What causes Gravity?

  • 23 Replies
  • 2490 Views
What causes Gravity?
« on: March 28, 2010, 01:03:45 AM »
What causes gravity according to the Flat Earth Theory? I'll only say or ask more about it after I get a response.


Re: What causes Gravity?
« Reply #2 on: March 28, 2010, 02:44:53 AM »
ya know, you make it seem like your saying Jesus causes gravity

?

Thomas

  • 72
  • Standing at the Edge of the World
Re: What causes Gravity?
« Reply #3 on: March 28, 2010, 12:41:02 PM »
You've obviously not read the FAQ, which addresses the issue of "gravity" due to either Universal Acceleration, or the action of the Universal Accelerator beneath the earth plane.

I tend to lean toward the infinite plane model, which posits a finite gravitational field being generated due to the infinite plane of the earth, but it's not a matter of terribly great concern for me.  I find myself firmly fixed to the earth, whatever the cause. Perhaps it's simply the nature of material bodies to be attracted toward the earth, the same as it is the nature of fire to burn, or smoke to rise.  Substantial nature being made manifest within accidental reality, as it were, without losing its own unique substance to its purely material conditions and factors.
"A procession of the damned. By the damned, I mean the excluded. We shall have a procession of data that Science has excluded. Battalions of the accursed, captained by pallid data that I have exhumed, will march. You'll read them -- or they'll march." - Charles Fort

Re: What causes Gravity?
« Reply #4 on: March 28, 2010, 08:29:12 PM »
If the Earth is 4.5 billion years old and UA was pushing the Earth up at 9.81 m/s^2 then the Earth would be traveling 1.39*10^18 m/s, a speed much faster than the speed of light, which violates the photoelectric effect that FAQ here uses to answer how the Moon, Sun and Stars are suspended in space.

What about the observable difference in 9.81 m/s^2 as one approaches the equator? It is a measurable difference in acceleration which can only be accounted for by Newtonís laws of circular motion and the round Earth. I could do the calculations but I donít feel like typing them. The acceleration at the equator is 9.77 m/s^2 as both experimentally shown and calculated using Newtonís equations. Itís the same centrifugal force that is argued in argument two of this page: http://www.alaska.net/~clund/e_djublonskopf/Flatearthsociety.htm to say that we should fly off the Earth, or be crushed, if the Earth were round. However, this is obviously not the case when one does the calculations. There is only a slight change in forces exerted by rotation.


?

2fst4u

  • 2498
  • High and Tighty
Re: What causes Gravity?
« Reply #5 on: March 28, 2010, 08:50:36 PM »
ya know, you make it seem like your saying Jesus causes gravity
You make it seem like you don't understand homonyms.

If the Earth is 4.5 billion years old and UA was pushing the Earth up at 9.81 m/s^2 then the Earth would be traveling 1.39*10^18 m/s, a speed much faster than the speed of light, which violates the photoelectric effect that FAQ here uses to answer how the Moon, Sun and Stars are suspended in space.

Relativity says no.

...Itís the same centrifugal force that is argued in argument two of this page: http://www.alaska.net/~clund/e_djublonskopf/Flatearthsociety.htm to say that we should fly off the Earth, or be crushed, if the Earth were round. However, this is obviously not the case when one does the calculations. There is only a slight change in forces exerted by rotation.

Alaska.net is a parody site.

?

Vongeo

  • Official Member
  • 6004
  • I don't get it either.
Re: What causes Gravity?
« Reply #6 on: March 29, 2010, 10:11:26 PM »
What causes gravity in the RE model?
Vongeo is a wanker, he wears a wanker hat; he always smells like urine and he thinks the Earth is flat.

No longer is this sentence is cut in half. Jekra!

?

2fst4u

  • 2498
  • High and Tighty
Re: What causes Gravity?
« Reply #7 on: March 29, 2010, 11:52:32 PM »
What causes gravity in the RE model?
Mass. Unknown why. Your point?

?

Vongeo

  • Official Member
  • 6004
  • I don't get it either.
Re: What causes Gravity?
« Reply #8 on: March 30, 2010, 08:26:20 AM »
What causes gravity in the RE model?
Mass. Unknown why. Your point?
Its unknown why.
Vongeo is a wanker, he wears a wanker hat; he always smells like urine and he thinks the Earth is flat.

