Discussion on Gravity

  • 119 Replies
  • 29382 Views
Discussion on Gravity
« on: September 11, 2009, 12:31:24 AM »
In Round Earth theory it is stated that people magically stick to the earth. Ask any round earther why this is and he will simply shrug and respond, ?Gravity.? If you ask, ?What is gravity?? He'll likely respond, ?It is what keeps us from falling off of the earth.? This is very clearly circular logic. We stick to the earth because of gravity, and gravity is what makes us stick to the earth. Gravity as a force actually doesn't exist in either round earth theory or flat earth theory. Gravity is just a word, like zebra-horsintime, and few people actually understand what it supposedly means ? if they did, they would realize it doesn't make sense. It doesn't add up. One could just as easily respond that ?zebra-horsintime? is what keeps us stuck to the earth. It doesn't mean anything. It's just a word.
Not quite. It is actually accurately measurable. And it has been determined that it gets weaker with height and that the moon influences it. Measurements are so precise they can actually determine the effect of large terrestrial objects (like a mountain, while being in a tunnel). UA theory can not explain this.
Gravity is just a formula, that is observationally determined and experimentally proven (as most of the physics). The nature of it and it's source is not known.

I have gone to quite a bit of trouble to type this whole thing up for you, so I would very much appreciate it if you would show a bit of gratitude... round earthers on this site can often be pretty rude and demanding, and then wonder why no flat earthers want to answer their questions, coming to the bold conclusion that they are ?afraid? to answer.
Thank you. The existence of this forum should have already proven your interest in explaining FET. Round earthers have so many questions because there are so many problems, and often your solutions bring other problems or a more serious one. You would expect it to go like "The earth is round, there's a horizon. / No, it's just a perspective illusion. / Ok, you're right, the earth is flat".

*

W

  • 2293
Discussion on Gravity
« Reply #1 on: September 11, 2009, 12:42:20 AM »
In Round Earth theory it is stated that people magically stick to the earth. Ask any round earther why this is and he will simply shrug and respond, ?Gravity.? If you ask, ?What is gravity?? He'll likely respond, ?It is what keeps us from falling off of the earth.? This is very clearly circular logic. We stick to the earth because of gravity, and gravity is what makes us stick to the earth. Gravity as a force actually doesn't exist in either round earth theory or flat earth theory. Gravity is just a word, like zebra-horsintime, and few people actually understand what it supposedly means ? if they did, they would realize it doesn't make sense. It doesn't add up. One could just as easily respond that ?zebra-horsintime? is what keeps us stuck to the earth. It doesn't mean anything. It's just a word.
Not quite. It is actually accurately measurable. And it has been determined that it gets weaker with height and that the moon influences it. Measurements are so precise they can actually determine the effect of large terrestrial objects (like a mountain, while being in a tunnel). UA theory can not explain this.
Gravity is just a formula, that is observationally determined and experimentally proven (as most of the physics). The nature of it and it's source is not known.

Interesting, but gravity was just created to explain why we don't drift away from the earth.

I have gone to quite a bit of trouble to type this whole thing up for you, so I would very much appreciate it if you would show a bit of gratitude... round earthers on this site can often be pretty rude and demanding, and then wonder why no flat earthers want to answer their questions, coming to the bold conclusion that they are ?afraid? to answer.
Thank you. The existence of this forum should have already proven your interest in explaining FET. Round earthers have so many questions because there are so many problems, and often your solutions bring other problems or a more serious one. You would expect it to go like "The earth is round, there's a horizon. / No, it's just a perspective illusion. / Ok, you're right, the earth is flat".
[/quote]

Heh, people can be pretty stubborn in their viewpoints. I think a lot of people have trouble accepting the idea of a flat earth because it's been reiterated to them over and over that the earth is supposedly a sphere. In any case, I'm glad you appreciated it... you cannot imagine how long that took me! Haha.
If you say that the earth is flat, you are destroying centuries of evolution.

