"Proof" of gravity?

Here's my explanation:


Thus, the heavier side eventually falls first.

Does anyone see any problems with it? I want to see if I could correct it.

Since the force of gravity doesn't exist, air is always accelerating up, and things don't accelerate once they leave the FE's surface, this diagram could explain why heavier things fall faster than lighter ones when considering F_drag.

That diagram looks fine to me, but REers' minds work in mysterious ways.

Quote from: E.Jack on September 22, 2008, 03:35:04 AM

Here's my explanation:


Thus, the heavier side eventually falls first.

Does anyone see any problems with it? I want to see if I could correct it.

Since the force of gravity doesn't exist, air is always accelerating up, and things don't accelerate once they leave the FE's surface, this diagram could explain why heavier things fall faster than lighter ones when considering F_drag.

I only see a problem, a li'l one, it's the pass from figure 1 to figure 2, if air is pushing up with a constant strength every point in the body, from every side, at the same time, why there's a moment in which it "moves" to face down?

It's due to F_drag/m = a.

I just have one question, if objects discontinue their upward acceleration once they leave the earth's surface.  What causes the air to accelerate upwards?  In any case, assuming the air does follow the earth's acceleration, ya the diagram looks good.

I just have one question, if objects discontinue their upward acceleration once they leave the earth's surface.  What causes the air to accelerate upwards?

The earth pushing against the air.

What causes the air to accelerate upwards?

Would you prefer it to compress into an infinitely dense coating on the surface of the Earth?

Yes, but what keeps the air in contact with the earth?  Air is rather fluid and will just move out of the way of the upwardly accelerating earth due to inertia, will it not?  Some air would continue with the earth, but eventually wouldn't the atmosphere be left behind in space as our Earth travels through it?

Yes, but what keeps the air in contact with the earth?  Air is rather fluid and will just move out of the way of the upwardly accelerating earth due to inertia, will it not?  Some air would continue with the earth, but eventually wouldn't the atmosphere be left behind in space as our Earth travels through it?

How can a gas and a solid coexist in the same region in spacetime?

We might be on different pages here.  Might be my poor way of describing or articulating, so forgive me.  What's your question in more detail please?  Or at least why are you asking it?  It seems a bit non sequitor.

Quote from: Chamuel85 on September 22, 2008, 08:40:55 AM

Yes, but what keeps the air in contact with the earth?  Air is rather fluid and will just move out of the way of the upwardly accelerating earth due to inertia, will it not?  Some air would continue with the earth, but eventually wouldn't the atmosphere be left behind in space as our Earth travels through it?

How can a gas and a solid coexist in the same region in spacetime?

I think he means the earth travelling through the air like an arrow travels through the air.

We might be on different pages here.  Might be my poor way of describing or articulating, so forgive me.  What's your question in more detail please?  Or at least why are you asking it?  It seems a bit non sequitor.

For the Earth to travel through the air, the air would need to literally sink into the ground.

Oh you're right.  I forgot that the ice wall in the FE theory is 150 feet tall.   So in practical every day purposes the air would continue with the earth... Nevermind forget I said anything

However, after 150 feet, would our atmosphere simply not just be moved to the edges of our planet and rush off the sides because there would be no mechanism to keep it in front of our accelerating earth?  Much like a car pushes air out of the way as you drive around.  Excuse my almost oversimplified example, but I hope you get the idea.

The DEF keeps our atmolayer in touch with the Earth.

OK, excuse my admittedly small understanding of the entire workings of the FE theory.  I read the FAQ and don't remember a DEF.  Could you please point to where I can read up on it and become familiar with it?  I've new to your theory and I do apologize for any "wasted space" I am creating on this thread.

You have nothing to apologize for.  Polite questioning is refreshing compared to "WTFTEHEARFISROWND!!!11!!one".

Quote from: E.Jack on September 22, 2008, 03:35:04 AM

Here's my explanation:


Thus, the heavier side eventually falls first.

Does anyone see any problems with it? I want to see if I could correct it.

Since the force of gravity doesn't exist, air is always accelerating up, and things don't accelerate once they leave the FE's surface, this diagram could explain why heavier things fall faster than lighter ones when considering F_drag.

