Gravity, according to an FEer

  • 62 Replies
  • 22534 Views
Gravity, according to an FEer
« on: April 10, 2009, 07:06:16 PM »
Before I start, please don't send me any links to any "Fact" page.  I read all that stuff before, I just want a few things clarified by some of you FEers out there.


In a round Earth universe, we believe gravity to be caused by both mass and distance.

In a flat Earth universe, you believe the Earth does not have a gravitational pull.  Although, you believe other masses do have a gravitational pull.  I would like to know what this is based off of, why these particular masses have a gravitational pull and then I would like to know the causes of gravity for those particular masses.


?

LUNCH

  • 191
  • THE ULTIMATE CHERRY/DICK. mmmm cherry dick
Re: Gravity, according to an FEer
« Reply #1 on: April 10, 2009, 07:39:02 PM »
it probably doesn't fit in the FET so they made it up to make the cogs of the FE machine run more smoothly
There is no theory of evolution. Just a list of creatures Chuck Norris has allowed to live.
Uh, first of all you're an idiot.

*

Ski

  • Planar Moderator
  • 8730
  • Homines, dum docent, dispenguin.
Re: Gravity, according to an FEer
« Reply #2 on: April 10, 2009, 07:45:30 PM »
I believe the earth likely does exhibit an indiscernible gravitation. Also, the infinite plane theory features earth producing gravitation.
"Never think you can turn over any old falsehood without a terrible squirming of the horrid little population that dwells under it." -O.W. Holmes "Truth forever on the scaffold, Wrong forever on the throne.."

Re: Gravity, according to an FEer
« Reply #3 on: April 10, 2009, 10:19:50 PM »
Uhhh, are either of you an "FEer"?  Neither of you answered any of my questions.

*

Ski

  • Planar Moderator
  • 8730
  • Homines, dum docent, dispenguin.
Re: Gravity, according to an FEer
« Reply #4 on: April 11, 2009, 09:00:07 AM »
In a flat Earth universe, you believe the Earth does not have a gravitational pull. 

I believe the earth likely does exhibit an indiscernible gravitation. Also, the infinite plane theory features earth producing gravitation.

"Never think you can turn over any old falsehood without a terrible squirming of the horrid little population that dwells under it." -O.W. Holmes "Truth forever on the scaffold, Wrong forever on the throne.."

*

sandokhan

  • Flat Earth Sultan
  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 6772
Re: Gravity, according to an FEer
« Reply #5 on: April 11, 2009, 09:37:24 AM »
The following facts might be of help to you:

The current model accepted by the FET society, that of a travelling Earth at the speed of light through space, not to mention the other facts (50 km diameter sun) is wrong, that is why there is no end in sight to these discussions.

The correct model is this: the Flat Earth in the center of the Universe absolutely stationary, with the Sun/Moon/Planets/Stars orbiting above it.

There is no such thing as an attractive gravity, please read this, starting here:

http://theflatearthsociety.net/forum/index.php?topic=684.msg30184#msg30184

16 pages of the very best information

You might also read:

http://theflatearthsociety.net/forum/index.php?topic=551.0
http://theflatearthsociety.net/forum/index.php?topic=552.0
http://theflatearthsociety.net/forum/index.php?topic=550.0
http://theflatearthsociety.net/forum/index.php?topic=537.0
http://theflatearthsociety.net/forum/index.php?topic=536.0
http://theflatearthsociety.net/forum/index.php?topic=535.0

http://theflatearthsociety.net/forum/index.php?topic=830.0

G.B. Airy experiment of 1871:

'Airy's failure' (Reference - Proc. Roy. Soc. London v 20 p 35). Telescopes have to be very slightly tilted to get the starlight going down the axis of the tube because of the earth's 'speed around the sun'. Airy filled a telescope with water that greatly slowed down the speed of the light inside the telescope and found that he did not have to change the angle of the telescope. This showed that the starlight was already coming in at the original measured angle so that no change was needed. This demonstrated that it was the stars moving relative to a stationary earth and not the fast orbiting earth moving relative to the comparatively stationary stars. If it was the telescope moving he would have had to change the angle.

(Imagine the telescope like a tube, sloped so that the light from one star hits the bottom of the tube. Even if the starlight is slowed down inside the tube (using water), it will still hit the bottom of the tube because its direction is already determined. If it were the tube that was moving, slowing down the starlight would mean that the angle of the tube would have to change for the light to hit the bottom of the tube.)

It is interesting that the original short two page report merely lists the results and discusses the accuracy of the telescope used. There is not the slightest reference to the astonishing result that this experiment demonstrates - that the stars are moving round the stationary earth.

