How Can the Earth Be Flat?

   Many observations and scientific laws can prove that the earth isn’t flat, and if I list them all, the list will be as long as the Encyclopaedia Britannia. I will not list them all, but with only simple gravity and physics laws I can prove that the earth isn’t flat.
   According to General Relativity, gravity is caused by warped space, and anything that has mass warps space. Therefore, anything that has mass has gravity. A round earth, of course, has gravity, since it has mass. We also know that without gravity we will all float out to space. This is the Round Earth view of gravity, which I think is not only plausible but obvious.
   General Relativity cannot co-exist with a flat earth. Massive things tend to transform into spheres, so a flat earth will crumple into a round earth. This is the reason behind the fact that all massive celestial bodies are roughly round in shape. Gravity loves a round earth, but no Flat Earther could accept that. They don’t even believe in gravity!
   Flat Earth Society members believe that General Relativity is “part of the Round Earth conspiracy”, and the earth doesn’t exert gravity. Instead, they believe that the earth is accelerating upwards at a rate of 1G (9.8m/s²). This explains why objects accelerate at a rate of 1G when falling, but the theory has 2 huge glaring holes:
What force could make the earth accelerate? Without a constant force, nothing could accelerate. Are FE’ers crazy enough to think that an engine is underneath the earth? Even so, the fuel of the engine will get used up!
Even if the earth could accelerate by itself, it will reach the speed of light after a long time. Einstein’s Special Relativity does not allow an object to move above the speed of light. As an object nears the speed of light, it gets more and more massive, so accelerating will become harder and harder, and at last the object will stop accelerating.
   This is completely enough to prove that the earth is, ultimately, not flat. I think that all Flat Earth Society members are wise enough to abandon the FE theories.
logicallyRE, 2008-7-1

My body has mass and is neither a sphere, nor does it cause noticeable gravitation.
What force is making the RE universe accelerate as it expands?
The earth will never reach the speed of light even if it continuously accelerates.

My body has mass and is neither a sphere, nor does it cause noticeable gravitation.

thats wrong, I gravitate towards your body all the time

A small exception.

Eww.

you love it you dirty old man

*fap fap fap*

My body has mass and is neither a sphere, nor does it cause noticeable gravitation.

He said massive celestial bodies not just anything with mass.

*fap fap fap* Ew, pointland! Out of the way! *fap fap fap*

*fap fap fap*

rofl

I stopped reading at "Encyclopedia Britannia".

My body has mass and is neither a sphere, nor does it cause noticeable gravitation.

Key word in bold. I assume you are considerably less massive than the Earth.

What force is making the RE universe accelerate as it expands?

Dark Energy. Also, it's not a force (rather, it drives the expansion of spacetime). I'll admit that not much is known about DE, mostly because it was only recently discovered. FE proponents have known about the UA for centuries and still have no idea what it is.

Finally, conventional DE cannot explain the UA:

Quote from: divito the truthist on July 03, 2008, 03:33:52 AM

Quote from: ghazwozza on July 02, 2008, 03:21:54 PM

(note that DE cannot explain the UA).

Why?

I should be clear that when I say DE, I mean DE as understood by mainstream cosmologists.

In FET, the UA is the acceleration of the Earth through spacetime, which is why we feel acceleration. In RET, DE is driving the expansion of spacetime itself. So, if there was a huge concentration of DE beneath the Earth, all this would mean is that spacetime below the Earth was expanding rapidly, but the Earth would remain locally at rest, and so feel no acceleration.

This setup would be roughly similar to the hypothetical Alcubierre Warp Drive, in which an object can be accelerated to past light-speed w.r.t. an external observor, but locally remains at rest and feels no acceleration.

Therefore, DE cannot explain the acceleration we feel.

The earth will never reach the speed of light even if it continuously accelerates.

I agree.