A fairer test would be with a sphere that was made of denser material in one hemisphere - in that case no rotation would be observed in RET or FET.  The example you gave could result in the narrow end pointing upwards due to an unstable equilibrium caused by atmospheric drag, but it would depend on the exact geometry of the spike and so on.

A fairer test would be with a sphere that was made of denser material in one hemisphere - in that case no rotation would be observed in RET or FET.

Wouldn't there still be a torque on it due to the centre of mass being offset from the centre of drag?

Hmm... interesting.  Possibly there would, yes.  I'll try it out later.

OK, excuse my admittedly small understanding of the entire workings of the FE theory.  I read the FAQ and don't remember a DEF.  Could you please point to where I can read up on it and become familiar with it?  I've new to your theory and I do apologize for any "wasted space" I am creating on this thread.

Basically, the DEF is the result when DE, the mechanism behind the Earth's acceleration, encounters an obstacle (the Earth) and forms a "bow shock" shape in front of it. The DEF acts as a lid to hold the massive atmolayer and anything less massive than that. Because of this, the DEF happens to shield us from the accelerating effects of DE. Otherwise, we humans would also be accelerated by DE.

Other people believe in the "pool theory", in which there is a +80,000ft ice wall that holds the atmolayer in place. However, as you've said before, the atmolayer can still be diffused out due to the concentration differences.


http://theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=23279.msg488808#msg488808
Read further from that post.

http://theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=23099.msg482683#msg482683

http://theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=23083.msg479420#msg479420

http://theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=23099.msg482644#msg482644

Here is TheEngineer's explanation on the DEF's structure:

The Dark Energy Field is a vector field.  It has a gradient that is smallest at the interaction of the atmosphere and the field, called the boundary layer.  The DEF interacts with the magnetic field of the earth at this boundary layer.  These vectors produce a force vector that is orthogonal to the other vectors in four dimensional space.  This force vector is always normal to the boundary layer, thus providing a type of forced containment for the atmosphere.

Quote from: Matrix on September 22, 2008, 09:39:01 AM

A fairer test would be with a sphere that was made of denser material in one hemisphere - in that case no rotation would be observed in RET or FET.

Wouldn't there still be a torque on it due to the centre of mass being offset from the centre of drag?

Also, turbulant flow past the object based on reynold's number.

Interesting, this would also explain one reason you guys feel space travel is nearly impossible?  Due to the fact that you need to exceed the limit of force required to penetrate the DEF?  Also, you say that the earth emits to gravity, correct?  Conversely, the stars and moon and other celestial objects do exert a gravitational force?  <Feel free to correct any misinterpretations that I may have formed> So the objects in the sky exert a gravitational force on the earth, which accounts for the variable "force" experienced at different altitudes that RE claim is gravity and FE says is due to the acceleration of the DE?  Now, I'm wondering.  Why does the earth not catch up to the other objects due to this ever so slight gravity?  Considering that their vectors should be parallel, they should combine into a slightly faster than the DE acceleration that those celestial bodies feel from just the DE?

Interesting, this would also explain one reason you guys feel space travel is nearly impossible?   Due to the fact that you need to exceed the limit of force required to penetrate the DEF?

Yes.

  Also, you say that the earth emits to gravity, correct?

From celestial bodies, yes. Gravitation, or the curvature of space-time, is impossible on FE. Otherwise, FE will eventually crunch into a ball, as stated in the FAQ.

  Conversely, the stars and moon and other celestial objects do exert a gravitational force? 

Yes.

So the objects in the sky exert a gravitational force on the earth, which accounts for the variable "force" experienced at different altitudes that RE claim is gravity and FE says is due to the acceleration of the DE?  Now, I'm wondering.

Well, you can't mix two things into one. The acceleration by DE is not gravitation, although both effects are indistinguishable from each other in our frame of reference.

Why does the earth not catch up to the other objects due to this ever so slight gravity? Considering that their vectors should be parallel, they should combine into a slightly faster than the DE acceleration that those celestial bodies feel from just the DE?

DE accelerates all objects in the universe at the same rate.

