Do you, as a Flat Earth believer, believe in gravity?

It is impossible for an object in space to exist perfectly flat due to gravity.
This article can do the best justice to the idea:

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=why-are-planets-round

I'm interested in your responses. Do you not believe in Gravity? If so, what causes us to stay fixed to the Earth's surface, whether it be round or flat?

I do not believe in gravity.

"If so, what causes us to stay fixed to the Earth's surface, whether it be round or flat?"

UA.

Please read our FAQ.

I did. I'm asking for your explanations.

For instance, why do the various models such as the McIntyre or Davis mentioned result in a flat earth?

Can you yourself explain or prove the answers, as my own efforts have been admittedly futile?

UA.

Please read our FAQ.

You still haven't answered about the lack of event horizon or redshift despite constantly mentioning special relativity whenever your speed assumptions are called into question. It's not in the FAQ.

Quote from: EnglshGentleman on May 10, 2011, 11:48:12 AM

UA.

Please read our FAQ.

You still haven't answered about the lack of event horizon or redshift despite constantly mentioning special relativity whenever your speed assumptions are called into question. It's not in the FAQ.

Please stop spamming every thread you find and attempting to derail them.

 

Quote from: EnglshGentleman on May 10, 2011, 11:48:12 AM

UA.

Please read our FAQ.

You still haven't answered about the lack of event horizon or redshift despite constantly mentioning special relativity whenever your speed assumptions are called into question. It's not in the FAQ.

Unless you are able to explain the FAQ as asked in this thread please leave. Thanks.

I did. I'm asking for your explanations.

For instance, why do the various models such as the McIntyre or Davis mentioned result in a flat earth?

Can you yourself explain or prove the answers, as my own efforts have been admittedly futile?

I'm having difficulty understanding the exact nature of your question(s).

It is impossible for an object in space to exist perfectly flat due to gravity.
This article can do the best justice to the idea:

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=why-are-planets-round

I'm interested in your responses. Do you not believe in Gravity? If so, what causes us to stay fixed to the Earth's surface, whether it be round or flat?

It is not impossible for an object in space to exist that is non-perfectly or perfectly flat due to gravity.

Consider this:

As far as Infinite Planes go, Gravitational pull does not diminish with distance.   Using Gauss's Law in relation to Gravitational Pull:

1. Can you explain how that proves anything? Like explain what those terms mean.
2. Even if you are able to explain why, It doesn't explain how a flat object is created/formed.
   ....unless you're a creationist.

It is impossible for an object in space to exist perfectly flat due to gravity.
This article can do the best justice to the idea:

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=why-are-planets-round

I'm interested in your responses. Do you not believe in Gravity? If so, what causes us to stay fixed to the Earth's surface, whether it be round or flat?

I missed where this article supports the assertion that it's impossible for an object in space to exist perfectly flat.  At any rate, the Earth is demonstrably not perfectly flat so it seems like a non-issue (unless you'd like to reword your question to better reflect reality).

Ah, yes. I was going for something more along the lines of my post above yours. The object's creation. According to flat earth theory, the Earth is, well, flat. It's impossible for something to be created and formed flat in space (i.e. a planet), due to gravity.

Someone suggested the FAQ. I had already read it, and asked someone to explain it's answers.

If someone could get back on track with the thread with the above revision that would be great.

1. Explain the FAQ answers concerning gravity.
2. Explain how a flat Earth could be formed because of those answers.

Surely anyone well acquainted with Flat Earth theory should be able to explain what forces caused it to be flat. 

1. Explain the FAQ answers concerning gravity.

The Earth is zooming through space. It is very fast.

2. Explain how a flat Earth could be formed because of those answers.

We don't know. Probably not because of a huge explosion of nothingness.

We don't know. Probably not because of a huge explosion of nothingness.

Wow. That WOULD be ridiculous. Good thing nobody actually thinks that.

Ah, yes. I was going for something more along the lines of my post above yours. The object's creation. According to flat earth theory, the Earth is, well, flat. It's impossible for something to be created and formed flat in space (i.e. a planet), due to gravity.

I'd like to know, again, where the article supports that it's impossible for something to form flat in space.  It is, in fact, demonstrably wrong.

1. Can you explain how that proves anything? Like explain what those terms mean.
2. Even if you are able to explain why, It doesn't explain how a flat object is created/formed.
   ....unless you're a creationist.

