Pusher Particles (was 'you guys should be locked up')

Cryoruggie wrote:
It's perfectly logical to measure the effects of the pusher particles pushing two things being pulled together, since they shield the pusher particles between them to some extent. Since the lab objects are by necessity small, they can't shield many particles.


So I suppose if I go deep underground, there will be no gravity? LOL this gets better and better. What a great theory.


I would venture to guess that - as you near the center of a globe - then the pusher particle shielding would become more and more equalized, and the observer would feel a sense of weightlessnes.    Actually, I'd venture to guess that if you were anywhere inside a hollow spere you'd experience a feeling of weightlessnes.  
But of course, this is impossible, since we know that the Earth is not a sphere.  BUt it is a good mind-game anyway.

Cryoruggie wrote:
"...CMB stands for Cosmic Microwave Background...We refer to this radiation as a background because we see it no matter where we look. It clearly doesn't come from any nearby objects, such as stars or clouds within our Galaxy, or even from external galaxies. It is clearly a distant, "background" source of radiation. You can think of the whole Universe as being filled with this background of microwave photons. ..."


Thank you for giving me a key piece of evidence for the Big Bang. How this relates to Particle Pushers, I am not sure. Apparently you are claiming that particle pushers are just part of the universe and come from all directions? If this is the case - If I leave the earth's atmosphere, gravity towards the earth should get STRONGER right? Since there isn't all that pesky air in the way to block some particle pushers

Quite the opposite, since the shielding effect of the earth disk - as well as the air on the earth disk - becomes less the further away you get.  As the earthdisk recedes it becomes smaller to the eye, and more and more of the sky can be seen.   The sky is the source of pusher particles, the more you see the more you get pushed.  But remember that the particles come from both sides and - if the earthdisk is really far away - you get pushed on all sides by virtually identical amounts of pusher particles, so the push towards the shielding earthdisk gets less and less.

So, if you are on a plane that makes a steep dive and approaches freefall - by your theory, the plane should drop FASTER than the occupants within and the people should be pressed against the top of the plane.
By conventional theory, the occupants should experience weightlessness.

I guess all the video of THAT is fake too?  The NUMEROUS videos, performed even by amateurs.  Man the conspiracy theory just gets wider and wider.

Quite the opposite, since the shielding effect of the earth disk - as well as the air on the earth disk - becomes less the further away you get.  As the earthdisk recedes it becomes smaller to the eye, and more and more of the sky can be seen.   The sky is the source of pusher particles, the more you see the more you get pushed.  But remember that the particles come from both sides and - if the earthdisk is really far away - you get pushed on all sides by virtually identical amounts of pusher particles, so the push towards the shielding earthdisk gets less and less.

If this is the case, why would the earth or other planets be bound to the sun at all?  The sun is SO far away, that surely the shielding effect would be almost 0 by then.  If leaving the atmosphere of earth is far enough for the earth-disc's shielding effect to be negated, then the sun even given its larger size is going to have *far* less of a shielding effect on the planets, especially the distant ones.  Yet, the planets remain in almost unchanging steady orbit.  Yet another fallacy.

Cryoruggie wrote:
according to the pusher particle theory, the 10 lb weight meets the ground faster than the 1 lb weight. It's only that Galileo did not have the instrumentation to measure it accurately. Remember that the 10 LB weight shields more pusher particles than the 1 Lb weight, so the ground moves faster towards the 10 lb weight than the 1 lb weight, since there's less particles hitting it through the 10 lb weight.  


So basically, once again, you are claiming that all of modern science is wrong, and you - because "you say so" are right. If your arguments are nothing more than "they are wrong", "their instrumentation is faulty", and "Here is the truth, I know it just because" - then stop pretending you have any kind of a case.

