« previous next »
Pages: [1] 2 3   Go Down

Do flat earthers recognise attraction between mass?

  • 68 Replies
  • 11417 Views
?

roadhumper

  • 32
  • +0/-0
Do flat earthers recognise attraction between mass?
« on: April 25, 2009, 05:24:19 AM »
Hello people.

I am new to flat earth I would like to know if you recognise the well documented attraction between masses called "gravity".

Thanks!
Logged
*

Parsifal

  • Official Member
  • 36019
  • +0/-0
  • Bendy Light specialist
Re: Do flat earthers recognise attraction between mass?
« Reply #1 on: April 25, 2009, 05:25:08 AM »
Logged
Quote from: Ævan on August 11, 2013, 01:18:20 PM
I'm going to side with the white supremacists.
?

roadhumper

  • 32
  • +0/-0
Re: Do flat earthers recognise attraction between mass?
« Reply #2 on: April 25, 2009, 05:27:04 AM »
Quote from: Robosteve on April 25, 2009, 05:25:08 AM
http://theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=19384.0

Sorry, I don't think that answers my question. All I need is a yes or a no.

Thanks!
Logged
*

Parsifal

  • Official Member
  • 36019
  • +0/-0
  • Bendy Light specialist
Re: Do flat earthers recognise attraction between mass?
« Reply #3 on: April 25, 2009, 05:36:22 AM »
Quote from: roadhumper on April 25, 2009, 05:27:04 AM
Sorry, I don't think that answers my question. All I need is a yes or a no.

Thanks!

Some do, some don't. Those who do generally refer to it as "gravitation", however.
Logged
Quote from: Ævan on August 11, 2013, 01:18:20 PM
I'm going to side with the white supremacists.
?

roadhumper

  • 32
  • +0/-0
Re: Do flat earthers recognise attraction between mass?
« Reply #4 on: April 25, 2009, 05:46:18 AM »
Quote from: Robosteve on April 25, 2009, 05:36:22 AM
Quote from: roadhumper on April 25, 2009, 05:27:04 AM
Sorry, I don't think that answers my question. All I need is a yes or a no.

Thanks!

Some do, some don't. Those who do generally refer to it as "gravitation", however.

I don't understand. Is there no concise flat earth theory which either recognises mass attraction or rejects it?
Logged
*

Parsifal

  • Official Member
  • 36019
  • +0/-0
  • Bendy Light specialist
Re: Do flat earthers recognise attraction between mass?
« Reply #5 on: April 25, 2009, 05:49:37 AM »
Quote from: roadhumper on April 25, 2009, 05:46:18 AM
I don't understand. Is there no concise flat earth theory which either recognises mass attraction or rejects it?

There are several different Flat Earth models. Some say that the Earth is infinite, others that it has an edge. Some claim that light travels in straight lines, others believe that it bends upwards. One of the things that isn't agreed upon by all Flat Earthers is whether masses attract each other; some of us (including myself) believe in gravitation as described by General Relativity, but there are those who feel that masses do not attract one another.
Logged
Quote from: Ævan on August 11, 2013, 01:18:20 PM
I'm going to side with the white supremacists.
?

roadhumper

  • 32
  • +0/-0
Re: Do flat earthers recognise attraction between mass?
« Reply #6 on: April 25, 2009, 06:10:18 AM »
Quote from: Robosteve on April 25, 2009, 05:49:37 AM
Quote from: roadhumper on April 25, 2009, 05:46:18 AM
I don't understand. Is there no concise flat earth theory which either recognises mass attraction or rejects it?

There are several different Flat Earth models. Some say that the Earth is infinite, others that it has an edge. Some claim that light travels in straight lines, others believe that it bends upwards. One of the things that isn't agreed upon by all Flat Earthers is whether masses attract each other; some of us (including myself) believe in gravitation as described by General Relativity, but there are those who feel that masses do not attract one another.

