An Important Question on "Gravity"

I could think of many many pieces of evidence that would disprove the flat earth theory (which im sure you have all heard a hundred times over) but the one im going to mention concerns your theory for "gravity".

You say that the earth is constantly accelerating at 9.8m/s/s to explain gravity which would mean that this force would be constant all over the earth. However this force actually varies from 9.4N to 9.81N depending on the point you are on the earth due to its shape. This has been proven many times by independent and government funded research. Any flat earth explanations would be welcome.

Also, do flat earthers believe in the theory of gravity at all and how do they feel about other planets in our system?

And finally do flat earthers feel that thousands of years of relentless scientific work accounts for nothing? Do they feel that they are wiser and more intelligent than all other physicists who go against them? And do they join this society simply because they like to think differently and stand out or even just to feel like part of something?

I could think of many many pieces of evidence that would disprove the flat earth theory (which im sure you have all heard a hundred times over) but the one im going to mention concerns your theory for "gravity".

You say that the earth is constantly accelerating at 9.8m/s/s to explain gravity which would mean that this force would be constant all over the earth. However this force actually varies from 9.4N to 9.81N depending on the point you are on the earth due to its shape. This has been proven many times by independent and government funded research. Any flat earth explanations would be welcome.

I don't agree with the veracity of these experiments.  It might have been faulty equipment registering the incorrect readings.  At any rate some FEers do feel that the stars exert a slight gravitational pull.

Also, do flat earthers believe in the theory of gravity at all and how do they feel about other planets in our system?

No we don't.  I believe the movements of the planets exhibit gravitation but I think it might be electromagnetic in nature.

And finally do flat earthers feel that thousands of years of relentless scientific work accounts for nothing?

No.

Do they feel that they are wiser and more intelligent than all other physicists who go against them?

Yes.

And do they join this society simply because they like to think differently and stand out or even just to feel like part of something?

No.

However this force actually varies from 9.4N to 9.81N depending on the point you are on the earth due to its shape.

You completely made that up.  To get to 9.4 due to elevation you would have to be at an elevation of 129km which is 15 times higher than mount everest.

Thanks for the answer although it would be pretty unlikely that faulty equipment could account for this variation as this experiment could even be carried out relatively accurately with a fixed mass and a set of scales and the research carried out will have used much more advanced and accurate technology.

As for the other planets are these the same shape as the "flat" earth as from our perspective this would mean that they would be tilted to face towards the earth as all of our observations show them to be round.

Quote from: kempkemp on September 30, 2008, 04:30:29 PM

However this force actually varies from 9.4N to 9.81N depending on the point you are on the earth due to its shape.

You completely made that up.  To get to 9.4 due to elevation you would have to be at an elevation of 129km which is 15 times higher than mount everest.

Well i shalll take that up with my physics teacher who gave me the information (thats right im still in school). Nonetheless you are using round earth science to prove your flat earth point. Very hypocritical.

Thanks for the answer although it would be pretty unlikely that faulty equipment could account for this variation as this experiment could even be carried out relatively accurately with a fixed mass and a set of scales and the research carried out will have used much more advanced and accurate technology.

As for the other planets are these the same shape as the "flat" earth as from our perspective this would mean that they would be tilted to face towards the earth as all of our observations show them to be round.

We generally believe the planets are round.  The earth is not a planet.

Nonetheless you are using round earth science to prove your flat earth point.

No, I am using round earth science to prove that you do not know what you are talking about.

Quote from: kempkemp on September 30, 2008, 04:55:40 PM

Nonetheless you are using round earth science to prove your flat earth point.

No, I am using round earth science to prove that you do not know what you are talking about.

In this case wether or not the exact values are accurate is not important, the point im trying to make is that there are variations in the force of "gravity" all over the earth (as shown here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Earth%27s_gravity#Variations_on_Earth ) and according to your theory this force should be constant at all points. So far the only answer ive got is faulty equipment  .

No, I also stated that some FEers believe the stars exert a slight gravitational pull.  They theorize that that's what causes readings to be different on different parts of the earth.

Okay so does this gravitational pull exist only from these stars or, as popular science has found, does it come from all mass?

FET does not hold that gravitation is caused by mass.

P.S. That also leaves the rest of FEers with a potential gap in their theory. A gap explained by round earth science.

P.S. That also leaves the rest of FEers with a potential gap in their theory. A gap explained by round earth science.

What gap? 

Quote from: kempkemp on September 30, 2008, 04:30:29 PM

However this force actually varies from 9.4N to 9.81N depending on the point you are on the earth due to its shape.