No - all I'm saying that so far I have not read one thing - or seen one iota of proof - that pusher particles would not show the exact same effects as your mythical "gravity".  The experiments mentioned demonstrate that two masses tend to move towards each other.  Some people try to explain this by a mystical zen like "gravity force", others use simple and mundane pusher particles to explain this phenomenon.
Heck - there are so many holes in this "gravity" that people are now postulating the existence of dark matter with anti-gravity to try to explain their way out of the paradox.  So you need to rewrite your so called "law" to state that some bodies attract each other, and some bodies repell the other sort.  Sure makes a complicated "law"
Take this report that galaxies at the far edge of the universe ( a wall of course) are moving faster and faster the further away they are due to the mysterious dark matter and equally mysterius negative gravity, when it is all so easily explained by pusher particles.
As you get closer and closer to the source of the pusher particles, you get less and less of them in front of you, and more and more behind you, so you are being pushed faster and faster towards the wall.  So why complicate things with this invisible dark matter and unmeasurable darkl energy forces?  It's what happens when people try to force an obviously erroneous theory - some arrogantly call it a "law" - to fit more and more conflicting data.
Yet people have this closed minded answer "It's true because it's the "LAW" of Gravity, and anything can only be explained as being done by Gravity  because it's the law, and because my teacher told me.  And your teacher (the same one who tells you the Earth was created 4000 years and some months ago) , told you that it's Gravity.

Ohh Man. never have I seen someone's argument ripped apart so cleanly. Good job WTF. I noticed he ignored all your points and just carried on with his pusher particle theory.


Oh well. The world wouldn't be as fun without crackpots.

I'm not reading through seven pages of bullshit so someone explain how does one go around the world if the earth was flat? Would we just teleport back to the other side or what?

First of all, it is a well-known scientific principle that it is impossible to completely and utterly disprove any scientific hypothesis despite any amount of proof. Therefore, a disturbingly large amount of evidence against one is seen as disproving it.

I suppose you can still hang onto a hope that the earth is flat, as is your right as an ape-creature that is free to think what it wants, but if what you want is the truth then it's time to open your eyes.

(1) Departing boats gradually sink below the horizon, as do buildings on the shore from the viewpoint of the sailors. The word "horizon" has no meaning on a disk.

(2) "The sphericity of the earth is proved by the evidence of ... lunar eclipses," Aristotle says. "For whereas in the monthly phases of the moon the segments are of all sorts--straight, gibbous [convex], crescent--in eclipses the dividing line is always rounded. Consequently, if the eclipse is due to the interposition of the earth, the rounded line results from its spherical shape" Of course a frisbee, properly angled, would make a round shadow too. But if the frisbee rotated while the eclipse was in progress, the curvature of its shadow would change. The earth's does not.

(3) The constellations shift relative to the horizon as you move north and south around the globe, something that could only happen if you were standing on a sphere. (You may have to draw a few diagrams to convince yourself of this.) Given sufficient world travel combined with careful observation on your part, the frisbee hypothesis becomes well-nigh insupportable.

(4) When a full Moon occurs in the plane of Earth's orbit, the Moon slowly moves through Earth's shadow. Every time that shadow is seen, its edge is round. The only solid that always projects a round shadow is a sphere.

I have yet to see you people explain how seasons and daylight duration fluxuations occur.

The following is stolen from a website I found on this topic since it really isn't worth the effort to argue with idiots for very long beyond my own amusement.

If you step back and look at it,
though,what kind of world would it have to be if the Earth was flat?
Gravity doesn't function here like it does everywhere else in the solar
system, there's a huge conspiracy reaching across hundreds of years to
convince us (for no apparent reason) that the earth is round instead of
flat, the progression of the seasons, and even of day and night, are
controlled by the gods.  Eventually, a reasonable person would have to
concede that it would make a lot more sense to agree that the earth is
indeed round.

The problem we've encountered here is a lack of reason and an abundance of justification for an idea that no one but this tiny society supports.[/quote]

No - all I'm saying that so far I have not read one thing - or seen one iota of proof - that pusher particles would not show the exact same effects as your mythical "gravity".  The experiments mentioned demonstrate that two masses tend to move towards each other.  Some people try to explain this by a mystical zen like "gravity force", others use simple and mundane pusher particles to explain this phenomenon.

First of all, I'm not sure how I'm supposed to disprove anything related to "particle pushers" when it's nothing more than some vague concept who's rules you invent as you go.   It is total garbage which contradicts MANY known and observed occurances, all of which you simply dismiss when brought up.