Airy's experiment proved that the starlight was already coming into the earth at an angle, being carried along by the rotating aether.

See also: http://www.geocentricuniverse.com/page17.htm

*

Benjamin Franklin

  • Flat Earth Editor
  • 12993
  • The dopest founding father.
Re: Gravity, according to an FEer
« Reply #6 on: April 11, 2009, 10:01:11 AM »
Before I start, please don't send me any links to any "Fact" page.  I read all that stuff before, I just want a few things clarified by some of you FEers out there.


In a round Earth universe, we believe gravity to be caused by both mass and distance.

In a flat Earth universe, you believe the Earth does not have a gravitational pull.  Although, you believe other masses do have a gravitational pull.  I would like to know what this is based off of, why these particular masses have a gravitational pull and then I would like to know the causes of gravity for those particular masses.



Until we truly understand all the mechanics of gravity and gravitation, we will never know why the earth lacks gravity while other objects do.

*

Parsifal

  • Official Member
  • 36118
  • Bendy Light specialist
Re: Gravity, according to an FEer
« Reply #7 on: April 11, 2009, 10:22:12 AM »
The current model accepted by the FET society, that of a travelling Earth at the speed of light through space

lrn2relativity
I'm going to side with the white supremacists.

*

sandokhan

  • Flat Earth Sultan
  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 6772

*

markjo

  • Content Nazi
  • The Elder Ones
  • 42466
Re: Gravity, according to an FEer
« Reply #9 on: April 11, 2009, 10:52:26 AM »
See, even FE'ers can't agree on which model is correct.   :P
Science is what happens when preconception meets verification.
Quote from: Robosteve
Besides, perhaps FET is a conspiracy too.
Quote from: bullhorn
It is just the way it is, you understanding it doesn't concern me.

*

Parsifal

  • Official Member
  • 36118
  • Bendy Light specialist
Re: Gravity, according to an FEer
« Reply #10 on: April 11, 2009, 11:01:03 AM »
See, even FE'ers can't agree on which model is correct.   :P

And I'm sure all REers agree on how many planets are in the solar system, how old the Universe is and what would happen if you fell into a black hole.
I'm going to side with the white supremacists.

*

sandokhan

  • Flat Earth Sultan
  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 6772
Re: Gravity, according to an FEer
« Reply #11 on: April 11, 2009, 11:06:42 AM »
The model currently accepted (why, we are still wondering) by FES can be proved to be wrong quite easily, if we just take into account the orbits of the Sun/Moon/Planets, above the flat earth.

That the earth is flat is very easy to show, the supporting theory is what makes the whole thing a joke in the eyes of the round earth proponents; once the correct model is accepted, there is no limit to what could be done...

Let us take as an example the western shoreline of Lake Ontario:

Here, once and for all, the extraordinary proof that there is no curvature at the surface of the Earth.

Mississauga - Toronto 26.4 km, curvature of 13.6 meters

Port Credit - Toronto 14.4 km, curvature of 4 meters

Some photos are taken from a distance of over 20 km, but, for the sake of our discussion, we will assume all photographs were taken from the 14.4 km distance.

Then, on a round earth, we should see: AN ASCENDING SLOPE, A MIDPOINT VISUAL OBSTACLE OF 4 METERS, AND NOTHING UNDER 6 METERS FROM THE OTHER SHORE.

ALL PHOTOGRAPHS WERE TAKEN FROM THE BEACH.

Here now is the ultimate proof that the Earth is Flat:


http://www.travelandtransitions.com/stories_photos/images/Aug3-Clonmel/toronto-skyline.jpg

http://www.travelandtransitions.com/stories_photos/clonmel_estate_b&b.htm



http://www.flickr.com/photos/mike905/2804779698/sizes/l/

http://www.flickr.com/photos/flipkeat/2308664800/sizes/l/in/set-72157604047268695/

http://www.flickr.com/photos/chapstickaddict/698091630/

http://www.flickr.com/photos/flipkeat/2410587891/sizes/l/


http://www.flickr.com/photos/kevin_white/1571369829/sizes/l/


http://www.flickr.com/photos/10668686@N06/2889142212/sizes/l/


http://www.flickr.com/photos/cdnphoto/454343806/sizes/o/


http://www.flickr.com/photos/avernar/2549368657/sizes/l/



Seven other photographs:


http://www.flickr.com/photos/ash2276/2483768842/


http://www.flickr.com/photos/beesquare/2816536720/


http://www.flickr.com/photos/snooshie/2379255560/sizes/o/


http://www.flickr.com/photos/aaross/2740770461/sizes/o/

http://www.flickr.com/photos/photog-raphy/2795009386/

http://www.flickr.com/photos/ash2276/477290583/

http://www.flickr.com/photos/whuggy/2351292280/sizes/o/


Oakville - Toronto 21 miles - 33.6 km, curvature of 22 meters


http://www.flickr.com/photos/photographybypaul/2586347950/
http://www.flickr.com/photos/photographybypaul/2586347950/sizes/l/

