Galctical gravity

  • 18 Replies
  • 4435 Views
Galctical gravity
« on: July 19, 2006, 04:22:38 AM »
If the planets doesn't rotate around the sun - since that would be impossible if the sun was disc-shaped/flat - then what do  they rotate around? Dark Energy?


(Pardon me for not searching through the whole forum to check if some one has answered this question before.)
quot;Earth is flat because there is a conspiracy, and there is a conspiracy because the Earth is flat" - Makes sense, duh.

http://theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=2955.0

Galctical gravity
« Reply #1 on: July 19, 2006, 04:24:47 AM »
Flat Earth theory states that the Earth doesn't orbit anything, it's the centre of the universe. The definition of arrogance, imo.

Galctical gravity
« Reply #2 on: July 19, 2006, 04:28:25 AM »
Just stop.

Galctical gravity
« Reply #3 on: July 19, 2006, 04:30:17 AM »
So the FES believes in the geocentric theory? Wow, they really need to read up on Galileo and Newton

*

James

  • Flat Earther
  • The Elder Ones
  • 5613
Galctical gravity
« Reply #4 on: July 19, 2006, 04:42:13 AM »
No, the FE model is not always geocentric. Most contemporary FE'ers are of the opinion that all the planets are flat, circular discs not orbiting anything, just being constantly upwardly accelerated by the motion of dark matter.
"For your own sake, as well as for that of our beloved country, be bold and firm against error and evil of every kind." - David Wardlaw Scott, Terra Firma 1901

Galctical gravity
« Reply #5 on: July 19, 2006, 04:53:56 AM »
Quote from: "Dogplatter"
No, the FE model is not always geocentric. Most contemporary FE'ers are of the opinion that all the planets are flat, circular discs not orbiting anything, just being constantly upwardly accelerated by the motion of dark matter.


Where do the power rangers come in?

Galctical gravity
« Reply #6 on: July 20, 2006, 04:11:58 AM »
Quote from: "Dogplatter"
No, the FE model is not always geocentric. Most contemporary FE'ers are of the opinion that all the planets are flat, circular discs not orbiting anything, just being constantly upwardly accelerated by the motion of dark matter.


Planets do rotate around something, you know. And if it isn't the sun, then what is it? Give me your opinion on this, Dogplatter.
quot;Earth is flat because there is a conspiracy, and there is a conspiracy because the Earth is flat" - Makes sense, duh.

http://theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=2955.0

?

TimmTom

Galctical gravity
« Reply #7 on: July 20, 2006, 07:18:24 AM »
I'm wondering... according to the FE idea, are all bodies in the solar system accelerating upwards at the same rate, or do they accelerate at various different rates?

?

Erasmus

  • The Elder Ones
  • 4242
Galctical gravity
« Reply #8 on: July 20, 2006, 08:29:58 AM »
The FE model is most certainly geocentric, in that there's the Earth and a bunch of stuff -- stars and planets and sun and moon and what-not -- somehow bound to the Earth.  The Earth is not in the centre of all these things, however.
Why did the chicken cross the Möbius strip?

*

James

  • Flat Earther
  • The Elder Ones
  • 5613
Galctical gravity
« Reply #9 on: July 20, 2006, 09:17:34 AM »
Quote from: "Erasmus"
The FE model is most certainly geocentric, in that there's the Earth and a bunch of stuff -- stars and planets and sun and moon and what-not -- somehow bound to the Earth.  The Earth is not in the centre of all these things, however.


Some models hypothesise the planets as seperate, independant entities though, right?
"For your own sake, as well as for that of our beloved country, be bold and firm against error and evil of every kind." - David Wardlaw Scott, Terra Firma 1901

?

Erasmus

  • The Elder Ones
  • 4242
Galctical gravity
« Reply #10 on: July 20, 2006, 09:36:35 AM »
Quote from: "Dogplatter"
Some models hypothesise the planets as seperate, independant entities though, right?