Discussion on Gravity
« Reply #2 on: September 11, 2009, 04:36:37 AM »
In Round Earth theory it is stated that people magically stick to the earth. Ask any round earther why this is and he will simply shrug and respond, ?Gravity.? If you ask, ?What is gravity?? He'll likely respond, ?It is what keeps us from falling off of the earth.? This is very clearly circular logic. We stick to the earth because of gravity, and gravity is what makes us stick to the earth. Gravity as a force actually doesn't exist in either round earth theory or flat earth theory. Gravity is just a word, like zebra-horsintime, and few people actually understand what it supposedly means ? if they did, they would realize it doesn't make sense. It doesn't add up. One could just as easily respond that ?zebra-horsintime? is what keeps us stuck to the earth. It doesn't mean anything. It's just a word.

A man's ignorance to the ways of gravity doesn't mean that gravity doesn't exist. The common man's ignorance has nothing to do with the validity of a claim. For instance, I might claim that airplanes are impossible; they don't make any sense. They're too heavy to stay floating for hours. You ask a man how an airplane gets enough lift to stay up, he might say "I don't know." But the fact that he hasn't given much thought to this before doesn't cast any shadow of doubt on the notion that airplane flight exists. What should cast a shadow of doubt on any scientific theory is lack of observational evidence. We can't say this is the case about gravity; it postulates far fewer ad hocs than FET does; far, far fewer. And it's explanatory power is enormously observable and apparent.

We don't stick to the earth magically. We stick to the earth naturally, because all bodies tend to attract each other. If the bodies have net charges, and their net charges are opposite, they will attract each other much, much faster than via gravity alone. If the bodies have net charges, and their net charges are the same, then they will repel each other with much, much more force than that of the gravity between them. At the atomic scale, things get more complicated, obviously, but this is the gist of all the forces that we experience on a daily basis; electricity and gravity. Gravity was resolved by Einstein in the early 1900s; electricity by Maxwell in the 1800s.

You have suggested that if the average man did understand the technical ways of gravity, he would know that it did not make any sense. This is preposterous. Are you claiming that all expert physicists agree that gravity is nonsensical and magical? And yet they still rely on its predictions, especially people who work as astronomers? Out of the many physics teachers/professors I've had, none describe gravity as "magical" or "nonexistent."

*

W

  • 2293
Discussion on Gravity
« Reply #3 on: September 11, 2009, 09:04:59 AM »
I see your point, pseudo, but it still stands that gravity was created to explain certain phenomena, and in FET it is not necessary to explain any phenomena... gravity as a force doesn't exist in either theory.

I think physicists would be right if their initial assumptions (that the earth is round, for one) were. That is, they are thinking about things logically based on those assumptions and coming to what could be logical conclusions based on those assumptions.

Teachers just parrot what they're told to.
If you say that the earth is flat, you are destroying centuries of evolution.

*

Supertails

  • 4387
  • what do i put here
Discussion on Gravity
« Reply #4 on: September 13, 2009, 12:54:05 AM »
The UA was invented to explain what gravity explains.

>_>
Recently listened to:


?

Tristan

  • 180
  • Bendy Earth Proponent
Discussion on Gravity
« Reply #5 on: September 15, 2009, 06:48:36 AM »
I see your point, pseudo, but it still stands that gravity was created to explain certain phenomena, and in FET it is not necessary to explain any phenomena... gravity as a force doesn't exist in either theory.

No, I'm pretty sure gravity exists as a force, along with the weak force, the strong force and the electromagnetic force. It is a simple, complete theory where all the proposed ramifications can and have been experimentally verified. Saying "gravity was created to explain certain phenomena" is like saying "rain was created to explain water falling from the sky". Gravity (that is, the fact that people's feet stay on the ground and don't float away) has always been with us, the only difference is that now we have created a mathematical formula with which to accurately study and predict its effects.