(to see the complete details of the other shore, as we can see here, we would have to ascend to at least 90 meters)

Hamilton - Toronto 65.5 km, curvature of 84 meters


http://www.flickr.com/photos/planetrick/487755017/

http://www.flickr.com/photos/planetrick/487726854/in/photostream/





(even if we take a distance of 53 km (just as from Grimsby), it would be impossible to see the other shore, from the beach in Hamilton...)

Two other photos:


http://www.flickr.com/photos/o0azumi0o/2336833000/#sizes/l/

http://www.flickr.com/photos/cdnphoto/454343806/#sizes/o/

Map of Lake Ontario:

http://www.sailski.com/images/OntarioMap.jpg

Now, let us visit Beamer Falls, Grimsby, Lake Ontario, 45 meters in height.




http://www.flickr.com/photos/suckamc/53037827/

Beamer?s Falls #071114
River Forty Mile Creek
Class Ramp
Size Medium
Height: 45
Crest: 20
The Niagara Peninsula Conservation Authority acquired Beamer Memorial Conservation Area in 1964, to protect and preserve the Niagara Escarpment and the Forty-Mile Creek valley system. The site is home to a variety of Carolinian plants and wildlife.

One of the best proofs that there is no curvature over lake Ontario; from 45 meters, we need another 10 meters just to reach the top of the curvature, right in front of you, and then miss the bottom 65 meters of the buildings in Toronto (the visual obstacle). But there is no curvature, no midpoint 55 meter obstacle, the Toronto downtown buildings visible top to bottom. Of course, if you still do not believe it, you are free to go there and see it for yourself.

Here is Beamer Falls:
http://farm1.static.flickr.com/160/343037881_497327a9d6_o.jpg

*

sandokhan

  • Flat Earth Sultan
  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 6772
Re: Gravity, according to an FEer
« Reply #12 on: April 11, 2009, 11:08:09 AM »
There are no black holes, the complete proof:

http://theflatearthsociety.net/forum/index.php?topic=688.0

*

markjo

  • Content Nazi
  • The Elder Ones
  • 42466
Re: Gravity, according to an FEer
« Reply #13 on: April 11, 2009, 12:07:15 PM »
See, even FE'ers can't agree on which model is correct.   :P

And I'm sure all REers agree on how many planets are in the solar system, how old the Universe is and what would happen if you fell into a black hole.

RE scientists debate a great many things relating to the nature of the universe.  The general size and shape of the earth are not among them.
Science is what happens when preconception meets verification.
Quote from: Robosteve
Besides, perhaps FET is a conspiracy too.
Quote from: bullhorn
It is just the way it is, you understanding it doesn't concern me.

?

Proleg

Re: Gravity, according to an FEer
« Reply #14 on: April 11, 2009, 12:31:16 PM »
RE scientists debate a great many things relating to the nature of the universe.  The general size and shape of the earth are not among them.
And yet we're the close-minded ones... ::)

Re: Gravity, according to an FEer
« Reply #15 on: April 11, 2009, 02:14:53 PM »
The following facts might be of help to you:

The current model accepted by the FET society, that of a travelling Earth at the speed of light through space, not to mention the other facts (50 km diameter sun) is wrong, that is why there is no end in sight to these discussions.

The correct model is this: the Flat Earth in the center of the Universe absolutely stationary, with the Sun/Moon/Planets/Stars orbiting above it.

There is no such thing as an attractive gravity, please read this, starting here:

First off, I said no links.  I want to see what you FEers know about it instead of you just throwing me off onto another page.

Another thing...if FEers can't get any proof that the Earth is flat...then how the hell did you find out that the Earth is in the center of the Universe?

?

Taurondir

Re: Gravity, according to an FEer
« Reply #16 on: April 11, 2009, 06:06:32 PM »
See, even FE'ers can't agree on which model is correct.   :P

And I'm sure all REers agree on how many planets are in the solar system, how old the Universe is and what would happen if you fell into a black hole.