In the sense that they are not parts of the Earth the way mountains and seas are parts of the Earth, yes, I suppose so.

What I'm referring to is that those objects are somehow bound to the Earth, for example by being attached to invisible spheres with the Earth at the centre.
Why did the chicken cross the Möbius strip?

*

James

  • Flat Earther
  • The Elder Ones
  • 5613
Galctical gravity
« Reply #11 on: July 20, 2006, 10:35:58 AM »
Quote from: "Erasmus"
Quote from: "Dogplatter"
Some models hypothesise the planets as seperate, independant entities though, right?


In the sense that they are not parts of the Earth the way mountains and seas are parts of the Earth, yes, I suppose so.

What I'm referring to is that those objects are somehow bound to the Earth, for example by being attached to invisible spheres with the Earth at the centre.


I personally imagine the other planets to be bodies much like the Earth, bound by nothing except upward acceleration, possibly with their own suns, moons etc.
"For your own sake, as well as for that of our beloved country, be bold and firm against error and evil of every kind." - David Wardlaw Scott, Terra Firma 1901

Galctical gravity
« Reply #12 on: July 20, 2006, 12:49:27 PM »
Quote from: "Dogplatter"
I personally imagine the other planets to be bodies much like the Earth, bound by nothing except upward acceleration, possibly with their own suns, moons etc.



You don't see the contradiction in this statement. But I'll be so kind and explain it:

No, other planets cannot travel in an "upward" acceleration (and by "upward", I suppose you mean "forward"). If they were, they would be travelling towards the Earth, since they're always facing the Earth (another unanswered question unmentioned in the FAQ). How is it then, that they're not ever getting any closer to Earth?

I just thought of another question. How come moons on other planets rotate around the planets? And how come other planets doesn't have any spotlight-suns? I want scientifical answers, not assumptions or logical conclusions.
quot;Earth is flat because there is a conspiracy, and there is a conspiracy because the Earth is flat" - Makes sense, duh.

http://theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=2955.0

?

Erasmus

  • The Elder Ones
  • 4242
Galctical gravity
« Reply #13 on: July 20, 2006, 12:56:41 PM »
Quote from: "Xargo"
No, other planets cannot travel in an "upward" acceleration (and by "upward", I suppose you mean "forward").


You suppose incorrectly.  "Upward" means "in the direction that the flat Earth is accelerating".

Quote
I just thought of another question. How come moons on other planets rotate around the planets? And how come other planets doesn't have any spotlight-suns?


That's two questions, but okay.  To question one -- we don't know.  To question two -- the Earth is special.

Quote
I want scientifical answers, not assumptions or logical conclusions.


"Scientifical" -- a truly awesome, if nonexistant, word.  And I'm sorry, but I refuse to attempt give "scientifical" answers if I'm not allowed to give logical conclusions.

Anyway, we all want answers, but often -- even in RE science -- we are left with nothing more than assumptions.
Why did the chicken cross the Möbius strip?

*

James

  • Flat Earther
  • The Elder Ones
  • 5613
Galctical gravity
« Reply #14 on: July 20, 2006, 01:06:57 PM »
Quote from: "Xargo"
[
No, other planets cannot travel in an "upward" acceleration (and by "upward", I suppose you mean "forward"). If they were, they would be travelling towards the Earth, since they're always facing the Earth (another unanswered question unmentioned in the FAQ). How is it then, that they're not ever getting any closer to Earth?


Who said they were facing the earth? I've always maintained that the apparent rotundity of other planets is a result of the combination of UA "afterburn" and atmospheric distortion.
"For your own sake, as well as for that of our beloved country, be bold and firm against error and evil of every kind." - David Wardlaw Scott, Terra Firma 1901

Galctical gravity
« Reply #15 on: July 20, 2006, 01:10:49 PM »
Quote
Anyway, we all want answers, but often -- even in RE science -- we are left with nothing more than assumptions.