People go underground you know.  Even very, very deep underground - physicists in particular, in order to block out high energy particles.  According to you, gravity would be less underground.  But lo and behold, you think scientists just missed this fact.
You think a diving airplane should fall faster than the inhabitants of the plane. But in reality, it simulates weightlessness which is what the REAL theory of gravity predicts.  This has been observed countless times, and can be seen on plenty of videos both in TV and movies.  These must all be fake I suppose?
The experiences of the astronauts provides plenty of evidence as well.  But of course, to you they are fake.
I mentioned the solar system, and you completely ignored that example.  It contradicts how you claim particle pushers to work, yet is perfectly understood by current gravitational theory.  Heck, several planets in our solar system were discovered due entirely to our understanding of gravity.  Gravitational theory predicted a planet at a certain location, and lo and behold we found them.

OF COURSE you aren't going to find evidence when you say that it's all fake, inaccurate, or simply doesn't exist.  Or, you just ignore it.  That is the definition of ignorance, and I'd throw stupidity in there as well.

Heck - there are so many holes in this "gravity" that people are now postulating the existence of dark matter with anti-gravity to try to explain their way out of the paradox.  So you need to rewrite your so called "law" to state that some bodies attract each other, and some bodies repell the other sort.  

You are wrong.  Just because something is not 100% understood does not mean that it is fundamentally wrong.  Dark matter has nothing to do with "anti-gravity".  You are trying to sound "sciency" but you aren't saying anything of substance so I really have no idea how to reply.  Be more specific.

Take this report that galaxies at the far edge of the universe ( a wall of course) are moving faster and faster the further away they are due to the mysterious dark matter and equally mysterius negative gravity, when it is all so easily explained by pusher particles.

You are making things up again, and sounding stupid.  The galaxies further away are moving faster because of the expansion of the universe.  Any proposed theoretical "anti-gravity" does nothing to detract from the current theory of gravity.  Does the existence of anti-matter detract from our understanding of normal matter?  To the contrary.

As you get closer and closer to the source of the pusher particles, you get less and less of them in front of you, and more and more behind you, so you are being pushed faster and faster towards the wall.  So why complicate things with this invisible dark matter and unmeasurable darkl energy forces?  It's what happens when people try to force an obviously erroneous theory - some arrogantly call it a "law" - to fit more and more conflicting data.

Wait a second.  I thought that particle pushers came from all directions equally, like the background radiation?  Then there is no "source", other than the Big Bang.  You are contradicting yourself again.  Dark matter is not necessarily some exotic substance with strange properties.  It could be very ordinary in origin, in fact.  If neutrinos for example have a very, very small mass instead of zero mass - there is some of your dark matter.  Neutrinos are nothing special.

Yet people have this closed minded answer "It's true because it's the "LAW" of Gravity, and anything can only be explained as being done by Gravity  because it's the law, and because my teacher told me.  And your teacher (the same one who tells you the Earth was created 4000 years and some months ago) , told you that it's Gravity.

People don't accept gravity because that's what a book says, people accept gravity because it explains much about the universe.  That's what good theories do.  They explain much, provide many tests which can disprove the theory, and stand up to all those tests.  Gravity passes with flying colors.

Particle pushers does nothing of the sort.  It's an ill-conceived concept that has absolutely no backing, is logically inconsistant based on the little information you've given us, and isn't even worthy of consideration.

I notice you've ignored a lot of my points.  How about answering my questions about the flat-earth? I provided several very solid reasons that are easily explained with a sphere earth, and impossible on a flat one.

I suppose they are all fake, though.

Here, I'll even make it easy for you and repost

Explain how seasons work with a flat earth? Including why they are OPPOSITE in the Northern Hemisphere as opposed to the Southern. As well as why summer at the poles is 3 months of light, and winter 3 months of darkness - while near the equator day and night are nearly 12 hours each year round. Perfectly explained and expected with a sphere. Impossible flat.

Explain time zones? With a flat earth (rotating or not) those disappear, and with a sphere they are expected.