You completely made that up.  To get to 9.4 due to elevation you would have to be at an elevation of 129km which is 15 times higher than mount everest.

Not to mention, he's using Newtons, which means he's either assuming that every object has a mass of exactly one kilogram, or he doesn't know the difference between force and acceleration.

I would wager more toward the latter.

Quote from: Robbyj on September 30, 2008, 04:46:48 PM

Quote from: kempkemp on September 30, 2008, 04:30:29 PM

However this force actually varies from 9.4N to 9.81N depending on the point you are on the earth due to its shape.

You completely made that up.  To get to 9.4 due to elevation you would have to be at an elevation of 129km which is 15 times higher than mount everest.

Not to mention, he's using Newtons, which means he's either assuming that every object has a mass of exactly one kilogram, or he doesn't know the difference between force and acceleration.

I was going to point that out - it would make for some interesting projectile motion.

Gravity can vary by about 1%.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/1668872.stm

Quote from: Roundy the Truthinessist on September 30, 2008, 05:12:41 PM

No, I also stated that some FEers believe the stars exert a slight gravitational pull.  They theorize that that's what causes readings to be different on different parts of the earth.

I'd be interested to hear how the stars can reach through the heavens and pluck out certain parts of the earth to recieve more or less gravitation. Divine intervention again?

I think he means to imply that every receives gravitation from the stars and that the closer you are to the stars (i.e. the higher up you are) the more you are affected (inverse square law or whatever that thingamajig is).

Just shooting off the hip but maybe the density of stars could also cause variations of the ammount of gravitation.

Quote from: Osama  bin Laden on September 30, 2008, 06:19:45 PM

Quote from: Robbyj on September 30, 2008, 04:46:48 PM

Quote from: kempkemp on September 30, 2008, 04:30:29 PM

However this force actually varies from 9.4N to 9.81N depending on the point you are on the earth due to its shape.

You completely made that up.  To get to 9.4 due to elevation you would have to be at an elevation of 129km which is 15 times higher than mount everest.

Not to mention, he's using Newtons, which means he's either assuming that every object has a mass of exactly one kilogram, or he doesn't know the difference between force and acceleration.

I was going to point that out - it would make for some interesting projectile motion.

What are you talking about? The newtons here are merely used as a measure it doesnt mean I assume that everything is one kilogram, honestly do you even know what newtons are? Youre going to have to try harder than that! Its simple stuff: force = mass x acceleration and as the mass of the earth is constant and as you FEers say the acceleration is constant then this would result in a constant force, not the varying force of gravity we see.

Quote from: Sean O'Grady on October 01, 2008, 02:55:40 AM

Quote from: Osama  bin Laden on September 30, 2008, 06:19:45 PM

Quote from: Robbyj on September 30, 2008, 04:46:48 PM

Quote from: kempkemp on September 30, 2008, 04:30:29 PM

However this force actually varies from 9.4N to 9.81N depending on the point you are on the earth due to its shape.

You completely made that up.  To get to 9.4 due to elevation you would have to be at an elevation of 129km which is 15 times higher than mount everest.

Not to mention, he's using Newtons, which means he's either assuming that every object has a mass of exactly one kilogram, or he doesn't know the difference between force and acceleration.

I was going to point that out - it would make for some interesting projectile motion.

What are you talking about? The newtons here are merely used as a measure it doesnt mean I assume that everything is one kilogram, honestly do you even know what newtons are? Youre going to have to try harder than that! Its simple stuff: force = mass x acceleration and as the mass of the earth is constant and as you FEers say the acceleration is constant then this would result in a constant force, not the varying force of gravity we see.

So the mass that you're referring to is the earth's mass?

This just keeps getting mroe and more interesting.

How is a Newton defined? This should give you your answer.

Quote from: kempkemp on October 01, 2008, 10:06:48 AM

Quote from: Sean O'Grady on October 01, 2008, 02:55:40 AM

Quote from: Osama  bin Laden on September 30, 2008, 06:19:45 PM

Quote from: Robbyj on September 30, 2008, 04:46:48 PM

Quote from: kempkemp on September 30, 2008, 04:30:29 PM

However this force actually varies from 9.4N to 9.81N depending on the point you are on the earth due to its shape.

You completely made that up.  To get to 9.4 due to elevation you would have to be at an elevation of 129km which is 15 times higher than mount everest.

Not to mention, he's using Newtons, which means he's either assuming that every object has a mass of exactly one kilogram, or he doesn't know the difference between force and acceleration.

I was going to point that out - it would make for some interesting projectile motion.

