) is ill-equiped to back up.  ANd sorry, I meant the north pole.  Must have had a brain fart.

Is there something funny about an infinite earth?

Quote from: Username on February 15, 2008, 04:05:56 AM

Actually you know what, nevermind.  I think I'm done conversing with you.  You truely are a stupid and immature version of gulliver.  And I have no  place for that in my schedule.

QFT.

Actually you know what, nevermind.  I think I'm done conversing with you.  You truely are a stupid and immature version of gulliver.  And I have no  place for that in my schedule.

Quote from: Username on February 15, 2008, 04:05:56 AM

Actually you know what, nevermind.  I think I'm done conversing with you.  You truely are a stupid and immature version of gulliver.  And I have no  place for that in my schedule.

You get owned so yo run away.  Coward, although I shouldn't be surprised coming from someone with your caliber. 

Quote from: Username on February 15, 2008, 04:05:56 AM

Actually you know what, nevermind.  I think I'm done conversing with you.  You truely are a stupid and immature version of gulliver.  And I have no  place for that in my schedule.

As a good telescope can restore the hull of a half-sunken ship, the sinking ship effect is actually an ironclad proof for a Flat Earth.

For some time after it was accepted that planets (including Earth) circle the Sun, there was no direct proof that it is Earth that moves, and not the Sun.

Ancient astronomer Aristarchus thought that Earth goes around the Sun since he discovered that the Sun is much bigger than Earth. Copernicus (who is usually credited with the idea that planets go around the Sun) thought that Solar system centered on the Sun is more logical and beautiful, but had no definite proof. Kepler discovered that laws governing of orbits become much more simple if the Sun is in their center. Newton has shown that this is caused by the universal law of gravity. If gravity works, Earth and other planets have to go around the Sun, because it is much heavier.

There was no straightforward proof for the motion of Earth until 1725 when James Bradley discovered stellar aberration. This is (apparent) yearly change in positions of all stars in the sky due to Earth's own motion. Aberration arises due to adding up of the speed of light coming from the star and Earth's own speed. This is a very complex phenomenon and its description requires some math.

Another, much simpler, consequence of Earth's motion is stellar parallax. If Earth changes its position relative to the stars, than the stars should appear to change position in the course of the year.

A common experiment illustrating parallax is just looking at a close object (a finger, a pencil etc) with one eye at the time. When you switch from one to the other eye, the object will appear to move against the background. Closer the object is to your eyes, more pronounced the effect is.

Parallax should not be confused with aberration: parallax arises from the change of Earth's position and depends on the distance to the star, while aberration is caused by Earth's great speed and does not depend on how far the star is.

Parallax of a star was first measured by Bessel in 1838. It was not measured before because this change of star's apparent position is very small (the stars are very far from us). This was a very important discovery because Aristotle himself mentioned the lack of observable stellar parallax as the proof that the Earth is not moving (he didn't have a telescope and didn't know that the stars are so distant).

A third discovery proving Earth's motion was that of Doppler effect. Wavelength of the light that we receive from objects moving relative to us becomes a little shorter (i.e. bluer) when we approach the source and becomes longer (i.e. redder) when we move away from the source. When Earth moves toward a star, the star will appear slightly bluer (only high-tech instruments can measure this) while it will appear redder when Earth is on the other side of the orbit and moves in the opposite direction. This effect proves that Earth has a velocity relative to the stars, similar to aberration.

So, aberration (slight change in stellar positions due to Earth's speed), parallax (slight change in stellar positions due to Earth's changing position) and Doppler effect (slight change in color of stars due to Earth's speed) all prove that Earth is moving around the Sun, and not the other way round.