Scientifical assumptions i'm guessing.
verybody knows you can conjure anything by the dark of the Moon. - Tori Amos

Galctical gravity
« Reply #16 on: July 21, 2006, 05:28:25 AM »
Quote from: "Erasmus"
Quote from: "Xargo"
No, other planets cannot travel in an "upward" acceleration (and by "upward", I suppose you mean "forward").


You suppose incorrectly.  "Upward" means "in the direction that the flat Earth is accelerating".

This is your own opinion, I assume.


Quote from: "Erasmus"

Quote
I just thought of another question. How come moons on other planets rotate around the planets? And how come other planets doesn't have any spotlight-suns?


That's two questions, but okay.  To question one -- we don't know.  To question two -- the Earth is special.

You really mean you don't know the answer  to either question. Original for FE.

Quote from: "Erasmus"

Quote
I want scientifical answers, not assumptions or logical conclusions.


"Scientifical" -- a truly awesome, if nonexistant, word.  And I'm sorry, but I refuse to attempt give "scientifical" answers if I'm not allowed to give logical conclusions.

Who says you're not allowed to give logical conclusions? Just back it up with scientifical facts instead of wild assumptions.

Quote from: "Erasmus"

Anyway, we all want answers, but often -- even in RE science -- we are left with nothing more than assumptions.

Sure, but in modern science assumptions aren't considered as facts, unlike as in your FE theory. Pretty much all the answers in your FAQ are based on assumptions.

Quote from: "Dogplatter"
Who said they were facing the earth? I've always maintained that the apparent rotundity of other planets is a result of the combination of UA "afterburn" and atmospheric distortion.


Let me get this straight. It doesn't matter what direction any celestial body is turned, because "atmospheric distortion" makes them look as if they were turned to face Earth?..
quot;Earth is flat because there is a conspiracy, and there is a conspiracy because the Earth is flat" - Makes sense, duh.

http://theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=2955.0

*

James

  • Flat Earther
  • The Elder Ones
  • 5613
Galctical gravity
« Reply #17 on: July 21, 2006, 05:32:10 AM »
Quote from: "Xargo"

Let me get this straight. It doesn't matter what direction any celestial body is turned, because "atmospheric distortion" makes them look as if they were turned to face Earth?..


Coupled with the afterburn of universal acceleration, yes.
"For your own sake, as well as for that of our beloved country, be bold and firm against error and evil of every kind." - David Wardlaw Scott, Terra Firma 1901

?

Erasmus

  • The Elder Ones
  • 4242
Galctical gravity
« Reply #18 on: July 21, 2006, 09:18:45 AM »
Quote from: "Xargo"
Quote from: "Erasmus"
"Upward" means "in the direction that the flat Earth is accelerating".
This is your own opinion, I assume.


No, opinion has nothing to do with it..  "Upward" is simply a name for a direction.  It happens to be the case that whenever the FE model uses the term "upward", it means the direction in which the Earth is allegedly acceleration.

Quote
How come moons on other planets rotate around the planets? And how come other planets doesn't have any spotlight-suns? ...
You really mean you don't know the answer  to either question.


No.  I really mean the questions are irrelevant.  As has been stated many times, the question "X obtains for Mars/Jupiter/stars/comets/whatever, why doesn't it obtain for the Earth?" is ill-formed; it has no meaningful answer.  You might as well say, "I'm wearing a pink necktie, so why is traffic moving so slowly?"  The two things just aren't related.

Quote
Who says you're not allowed to give logical conclusions?


Don't you read what you type?  You said it:

Quote from: "Xargo, earlier,"
I want scientifical answers, not assumptions or logical conclusions.


Quote
Pretty much all the answers in your FAQ are based on assumptions.


Hm.... nope.  I know that when I meantion "Rowbotham's experiements" REers go into a temporary self-induced coma or something, but I'll say it again.  The set of what FEers believe is the logical closure of direct measurements.
Why did the chicken cross the Möbius strip?