That post proves an infinite flat plane is possible if Gauss's law holds in the physical universe.

Those are not the only two options;  terra has always existed.

Ah, yes. I was going for something more along the lines of my post above yours. The object's creation. According to flat earth theory, the Earth is, well, flat. It's impossible for something to be created and formed flat in space (i.e. a planet), due to gravity.

Someone suggested the FAQ. I had already read it, and asked someone to explain it's answers.

If someone could get back on track with the thread with the above revision that would be great.

1. Explain the FAQ answers concerning gravity.
2. Explain how a flat Earth could be formed because of those answers.

Surely anyone well acquainted with Flat Earth theory should be able to explain what forces caused it to be flat. 

Which faq answers specifically? 

"I missed where this article supports the assertion that it's impossible for an object in space to exist perfectly flat.  At any rate, the Earth is demonstrably not perfectly flat so it seems like a non-issue (unless you'd like to reword your question to better reflect reality)"

"Planets are round because their gravitational field acts as though it originates from the center of the body and pulls everything toward it."

First sentence.

Also don't stray away from my two questions posted above.

Quote from: hullo880 on May 10, 2011, 03:00:03 PM

1. Can you explain how that proves anything? Like explain what those terms mean.
2. Even if you are able to explain why, It doesn't explain how a flat object is created/formed.
   ....unless you're a creationist.

That post proves an infinite flat plane is possible if Gauss's law holds in the physical universe.

Those are not the only two options;  terra has always existed.

Quote from: hullo880 on May 10, 2011, 05:08:12 PM

Ah, yes. I was going for something more along the lines of my post above yours. The object's creation. According to flat earth theory, the Earth is, well, flat. It's impossible for something to be created and formed flat in space (i.e. a planet), due to gravity.

Someone suggested the FAQ. I had already read it, and asked someone to explain it's answers.

If someone could get back on track with the thread with the above revision that would be great.

1. Explain the FAQ answers concerning gravity.
2. Explain how a flat Earth could be formed because of those answers.

Surely anyone well acquainted with Flat Earth theory should be able to explain what forces caused it to be flat. 

Which faq answers specifically? 

Ok. Do you believe the Earth has always existed, like an uncaused cause? What is your belief.
You also missed my point, which was that those mathematical equations don't prove what I mentioned. They also don't prove what you mentioned.

Specific Answers:

A1: In the dark energy model, DE accelerates the Earth and all celestial bodies in the universe at 9.81m/s2. This is commonly known as Universal Acceleration, which produces the same effect as "gravity" in our local reference frame. See: Equivalence Principle.

A2: In both the McIntyre and the Bishop model, the Earth is being pushed up by the Universal Accelerator underneath it at 9.8m/s2. This mediates observable gravitational effects in our local reference frame.

A3: In the Davis model, the infinite plane produces a finite gravitational field with a downward pull. Click here for the mathematical formulation behind this model.

I also see no mention of those "models" being mentioned outside of this site.
Could someone provide some sort of proof or source of their existence?

"Planets are round because their gravitational field acts as though it originates from the center of the body and pulls everything toward it."

Phobos? Proteus? Deimos? Thebe? The list goes on. Perhaps we should come up with new explanations...

Quote from: hullo880 on May 10, 2011, 05:40:06 PM

"Planets are round because their gravitational field acts as though it originates from the center of the body and pulls everything toward it."

Phobos? Proteus? Deimos? Thebe? The list goes on. Perhaps we should come up with new explanations...

Those are all moons.

Broken off of, you guessed it, round objects such as planets.

Edit: If you think moons = planets you need to brush up on your science a bit.

Most of the "theories" I've read have been centered on the idea of accretion and/or capture -- not pieces "broken off planets".

"I missed where this article supports the assertion that it's impossible for an object in space to exist perfectly flat.  At any rate, the Earth is demonstrably not perfectly flat so it seems like a non-issue (unless you'd like to reword your question to better reflect reality)"

"Planets are round because their gravitational field acts as though it originates from the center of the body and pulls everything toward it."

First sentence.

Also don't stray away from my two questions posted above.

That quote explains the theory behind why planets are round.  It does not in any way state that it's impossible for something to be formed flat in space.

Most of the "theories" I've read have been centered on the idea of accretion and/or capture -- not pieces "broken off planets".

Pieces broken of off planets are what's behind accretion/capture.
None of the moons are flat either, so I fail to see your point.