So you agree THERE is a solar system, meaning objects spin around a real sun? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_system

As far as the age of the universe http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Age_of_the_universe, its been worked on. Strange that every scientist in the world never noticed the earth accellerating at 9.8m/s/s as youd think that would come into the calculations.

And as far as black holes http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_holes there appears to be at the center of each galaxy, and since we have brilliant examples such as Cygnus X-1 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cygnus_X-1 we can make guesses. Also, strange that they say that you need something larger then 40 solar masses to create a black hole, as that would imply a much bigger sun then the FE one.

*

Parsifal

  • Official Member
  • 36118
  • Bendy Light specialist
Re: Gravity, according to an FEer
« Reply #17 on: April 11, 2009, 06:14:16 PM »
So you agree THERE is a solar system, meaning objects spin around a real sun? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_system

No, but REers do, so I feel comfortable using the term "solar system" when talking about RET.

As far as the age of the universe http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Age_of_the_universe, its been worked on. Strange that every scientist in the world never noticed the earth accellerating at 9.8m/s/s as youd think that would come into the calculations.

All in freefall, are they?

And as far as black holes http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_holes there appears to be at the center of each galaxy, and since we have brilliant examples such as Cygnus X-1 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cygnus_X-1 we can make guesses. Also, strange that they say that you need something larger then 40 solar masses to create a black hole, as that would imply a much bigger sun then the FE one.

Please explain how we can guess what happens inside a black hole from observations of emissions from the accretion disk. Also, stellar collapse is only one way in which physicists have theorised that black holes may be formed. It is possible, at least in theory, for a black hole of any mass to exist.
I'm going to side with the white supremacists.

*

Euclid

  • 943
Re: Gravity, according to an FEer
« Reply #18 on: April 11, 2009, 06:20:26 PM »




As far as the age of the universe http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Age_of_the_universe, its been worked on. Strange that every scientist in the world never noticed the earth accellerating at 9.8m/s/s as youd think that would come into the calculations.



Einstein first realized the Earth is accelerating, and these calculations are done all the time in general relativity.

Quote from: Roundy the Truthinessist
Yes, thanks to the tireless efforts of Euclid and a few other mathematically-inclined members, electromagnetic acceleration is fast moving into the forefront of FE research.
8)

?

Taurondir

Re: Gravity, according to an FEer
« Reply #19 on: April 11, 2009, 06:31:51 PM »
There are no black holes, the complete proof:

http://theflatearthsociety.net/forum/index.php?topic=688.0


Some papers are from Charles Bert Schreiber - who for the record - spent most of his late life writing papers AGAINST currently accepted theories on most things and even then, he started writing scientific research papers AFTER he retired, so how long exactly had he been active in the field?

Stephen J Crothers wrote some of the other papers, and I dislike his attitude:

"So if it's a fight they want then it's a fight they'll get. Pasty-faced softies however, cloistered away in universities are not much of a challenge; but there are so many of them, like cane toads in the breeding season. And so I now make no bones about how I view blokes who, like K. Thorne and Ned Wright, prance about with long pony tails and matching sandals, or wear earings and otherwise dress and behave like girls (most "male" physicsts nowadays)."

I have read what he has written, but alas the math is above me. I do await the conclusion to this, but just taking what he sais as "proof" of lack of black holes is liek dismissing a RE based on the "conspiracy" ie you cant do that, so how about we all wait how Crothers first fairs in the scientific community, hey.


*

markjo

  • Content Nazi
  • The Elder Ones
  • 42466
Re: Gravity, according to an FEer
« Reply #20 on: April 11, 2009, 07:18:44 PM »
RE scientists debate a great many things relating to the nature of the universe.  The general size and shape of the earth are not among them.
And yet we're the close-minded ones... ::)
I didn't say that.  Indeed, it's very important to have an open mind.  It just shouldn't be so open that your brain falls out.
Science is what happens when preconception meets verification.
Quote from: Robosteve
Besides, perhaps FET is a conspiracy too.
Quote from: bullhorn
It is just the way it is, you understanding it doesn't concern me.

?

Taurondir

Re: Gravity, according to an FEer
« Reply #21 on: April 11, 2009, 08:52:39 PM »

Einstein first realized the Earth is accelerating, and these calculations are done all the time in general relativity.


Maybe a ROUND earth, going around a ROUND, MASSIVE sun, and again, NOT at 9.8m/s/s, in other words, nothing to do with FE theory, you meant to say, so quote your sources.

*

Euclid

  • 943
Re: Gravity, according to an FEer
« Reply #22 on: April 11, 2009, 09:31:17 PM »

Einstein first realized the Earth is accelerating, and these calculations are done all the time in general relativity.