Wow. Sounds like an inconsistent mess to me.
Logged
*

Parsifal

  • Official Member
  • 36019
  • +0/-0
  • Bendy Light specialist
Re: Do flat earthers recognise attraction between mass?
« Reply #7 on: April 25, 2009, 06:12:07 AM »
Quote from: roadhumper on April 25, 2009, 06:10:18 AM
Wow. Sounds like an inconsistent mess to me.

Yeah. RET is so much more consistent, what with General Relativity and Quantum Mechanics being totally compatible with each other and everything.
Logged
Quote from: Ævan on August 11, 2013, 01:18:20 PM
I'm going to side with the white supremacists.
?

roadhumper

  • 32
  • +0/-0
Re: Do flat earthers recognise attraction between mass?
« Reply #8 on: April 25, 2009, 06:14:49 AM »
Quote from: Robosteve on April 25, 2009, 06:12:07 AM
Yeah. RET is so much more consistent, what with General Relativity and Quantum Mechanics being totally compatible with each other and everything.

I suspect there's a pretty big gulf between trying to define whats happening at a subatomic level, and trying to define whats easily observable all around us.

But feel free to keep making false analogies. Its funny.
Logged
*

Parsifal

  • Official Member
  • 36019
  • +0/-0
  • Bendy Light specialist
Re: Do flat earthers recognise attraction between mass?
« Reply #9 on: April 25, 2009, 06:17:48 AM »
Quote from: roadhumper on April 25, 2009, 06:14:49 AM
I suspect there's a pretty big gulf between trying to define whats happening at a subatomic level, and trying to define whats easily observable all around us.

Since when is the attraction between masses "easily observable all around us"?
Logged
Quote from: Ævan on August 11, 2013, 01:18:20 PM
I'm going to side with the white supremacists.
*

Roundy the Truthinessist

  • Flat Earth TheFLAMETHROWER!
  • The Elder Ones
  • 26966
  • +0/-0
  • I'm the boss.
Re: Do flat earthers recognise attraction between mass?
« Reply #10 on: April 25, 2009, 10:47:52 AM »
I guess he didn't have an answer to that one.  :(
Logged
Quote from: wise on August 21, 2018, 11:47:45 PM
Where did you educate the biology, in toulet?
?

rrenaissancemann

  • 27
  • +0/-0
Re: Do flat earthers recognise attraction between mass?
« Reply #11 on: April 25, 2009, 12:26:49 PM »
Jump off a building.  I assure you that you will easily observe the attraction of mass.
Logged
*

Parsifal

  • Official Member
  • 36019
  • +0/-0
  • Bendy Light specialist
Re: Do flat earthers recognise attraction between mass?
« Reply #12 on: April 25, 2009, 12:29:01 PM »
Quote from: rrenaissancemann on April 25, 2009, 12:26:49 PM
Jump off a building.  I assure you that you will easily observe the attraction of mass.

How? I don't know about you, but I don't feel as though I'm being accelerated when in freefall. All I see is the Earth accelerating up towards me.
Logged
Quote from: Ævan on August 11, 2013, 01:18:20 PM
I'm going to side with the white supremacists.
?

roadhumper

  • 32
  • +0/-0
Re: Do flat earthers recognise attraction between mass?
« Reply #13 on: April 25, 2009, 01:09:30 PM »
Quote from: Robosteve on April 25, 2009, 06:17:48 AM
Quote from: roadhumper on April 25, 2009, 06:14:49 AM
I suspect there's a pretty big gulf between trying to define whats happening at a subatomic level, and trying to define whats easily observable all around us.

Since when is the attraction between masses "easily observable all around us"?

Look at the moon, the sun, the stars (Castor is pretty interesting) and the tides.

