The gravitation centre

Ever heard that the gravity centre is in the middle of the earth sphear ?

"For the person at the top of the world, (the North Pole), gravity is pulling him down, towards the South Pole. But for the person at the South Pole, shouldn't gravity pull him down as well? What keeps our person at the South Pole from falling completely off the face of the "globe"?"
(information taken from http://www.alaska.net/~clund/e_djublonskopf/Flatearthsociety.htm )

That is not true, every human are like a stick that always points against the centre of the earth and not downwards, because in space there is no absolute upwards or downwards, if the guy in the north pole comes to the south pole guy he just turns around and are pointed at the same direction as the south pole guy.

The website you're referencing is known to be a joke site, and shouldn't be used as a legitimate source of FE canon.

Ever heard that the gravity centre is in the middle of the earth sphear ?

Every human are like a stick that always points against the centre of the earth and not downwards.

Just out of curiousity, do you know why this is? (I'm not arguing with you, just wondering)

Just out of curiousity, do you know why this is? (I'm not arguing with you, just wondering)

Know why what is ? Sorry, im from sweden and didnt understand you completely there.

Know why what is ? Sorry, im from sweden and didnt understand you completely there.

Oh sorry, I meant "do you know why the 'gravity center is the middle of the earth sphere'".

Quote from: "Mattias_Olsson"

Ever heard that the gravity centre is in the middle of the earth sphear ?

Every human are like a stick that always points against the centre of the earth and not downwards.

Just out of curiousity, do you know why this is? (I'm not arguing with you, just wondering)

It is because anything with mass in space produces a force of gravity that draws things to its centre. This has been proven in experiments (although flat earthers would argue that these have been faked - although they won't be able to come up with a good reason as to WHY they should have been faked). A theorised reason as to WHY it produces gravity is a bending of the fabric of space, and is the 3D equivelant of putting a heavy object in the centre of a trampoline - everything else that is lighter on the trampoline will roll into the centre because the fabric of the trampoline slopes in towards the heavy object.

It is because anything with mass in space produces a force of gravity that draws things to its centre. This has been proven in experiments (although flat earthers would argue that these have been faked - although they won't be able to come up with a good reason as to WHY they should have been faked).

Which experiments are you referring to that have shown that anything with mass produces this "force"?

A theorised reason as to WHY it produces gravity is a bending of the fabric of space, and is the 3D equivelant of putting a heavy object in the centre of a trampoline - everything else that is lighter on the trampoline will roll into the centre because the fabric of the trampoline slopes in towards the heavy object.

<<dons RE hat>>

omg111, I hate this analogy.  If you do this stupid trampoline experiment in deep space, will the lighter objects roll to the centre?  Hells no.  They only roll to the center because there's already gravity there (I refer of course to the Earth in its upward acceleration).

Take away the gravity and even if you find some other way to bend the sheet, objects will not roll "down" towards the centre.

(Hint: "bending space": not interesting.)

<<dons FE hat>>

That's a nice theory, but it's no more satisfying than this mysterious "force" you mentioned in the first paragraph -- you've answered the question, "What exactly is this force of which you speak?" by saying, "Well really it's just the bending of space," which of course raises the response, "Okay, let me rephrase: why does mass bend space?"

-Erasmus

Erasmus is right, you gave him an easy one there.

The analogy is there to try to make the concept more pallatable that things can move in curved lines without "realising it".

So you're not convinced... what does it make you feel bright saying you arent convinced? It's not like you provide any evidence at all.

The analogy is there to try to make the concept more pallatable that things can move in curved lines without "realising it".

I think it's there in the absence of a better one.

So you're not convinced... what does it make you feel bright saying you arent convinced? It's not like you provide any evidence at all.

To whom is this addressed?

All solutions are there in the absence of a better one, wise up.

Its addressed to whoever it may concern, i.e. the "you haven't convinced me so nyeh" crowd.

All solutions are there in the absence of a better one, wise up.

Please.  As if there aren't better ones.

This is a little off-topic, so probably we should just drop it.

A'ight.