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

Quote from: Roundy the Truthinessist on May 10, 2011, 03:30:01 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).

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.

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

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

Even this never states that it's impossible for a flat object to be formed in space.  It merely outlines one of the criteria for forming a planet (a criterion, I might add, that according to theory FE doesn't meet), so it's really not much of a step up from the previous quote.

To elaborate on my overall point: It might very well be appropriate to state that based on what we know of the universe now, it is impossible for a very massive object to be formed flat.  But let's remember, "what we know of the universe now" is always wrong (in its entirety) and constantly modified.  So to state that anything of this nature is impossible without that sort of qualifier would be intellectually dishonest, and I really doubt that any self-respecting scientist wouldn't admit to the distinction.

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.

You don't have to give a sweeping lecture.

As I said before, surely anyone well acquainted with Flat Earth theory should be able to explain what forces caused it to be flat.

I find it quite unbelievable that not one "flat earth" believer has been able to answer this.

Quote from: Roundy the Truthinessist on May 10, 2011, 06:47:45 PM

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.

You don't have to give a sweeping lecture.

As I said before, surely anyone well acquainted with Flat Earth theory should be able to explain what forces caused it to be flat.

I find it quite unbelievable that not one "flat earth" believer has been able to answer this.

How, exactly, are we supposed to know?

Through science. Are you saying that you simply believe the Earth is flat because, well, it just is?

Quote from: John Davis on May 10, 2011, 05:35:31 PM

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.

It does at least show a basis for an infinite flat object to exist and not collapse as you say to a sphere.   Consider this, there is no horizontal center of mass for an infinite plane to collapse to;  all the gravitational forces acting horizontally on an object cancel out.


Yes, I believe terra has existed for an infinite amount of time. 

Specific Answers:

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.

A1:  A power unknown force is accelerating the universe at 9.81m/s/s.  Consider when you are in your car and you start accelerating, or on an elevator;  you feel a pull either backwards or down/up.  This pull is indistinguishable from gravity.  THis is what causes gravitational pull.  Dark energy in Bishop and McINtyres models pushes fuels the UA and this is basically the same idea.

A3:  In my model  an infinite plane (the earth) produces a gravitational pull that is finite.  The mathematical basis for this was posted above.  Basically, when one does the math one sees that an infinite massive plane would have its horizontal gravitational pulls cancelled out.  This just leaves the vertical ones.  When one sums up the vertical ones, it turns out to be a finite value (although it does not diminish with altitude.  THis is what that math above explains.

I do not believe in gravity.

Hold on tight to something!!!

Quote from: Ali on May 10, 2011, 12:07:58 PM

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.

Answer the question. It's directly relevant, unless you can't, of course.

It seems to me that this site is simply an explanation of accepted scientific principles applied to the hypothetical concept of a flat earth.
(Like, "what if" the Earth was flat).
Ex: It's not gravity, It's an unknown force at 9.81 m/s/s that for some unknown reason causes a flat Earth.

All the explanations I've seen are attempts to prove that a flat Earth is possible and not that it actually is. The explanations I've seen  are quite vacuous and rely upon the assumption that Earth has always existed. They also rely on an unknown force that somehow causes Earth to be flat.

I admire the thought that has gone into this site and it's explanations, but there are no conclusions drawn. To me, this site is just a conspiracy theory created simply for the sake of having one.

I also admire your avatars, featuring many old men and past stately figures.

That's my two cents, and my conclusion. I was hoping to come to a conclusion on this site with the creation of this thread, and I have.

Thanks for your input and time,

hullo880

You titled the thread with a concept that is not proven by science so this is not the one to draw a conclusion that the site is not applicable to the purpose therein. You can not conclude that the Earth is flat or round but starting from a false premise.

If you are at the starting line of a running race, put your feet in the blocks getting into starting position, and upon hearing the starting gun you blast out of blocks running backwards in the wrong direction your failure of task is guaranteed.   

Stay awhile and look within the site before you make a final decision of Earth shape.  You may surprise yourself! 

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?

Yes, they do believe in gravity.  From the FAQ:

Q: "What about tides?"
A: The gravitational pull of the celestial bodies provides tidal effects. Others believe that there is an object called the Sub-moon that sits underneath the Earth. The moon causes the tides, and the Sub-moon balances out the effect.

Which means that gravity has a measurable force.  I would love to see one of the "researchers" here show with calculations how the various gravity vectors from celestial bodies or the "sub moon" produce the tides.  You can't, because the tidal action is a fluid, circular motion.  Project this onto a flat surface: 

That is the most ridiculous graphic ever -- apparently the moon only controls the tides when aligned with the sun?

Speaking of solar tides, why is there no high tide at noon everyday?

Speaking of solar tides, why is there no high tide at noon everyday?

I don't understand the question...do you think it's noon everywhere at the same time?

Quote from: Ski on May 12, 2011, 01:24:20 PM

Speaking of solar tides, why is there no high tide at noon everyday?

I don't understand the question...do you think it's noon everywhere at the same time?

Probably about as much as he thinks it's high tide everywhere at the same time. 

That is the most ridiculous graphic ever -- apparently the moon only controls the tides when aligned with the sun?

Speaking of solar tides, why is there no high tide at noon everyday?

Because noon isn't when the sun is closest to the earth, just when our part of the earth is facing directly toward it.  When the moon is aligned with the sun there are higher tides; only slightly because the moon exerts much more force on the earth than the sun (being closer).  When the moon is perpendicular to the sun tides are reduced, again only a little bit.