In FET you've had to propose not one, but several mechanisms to account for the effects of gravity, none of which are sound or coherent.

Most importantly, when the laws of gravity were first understood, it allowed for scientists to extrapolate those laws to make predictions and conclusions that were later confirmed to be true. Which is why, centuries later, we still use the same theory of gravity but flat earth theory has had to be constantly changed in order to retroactively conform it to phenomena it failed to account for.
Image used in Avatar:
"Duck Dodgers™ in the 24&1/2th Century"
© Warner Brothers Animation
All Rights Reserved

*

W

  • 2293
Discussion on Gravity
« Reply #6 on: September 15, 2009, 12:43:58 PM »
You are right in your analogy, Tristan. The theory of rain was created to account for the water falling from the sky. If there were no water falling from the sky, however, one could reasonably decide that such a theory was really not necessary. And this is how it is in FET. The only one mechanism in FET is the acceleration of the earth. The only reason that RET doesn't have many conflicting mechanisms is that there actually isn't one - gravity is just a word and all of the various theories in RET as to why we don't float away from the earth are called by that word. But gravity as a force doesn't actually exist, in either RET or FET.
If you say that the earth is flat, you are destroying centuries of evolution.

Discussion on Gravity
« Reply #7 on: September 15, 2009, 01:06:55 PM »
You are right in your analogy, Tristan. The theory of rain was created to account for the water falling from the sky. If there were no water falling from the sky, however, one could reasonably decide that such a theory was really not necessary. And this is how it is in FET. The only one mechanism in FET is the acceleration of the earth. The only reason that RET doesn't have many conflicting mechanisms is that there actually isn't one - gravity is just a word and all of the various theories in RET as to why we don't float away from the earth are called by that word. But gravity as a force doesn't actually exist, in either RET or FET.
But i thought that certain celestial objects such as planets and the moon and sun had gravity, although the earth doesn't.  So what causes this gravity these objects have if not the mass of the objects, since the earth does not have gravity?  Also what keeps these objects at a constant height above the earth rather than the earth running into them?

?

Crustinator

  • 7813
  • Bamhammer horror!
Discussion on Gravity
« Reply #8 on: September 15, 2009, 01:12:23 PM »
Quote from: W
EDIT: I wrote this in a word document then copied and pasted it. Please excuse any missing characters. I do not have this problem on any other forum but, hey, TFES is special.

No you didn't. You copy pastad from ENaG.

http://www.sacred-texts.com/earth/za/index.htm

Even for you this is lame shit. Post a link if necessary.

*

W

  • 2293
Discussion on Gravity
« Reply #9 on: September 15, 2009, 03:52:09 PM »
But i thought that certain celestial objects such as planets and the moon and sun had gravity, although the earth doesn't.  So what causes this gravity these objects have if not the mass of the objects, since the earth does not have gravity?  Also what keeps these objects at a constant height above the earth rather than the earth running into them?

They accelerate with the earth.

No you didn't. You copy pastad from ENaG.

http://www.sacred-texts.com/earth/za/index.htm

Even for you this is lame shit. Post a link if necessary.

Part of what I wrote was quoted from Earth Not A Globe, and clearly cited as being from such. There is no point in reinventing the wheel. But the rest of it was my own work. Perhaps next time you are going to make a baseless accusation, you should actually read the post to prevent such accidents from occurring, especially if you are going to be so rude about it.
If you say that the earth is flat, you are destroying centuries of evolution.

Discussion on Gravity
« Reply #10 on: September 15, 2009, 04:20:36 PM »
What causes them to accelerate with the earth?

*

W

  • 2293
Discussion on Gravity
« Reply #11 on: September 15, 2009, 04:46:26 PM »
What causes them to accelerate with the earth?

I'm not sure, but I suppose this goes back to the "big question." God, Big Bang, something else; who's to say?

Part of what I wrote was quoted from Earth Not A Globe, and clearly cited as being from such.

