Dear FE'es, explain please.

I was reading through your FAQ, because you always tell some RE'ers to go look there and see how theyre wrong. And i found this.


Q: "What about gravity?"

A: The Earth is accelerating upwards at 1g (9.8m/s^2) along with every star, sun and moon in the universe. This produces the same effect as gravity.


Now this is not compleatly true, the "gravity" differs on different locations on the earth. There are two reasons why.
The earth is curved (round) and it rotates!
In combination, the equatorial bulge and the effects of centrifugal force mean that sea-level gravitational acceleration increases from about 9.780 m/s^2 at the equator to about 9.832 m/s^2 at the poles, so an object will weigh about 0.5% more at the poles than at the equator.

Peace out

Busted, I totally agree, There are some real bull shit excuses on this site, They don't know what their theory is.

@fakeass

Could you provide more information about your measurements? Equipment, etc.? 

Please don't say something about the equipment is wrong. 
That would show exactly what i said in my last post. 

I didn't say your equipment was faulty.  I asked for more information as to your measurements.  Such as when?, how?, the usual questions put to someone posting data.

I'm not the one you are refering to, Look at the names, I have conducted no such measurements.

TJ, so sorry, my mistake.

You can calculate it with such a simple experiment as dropping a bullet from 20 meters height and measure the time.
You do this experiment on the pole and the equator and you get differant results.

So what equipment do I need? a superaccurate clock and a nice vacuum pipe to drop the bullet in.

I ofcourse have not been to the pole and equator and done this, but i tried it in Sweden, using a little more sophisticated methods
(A ball dropping and having a instrument given to me by school [OMG NO CONSIRACY] and pluggin it to a computer, getting some nice scales on excel) and getting a number matching with the list I found on wikipedia:

Amsterdam    9.813 m/s²      Istanbul    9.808 m/s²    Paris                    9.809 m/s²
Athens    9.807 m/s²     Havana    9.788 m/s²    Rio de Janeiro    9.788 m/s²
Auckland, NZ 9.799 m/s²    Helsinki    9.819 m/s²    Rome            9.803 m/s²
Bangkok    9.783 m/s²            Kuwait    9.793 m/s²    San Francisco    9.800 m/s²
Brussels    9.811 m/s²      Lisbon    9.801 m/s²    Singapore           9.781 m/s²
Buenos Aires9.797 m/s²    London    9.812 m/s²Stockholm    9.818 m/s²
Calcutta    9.788 m/s²            Los Angeles9.796 m/s²  Sydney            9.797 m/s²
Cape Town 9.796 m/s²     Madrid    9.800 m/s²    Taipei            9.790 m/s²
Chicago    9.803 m/s²            Manila    9.784 m/s²    Tokyo            9.798 m/s²
Copenhagen9.815 m/s²    Mexico City 9.779 m/s²    Vancouver, BC    9.809 m/s²
Nicosia    9.797 m/s²      New York    9.802 m/s²    Washington, DC    9.801 m/s²
Jakarta    9.781 m/s²     Oslo            9.819 m/s²    Wellington, NZ    9.803 m/s²
Frankfurt    9.810 m/s²            Ottawa    9.806 m/s²    Zurich            9.807 m/s²

You can calculate it with such a simple experiment as dropping a bullet from 20 meters height and measure the time.
You do this experiment on the pole and the equator and you get a 0.5% differance in time.

Third-hand wikipedia data is difficult to verify.  I think it's a little presumptuous to ask people on this website to travel to both poles to authenticate your data claims.

" travel to both poles to authenticate your data claims"

So i assume youve been around the world measuring your constant 9.82m/s^2 claim?
And read my post please, i said the pole and the equator, not both poles.

" travel to both poles to authenticate your data claims"

And read my post please, i said the pole and the equator, not both poles.

Your OP mentioned "the poles."  Forgive me, I assumed this meant two?

Oh, excuse me.
It makes no differance which pole you use, since they are the top of the axle the earth is spinning round.

But Mrs. Peach or any other FE'er that wants to help me understand how you solve this porblem, could You please answer my questions where You got your numbers from (if i didnt ask that i do it now), because i have so kindly been answering Yours.

I’ve never been to either pole and have made no claims concerning any polar or equatorial experiments  You are the OP and the one making the claims, BTW.

But you are the flat earthist making the claims.

Looks like fakeass was the only one in this thread who made any claims to me.

Wow, That's trying to be difficult, The whole, "The Earth is flat", Is a claim and one with sparce amounts of proof.

Wow, That's trying to be difficult, The whole, "The Earth is flat", Is a claim and one with sparce amounts of proof.