The question was one of consistency, and the lack of consistency in flat earth theory. There is no inconsistency in RET. It is universally accepted that an attraction exists between masses. It is universally accepted that the earth is spherical.
Logged
*

Parsifal

  • Official Member
  • 36019
  • +0/-0
  • Bendy Light specialist
Re: Do flat earthers recognise attraction between mass?
« Reply #14 on: April 26, 2009, 12:17:51 AM »
Logged
Quote from: Ævan on August 11, 2013, 01:18:20 PM
I'm going to side with the white supremacists.
*

markjo

  • Content Nazi
  • 45085
  • +87/-119
Re: Do flat earthers recognise attraction between mass?
« Reply #15 on: April 26, 2009, 06:07:06 AM »
Logged
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.
*

Raist

  • The Elder Ones
  • 30499
  • +0/-0
  • The cat in the Matrix
Re: Do flat earthers recognise attraction between mass?
« Reply #16 on: April 26, 2009, 06:25:55 AM »
Quote from: markjo on April 26, 2009, 06:07:06 AM
Quote from: Robosteve on April 26, 2009, 12:17:51 AM
Quote from: roadhumper on April 25, 2009, 01:09:30 PM
There is no inconsistency in RET.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_mechanics#Relativity_and_quantum_mechanics

Do Relativity and Quantum Mechanics disagree on the size of the earth?

Why yes. Quantum mechanics imply it is every conceivable mass from 0 to infinite.
Logged
?

munkirench

  • 231
  • +0/-0
Re: Do flat earthers recognise attraction between mass?
« Reply #17 on: April 26, 2009, 10:31:40 AM »
Where are you people getting the idea that Quantum Mechanics and General Relativity are exclusive?  They are absolutely NOT exclusive... they do NOT contradict each other.  The problem is in unifying them.  That is, they do not explain each other, and they do not explicitly support each other, but they do NOT preclude each other.

And no, quantum mechanics does not "imply [the earth] is every conceivable mass from 0 to infinite."
« Last Edit: April 26, 2009, 10:36:29 AM by munkirench »
Logged
When I look out my window, I see exactly what RET predicts.
*

markjo

  • Content Nazi
  • 45085
  • +87/-119
Re: Do flat earthers recognise attraction between mass?
« Reply #18 on: April 26, 2009, 10:54:15 AM »
Quote from: Raist on April 26, 2009, 06:25:55 AM
Quote from: markjo on April 26, 2009, 06:07:06 AM
Quote from: Robosteve on April 26, 2009, 12:17:51 AM
Quote from: roadhumper on April 25, 2009, 01:09:30 PM
There is no inconsistency in RET.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_mechanics#Relativity_and_quantum_mechanics

Do Relativity and Quantum Mechanics disagree on the size of the earth?

Why yes. Quantum mechanics imply it is every conceivable mass from 0 to infinite.

I'm sorry bit I'm not really that up on QM.  Could you please explain why QM would imply that?  I thought that QM was all about probabilities on the subatomic scale that averaged out at the macroscopic scale.
Logged
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.
*

Raist

  • The Elder Ones
  • 30499
  • +0/-0
  • The cat in the Matrix
Re: Do flat earthers recognise attraction between mass?
« Reply #19 on: April 26, 2009, 01:44:39 PM »
Quote from: markjo on April 26, 2009, 10:54:15 AM
Quote from: Raist on April 26, 2009, 06:25:55 AM
Quote from: markjo on April 26, 2009, 06:07:06 AM
Quote from: Robosteve on April 26, 2009, 12:17:51 AM
Quote from: roadhumper on April 25, 2009, 01:09:30 PM
There is no inconsistency in RET.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_mechanics#Relativity_and_quantum_mechanics

Do Relativity and Quantum Mechanics disagree on the size of the earth?

Why yes. Quantum mechanics imply it is every conceivable mass from 0 to infinite.

I'm sorry bit I'm not really that up on QM.  Could you please explain why QM would imply that?  I thought that QM was all about probabilities on the subatomic scale that averaged out at the macroscopic scale.