No the majority, four spammy posts worth, were cut from ENaG.

You're posts are better when they're just one word answers. Srsly.

Your posts are better when... oh, wait, your posts always suck.

http://tinyurl.com/pvbo2b
If you say that the earth is flat, you are destroying centuries of evolution.

Discussion on Gravity
« Reply #12 on: September 15, 2009, 05:00:49 PM »
I'm not sure, but I suppose this goes back to the "big question." God, Big Bang, something else; who's to say?
So you don't know why they stay up there, but a theory that suggests that gravity (which is explained) causes planets to orbit the sun and such makes less sense than that?

*

W

  • 2293
Discussion on Gravity
« Reply #13 on: September 15, 2009, 05:03:39 PM »
So you don't know why they stay up there, but a theory that suggests that gravity (which is explained) causes planets to orbit the sun and such makes less sense than that?

What causes gravity?
If you say that the earth is flat, you are destroying centuries of evolution.

Discussion on Gravity
« Reply #14 on: September 15, 2009, 05:16:59 PM »
General relativity explains it.  You can read up on it for a better explanation that i can probably give off of the top of my head or if you would like me to i can try to explain it.

*

W

  • 2293
Discussion on Gravity
« Reply #15 on: September 15, 2009, 05:41:54 PM »
What causes general relativity?
If you say that the earth is flat, you are destroying centuries of evolution.

Discussion on Gravity
« Reply #16 on: September 15, 2009, 05:51:32 PM »
What causes general relativity?
It's not caused, it's a theory.  Like i said, i can try my hand at explaining it to you or you can read up on it.

*

W

  • 2293
Discussion on Gravity
« Reply #17 on: September 15, 2009, 06:23:22 PM »
What causes general relativity?
It's not caused, it's a theory.  Like i said, i can try my hand at explaining it to you or you can read up on it.

In that case, they are not caused to accelerate with the earth. It's a theory.
If you say that the earth is flat, you are destroying centuries of evolution.

Discussion on Gravity
« Reply #18 on: September 15, 2009, 06:33:57 PM »
What causes general relativity?
It's not caused, it's a theory.  Like i said, i can try my hand at explaining it to you or you can read up on it.

In that case, they are not caused to accelerate with the earth. It's a theory.
So the earth would crash into them?  Just because something is a theory doesn't mean that it doesn't explain something, the theory of general relativity explains something, but it is not caused really, it explains what causes things.  Read up on it, and i honestly have a hard time believing you worked at nasa and know nothing about general relativity.

*

markjo

  • Content Nazi
  • The Elder Ones
  • 42529
Discussion on Gravity
« Reply #19 on: September 15, 2009, 07:07:10 PM »
But i thought that certain celestial objects such as planets and the moon and sun had gravity, although the earth doesn't.  So what causes this gravity these objects have if not the mass of the objects, since the earth does not have gravity?  Also what keeps these objects at a constant height above the earth rather than the earth running into them?

They accelerate with the earth.

No you didn't. You copy pastad from ENaG.

http://www.sacred-texts.com/earth/za/index.htm

Even for you this is lame shit. Post a link if necessary.

Part of what I wrote was quoted from Earth Not A Globe, and clearly cited as being from such. There is no point in reinventing the wheel. But the rest of it was my own work. Perhaps next time you are going to make a baseless accusation, you should actually read the post to prevent such accidents from occurring, especially if you are going to be so rude about it.

It's customary to cite passages taken from other people's works.  Otherwise it's known as plagiarism.
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.

*

W

  • 2293
Discussion on Gravity
« Reply #20 on: September 15, 2009, 08:17:13 PM »
It's customary to cite passages taken from other people's works.  Otherwise it's known as plagiarism.

Part of what I wrote was quoted from Earth Not A Globe, and clearly cited as being from such.
If you say that the earth is flat, you are destroying centuries of evolution.

