North pole weight difference

  • 42 Replies
  • 10131 Views
North pole weight difference
« on: October 06, 2008, 06:20:42 PM »
In RE: You weigh a little less on the north pole because the earth is not a PERFECT sphere and is partially flat on top. and the closer you are to the center of gravity (or something to do with gravity) the less effect gravity has on you.

In FE: you weigh a little less on the north "pole" because ________________________________________________

mind filling in the blank? again im not here to criticize i just want to get both ends of the argument of the whole FE RE debate and i need some questions answered from both sides (mostly from FE)
oh so now the moon is in on the conspiracy too?

*

WardoggKC130FE

  • 11857
  • What website is that? MadeUpMonkeyShit.com?
Re: North pole weight difference
« Reply #1 on: October 06, 2008, 06:22:21 PM »
In RE: You weigh a little less on the north pole because the earth is not a PERFECT sphere and is partially flat on top. and the closer you are to the center of gravity (or something to do with gravity) the less effect gravity has on you.

In FE: you weigh a little less on the north "pole" because ________________________________________________

In both RET and FET you weigh less at the north pole because there is nothing to fucking eat up there and you probably lost weight hiking up there in the first place.

*

narcberry

  • 5623
  • Official Flat Earth Society Spokesman/min
Re: North pole weight difference
« Reply #2 on: October 06, 2008, 06:33:37 PM »
I thought you would have more gravitational attraction as you decrease the distance between the center of mass of two bodies.

So if you weigh less at the north pole, you can safely rule out RET.

Another victory for FE!!

Re: North pole weight difference
« Reply #3 on: October 06, 2008, 06:37:00 PM »
I don't care about RE theory on this. i want to know what FE says about this. should i just put it down as unkown phenomena?
oh so now the moon is in on the conspiracy too?

*

narcberry

  • 5623
  • Official Flat Earth Society Spokesman/min
Re: North pole weight difference
« Reply #4 on: October 06, 2008, 06:38:26 PM »
FET is clear, you will experience the same accelerating force at all points on earth.

Good to see you've given up on RE, and congratulations!

Re: North pole weight difference
« Reply #5 on: October 06, 2008, 06:45:28 PM »
so you weighing less on the north pole is just made up bubkiss? well if anyone goes to the north pole tell them to bring a 1 kilogram weight and a very sensitive scale.
oh so now the moon is in on the conspiracy too?

Re: North pole weight difference
« Reply #6 on: October 06, 2008, 06:47:19 PM »
and im not completely giving up on RE theory, i just want to learn as much as i can from both sides to make my own conclusion. And i wanted to come to this site to fill in the questions i have for the FE side.
oh so now the moon is in on the conspiracy too?

?

trig

  • 2240
Re: North pole weight difference
« Reply #7 on: October 06, 2008, 06:59:51 PM »
The correction must be made, so the thread will not get sidetracked: When you take an object from the equator to one of the poles, its weight will increase because of the shorter distance to the center of the Earth. This could be explained in FET by saying that there are less stars over the poles, which is not true but would give them something to say.

The fact that the weight of an object varies from place to place on Earth due to several reasons makes FET's position untenable. As you can see in http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Earth's_gravity, there is no clear, simple rule for the small changes in weight between the cities tabulated, making the excuses by FE'rs for this absolutely laughable.

Re: North pole weight difference
« Reply #8 on: October 06, 2008, 07:07:49 PM »
Another victory for FE!!
Good to see you've given up on RE, and congratulations!

During his career, Narcy was national champion of jumping to conclusions. He has since retired but still pursues it as a hobby.

FET is clear, you will experience the same accelerating force at all points on earth.

This is a serious flaw in FET.

*

narcberry

  • 5623
  • Official Flat Earth Society Spokesman/min
Re: North pole weight difference
« Reply #9 on: October 06, 2008, 07:14:54 PM »
Actually it's a serious strength because we don't have to send scientists anywhere we can to try and find variances in "graVity".

You guys keep looking though.

Re: North pole weight difference
« Reply #10 on: October 06, 2008, 07:20:10 PM »
Actually it's a serious strength because we don't have to send scientists anywhere we can to try and find variances in "graVity".

You guys keep looking though.

Are you seriously suggesting that FET is better because you assume it to be correct in the face of evidence to the contrary?

Would you care to explain this to us?