However that's not the point. 

The graphic was just intended to illustrate my point:  The high tide moves around the earth.  It doesn't reverse direction; it doesn't stop.  It also moves across Antarctica from one side to the other.  This can't be explained with any flat earth model; it only works with a spheroid.  The effect of the sun further complicates it.  It's similar to the problem with day and night but harder to explain.

Gravity is an absurd myth, a pseudo-religious fiction which derives from Plato's fanatical belief that the perfect form is that of a sphere.  There is no such magical force, the Earth is flat and fixed in a single directional motion.  Newtonian astronomy divests the Earth of its attribute of fixity, and conceives it as a rapidly moving globe, possessing three seperate and distinct motions, and influenced by other disturbing causes - a mere speck or atom amidst the endless congeries of suns, systems and revolving worlds.  Who but the most infatuated dreamer, who but the most bewildered enthusiast, could credit a theory like this?

Universal Acceleration is an absurd myth, a pseudo-religious fiction which derives from James' fanatical belief that the perfect form is that of a plane.  There is no such magical force, the Earth is round and in orbit around the sun.  Planarist astronomy divests the Earth of its attribute of circlitude, and conceives it as a rapidly moving disc, possessing but one distinct motion, and influenced by an unknowable cause - a mere speck or atom amidst the endless demonic upward acceleration.  Who but the most infatuated dreamer, who but the most bewildered enthusiast, could credit a theory like this?

Gravity is an absurd myth...  Who but the most infatuated dreamer, who but the most bewildered enthusiast, could credit a theory like this?

John Davis, among others.

It seems to me that this site is simply an explanation of accepted scientific principles applied to the hypothetical concept of a flat earth.
(Like, "what if" the Earth was flat).
Ex: It's not gravity, It's an unknown force at 9.81 m/s/s that for some unknown reason causes a flat Earth.

All the explanations I've seen are attempts to prove that a flat Earth is possible and not that it actually is. The explanations I've seen  are quite vacuous and rely upon the assumption that Earth has always existed. They also rely on an unknown force that somehow causes Earth to be flat.

I admire the thought that has gone into this site and it's explanations, but there are no conclusions drawn. To me, this site is just a conspiracy theory created simply for the sake of having one.

I also admire your avatars, featuring many old men and past stately figures.

That's my two cents, and my conclusion. I was hoping to come to a conclusion on this site with the creation of this thread, and I have.

Thanks for your input and time,

hullo880

^ I love this guy

Curved Earth Society, please refrain from making low-content posts in the discussion forums, and read our Forum Rules.

A1:  A power unknown force is accelerating the universe at 9.81m/s/s.  Consider when you are in your car and you start accelerating, or on an elevator;  you feel a pull either backwards or down/up.  This pull is indistinguishable from gravity.  THis is what causes gravitational pull.  Dark energy in Bishop and McINtyres models pushes fuels the UA and this is basically the same idea.

A3:  In my model  an infinite plane (the earth) produces a gravitational pull that is finite.  The mathematical basis for this was posted above.  Basically, when one does the math one sees that an infinite massive plane would have its horizontal gravitational pulls cancelled out.  This just leaves the vertical ones.  When one sums up the vertical ones, it turns out to be a finite value (although it does not diminish with altitude.  THis is what that math above explains.
[/quote]

Then what is microgravity? As I go up a mountain or up in a shuttle, g decreases? I posted in another thread about this but it has gone through all the normal "Gravity does not exist, Gravitons haven't been found, it's all a hoax" stuff as this thread.

Then what is microgravity? As I go up a mountain or up in a shuttle, g decreases?

The stars have a slight pull.

Quote

Then what is microgravity? As I go up a mountain or up in a shuttle, g decreases?

The stars have a slight pull.

Why is that?

Quote

Then what is microgravity? As I go up a mountain or up in a shuttle, g decreases?

The stars have a slight pull.

This is not true; gravity simply does not exist, it is a made-up force.  And nobody has gone up in a shuttle.

But there is so much science done under microgravity, not all was sponsored by "NASA" or other space agencies.  You are further stating that all this research is bunk and any results gained from these observances are false to some degree.

Some of these observances have aided in developing new HIV drugs and further understanding respiratory syncytial virus (RSV) and various metabolic diseases.

Not with the help of gravity.  If these drugs were discovered by gravity-believers, it was in spite of, not because of, their belief in thge fictional force of gravity.

Not with the help of gravity.  If these drugs were discovered by gravity-believers, it was in spite of, not because of, their belief in thge fictional force of gravity.

These drugs were discovered by people who believe in micro-gravity.  I am sorry you believe otherwise. Loved the discussion, I'm out.

James, I believe that was his point.  These crystals cannot form in the presence of earth's gravity, or whatever term you choose to call the nominal 9.8m/s² acceleration that is felt at or near the earth's surface.

Then these discoverers were confused as to their method of discovery.

No James, I think that you might be confused as to the method of their discovery.  These discoveries were made in an environment with the absence of the nominal acceleration commonly referred to as "gravity".  How is such an environment possible if the earth is flat and sustained space flight is impossible?

Why is that?

While I do not know the reason, it is evident that stars must have a pull towards their centre. Otherwise, the gas they consist of would just spread out, thus vapourising the star in question.