*

markjo

  • Content Nazi
  • The Elder Ones
  • 42529
Discussion on Gravity
« Reply #21 on: September 15, 2009, 09:21:46 PM »
It's customary to cite passages taken from other people's works.  Otherwise it's known as plagiarism.

Part of what I wrote was quoted from Earth Not A Globe, and clearly cited as being from such.

It was cited as being from your favorite book.  I didn't see anywhere in those posts where you mentioned title or author.  Try that on a research paper and see what it gets you.  I know that you know how to use the quote function on this board.  I suggest that you use it to avoid any possible confusion in the future.
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.

*

shades

  • 175
  • Occam's Razor is not BS. Let's move on.
Discussion on Gravity
« Reply #22 on: September 16, 2009, 01:53:35 PM »
Chemistry was created to explain why chemicals react the way they do

Astronomy was created to explain the way celestial bodies act the way they do.

etc.



Really W? Also I liked the part in your essay about proving the earth flatwhere you started with the whole "go outside and look at the ground," because a bias towards FET is required to get through the bloody thing.
It's not spam, it's my catchphrase!

*

W

  • 2293
Discussion on Gravity
« Reply #23 on: September 16, 2009, 06:14:45 PM »
Really W? Also I liked the part in your essay about proving the earth flatwhere you started with the whole "go outside and look at the ground," because a bias towards FET is required to get through the bloody thing.

My intention from that was to help the reader to work past the biases he already holds to examine things from a more objective perspective.
If you say that the earth is flat, you are destroying centuries of evolution.

?

Tristan

  • 180
  • Bendy Earth Proponent
Discussion on Gravity
« Reply #24 on: September 17, 2009, 09:26:31 AM »
To W,

Whoa, dude, you've got that so arse-backwards I don't know where to start.

So how about here:

If there were no water falling from the sky, however, one could reasonably decide that such a theory was really not necessary.

Precisely. But water does fall from the sky - hence the rain theory. Similarly, people are sucked towards the ground - hence the gravity theory.

And this is how it is in FET. The only one mechanism in FET is the acceleration of the earth.

Here's where things start to go wrong. First, the difference between a mechanism and a theory is semantic. Regardless of the terminology, you can say there are two kinds of ideas - statements about things that are, and concepts about why things are the way they are. This is the problem. The "Acceleration of the Earth" concept falls into the former category. It simply states the fact that, relative to a ball in the air, the earth is accelerating to meet it.

It causes problems because it's arbitrary - it doesn't explain anything, it simply describes it. Why the earth is accelerating, along with the sun and the moon, and why other things aren't accelerating (like us and the ball) isn't defined, it's just assumed that they are because they are. Hence it's not really a theory, just a statement.

The only reason that RET doesn't have many conflicting mechanisms is that there actually isn't one...
Actually, I would have said the reason FET has so many conflicting mechanisms is that few (if any) are based on evidence or sound, testable theories. In fact, I'd say that FET is a pigsty of misappropriated scientific concepts and magic theories invented to prop up seriously flawed model of the earth.

Gravity is just a word and all of the various theories in RET as to why we don't float away from the earth are called by that word.
Again, you're arguing semantics here. Yes... gravity is a word. However, the "various theories" of gravity amount to two (Newtonian Gravity and General Relativity), and for 99.9% of calculations you need to make, they yield the same results. Newtonian Gravity is for most intents and purposes correct, it just doesn't incorporate the extra element that relativity does to make it accurate when involving huge masses and distances of space.

But gravity as a force doesn't actually exist, in either RET or FET.
Which is the difference between Newtonian gravity (which is defined as being a force) and General Relativity (which defines gravity as the result of mass distorting spacetime).

Regardless, trying to paint a picture of RET as somehow less coherent because of its use of gravity is one of the more bizarre argumentative approaches I've come across. Follow me down a little path of reasoning, if you will...