*

Johannes

  • Flat Earth Editor
  • 2755
Re: North pole weight difference
« Reply #11 on: October 06, 2008, 07:20:22 PM »
Do you have proof that you "weigh" less on the north pole?

*

Johannes

  • Flat Earth Editor
  • 2755
Re: North pole weight difference
« Reply #12 on: October 06, 2008, 07:21:04 PM »
Actually it's a serious strength because we don't have to send scientists anywhere we can to try and find variances in "graVity".

You guys keep looking though.

Are you seriously suggesting that FET is better because you assume it to be correct in the face of evidence to the contrary?

Would you care to explain this to us?
Wikipedia as your source? That could easily be edited by NASA.

*

narcberry

  • 5623
  • Official Flat Earth Society Spokesman/min
Re: North pole weight difference
« Reply #13 on: October 06, 2008, 07:23:24 PM »
I don't get why he wants us to explain the smaller gravity on Uranus. I think that's especially amusing since nobody has even been to Uranus.

*

MadDogX

  • 735
  • Resistor is fubar!
Re: North pole weight difference
« Reply #14 on: October 06, 2008, 10:20:08 PM »
The link he posted points to the wrong part of the page. Just scroll up for a table comparing various cities on Earth, instead of planets.
Quote from: Professor Gaypenguin
I want an Orion slave woman :(
Okay, I admit it.  The earth isn't flat.

*

The One True Rat

  • 615
  • Cannot Understand Sarcasm
Re: North pole weight difference
« Reply #15 on: October 06, 2008, 11:26:15 PM »
I think that the FEers are once again dodgeing the question.
One of two answers are permittable:
1) A decent explanation for gravitational variation in FE.
or 2) A claim that no such variation exists.

If you answer with anything less, i will assume that you are indeed avoiding a very simple question.

*

Tom Bishop

  • Flat Earth Believer
  • 17837
Re: North pole weight difference
« Reply #16 on: October 06, 2008, 11:35:39 PM »
Gravitational variation in FE is caused by the gravitation of the stars.

The gravitation influence of the stars is just less over the North Pole than it is over other areas, that's all.

Re: North pole weight difference
« Reply #17 on: October 06, 2008, 11:41:45 PM »
The gravitation influence of the stars is just less over the North Pole than it is over other areas, that's all.

But there are more stars away from the celestial north pole than there are at the pole.  Wouldn't that imply that your weight would be lowest where the greatest concentrations of stars are?

*

Tom Bishop

  • Flat Earth Believer
  • 17837
Re: North pole weight difference
« Reply #18 on: October 06, 2008, 11:48:59 PM »
Quote
But there are more stars away from the celestial north pole than there are at the pole.  Wouldn't that imply that your weight would be lowest where the greatest concentrations of stars are?

What are you talking about? The concentration of the stars is pretty even among the heavens. If you go to an observatory you will find that every square centimeter of the sky is packed with stars. Except for a couple small curiosities, there is no area of the sky devoid of stars. Everywhere one looks there are stars jam packed together.

It's only the brightest stars that can see in the sky with the naked eye. And brighter doesn't necessarily mean more gravitation. A bright lamp in the distance doesn't mean that it has any bigger of a gravitational field than the dim one right next to it.
« Last Edit: October 06, 2008, 11:54:47 PM by Tom Bishop »

?

GravitySlave

  • 68
  • I think the Earth is
Re: North pole weight difference
« Reply #19 on: October 07, 2008, 12:38:31 AM »
The gravitation influence of the stars is just less over the North Pole than it is over other areas, that's all.

This is too funny, must sig this.
The gravitation influence of the stars is just less over the North Pole than it is over other areas, that's all.

*

The One True Rat

  • 615
  • Cannot Understand Sarcasm
Re: North pole weight difference
« Reply #20 on: October 07, 2008, 12:40:39 AM »
In our galaxy... or the RE galaxy, rather, there is a higher concentration of stars/ other orbital bodies around the midsection. The Milky way being a disk, any point on that disk would have a lower concentration of gravity at the upper and lower ends of it, because the rest of it lines up with the stars that form the disc-like shape. We can see other galaxies and stars in them, but they are quite far away. We can also see the stars that are in the upper and lower areas of the disc that we are located, but there is indeed less of them.