Well, if you want proof, go to a mathematics forum.

I didn't see anybody make that claim in this thread anyway.  Can we stay on topic, please?

Quote from: TJ on September 08, 2008, 01:13:48 PM

Wow, That's trying to be difficult, The whole, "The Earth is flat", Is a claim and one with sparce amounts of proof.

Well, if you want proof, go to a mathematics forum.

I didn't see anybody make that claim in this thread anyway.  Can we stay on topic, please?

The topic is quite clear, gravity changes according to the high in what you are. This is caused because the further you are of the mass, the slight is the atraction. So, this is unexplicable in FET; or, well, if it is, I'd like to hear how.
Besides, let me go a step further, if you're gonna ask for a proof of the measurements, the places and other stuff, assure you already have yours, clear, recent and unquestionable of the contrary.

Well, it's a well-known fact that many FEers believe the stars exert a slight gravitational pull.  That being said, I still doubt the legitimacy of the measurements.

Okey, I guess I can give in that i can't prove my data, or I dont have the time to look up names on people that have measurred it round the globe ect. But if i will do this, I want some FACTS FE'ers.

Can you neglect my op in any other way than questioning the sources of my data?

Can you give me some proof of you constant 9.82m/s^2 constant that IS IN THE FAQ?

Youre just pickin on me instead of arguing for you own facts !

Can you give me some proof of you constant 9.82m/s^2 constant that IS IN THE FAQ?

Sure.  You can even measure it yourself.  I've done it numerous times and always come up with the same answer.

Well, it's a well-known fact that many FEers believe the stars exert a slight gravitational pull.  That being said, I still doubt the legitimacy of the measurements.

Who are they? Or maybe yourself could answer:

How does stars produce this attraction/pull? You call it "gravity" or how?

Quote from: Roundy the Truthinessist on September 08, 2008, 03:35:14 PM

Well, it's a well-known fact that many FEers believe the stars exert a slight gravitational pull.  That being said, I still doubt the legitimacy of the measurements.

Who are they? Or maybe yourself could answer:

How does stars produce this attraction/pull? You call it "gravity" or how?

No. We call it "gravitation".

Quote from: fakeass on September 08, 2008, 10:16:59 PM

Can you give me some proof of you constant 9.82m/s^2 constant that IS IN THE FAQ?

Sure.  You can even measure it yourself.  I've done it numerous times and always come up with the same answer.

Sir, have you read my op? Sure, the approximate gravitationalforce affecting everything on the earth is ABOUT 9.82 m/s^2
But people with exact instruments have narrowed it that to 9.780 m/s^2 at the equator to about 9.832 m/s^2 at the poles.
And those numbers follow the mathematical equations you can apply for gravitational pull from a ROUND and SPINNING mass.

Quote from: Kira-SY on September 09, 2008, 01:29:31 AM

Quote from: Roundy the Truthinessist on September 08, 2008, 03:35:14 PM

Well, it's a well-known fact that many FEers believe the stars exert a slight gravitational pull.  That being said, I still doubt the legitimacy of the measurements.

Who are they? Or maybe yourself could answer:

How does stars produce this attraction/pull? You call it "gravity" or how?

No. We call it "gravitation".

How does it work in the stars, please?

The starz' mazze bent spazetim, pr0duczin gravtatiaun.

The starz' mazze bent spazetim, pr0duczin gravtatiaun.

Is that a mock or smth? Just to know if I should spend my time on responding, or I should wait for someone to have a serious discussion.

Perhaps you should spend more time researching on the basics of modern science.

Perhaps you should spend more time researching on the basics of modern science.

I see your point, and I know what you're talking about, I asked about the mock 'cause of the spelling. But well, OK, mass bend spacetime, and it causes... gravitation (I'd say gravity), why the stars do so, and not the earth? 'Cause in the end, you're saying that due to the mass of the stars, we are slightly attracted to them... Why doesn't the Earth attract us due to its mass???

Quote from: E.Jack on September 09, 2008, 07:37:25 AM

Perhaps you should spend more time researching on the basics of modern science.

I see your point, and I know what you're talking about, I asked about the mock 'cause of the spelling. But well, OK, mass bend spacetime, and it causes... gravitation (I'd say gravity), why the stars do so, and not the earth? 'Cause in the end, you're saying that due to the mass of the stars, we are slightly attracted to them... Why doesn't the Earth attract us due to its mass???

Because the Flat Earth is special and does not adhere to the laws of nature.  Round Earth Physics says that Gravitational pull is determined by Mass, Distance, and Speed or energy.  Flat Earth magic says that we are unique and we don't have to abide by the laws of physics or the same laws every other body in the universe abide by.