Idea: The Earth is flat.
Problem: If the Earth were flat it would collapse into a sphere under the effects of gravity.
Solution: Get rid of Gravity.
Problem: Without gravity, people would float away from the earth.
Solution: Then make it so it accelerates up constantly.
Problem: If the earth accelerated up constantly, we'd crash into the moon.
Solution: Make the moon smaller... and accelerating up too.
Problem: The Earth would crash into the sun, too.
Solution: Do the same with the sun.
Problem: Solar eclipses wouldn't happen.
Solution: Make light bendy.
Problem: The tide wouldn't happen.
Solution: Invent an anti-moon.
Problem: GPS wouldn't work.
Solution: Invent a conspiracy.
Problem: The earth would need a source of infinite energy.
Solution: Dark Energy.

... and so on. All problems you could avoid by simply accepting gravity. But then you'd have to accept a round earth, and that's just silly.
Image used in Avatar:
"Duck Dodgers™ in the 24&1/2th Century"
© Warner Brothers Animation
All Rights Reserved

*

W

  • 2293
Discussion on Gravity
« Reply #25 on: September 17, 2009, 10:10:45 AM »
To W,

Whoa, dude, you've got that so arse-backwards I don't know where to start.

I'll start... and end... with this.
If you say that the earth is flat, you are destroying centuries of evolution.

Discussion on Gravity
« Reply #26 on: September 17, 2009, 12:02:38 PM »
So you don't know why they stay up there, but a theory that suggests that gravity (which is explained) causes planets to orbit the sun and such makes less sense than that?

What causes gravity?

It's not the same thing.
"What causes gravity?" is similar to "What causes UA?", because the answer is more or less philosophical (close to why, an answer science does not seek).

On the other hand these are similar questions :
(gravity) : What determines the gravity between two objects? - Their mass and the distance between them. (this is a question of what physical properties determine objects to be pulled towards each other)
(UA) : What determines if a particle is accelerated or not ? - hell knows. (this is also a question about what physical properties do air, people, bananas, etc. have different from earth, the moon, the stars etc. that makes them accelerate or not)

*

W

  • 2293
Discussion on Gravity
« Reply #27 on: September 17, 2009, 12:21:34 PM »
If mass causes gravity, what causes mass to cause gravity?

The answer to this is the same in both RET and FET:
That's just how things occurred or were designed (depending on your belief system).
If you say that the earth is flat, you are destroying centuries of evolution.

Discussion on Gravity
« Reply #28 on: September 17, 2009, 01:34:09 PM »
If mass causes gravity, what causes mass to cause gravity?

The answer to this is the same in both RET and FET:
That's just how things occurred or were designed (depending on your belief system).

The fact that you don't understand what I said does not refute it. Suggesting you believe things were designed points to what your belief system is, and is somewhat an explanation to why you didn't understand.

First of all, what I said does not refute UA, it just states that it's somewhat a childish idea.

What is the ultimate cause of these theories we may not ever know. But we can determine their properties by experiment.
Gravity states that objects attract each other with a force equal to the product of their mass divided by the distance between the at the power of 2. As far as we experimented expectations comply with what we observed.
UA states that the whole universe accelerates at a certain rate. We know this can not be true because some objects must not do so in order to stay on earth, so far so good (although not at this level of failure some theories we rely on have been proven not to apply everywhere). The answer to what differentiates objects that get accelerated to those that do not may as well be "they were created that way". But that's childish because it seems invented without thinking of problems it implies (we know at subatomic levels that particles are identical yet some accelerate some do not, soil does not seem to accelerate yet the whole earth does, recovered asteroids behave just like other rocks yet they don't hit us at near the speed of light, the same objects fall at different rates depending on their height yet they're the same objects etc.)

*

W

  • 2293
Discussion on Gravity
« Reply #29 on: September 17, 2009, 02:01:57 PM »
The fact that you don't understand what I said does not refute it.

Ah, this old tactic again. No, I understand perfectly. I think it is you who does not understand.
If you say that the earth is flat, you are destroying centuries of evolution.