I am not sure how the earth lines of with the star density, but i can safely say that this density is visible the the naked eye. Go outside on a clear night in rural areas and chances are you will find the band of star concentration.
« Last Edit: October 07, 2008, 12:42:23 AM by sphere_man »

?

trig

  • 2240
Re: North pole weight difference
« Reply #21 on: October 07, 2008, 02:48:21 AM »
The Milky Way does have a larger concentration of stars than any other place in the sky, and that is clear to anyone who not only owns two top-of-the-line telescopes, but uses them.

Further more, the Milky Way is not aligned with Earth's Equator; in fact, it contains Acrux, a star with -63 degrees declination, and Caph, a star with +59 degrees declination, which roughly mark the southernmost and northernmost  points of it.

If the stars were the cause for differences in gravitational pull, we would have a daily oscillation in the perceived Earth gravity, and anyone with a few bucks and a piezo-electric pressure sensor and voltmeter would be able to blow the conspiracy to pieces.

Re: North pole weight difference
« Reply #22 on: October 07, 2008, 03:16:19 AM »
What are you talking about? The concentration of the stars is pretty even among the heavens. If you go to an observatory you will find that every square centimeter of the sky is packed with stars. Except for a couple small curiosities, there is no area of the sky devoid of stars. Everywhere one looks there are stars jam packed together.

There are definite concentrations of stars.  The band of the Milky Way is close to the celestial equator (overhead at the equator)...



This concentration of stars, and hence gravitation, is not at the poles.  Even with a telescope, there are more stars in that region of the sky.


Quote
It's only the brightest stars that can see in the sky with the naked eye. And brighter doesn't necessarily mean more gravitation. A bright lamp in the distance doesn't mean that it has any bigger of a gravitational field than the dim one right next to it.

Actually, at night from the deck of a ship, you can observe many stars that aren't visible on land due to the lack of background light.  Even then, most of the stars are concentrated in the band of the Milky Way.  I am going on pure quantity of stars and giving no star credit for larger gravitational potential.


*

Moon squirter

  • 1405
  • Ding dong!
Re: North pole weight difference
« Reply #23 on: October 07, 2008, 04:18:29 AM »
The gravitation influence of the stars is just less over the North Pole than it is over other areas, that's all.

The concentration of the stars is pretty even among the heavens. If you go to an observatory you will find that every square centimeter of the sky is packed with stars. Except for a couple small curiosities, there is no area of the sky devoid of stars. Everywhere one looks there are stars jam packed together.

Tom,

  -The second quote contradicts the first, if "concentration" of mass is linked to gravitation (which it is)
  -The line of the Milky Way demonstrates the second statement to be wrong.
  -I have not seen a record of gravitation changing when the Milky Way it overhead.


I haven't performed it and I've never claimed to. I've have trouble being in two places at the same time.

Re: North pole weight difference
« Reply #24 on: October 07, 2008, 05:15:21 AM »
Gravitational variation in FE is caused by the gravitation of the stars.

These anomolies do not rotate with a period of 24 hours. Another explanation needed.

Re: North pole weight difference
« Reply #25 on: October 07, 2008, 05:29:19 AM »
In FE: you weigh a little less on the north "pole" because ________________________________________________

You burned off a lot of fat getting there?

?

Robbyj

  • Flat Earth Editor
  • 5459
Re: North pole weight difference
« Reply #26 on: October 07, 2008, 07:16:18 AM »
In FE: you weigh a little more on the north "pole" because ________________________________________________

When an object accelerates, the leading edge accelerates slower than the tailing edge.
Why justify an illegitimate attack with a legitimate response?

Re: North pole weight difference
« Reply #27 on: October 07, 2008, 07:26:09 AM »
In FE: you weigh a little more on the north "pole" because ________________________________________________

When an object accelerates, the leading edge accelerates slower than the tailing edge.

Why?

?

Robbyj

  • Flat Earth Editor
  • 5459
Re: North pole weight difference
« Reply #28 on: October 07, 2008, 07:42:03 AM »
When an object accelerates, the leading edge accelerates slower than the tailing edge.
Why?

Relativistic effects inherant in acceleration itself.  Or were you looking for a more specific answer.
Why justify an illegitimate attack with a legitimate response?

Re: North pole weight difference
« Reply #29 on: October 07, 2008, 07:44:02 AM »
When an object accelerates, the leading edge accelerates slower than the tailing edge.
Why?

Relativistic effects inherant in acceleration itself.  Or were you looking for a more specific answer.

Please.