Explain why the constellations, the moon, and anything else you'd like to pick in the sky appears UPSIDE DOWN in the Northern Hemisphere vs the Southern. Perfectly logical with a spherical earth. Completely impossible on a flat one. And easily verifiable by anyone on the planet with the means to travel and a pair of eyes.

And please don't forget to explain the orbits of the planets around the sun in terms of these particle pushers that isn't inconsistent with your other claims.

My ****ing god, why must people choose to act so stupid.
*I'm talking about the Flat-Eathers*

lol......  Cryoruggie got pwnt to bad.

None of the idiots on this board ever give one word to most reasonable agruements. That pusher particle theory is such crap, WTF was right in saying that cry is making up the rules as he goes(i actually read all this).

One more point for cry to not reply to, take a flat disk and point a light at it.
What happens? yup thats right light is distributed equally. So dont even bother trying to argue why there are time zones because you cant disprove that fact.

Ive also seen the argument that the suns rays, since being sent to the earth from so far away become straightened and tend to act like those of lasers. If this were true than it would be possible to say(according to the map of this so called "flat-earth") that sometimes it would be daytime in the US and nighttime in Mexico.

I've sailed around the earth and found no end of this disc.

And Australia does exist!!

End of discussion.

OOOOOUCH Flat-earthers got OWNED!

Actually I think all major theories are wrong, and that in fact, the Earth, is a torus.

Daniel? Cryo? Goodfriend?  Anyone going to answer my questions?

Surely these BASIC properties of life on this planet are explained by a flat earth, correct?  Considering they and so much more are easily explained by a spherical earth, SURELY someone challenging that belief can explain them in terms of your "better" theory.
I can very easily explain them in terms of a round earth.

How about you?

If this is the case, why would the earth or other planets be bound to the sun at all? The sun is SO far away, that surely the shielding effect would be almost 0 by then. If leaving the atmosphere of earth is far enough for the earth-disc's shielding effect to be negated, then the sun even given its larger size is going to have *far* less of a shielding effect on the planets, especially the distant ones. Yet, the planets remain in almost unchanging steady orbit. Yet another fallacy.

I'm not sure I understand your comment.  Of course the sun has a shielding effect.  And I think you misread my comment.  The earthdisk has a noticeable affect quite a ways out - but it does get less and less as you get further away and the shielding effect gets smaller.

You - as an observer - cannot tell the difference betrween being pushed down by pusher particles or being pulled down by gravity particles.

You are making things up again, and sounding stupid. The galaxies further away are moving faster because of the expansion of the universe. Any proposed theoretical "anti-gravity" does nothing to detract from the current theory of gravity. Does the existence of anti-matter detract from our understanding of normal matter? To the contrary.

OK, beat me with a wet noodle.  Call it dark energy rather than dark matter.  But people are indicating that a repulsive energy exists to explain the expansion of the universe. http://www.cec.mtu.edu/csa/courses/presentations/peters.htm

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&lr=&rls=GGLD%2CGGLD%3A2005-13%2CGGLD%3Aen&q=dark+matter&as_q=antigravity

People don't accept gravity because that's what a book says, people accept gravity because it explains much about the universe. That's what good theories do. They explain much, provide many tests which can disprove the theory, and stand up to all those tests. Gravity passes with flying colors.

Pusher particles pass the same tests.  At this point, I have seen no one giving me an example of tests (call them experiments if you want) that can only be explained by an attractve force (gravity) and not by pusher particles that have a net push on the objects due to shielding (or absorption) by objects.

Thank you for giving me a key piece of evidence for the Big Bang. How this relates to Particle Pushers, I am not sure. Apparently you are claiming that particle pushers are just part of the universe and come from all directions? If this is the case - If I leave the earth's atmosphere, gravity towards the earth should get STRONGER right? Since there isn't all that pesky air in the way to block some particle pushers.

Why?  The net effect gets weaker as you have less and less of a shield from the earth-disk.  If you are pushed equally from all sides py pusher particles then they have no net push.

And yes - they come from  all directions - just like the microwaves from the big bang.

I'm not sure I understand your comment.  Of course the sun has a shielding effect.  And I think you misread my comment.  The earthdisk has a noticeable affect quite a ways out - but it does get less and less as you get further away and the shielding effect gets smaller.