No longer is this sentence is cut in half. Jekra!

?

2fst4u

  • 2498
  • High and Tighty
Re: What causes Gravity?
« Reply #9 on: March 30, 2010, 12:53:26 PM »
What causes gravity in the RE model?
Mass. Unknown why. Your point?
Its unknown why.
How does light bend? Oh wait sorry, let me answer that for you - "Unknown".

Looks like we're even, huh?

?

Vongeo

  • Official Member
  • 6004
  • I don't get it either.
Re: What causes Gravity?
« Reply #10 on: March 30, 2010, 01:30:43 PM »
What causes gravity in the RE model?
Mass. Unknown why. Your point?
Its unknown why.
How does light bend? Oh wait sorry, let me answer that for you - "Unknown".

Looks like we're even, huh?
Completly even.
Vongeo is a wanker, he wears a wanker hat; he always smells like urine and he thinks the Earth is flat.

No longer is this sentence is cut in half. Jekra!

?

flyingmonkey

  • 728
  • Troll trolling Trolls
Re: What causes Gravity?
« Reply #11 on: March 30, 2010, 07:30:08 PM »
What causes gravity in the RE model?
Mass. Unknown why. Your point?
Its unknown why.
How does light bend? Oh wait sorry, let me answer that for you - "Unknown".

Looks like we're even, huh?
Completly even.


Not completely.

We can measure Gravity, I've yet to see a working bendy light model.

Re: What causes Gravity?
« Reply #12 on: March 31, 2010, 03:52:32 PM »
The "what causes gravity in RE" question is a fallible question. There will always be a degree in which someone can just ask "why is it that way" and seemingly "win" the argument.

If the Earth is accelerated constantly where's it going? Is there an infinite space above us?

How in the hell is an astronomer going to convince someone who has never looked at the stars that gravitational lensing exists? more importantly, I'm sorry you can't do the calculations, and experiments to put satellite's in orbit therefore, seeing the proof and necessity of time dilation, but just because you can't prove it to yourself doesn't mean you need to spread lies about physics around the world. If you catch my drift.

These arguments are silly. They are based off of faulty "what ifs" or "well why are you right and not me?" types of questions that serve no purpose. All the while the very foundation of your physics has yet to be proven AT ALL, let alone to seem more credible than a paper of Einstein's intellect.

?

Vongeo

  • Official Member
  • 6004
  • I don't get it either.
Re: What causes Gravity?
« Reply #13 on: April 01, 2010, 10:08:06 AM »
I could accelerate in a loop.
Vongeo is a wanker, he wears a wanker hat; he always smells like urine and he thinks the Earth is flat.

No longer is this sentence is cut in half. Jekra!

?

2fst4u

  • 2498
  • High and Tighty
Re: What causes Gravity?
« Reply #14 on: April 01, 2010, 01:42:03 PM »
I could accelerate in a loop.
That's great. Now could you tell us how the earth accelerates?

*

parsec

  • 6196
  • 206,265
Re: What causes Gravity?
« Reply #15 on: April 01, 2010, 05:53:48 PM »
I could accelerate in a loop.
That's great. Now could you tell us how the earth accelerates?
uniformly

?

flyingmonkey

  • 728
  • Troll trolling Trolls
Re: What causes Gravity?
« Reply #16 on: April 02, 2010, 03:26:43 AM »
I could accelerate in a loop.
That's great. Now could you tell us how the earth accelerates?
uniformly

Would that not make it go straight?

Maybe if one side was out by just a little it would form a giant loop, like rowing a boat with a weakened arm.

*

sandokhan

  • Flat Earth Sultan
  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 4904
Re: What causes Gravity?
« Reply #17 on: April 02, 2010, 09:01:39 AM »
There is NO ATTRACTIVE GRAVITY:

Here are the facts:

http://theflatearthsociety.net/talk/viewtopic.php?f=7&t=1183&start=15#p35541

http://theflatearthsociety.net/talk/viewtopic.php?f=7&t=1183&start=15#p35542

What we have at the surface of the earth is the pressure of the aether which circulates through the receptive vortices of what we call in quantum mechanics electrons (actually they are the negative vortices of the aether atom); it is this pressure which causes the tidal waves. Now, the orbits of the stars and planets are due to a rotational type of aether motion, as detected by the classic experiment of G. B. Airy, which is described by me on the flatearth.net, alternative faq thread.