Maybe a ROUND earth, going around a ROUND, MASSIVE sun, and again, NOT at 9.8m/s/s, in other words, nothing to do with FE theory, you meant to say, so quote your sources.

I assure you that we are indeed accelerating at 9.8m/s^2 in either model.
Quote from: Roundy the Truthinessist
Yes, thanks to the tireless efforts of Euclid and a few other mathematically-inclined members, electromagnetic acceleration is fast moving into the forefront of FE research.
8)

?

Proleg

Re: Gravity, according to an FEer
« Reply #23 on: April 11, 2009, 09:33:51 PM »
RE scientists debate a great many things relating to the nature of the universe.  The general size and shape of the earth are not among them.
And yet we're the close-minded ones... ::)
I didn't say that.  Indeed, it's very important to have an open mind.  It just shouldn't be so open that your brain falls out.
Oh, snap! That's so original, I think I just shat ovaltine.

*

Roundy the Truthinessist

  • Flat Earth TheFLAMETHROWER!
  • The Elder Ones
  • 27043
  • I'm the boss.
Re: Gravity, according to an FEer
« Reply #24 on: April 11, 2009, 10:12:26 PM »
The following facts might be of help to you:

The current model accepted by the FET society, that of a travelling Earth at the speed of light through space, not to mention the other facts (50 km diameter sun) is wrong, that is why there is no end in sight to these discussions.

The correct model is this: the Flat Earth in the center of the Universe absolutely stationary, with the Sun/Moon/Planets/Stars orbiting above it.

There is no such thing as an attractive gravity, please read this, starting here:

First off, I said no links.  I want to see what you FEers know about it instead of you just throwing me off onto another page.

Another thing...if FEers can't get any proof that the Earth is flat...then how the hell did you find out that the Earth is in the center of the Universe?

The FE model of the universe is geofocused, not geocentric.  I don't believe there's any reason to assume that the Earth is in the center of the universe; all that we know for sure is that rest of the observable universe orbits above us at some height around a fixed point directly above the center of the Earth (the Celestial Hub).  But who's to say that the observable universe is even all that's out there?
Where did you educate the biology, in toulet?

*

Ski

  • Planar Moderator
  • 8730
  • Homines, dum docent, dispenguin.
Re: Gravity, according to an FEer
« Reply #25 on: April 11, 2009, 10:35:36 PM »
So you agree THERE is a solar system, meaning objects spin around a real sun?

I do. I just don't think the earth is one of those objects.
"Never think you can turn over any old falsehood without a terrible squirming of the horrid little population that dwells under it." -O.W. Holmes "Truth forever on the scaffold, Wrong forever on the throne.."

Re: Gravity, according to an FEer
« Reply #26 on: April 12, 2009, 05:27:30 AM »
I assure you that we are indeed accelerating at 9.8m/s^2 in either model.

Nope. There are measurable variations in the 9.8 figure.

FE theory has a very hard time explaining them.

RE doesn't.

*

Parsifal

  • Official Member
  • 36118
  • Bendy Light specialist
Re: Gravity, according to an FEer
« Reply #27 on: April 12, 2009, 03:49:05 PM »
Maybe a ROUND earth, going around a ROUND, MASSIVE sun, and again, NOT at 9.8m/s/s, in other words, nothing to do with FE theory, you meant to say, so quote your sources.

The Earth does not accelerate towards the Sun in RET.

Nope. There are measurable variations in the 9.8 figure.

FE theory has a very hard time explaining them.

RE doesn't.

I think you will find that the measured value g = 9.8 m s-2 is valid everywhere on the surface of the Earth.
I'm going to side with the white supremacists.

Re: Gravity, according to an FEer
« Reply #28 on: April 12, 2009, 03:58:00 PM »
I think you will find that the measured value g = 9.8 m s-2 is valid everywhere on the surface of the Earth.

Wish in one hand, shit in another. See which fills up first.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Earth%27s_gravity#Comparative_gravities_in_various_cities_around_the_world

*

Parsifal

  • Official Member
  • 36118
  • Bendy Light specialist
Re: Gravity, according to an FEer
« Reply #29 on: April 12, 2009, 03:59:07 PM »
Wish in one hand, shit in another. See which fills up first.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Earth%27s_gravity#Comparative_gravities_in_various_cities_around_the_world

I don't contest any of that data. As a matter of fact, I've seen that table before. Do you have anything else to show me?
I'm going to side with the white supremacists.