Quote from: Chamuel85 on September 22, 2008, 09:59:36 AM

  Also, you say that the earth emits to gravity, correct?

From celestial bodies, yes. Gravitation, or the curvature of space-time, is impossible on FE. Otherwise, FE will eventually crunch into a ball, as stated in the FAQ.

Admittedly, I did typo.  I meant does not exert a gravitational force.

Quote from: Chamuel85 on September 22, 2008, 09:59:36 AM

So the objects in the sky exert a gravitational force on the earth, which accounts for the variable "force" experienced at different altitudes that RE claim is gravity and FE says is due to the acceleration of the DE?  Now, I'm wondering.

Well, you can't mix two things into one. The acceleration by DE is not gravitation, although both effects are indistinguishable from each other in our frame of reference.

I was basically trying to say that the two theories use different reasoning to explain the same phenomenon.   I.E. Ya, they are indistinguishable.

Quote from: Chamuel85 on September 22, 2008, 09:59:36 AM

Why does the earth not catch up to the other objects due to this ever so slight gravity? Considering that their vectors should be parallel, they should combine into a slightly faster than the DE acceleration that those celestial bodies feel from just the DE?

DE accelerates all objects in the universe at the same rate.

Yes, everything is accelerated at the same rate according to FE model.  However, does it also prevent further accelerations from other sources?  Because if DE is accelerating earth and our sun for an example at the same rate.  Also, the sun is exerting a gravitation on the earth, but not visa versa.  Would not the sum of forces on the earth be greater than on earth than on the sun?

One additional question, how does the Earth not exert a gravitational force?  Does it not have mass even though the soil, crust and many things on it have mass?  I may be comprehending a few things wrong, but according to the Gravity thread it would seem that the Earth must exert a gravitational force from the mass that it contains and the warping of spacetime.

I was basically trying to say that the two theories use different reasoning to explain the same phenomenon.

One theory is used to explain the indistinguishable effects of gravitation. The other is used to explain gravitational differentiation.

Yes, everything is accelerated at the same rate according to FE model.  However, does it also prevent further accelerations from other sources?  Because if DE is accelerating earth and our sun for an example at the same rate.  Also, the sun is exerting a gravitation on the earth, but not visa versa.  Would not the sum of forces on the earth be greater than on earth than on the sun?

The sun exerts gravitation, but its effects are so small that it will not cause the Earth's acceleration to increase. Same goes to the celestial bodies in the universe. We could also say, based on your claim, that the other celestial bodies exerting gravitation on Earth maybe affected by gravitation from other farther celestial bodies. This chain of effects can balance out the sum of acceleration in the universe.

One additional question, how does the Earth not exert a gravitational force?  Does it not have mass even though the soil, crust and many things on it have mass?  I may be comprehending a few things wrong, but according to the Gravity thread it would seem that the Earth must exert a gravitational force from the mass that it contains and the warping of spacetime.

According to the FAQ, the Earth is far different from the other celestial bodies in the universe. Thus, we can say that the Earth is special and does not exert gravitation. Or, we can say there is a mechanism between the Earth and DE that cancels out the process of space-time curvature. One possible explanation to that is anti-gravitation.

Read the FAQ.

Since the entire universe in FET appears to be centered around the Earth, and the Flat Earth itself is also mysteriously unique compared to everything else in the "known" FET universe - yes, the it can be considered to be special. But when you think about the person who invented the theory and the reasons for which he did it, it's not surprising.

If you refuse to accept that humans are just glorified monkeys that inhabit a small, insignificant planet in a huge universe that does not appear to have been created six thousand years ago by a loving god.... you might look for an alternative too.

Since the entire universe in FET appears to be centered around the Earth, and the Flat Earth itself is also mysteriously unique compared to everything else in the "known" FET universe - yes, the it can be considered to be special. But when you think about the person who invented the theory and the reasons for which he did it, it's not surprising.

The Earth is unique because it is an infinite plane of unknown size and magnitude which cuts the universe in half. It's not a celestial body. It's not a planet. It's an entirely different entity to those things. The earth bisects the universe as our Terra Firma. The earth is the only known material world and the only environment known to support life.