It's simply an implication of the infinite universes spawned by QM.
Logged
*

Raist

  • The Elder Ones
  • 30499
  • +0/-0
  • The cat in the Matrix
Re: Do flat earthers recognise attraction between mass?
« Reply #20 on: April 26, 2009, 01:46:19 PM »
Quote from: munkirench on April 26, 2009, 10:31:40 AM
Where are you people getting the idea that Quantum Mechanics and General Relativity are exclusive?  They are absolutely NOT exclusive... they do NOT contradict each other.  The problem is in unifying them.  That is, they do not explain each other, and they do not explicitly support each other, but they do NOT preclude each other.

And no, quantum mechanics does not "imply [the earth] is every conceivable mass from 0 to infinite."


And what again happens when you try to unify them?

They're both flawed and incorrect and new theories will replace them. We haven't even touched gravity on a macro scale yet. That'll be a nice slap to the balls for physics.
Logged
*

markjo

  • Content Nazi
  • 45085
  • +87/-119
Re: Do flat earthers recognise attraction between mass?
« Reply #21 on: April 26, 2009, 02:01:20 PM »
Quote from: Raist on April 26, 2009, 01:44:39 PM
Quote from: markjo on April 26, 2009, 10:54:15 AM
Quote from: Raist on April 26, 2009, 06:25:55 AM
Quote from: markjo on April 26, 2009, 06:07:06 AM
Quote from: Robosteve on April 26, 2009, 12:17:51 AM
Quote from: roadhumper on April 25, 2009, 01:09:30 PM
There is no inconsistency in RET.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_mechanics#Relativity_and_quantum_mechanics

Do Relativity and Quantum Mechanics disagree on the size of the earth?

Why yes. Quantum mechanics imply it is every conceivable mass from 0 to infinite.

I'm sorry bit I'm not really that up on QM.  Could you please explain why QM would imply that?  I thought that QM was all about probabilities on the subatomic scale that averaged out at the macroscopic scale.

It's simply an implication of the infinite universes spawned by QM.

I thought that infinite universes was M theory.  Doesn't QM say that there are infinite possibilities, but they must collapse into a singe reality when observed?  Sorry, I'm not trying to troll you or anything, but I not kidding when I say that I'm not really up on the finer points of some of these theories.
« Last Edit: April 26, 2009, 02:03:33 PM by markjo »
Logged
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.
*

Raist

  • The Elder Ones
  • 30499
  • +0/-0
  • The cat in the Matrix
Re: Do flat earthers recognise attraction between mass?
« Reply #22 on: April 26, 2009, 02:05:36 PM »
Quote from: markjo on April 26, 2009, 02:01:20 PM
Quote from: Raist on April 26, 2009, 01:44:39 PM
Quote from: markjo on April 26, 2009, 10:54:15 AM
Quote from: Raist on April 26, 2009, 06:25:55 AM
Quote from: markjo on April 26, 2009, 06:07:06 AM
Quote from: Robosteve on April 26, 2009, 12:17:51 AM
Quote from: roadhumper on April 25, 2009, 01:09:30 PM
There is no inconsistency in RET.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_mechanics#Relativity_and_quantum_mechanics

Do Relativity and Quantum Mechanics disagree on the size of the earth?

Why yes. Quantum mechanics imply it is every conceivable mass from 0 to infinite.

I'm sorry bit I'm not really that up on QM.  Could you please explain why QM would imply that?  I thought that QM was all about probabilities on the subatomic scale that averaged out at the macroscopic scale.

It's simply an implication of the infinite universes spawned by QM.

I thought that infinite universes was M theory.  Doesn't QM say that there are infinite possibilities, but they must collapse into a singe reality when observed?  Sorry, I'm not trying to troll you or anything, but I not kidding when I say that I'm not really up on the finer points of some of these theories.

