Axes to FES: Part 1

Quote from: Lord Wilmore on May 01, 2010, 06:08:55 AM

And any idiot should know that an infinite plane would work quite differently to a finite body.

Why's that? Are there different laws of physics?

No, just bodies of different extent, and accordingly, different results (as his original post itself acknowledges).

No, just bodies of different extent, and accordingly, different results (as his original post itself acknowledges).

This kind of vague response is only likely to satisfy idiots.

Quote from: Lord Wilmore on May 01, 2010, 06:26:55 AM

No, just bodies of different extent, and accordingly, different results (as his original post itself acknowledges).

This kind of vague response is only likely to satisfy idiots.

I would suggest that you speak from experience, but the post is not vague, just accurate.

Quote from: Thevoiceofreason on April 30, 2010, 07:14:56 PM

Quote from: John Davis on April 29, 2010, 09:56:34 PM

An infinite plane clearly would not be accelerating upwards as it would cause its own finite gravitational pull from mass.

ok, and so explain why it wouldn't cave in on itself.
any idiot knows that a massive enough body turns itself into something resembling a sphere

And any idiot should know that an infinite plane would work quite differently to a finite body.

so different that the laws of physics don't exist?
tell me how deep your plane is.

and btw I am debating against FET not infinite plane earth theory.

Quote from: Lord Wilmore on May 01, 2010, 06:08:55 AM

Quote from: Thevoiceofreason on April 30, 2010, 07:14:56 PM

Quote from: John Davis on April 29, 2010, 09:56:34 PM

An infinite plane clearly would not be accelerating upwards as it would cause its own finite gravitational pull from mass.

ok, and so explain why it wouldn't cave in on itself.
any idiot knows that a massive enough body turns itself into something resembling a sphere

And any idiot should know that an infinite plane would work quite differently to a finite body.

so different that the laws of physics don't exist?
tell me how deep your plane is.

and btw I am debating against FET not infinite plane earth theory.

Read the FAQ.

I would suggest that you speak from experience, but the post is not vague, just accurate.

Vague is accurate. All fish swim. See? A fact often deployed here at Flat Towers.

Let me help:

No, just bodies of different (how different)? extent, and accordingly (according to what?), different (how different? where are these results?) results

nice derailment FES,
so now if you want to switch to infinite plane theory, the problem still is how do you account for different levels of acceleration?

that would imply that the acceleration is independent of height, which makes SFET (the is is for superseded) inconsistent with the aforementioned observed data.
see page four of http://www.pgccphy.net/1030/gravity.pdf

the floodlight sun can surely explain the sunshine.

the sun can beam light almost at 180 degrees.
this hsould be able to hit 1/2 of our round disc shaped but not spherical world.

the floodlight sun can surely explain the sunshine.

the sun can beam light almost at 180 degrees.
this hsould be able to hit 1/2 of our round disc shaped but not spherical world.

lol what does this have to do with acceleration?
And no. pick two points on Antarctica of the FES map that form a diameter. explain how a floodlight can illuminate both at once, but leave nearly half of the points on that line in the dark

Thevoiceofreason,

have you ever personally measured the value of g at two different altitudes? Have you ever noticed that there are allegedly different values of g at identical elevations in different parts of the world? There are some major inconsistencies with what RE'ers have said about this.

Thevoiceofreason,

have you ever personally measured the value of g at two different altitudes? Have you ever noticed that there are allegedly different values of g at identical elevations in different parts of the world? There are some major inconsistencies with what RE'ers have said about this.

no I have not personally done it. and of course there are, local geography, and the angle from the globe's geographic zenith factor in

have you ever personally measured the value of g at two different altitudes?

If he said he had would you believe him?

I'm gonna call this the Witness fallacy; "Unless you've done it, it ain't true".

See also: "Does China exist?" and "Have you ever seen an atom?"

Thevoiceofreason,

have you ever personally measured the value of g at two different altitudes? Have you ever noticed that there are allegedly different values of g at identical elevations in different parts of the world? There are some major inconsistencies with what RE'ers have said about this.

Straw man. And if any RE'er said g depends only on altitude, they are wrong. Latitude, local geography (like giant mountains nearby), and earth's distribution of mass also matter. So we actually EXPECT "major inconsistencies" if we were to assume naively, and as you seem to have implied, that it depends only on elevation. No one says this, though, and this is not at all what RET claims.

But the bottom line is that it does not matter. If there is any statistically significant difference between the value of g in any two places on the earth, and yet these two places aren't accelerating away from each other in terms of how high they are, then the earth cannot be flat.

Found some interesting stuff.  Not revolutionary stuff, but stuff I felt some people should see:

You are right - gravity does change across the surface of the Earth and throughout its atmosphere, due to several effects.

First, there is the variation of gravity with latitude that you alluded to: you weigh about 0.5% more at the poles than on the equator. There are two effects that contribute to this, and they are discussed in more detail in a previous question. (It should be noted, however, that only one of these effects is due to an actual difference in the gravitational force between the equator and poles - the other effect is due to the fact that the Earth is spinning, which affects the weight you would see when you stepped on a scale but does not actually represent a change in the value of the gravitational force.)

Second, gravity does indeed change with altitude. The gravitational force above the Earth's surface is proportional to 1/R2, where R is your distance from the center of the Earth. The radius of the Earth at the equator is 6,378 kilometers, so let's say you were on a mountain at the equator that was 5 kilometers high (around 16,400 feet). You would then be 6,383 kilometers from the Earth's center, and the gravitational force would have decreased by a factor of (6,378 / 6,383)2 = 0.9984. So the difference is less than 0.2%.

Finally, there are very small differences (on the order of 0.01% or less) in gravity due to differences in the local geology. For example, changes in the density of rock underneath you or the presence of mountains nearby can have a slight effect on the gravitational force.

Quote from http://curious.astro.cornell.edu/question.php?number=465

I'm sure you could find similar arguments and reasoning from dozens of other credible sources.