What are you talking about? The newtons here are merely used as a measure it doesnt mean I assume that everything is one kilogram, honestly do you even know what newtons are? Youre going to have to try harder than that! Its simple stuff: force = mass x acceleration and as the mass of the earth is constant and as you FEers say the acceleration is constant then this would result in a constant force, not the varying force of gravity we see.

So the mass that you're referring to is the earth's mass?

This just keeps getting mroe and more interesting.

How is a Newton defined? This should give you your answer.

A newton is defined as the force required to give one kilogram of mass an acceleration of 1m/s/s. Good for you. Just because the unit refers to one kilogram of mass does not mean it assumes all objects are one kilogram. It means that for every one kilogram of mass an acceleration of 9.8m/s/s will require a constant force of 9.8N (this will of course be much larger on the earths scale). The equal and opposite reaction force which then occurs due to the acceleration is what you call gravity.
 
However none of this is what concerns me. What does is that you havent yet given me a sound explanation of why these fluctuations occur, no matter what unit they are measured in. Im not looking to disprove your theory as i know that it would be impossible for most true FEers to see reason,  i just want to know what you FE "scientists" think.

Quote from: Sean O'Grady on October 01, 2008, 02:55:40 AM

Quote from: Osama  bin Laden on September 30, 2008, 06:19:45 PM

Quote from: Robbyj on September 30, 2008, 04:46:48 PM

Quote from: kempkemp on September 30, 2008, 04:30:29 PM

However this force actually varies from 9.4N to 9.81N depending on the point you are on the earth due to its shape.

You completely made that up.  To get to 9.4 due to elevation you would have to be at an elevation of 129km which is 15 times higher than mount everest.

Not to mention, he's using Newtons, which means he's either assuming that every object has a mass of exactly one kilogram, or he doesn't know the difference between force and acceleration.

I was going to point that out - it would make for some interesting projectile motion.

What are you talking about? The newtons here are merely used as a measure it doesnt mean I assume that everything is one kilogram, honestly do you even know what newtons are? Youre going to have to try harder than that! Its simple stuff: force = mass x acceleration and as the mass of the earth is constant and as you FEers say the acceleration is constant then this would result in a constant force, not the varying force of gravity we see.

This is going in Monster Fail.

The newtons here are merely used as a measure it doesnt mean I assume that everything is one kilogram, honestly do you even know what newtons are?

Let your 9.8N be F.

Now,

F = ma

9.8N = m(9.8m/s²)

What is m?

I love being talked down to by high school students who don't understand how to use Newton's second law of motion correctly.

FET does not hold that gravitation is caused by mass.

I still hold gravitation by mass. I just don't think terrestrial mass causes discernible gravitation. The infinite plane theory holds gravitation by mass as well.

I love being talked down to by high school students who don't understand how to use Newton's second law of motion correctly.

It makes me wonder how RET ever really took hold...

The thread came completely off track. Let's go back and talk about the OP, for a change.

The following table, that came from Wikipedia, shows the well known fact that gravity is not just dependent on altitude from sea level. Cities like Amsterdam, Rio de Janeiro, San Francisco, London, Calcutta, Los Angeles, Sydney are at sea level, but they do not have the same gravity. Cities like Paris, Brussels, Madrid, Chicago, Mexico City, are not at sea level but are not clearly the ones with lowest gravities. There is definitely no progression towards lower numbers with increasing altitude. In fact, Mexico City and Calcutta have the almost the same gravity, but have a difference of 2200 meters in altitude, (some 7300 feet) but Stockholm and Jackarta have almost the biggest difference of all, yet they are both at sea level.

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 Aires	9.797 m/s²	London	9.812 m/s²	Stockholm	9.818 m/s²
Calcutta	9.788 m/s²	Los Angeles	9.796 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
Copenhagen	9.815 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

The idea of stars having a small amount of gravitational pull and a height of 3000 miles just does not explain or predict these measurements at all, not even to a 1% precision.

Will you damn FEers stop blatantly trying to talk round giving a straight answer by insulting/attempting poorly to disprove my high school science and instead focus on the real issue. You still dont have an answer to explain the solid facts (as shown above) and no amount of criticism will make them go away.[/b

I love being talked down to by high school students who don't understand how to use Newton's second law of motion correctly.

Newton would be embarassed even to know you.

The idea of stars having a small amount of gravitational pull and a height of 3000 miles just does not explain or predict these measurements at all, not even to a 1% precision.

So, perhaps something underneath. Simple, yet untestable unfortunately.

Newton would be embarassed even to know you.

Based on your knowledge base in what you've posted so far, I think it would be the other way around.

I never compared height of cities and their accelerations, nor did I ever really like the gravitational pull from the stars idea. Given the information, obviously it has to change.