Quote from: hullo880 on May 10, 2011, 05:40:06 PM

"I missed where this article supports the assertion that it's impossible for an object in space to exist perfectly flat.  At any rate, the Earth is demonstrably not perfectly flat so it seems like a non-issue (unless you'd like to reword your question to better reflect reality)"

"Planets are round because their gravitational field acts as though it originates from the center of the body and pulls everything toward it."

First sentence.

Also don't stray away from my two questions posted above.

That quote explains the theory behind why planets are round.  It does not in any way state that it's impossible for something to be formed flat in space.

Yes it does.

As I said, please don't stray away from my two questions.

1. Explain the FAQ answers concerning gravity.
2. Explain how a flat Earth could be formed because of those answers.

To make it easier:

A1: In the dark energy model, DE accelerates the Earth and all celestial bodies in the universe at 9.81m/s2. This is commonly known as Universal Acceleration, which produces the same effect as "gravity" in our local reference frame. See: Equivalence Principle.

A2: In both the McIntyre and the Bishop model, the Earth is being pushed up by the Universal Accelerator underneath it at 9.8m/s2. This mediates observable gravitational effects in our local reference frame.

A3: In the Davis model, the infinite plane produces a finite gravitational field with a downward pull. Click here for the mathematical formulation behind this model.

How did the first objects accrete without "pieces broken off planets?"  

Quote from: Roundy the Truthinessist on May 10, 2011, 06:22:52 PM

Quote from: hullo880 on May 10, 2011, 05:40:06 PM

"I missed where this article supports the assertion that it's impossible for an object in space to exist perfectly flat.  At any rate, the Earth is demonstrably not perfectly flat so it seems like a non-issue (unless you'd like to reword your question to better reflect reality)"

"Planets are round because their gravitational field acts as though it originates from the center of the body and pulls everything toward it."

First sentence.

Also don't stray away from my two questions posted above.

That quote explains the theory behind why planets are round.  It does not in any way state that it's impossible for something to be formed flat in space.

Yes it does.

I still seem to be missing it.  Can you bold the word "impossible" for me?

As I said, please don't stray away from my two questions.

1. Explain the FAQ answers concerning gravity.
2. Explain how a flat Earth could be formed because of those answers.

To make it easier:

Quote

A1: In the dark energy model, DE accelerates the Earth and all celestial bodies in the universe at 9.81m/s2. This is commonly known as Universal Acceleration, which produces the same effect as "gravity" in our local reference frame. See: Equivalence Principle.

A2: In both the McIntyre and the Bishop model, the Earth is being pushed up by the Universal Accelerator underneath it at 9.8m/s2. This mediates observable gravitational effects in our local reference frame.

A3: In the Davis model, the infinite plane produces a finite gravitational field with a downward pull. Click here for the mathematical formulation behind this model.

1) I have no idea what you need explaining.  I'm not about to give a sweeping lecture on the principles of gravitation and gravitational effects on a flat Earth.  Please be somewhat more specific.

2) Unknown.

I missed where this article supports the assertion that it's impossible for an object in space to exist perfectly flat.  At any rate, the Earth is demonstrably not perfectly flat so it seems like a non-issue (unless you'd like to reword your question to better reflect reality).

It's not so much that an object in space can't be flat, it's more like an object beyond a certain mass can't be flat.

The IAU's definition mandates that planets be large enough for their own gravity to form them into a state of hydrostatic equilibrium; this means that they will reach a shape that is, if not spherical, then spheroidal. Up to a certain mass, an object can be irregular in shape, but beyond that point gravity begins to pull an object towards its own centre of mass until the object collapses into a sphere. Relaxing the demand for strict sphericity was mandated by the fact that many large objects in the Solar System, such as the planets Jupiter and Saturn, the moons Mimas, Enceladus and Miranda, and the dwarf planet Haumea,[64]  have been distorted into oblate or prolate spheroids by rapid rotation or tidal forces

Quote from: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Definition_of_planet#Hydrostatic_equilibrium

Relaxing the demand for strict sphericity was mandated by the fact that many large objects in the Solar System...

... refuse to conform to theory.

Quote from: markjo on May 10, 2011, 06:57:43 PM

Quote from: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Definition_of_planet#Hydrostatic_equilibrium

Relaxing the demand for strict sphericity was mandated by the fact that many large objects in the Solar System...

... refuse to conform to theory.

Only when taken out of context.