Oh come on.  You honestly think with the distance the sun is from the planets, that the "shielding effect" would be enough to keep them in orbit?
I think it's highly inconsistent to say there would be any appreciable lessening of the earth's shielding as you leave the earth's atmosphere, but then claim that the sun produces enough of a shielding effect to keep an entire system of planets in orbit.  What's more, if a pushing particle is really the force behind gravity, it does not explain highly dense objects and the gravitational fields they produce.  Neutron stars, for example.  Or black holes, unless you deny their existance.  Which you have to, btw, with a push theory of gravity.

You - as an observer - cannot tell the difference betrween being pushed down by pusher particles or being pulled down by gravity particles.

As a matter of fact, you CAN tell.  You feel the force at the point of contact - your feet.  You don't feel a "press" from above; rather, you feel the earth pushing against your feet.  Hence, the pull of gravity.
I didn't mention this before because I'm sure you'll just say I'm wrong; but it's basic physics.

OK, beat me with a wet noodle.  Call it dark energy rather than dark matter.  But people are indicating that a repulsive energy exists to explain the expansion of the universe. http://www.cec.mtu.edu/csa/courses/presentations/peters.htm

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&lr=&rls=GGLD%2CGGLD%3A2005-13%2CGGLD%3Aen&q=dark+matter&as_q=antigravity

Er...so what?   This doesn't threaten gravity as its accepted in any fundamental ways

Why?  The net effect gets weaker as you have less and less of a shield from the earth-disk.  If you are pushed equally from all sides py pusher particles then they have no net push.

And yes - they come from  all directions - just like the microwaves from the big bang.

This is in direct contradiction with the measured strength of gravity.  The further you get away, the weaker gravity gets in exactly an inverse square relationship with the mass of the object.
The *mass* of the object.  If pusher particles were responsible, how can you explain that regardless of the size/surface area of an object, this exact relationship is observed?  You would need some type of force to attract these pusher particles to a mass in order to get it to "shield" the proper amount of them.  In which case, why are you invoking pusher particles at ALL?

I see you ignore my MAIN questions still.  Plan on getting to those, or do you insist on sticking to this "pusher particle" side-issue?  Let's get to the meat, and answer the questions.

Quote:
You - as an observer - cannot tell the difference betrween being pushed down by pusher particles or being pulled down by gravity particles.


As a matter of fact, you CAN tell. You feel the force at the point of contact - your feet. You don't feel a "press" from above; rather, you feel the earth pushing against your feet. Hence, the pull of gravity.
I didn't mention this before because I'm sure you'll just say I'm wrong; but it's basic physics.

Exactly - you are being pushed against the earth from above by the pusher particles...

This is in direct contradiction with the measured strength of gravity. The further you get away, the weaker gravity gets in exactly an inverse square relationship with the mass of the object.
The *mass* of the object. If pusher particles were responsible, how can you explain that regardless of the size/surface area of an object, this exact relationship is observed? You would need some type of force to attract these pusher particles to a mass in order to get it to "shield" the proper amount of them. In which case, why are you invoking pusher particles at ALL?

A challenging point.  I'm going to have to review pusher particle theory to work with black holes. But..
PPT (Pusher Particle Theory) states that the shielding effect is a function of density, so a black hole - having very very high density would shield the pusher particles almost completely - some say it would shield them totally - so the full force of the unshielded pusher particles would drive you towards the shielding black hole - there would be absolutely no counterbalancing pusher particles coming though (from) the blakc hole.
I guess it is a matter of how high the PPF (Pusher Particle Flux) that's coming at you from all sides is.

I see you ignore my MAIN questions still. Plan on getting to those, or do you insist on sticking to this "pusher particle" side-issue? Let's get to the meat, and answer the questions.

You know, part of my problem is that PPT predicts that matter would tend to become spherical as matter is pushed in the direction of most shielding.  Your mythical "gravity" may indicate something similar.  
So I have a problem resloving the obvious truth of pusher particles with the equally obvious subjective evidence that the earth is flat.