Many worlds interpretation is one interpretation of quantum theory but I really was just trolling about them disagreeing on the mass of the earth. I'd assume they are identical. (except maybe different definitions of the cause of mass.)
Logged
*

markjo

  • Content Nazi
  • 45085
  • +87/-119
Re: Do flat earthers recognise attraction between mass?
« Reply #23 on: April 26, 2009, 02:44:39 PM »
Quote from: Raist on April 26, 2009, 02:05:36 PM
Quote from: markjo on April 26, 2009, 02:01:20 PM
Quote from: Raist on April 26, 2009, 01:44:39 PM
Quote from: markjo on April 26, 2009, 10:54:15 AM
Quote from: Raist on April 26, 2009, 06:25:55 AM
Quote from: markjo on April 26, 2009, 06:07:06 AM
Quote from: Robosteve on April 26, 2009, 12:17:51 AM
Quote from: roadhumper on April 25, 2009, 01:09:30 PM
There is no inconsistency in RET.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_mechanics#Relativity_and_quantum_mechanics

Do Relativity and Quantum Mechanics disagree on the size of the earth?

Why yes. Quantum mechanics imply it is every conceivable mass from 0 to infinite.

I'm sorry bit I'm not really that up on QM.  Could you please explain why QM would imply that?  I thought that QM was all about probabilities on the subatomic scale that averaged out at the macroscopic scale.

It's simply an implication of the infinite universes spawned by QM.

I thought that infinite universes was M theory.  Doesn't QM say that there are infinite possibilities, but they must collapse into a singe reality when observed?  Sorry, I'm not trying to troll you or anything, but I not kidding when I say that I'm not really up on the finer points of some of these theories.

Many worlds interpretation is one interpretation of quantum theory but I really was just trolling about them disagreeing on the mass of the earth. I'd assume they are identical. (except maybe different definitions of the cause of mass.)

Pretty much what I figured.  Although I think that it's pretty bad form for a mod to troll the serious discussion boards.
Logged
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.
*

Raist

  • The Elder Ones
  • 30499
  • +0/-0
  • The cat in the Matrix
Re: Do flat earthers recognise attraction between mass?
« Reply #24 on: April 26, 2009, 02:46:56 PM »
Quote from: markjo on April 26, 2009, 02:44:39 PM
Quote from: Raist on April 26, 2009, 02:05:36 PM
Quote from: markjo on April 26, 2009, 02:01:20 PM
Quote from: Raist on April 26, 2009, 01:44:39 PM
Quote from: markjo on April 26, 2009, 10:54:15 AM
Quote from: Raist on April 26, 2009, 06:25:55 AM
Quote from: markjo on April 26, 2009, 06:07:06 AM
Quote from: Robosteve on April 26, 2009, 12:17:51 AM
Quote from: roadhumper on April 25, 2009, 01:09:30 PM
There is no inconsistency in RET.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_mechanics#Relativity_and_quantum_mechanics

Do Relativity and Quantum Mechanics disagree on the size of the earth?

Why yes. Quantum mechanics imply it is every conceivable mass from 0 to infinite.

I'm sorry bit I'm not really that up on QM.  Could you please explain why QM would imply that?  I thought that QM was all about probabilities on the subatomic scale that averaged out at the macroscopic scale.

It's simply an implication of the infinite universes spawned by QM.

I thought that infinite universes was M theory.  Doesn't QM say that there are infinite possibilities, but they must collapse into a singe reality when observed?  Sorry, I'm not trying to troll you or anything, but I not kidding when I say that I'm not really up on the finer points of some of these theories.

Many worlds interpretation is one interpretation of quantum theory but I really was just trolling about them disagreeing on the mass of the earth. I'd assume they are identical. (except maybe different definitions of the cause of mass.)

Pretty much what I figured.  Although I think that it's pretty bad form for a mod to troll the serious discussion boards.