Newton did not believe AT ALL in attractive gravity, on the contrary:

Here is a letter from Newton to Halley, describing how he had independently arrived at the inverse square law using his aether hypothesis, to which he refers as the 'descending spirit':

....Now if this spirit descends from above with uniform velocity, its density and consequently its force will be reciprocally proportional to the square of its distance from the centre. But if it descended with accelerated motion, its density will everywhere diminish as much as the velocity increases, and so its force (according to the hypothesis) will be the same as before, that is still reciprocally as the square of its distance from the centre'


And now, Newton's explanation for the cause of the orbits of the planets/stars:

Isaac Newton speculated that gravity was caused by a flow of ether, or space, into celestial bodies. He discussed this theory in letters to Oldenburg, Halley, and Boyle.

Newton still thought that the planets and Sun were kept apart by 'some secret principle of unsociableness in the ethers of their vortices,' and that gravity was due to a circulating ether.

A letter to Bentley: That gravity should be innate, inherent, and essential to matter, so that one body can act upon another at a distance through a vacuum without the mediation of anything else, by and through which their action and force may be conveyed from one to another, is to me so great an absurdity that I believe no man, who has in philosophical matters a competent faculty of thinking, can ever fall into it.

From textbooks:

These equations contain the mass-energy density ρ(r) and pressure p(r) of the medium responsiblefor producing the gravity. They illustrate a key difference between General Relativity and Newto-nian gravity: In General Relativity, pressure is a source of gravity. The units of pressure are forceper unit area, which is equivalent to energy per unit volume.




Since space-time (which does not exist anyway) is a pressure type of gravity, how then do the 1000 billion trillion liters of water stay glued next to the surface of the spherical earth? This huge pressure force would crush everything else (clouds, living beings) to the ground immediately.


The movement of the solar planetary system toward the star Vega is completely incompatible with the first law of Kepler (copied from Arryabhatia).  The tridimensional orbits of the Sun/Planets, would be circular helices on a right cylinder, which completely contradicts the planar eliptical orbits of the planets, in the heliocentric theory. A planar eliptical orbit would be possible if and only if the whole system is at rest (with respect to the rest of the Galaxy, in the round earth theory), and not moving toward Vega with 20 km/s.

The movement of the Sun (galactic orbit):

http://biocab.org/Motions_of_the_Solar_System.jpg

The sun moves in space at a velocity of about twenty kilometers a second (in relation to the nearby stars). This motion, according to O. Lodge, must change the eccentricities of some of the planetary orbits to an extent which far exceeds the observed values.




See also:

http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=36732.msg913575#msg913575


ISS SUN VIDEOS/BLACK SUN ANTARCTICA:

http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=36686.msg913547#msg913547


STATIONARY EARTH - CLOUD TRAJECTORIES:

http://theflatearthsociety.net/talk/viewtopic.php?f=7&t=1143


THE VERY BEST PROOF THAT THE SURFACE OF THE EARTH IS COMPLETELY FLAT:

http://theflatearthsociety.net/talk/viewtopic.php?f=7&t=1142

River Tunguska, 1908, Siberia, June 30, 7:15-7:20 a.m.

The explosion took place at an altitude of 7 km; the visual obstacle from London is over 9000 KILOMETERS IN HEIGHT.

A woman north of London wrote the London Times that on midnight of July 1st the sky glowed so brightly it was possible to read large print inside her house.

TO THE EDITOR OF THE TIMES.
Sir,--I should be interested in hearing whether others of your readers observed the strange light in the sky which was seen here last night by my sister and myself. I do not know when it first appeared; we saw it between 12 o'clock (midnight) and 12:15 a.m. It was in the northeast and of a bright flame-colour like the light of sunrise or sunset. The sky, for some distance above the light, which appeared to be on the horizon, was blue as in the daytime, with bands of light cloud of a pinkish colour floating across it at intervals. Only the brightest stars could be seen in any part of the sky, though it was an almost cloudless night. It was possible to read large print indoors, and the hands of the clock in my room were quite distinct. An hour later, at about 1:30 a.m., the room was quite light, as if it had been day; the light in the sky was then more dispersed and was a fainter yellow. The whole effect was that of a night in Norway at about this time of year. I am in the habit of watching the sky, and have noticed the amount of light indoors at different hours of the night several times in the last fortnight. I have never at any time seen anything the least like this in England, and it would be interesting if any one would explain the cause of so unusual a sight.
Yours faithfully,
Katharine Stephen.
Godmanchester, Huntingdon, July 1.