Here, I'll even make it easy for you and repost

Explain how seasons work with a flat earth? Including why they are OPPOSITE in the Northern Hemisphere as opposed to the Southern. As well as why summer at the poles is 3 months of light, and winter 3 months of darkness - while near the equator day and night are nearly 12 hours each year round. Perfectly explained and expected with a sphere. Impossible flat.

I would assume that the earth disk wobbles slowly, some parts being closer to the warm sun, and some being further away for a period of time.

The varying lengths of the day - as you further travel at right angles to the path of the sun - is complicated.  Possibly the sun follows a curved path?  Gotta think about this...

Explain time zones? With a flat earth (rotating or not) those disappear, and with a sphere they are expected.

I don't see why time zones would not occur on a flat earth.  After all, the sun is travleing along over the earth and it would be "high noon" at different times at any point on the flat earth, ergo - time zones.

Explain why the constellations, the moon, and anything else you'd like to pick in the sky appears UPSIDE DOWN in the Northern Hemisphere vs the Southern. Perfectly logical with a spherical earth. Completely impossible on a flat one. And easily verifiable by anyone on the planet with the means to travel and a pair of eyes.

It really depends how your head is facing to define if things are upside down or not...  I can lie down in the north and in the south and look at the stars in the same way, depending on how I face when I lie down.

And please don't forget to explain the orbits of the planets around the sun in terms of these particle pushers that isn't inconsistent with your other claims.

Pusher particles are much more fun.  Obviously, if the earth is flat, and the various bodies suich as the sun, moon, and planets travel  over the earth in great crystal spheres, then neither pusher particles or gravity exist.  I concede that I cannot put both a geocentric flat earth and pusher particles and "gravity" into the same universe....  (yet)

So let's get back to pusher particles which make so much easier to explain than a geocentic flat earth...

Jeeeeeeeeez this is tragic I begin to think that you actually believe the earth is flat...... ALL of your arguments have been countered and new arguments against flat earth and in favour of round earth are spewn out all the time....... If you had used some time at actually thinking through the flat-earth idea then I think you would have benefitted from it.
Anyways, it is proven various times in other posts that a when a disc is lit up at one place, it is lit up at all places. Just check it. Anyways, this means it has to be night and day at the same time, and the sun has to go down at all places at the same time....... Which is not the case. Also, according to the flat-earth map then my country(Norway) is in the middle of the earth. How come it isn't warmer then? Is the sun avoiding us? All of Africa, South-America, Taiwan etc. Are warmer at all times, but not Norway, which is pretty much in the middle. Has God cursed us? And why does the northern part of my country experience a period where there is sun all around the clock, and a period where it is dark all around the clock? While the rest of the world have sunlight/night?
And about the timezones, they are all calculated out from the "theory" of round earth. It would be some coincidence that they have worked well enough for everyone, when calculated from a fundamentally wrong theory! And also I would like to know some things that is quite relevant to your theory: Is the sun orbiting the Earth (lol of c not) or is the earth orbiting the sun? If the last example is correct (it is) then the pusher particles-thery can not be real.
You really didn't answer to how pusher particles would explain all the spheres in the universe (or do you deny THEIR existence also?).  I did not bother to read all the crap you posted, as it takes some concentration to find out what tragedy takes place inside the authors mind to make all the bullshit look logical, but as far as I have understood, the "pusher particles" come from all sides at once?? In that case, the world would be shaped into a sphere, as the thin part of the earth would let many particles through it, and the thicker part would absorb alot more, and this would form the earth so that it would absorb an equal amount of pusher particles from all sides. Also, "beams" of gravity that had not been absorbed by galaxies far away would sometimes hit earth, making some areas much harder to walk in from time to time. If they all come from one side, then nothing could orbit. And of c, you have ignored that a LOT of our mechanics and society is based on the round earth "theory", like sattellites, navigating, flying, etc. etc. So lol, if you have ever been in an airplane, then you simply must agree that the world is round.