Quote from: Ski on June 30, 2008, 08:06:00 PM

My body has mass and is neither a sphere, nor does it cause noticeable gravitation.

Key word in bold. I assume you are considerably less massive than the Earth.

I assume the earth is considerably less massive than the heavenly bodies.

Quote from: ghazwozza on July 03, 2008, 09:22:14 AM

Quote from: Ski on June 30, 2008, 08:06:00 PM

My body has mass and is neither a sphere, nor does it cause noticeable gravitation.

Key word in bold. I assume you are considerably less massive than the Earth.

I assume the earth is considerably less massive than the heavenly bodies.

You mean the entire Earth is less massive than the tiny motes of light? Why would you assume that?

Because they seem to exert a noticeable gravitation on other heavenly bodies while the earth does not.

Because they seem to exert a noticeable gravitation on other heavenly bodies while the earth does not, assuming FE is true.

Now I've fix'd it, I hope your error is obvious.

Of course it is assuming flat earth is true. I don't see an error there.

Why would you assume that tiny points of space are actually more massive than hundreds or thousands of unfathomably large stars?
Mass-energy has nothing to do with size.

Of course it is assuming flat earth is true. I don't see an error there.

The error is the fact that it is entirely unproven, and in it's current state FET is entirely unworkable.

Why would you assume that tiny points of space are actually more massive than hundreds or thousands of unfathomably large stars?
Mass-energy has nothing to do with size.

You've misunderstood me. I didn't assume that.

You said you assumed that the Earth was less massive than the heavenly bodies. I was asking why.

Quote from: Ski on July 03, 2008, 09:47:56 AM

Of course it is assuming flat earth is true. I don't see an error there.

The error is the fact that it is entirely unproven, and in it's current state FET is entirely unworkable.

Have you read Earth Not a Globe? 

Quote from: Ski on July 03, 2008, 09:47:56 AM

Why would you assume that tiny points of space are actually more massive than hundreds or thousands of unfathomably large stars?
Mass-energy has nothing to do with size.

You've misunderstood me. I didn't assume that.

You don't believe in black holes then?  I'm pretty skeptical about them myself, but open to the possibility.

Quote from: ghazwozza on July 03, 2008, 10:00:41 AM

Quote from: Ski on July 03, 2008, 09:47:56 AM

Of course it is assuming flat earth is true. I don't see an error there.

The error is the fact that it is entirely unproven, and in it's current state FET is entirely unworkable.

Have you read Earth Not a Globe? 

I've read parts of it.  From what I've read, it's wrong.

BTW, have you read the 100 Proofs book?  It's wrong too.

Quote from: ghazwozza on July 03, 2008, 10:00:41 AM

Quote from: Ski on July 03, 2008, 09:47:56 AM

Why would you assume that tiny points of space are actually more massive than hundreds or thousands of unfathomably large stars?
Mass-energy has nothing to do with size.

You've misunderstood me. I didn't assume that.

You don't believe in black holes then?

The stars are clearly not black holes. Black holes are called "black" for a reason -- most don't shine. The massive black holes that do shine have accretion disks and polar relativistic jets. Also, if the stars were black holes, clusters of them would collapse together.

Anyway, I didn't say it was impossible for small, high-density objects to exist. I just wondered why you assumed the stars were like that.

I'm pretty skeptical about them myself, but open to the possibility.

There's quite a lot of evidence that they exist. Objects have been studied that have all the properties of theoretical black holes.

Anyway, I didn't say it was impossible for small, high-density objects to exist. I just wondered why you assumed the stars were like that.

Because they appear to exert noticeable gravitation.

Quote from: ghazwozza on July 03, 2008, 10:10:21 AM

Anyway, I didn't say it was impossible for small, high-density objects to exist. I just wondered why you assumed the stars were like that.

Because they appear to exert noticeable gravitation.

Only if you assume FE. This argument is useless.

FFS! You have to assume FE, not the other way round! You're supposed to disprove us!