This means that the TRAJECTORY OF THE FIREBALL SENT BY N. TESLA WAS SEEN FROM LONDON, FOR 10 MINUTES BEFORE THE ACTUAL EXPLOSION TOOK PLACE.

The exceptional research done by T.R. LeMaire shows that the ball lightning produced by Nikola Tesla was carefully directioned to the Tunguska River, in order not to endanger lives:

T.R. LeMaire, a science writer, continues this thought, by suggesting "The Tunguska blast's timing seems too fortuitous for an accident" (LeMaire 1980). He claims that a five-hour delay would make the target of destruction St. Petersburg, adding that a tiny change of course in space would have devastated populated areas of China or India.

Can we assume that the 'pilot' chose a cloudless day with excellent visibility from aloft to assure a safe drop? American Military strategy called for identical weather conditions; for a perfect strike on Hiroshima's industrial heart, the Enola Gay's bombardier was forbidden to release through a cloud cover: he had to see the target below. To maximize blast destruction, minimize radiation perils: the bomb was set to explode at a high altitude rather than against the ground. Similarly, the Siberian missile detonated high in the air, reducing or even eliminating fallout hazard (LeMaire 1980).

LeMaire maintains the "accident-explanation is untenable" because "the flaming object was being expertly navigated" using Lake Baikal as a reference point. Indeed, Lake Baikal is an ideal aerial navigation reference point being 400 miles long and about 35 miles wide. LeMaire's description of the course of the Tunguska object lends credence to the thought of expert navigation:

The body approached from the south, but when about 140 miles from the explosion point, while over Kezhma, it abruptly changed course to the east. Two hundred and fifty miles later, while above Preobrazhenka, it reversed its heading toward the west. It exploded above the taiga at 60?55' N, 101?57' E (LeMaire 1980).


*

parsec

  • 6196
  • 206,265
Re: What causes Gravity?
« Reply #18 on: April 02, 2010, 09:14:41 AM »
Don't mind the poster above me. As for the previous question, read the FAQ.

?

2fst4u

  • 2498
  • High and Tighty
Re: What causes Gravity?
« Reply #19 on: April 02, 2010, 02:30:00 PM »
Why is Levee mod? All he does is spam the shit out of threads.

*

John Davis

  • Secretary Of The Society
  • Administrator
  • 16330
  • Most Prolific Scientist, 2019
Re: What causes Gravity?
« Reply #20 on: April 02, 2010, 03:03:43 PM »
Why is Levee mod? All he does is spam the shit out of threads.
Please keep suggestions and concerns in the appropriate forum section.

To answer you though, levee is a long standing contributer to the flat earth cause whether I agree with all that he says or not.
Quantum Ab Hoc

*

sandokhan

  • Flat Earth Sultan
  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 4904
Re: What causes Gravity?
« Reply #21 on: April 04, 2010, 04:03:52 AM »
2flat4u, so far, in your messages you have shown everybody here that you have no idea what gravity is...you accept wholeheartedly the official propaganda much too easily. The information in my messages allows even someone like you to gain a superior knowledge of what gravity actually is; and gravity is not attractive, not now, and not ever.

There is no spam in my messages, I point out the fallacies commonly encountered in the round earth proponents' logic re: gravity.

?

flyingmonkey

  • 728
  • Troll trolling Trolls
Re: What causes Gravity?
« Reply #22 on: April 05, 2010, 05:09:07 AM »
You must be FE to be mod, that's just how it is.

*

Lorddave

  • 15510
Re: What causes Gravity?
« Reply #23 on: April 05, 2010, 12:21:37 PM »
2flat4u, so far, in your messages you have shown everybody here that you have no idea what gravity is...you accept wholeheartedly the official propaganda much too easily. The information in my messages allows even someone like you to gain a superior knowledge of what gravity actually is; and gravity is not attractive, not now, and not ever.

There is no spam in my messages, I point out the fallacies commonly encountered in the round earth proponents' logic re: gravity.

http://www.fas.harvard.edu/~scidemos/NewtonianMechanics/CavendishExperiment/CavendishExperiment.html