You really didn't answer to how pusher particles would explain all the spheres in the universe (or do you deny THEIR existence also?). I did not bother to read all the crap you posted, as it takes some concentration to find out what tragedy takes place inside the authors mind to make all the bullshit look logical, but as far as I have understood, the "pusher particles" come from all sides at once?? In that case, the world would be shaped into a sphere, as the thin part of the earth would let many particles through it, and the thicker part would absorb alot more, and this would form the earth so that it would absorb an equal amount of pusher particles from all sides. Also, "beams" of gravity that had not been absorbed by galaxies far away would sometimes hit earth, making some areas much harder to walk in from time to time. If they all come from one side, then nothing could orbit. And of c, you have ignored that a LOT of our mechanics and society is based on the round earth "theory", like sattellites, navigating, flying, etc. etc. So lol, if you have ever been in an airplane, then you simply must agree that the world is round.

That's the reason that a flat earth and pusher particles can't exist in the same universe.  Pusher particles would - as you say (and I mentioned in my last post as my flat earth arguments were so elegantly demolished by WTF)  - tend to make objects spherical, since that is the shape that has the least net "push"  So what do I do - work on pusher particles or a flat earth?  The two can't co-exist.  I have more fun with pusher particles.

I agree with you.  Assume the earth is a flat disk - seen edgewise the pusher particles would be really few coming out the edge,  so there'd be a great net push on the edge.  This would tend to push the edge towards the inside.  Take this to extremes and you end up with a sphere.

Now tell me how you demonstrate that gravity exists and pusher particles don't.

Maybe I should post the basics of PPT (Pusher Particle Theory)...

I would assume that the earth disk wobbles slowly, some parts being closer to the warm sun, and some being further away for a period of time.

The distance the earth is from the sun in its orbit has very little effect on the temperature of the earth compared with the tilt of the earth.  Your POSITION on the earth in terms of how close you are to the sun is even less significant - more like insignificant.  The fact that you would suggest it really, really discredits your theory.

The varying lengths of the day - as you further travel at right angles to the path of the sun - is complicated.  Possibly the sun follows a curved path?  Gotta think about this...

I guess that's an "I don't know".  Which again - just discredits the theory.
All this stuff is easily explained with a spherical earth, I'm sure you are aware...

I don't see why time zones would not occur on a flat earth.  After all, the sun is travleing along over the earth and it would be "high noon" at different times at any point on the flat earth, ergo - time zones.

What blocks the sun from one part of the earth, but not the rest?  If the earth is flat, the sun would hit it all at the same time.  I'm not sure why you don't realize this.

Explain why the constellations, the moon, and anything else you'd like to pick in the sky appears UPSIDE DOWN in the Northern Hemisphere vs the Southern. Perfectly logical with a spherical earth. Completely impossible on a flat one. And easily verifiable by anyone on the planet with the means to travel and a pair of eyes.

It really depends how your head is facing to define if things are upside down or not...  I can lie down in the north and in the south and look at the stars in the same way, depending on how I face when I lie down.

I'm sorry but you are just wrong again.  If you look at the moon upside down it may look inverted - but if you just stand there and look at the moon, it's inverted depending if you look at it in the Northern or Southern Hemispheres.  Same with the constellations.  It's a very clear indication that the earth is a sphere.

So let's get back to pusher particles which make so much easier to explain than a geocentic flat earth...

I don't mean to spoil your fun but I really am not interested in particle pushers.  There are severe problems with it and you are simply dismissing them like it doesn't mean anything.  Low surface area/high gravity objects for example.  Their existance contradicts your theory, you cannot explain them, therefore the theory has to be modified in a fundamental way or scrapped altogther.  I vote for scrapping.

Cryoruggie wrote:
It really depends how your head is facing to define if things are upside down or not... I can lie down in the north and in the south and look at the stars in the same way, depending on how I face when I lie down.


I'm sorry but you are just wrong again. If you look at the moon upside down it may look inverted - but if you just stand there and look at the moon,  Same with the constellations. It's a very clear indication that the earth is a sphere.

I'm sorry - I don't understand.  "...if you look at the moon upside down it may look inverted..." and "...it's inverted depending if you look at it in the Northern or Southern Hemispheres."  So in one case it's wrong to lie down and look at it inverted, in the other case it is OK to lie down and be inverted?  Or does your proof depend on the position of the body?