On any other forum yes. Though I'm fairly sure there is a long tradition of it being done. Have you read engy's debates on gravity?
Logged
*

Jack

  • Administrator
  • 5180
  • +2/-6
Re: Do flat earthers recognise attraction between mass?
« Reply #25 on: April 26, 2009, 04:13:00 PM »
Quote from: munkirench on April 26, 2009, 10:31:40 AM
They do NOT contradict each other.  The problem is in unifying them.
If they don't contradict each other, then it wouldn't be a problem to unify them. Physicists are trying very hard to create Quantum Gravity, but without success. The purpose of Quantum Gravity is to be self-consistent (no contradictions) and be able to explain both microscopic and macroscopic levels without having to rely on two theories (QM on small scale, GR on large scale).

Quote from: Raist on April 26, 2009, 01:46:19 PM
We haven't even touched gravity on a macro scale yet. That'll be a nice slap to the balls for physics.
You mean microscopic, which is an attempt with Quantum Gravity? We've already explained gravity/gravitation at the macroscopic level using General Relativity.
Logged
?

astrofan

  • 48
  • +0/-0
Re: Do flat earthers recognise attraction between mass?
« Reply #26 on: April 26, 2009, 04:20:24 PM »
Quote from: Raist on April 26, 2009, 06:25:55 AM
Quantum mechanics imply it is every conceivable mass from 0 to infinite.

Epic.
Logged
*

Raist

  • The Elder Ones
  • 30499
  • +0/-0
  • The cat in the Matrix
Re: Do flat earthers recognise attraction between mass?
« Reply #27 on: April 26, 2009, 04:22:12 PM »
Quote from: Jack on April 26, 2009, 04:13:00 PM
Quote from: munkirench on April 26, 2009, 10:31:40 AM
They do NOT contradict each other.  The problem is in unifying them.
If they don't contradict each other, then it wouldn't be a problem to unify them. Physicists are trying very hard to create Quantum Gravity, but without success. The purpose of Quantum Gravity is to be self-consistent (no contradictions) and be able to explain both microscopic and macroscopic levels without having to rely on two theories (QM on small scale, GR on large scale).

Quote from: Raist on April 26, 2009, 01:46:19 PM
We haven't even touched gravity on a macro scale yet. That'll be a nice slap to the balls for physics.
You mean microscopic, which is an attempt with Quantum Gravity? We've already explained gravity/gravitation at the macroscopic level using General Relativity.

We've started on that, they are still using the filler of dark matter to explain why galaxies work the way they do. All evidence points to a lack of understanding of gravity on a macro level. (I'm talking galaxy sized macro, not solar system) I looked for the article on it yet when you type in the terms "flaw gravity and macro" up pops creationist websites refuting evolution.
Logged
*

Jack

  • Administrator
  • 5180
  • +2/-6
Re: Do flat earthers recognise attraction between mass?
« Reply #28 on: April 26, 2009, 04:24:27 PM »
Quote from: Raist on April 26, 2009, 04:22:12 PM
We've started on that, they are still using the filler of dark matter to explain why galaxies work the way they do. All evidence points to a lack of understanding of gravity on a macro level. (I'm talking galaxy sized macro, not solar system)
I guess I see your point now.
Logged
?

astrofan

  • 48
  • +0/-0
Re: Do flat earthers recognise attraction between mass?
« Reply #29 on: April 26, 2009, 04:31:01 PM »
Quote from: Raist on April 26, 2009, 04:22:12 PM
We've started on that, they are still using the filler of dark matter to explain why galaxies work the way they do. All evidence points to a lack of understanding of gravity on a macro level. (I'm talking galaxy sized macro, not solar system) I looked for the article on it yet when you type in the terms "flaw gravity and macro" up pops creationist websites refuting evolution.

The fact about dark matter is that the laws of gravitation (attraction between masses) still apply. Masses can still be observed in orbit. The difficulty comes in being unable to observe the matter itself. Its certainly a lot more consistent with the ideas on this site...
Logged
Pages: [1] 2 3   Go Up
« previous next »