Gravity

  • 34 Replies
  • 4555 Views
?

pook

  • 14
  • Photographer and University Lecturer.
Gravity
« on: October 23, 2011, 01:19:54 PM »
Hello Flat Earth people.

I've been meaning to ask this question for some time, and yes, I did search for it before posting, but found nothing.


If the flat earth "gravity" is caused by upward motion at 9.8m/s, how come jumping off a 1000ft building doesn't result in you falling at only 9.8m/sec (22mph)?   If there is no inherent gravity to the flat earth, then surely, the fastest anything could fall would always be a constant 9.8metres per second, or 22mph.  However, a sky diver in a standard free fall, belly down position reaches 54 metres per second, or 122mph. Tuck in your limbs and point head down and you can reach 200mph, or 90m/s

So what causes this if there is no gravity?

In flat earth physics, this replication of 10m/s per second acceleration could only be caused by the constant acceleration of the disk at 9.8 metres per second, per second.

Is this what you are proposing?  That the flat earth is not only moving at 9.8m/s upwards, but is accelerating at 9.8m/s per second?  Considering the age of the earth, it would be travelling faster than light by now.


[edit]

Furthermore, if I jump, and there's no gravity (only the upward motion of earth) how come I don't continue moving away from earth? 
« Last Edit: October 23, 2011, 01:35:13 PM by pook »

Re: Gravity
« Reply #1 on: October 23, 2011, 01:39:44 PM »
Hello Flat Earth people.

I've been meaning to ask this question for some time, and yes, I did search for it before posting, but found nothing.


If the flat earth "gravity" is caused by upward motion at 9.8m/s, how come jumping off a 1000ft building doesn't result in you falling at only 9.8m/sec (22mph)?   If there is no inherent gravity to the flat earth, then surely, the fastest anything could fall would always be a constant 9.8metres per second, or 22mph.  However, a sky diver in a standard free fall, belly down position reaches 54 metres per second, or 122mph. Tuck in your limbs and point head down and you can reach 200mph, or 90m/s

So what causes this if there is no gravity?

In flat earth physics, this replication of 10m/s per second acceleration could only be caused by the constant acceleration of the disk at 9.8 metres per second, per second.

Is this what you are proposing?  That the flat earth is not only moving at 9.8m/s upwards, but is accelerating at 9.8m/s per second?  Considering the age of the earth, it would be travelling faster than light by now.

I think you misunderstand the principles behind which a flat Earth might be possible. in FET, the Earth is accelerating upwards at 9.8 m/s^2. The current speed of the Earth is not known nor does it influence the force that we feel. Due to the effects of special relativity, nothing can reach the speed of light even if accelerated for an extremely long period of time.
You, sir, can't comprehend the idea of bottoms.

?

pook

  • 14
  • Photographer and University Lecturer.
Re: Gravity
« Reply #2 on: October 23, 2011, 01:46:51 PM »
So you ARE proposing that the earth is accelerating at 10m/s^2?   Relativity doesn't state that nothing can travel as fast as light despite how fast it travels at all, it just states that nothing can travel as fast as light, except light.  The speed of light is finite however, and is a definite velocity that can be measured.  By that definition, once you pass that velocity (which the earth surely must have by now if accelerating at 10m/s^2 for billions of years) you ARE travelling faster than light.

All this can be measured...  you can measure Doppler shift in light if you travel towards it when it is travelling towards you, and vice versa. 

Re: Gravity
« Reply #3 on: October 23, 2011, 02:10:23 PM »
So you ARE proposing that the earth is accelerating at 10m/s^2?   Relativity doesn't state that nothing can travel as fast as light despite how fast it travels at all, it just states that nothing can travel as fast as light, except light.  The speed of light is finite however, and is a definite velocity that can be measured.  By that definition, once you pass that velocity (which the earth surely must have by now if accelerating at 10m/s^2 for billions of years) you ARE travelling faster than light.

All this can be measured...  you can measure Doppler shift in light if you travel towards it when it is travelling towards you, and vice versa.

Haha not quite. I'm a firm believer in a round Earth.

If you analyze the equations of special relativity like in the following...
http://johanw.home.xs4all.nl/PhysFAQ/Relativity/SR/rocket.html
you will see that under a constant acceleration, an object's velocity will asymptotically approach the speed of light as time goes to infinity.
You, sir, can't comprehend the idea of bottoms.

Re: Gravity
« Reply #4 on: October 23, 2011, 05:11:29 PM »
Gravity for a flat earth would work the same way. this was a big problem for the government. because they started thinking that people would ask questions like this. so they answered the flat earth people in 1954 that they had invented "gravity supressors" the same affect takes place like when an elephant is in a microwave. it doesnt work but the story can still be told.
 :D

Re: Gravity
« Reply #5 on: October 23, 2011, 05:15:48 PM »
Haha not quite. I'm a firm believer in a round Earth.

If you analyze the equations of special relativity like in the following...
http://johanw.home.xs4all.nl/PhysFAQ/Relativity/SR/rocket.html
you will see that under a constant acceleration, an object's velocity will asymptotically approach the speed of light as time goes to infinity.

This has always been an issue I've had with the flat Earth model. Under special relativity, Earth can indeed accelerate forever from our point of view. The problem is that under a flat Earth model, there's little evidence that special relativity is true. Most experiments to test it rely on the assumption of a round Earth model.

Special relativity essentially becomes yet another unexplained phenomena to deal with one of the problems of the flat Earth model.

*

Ski

  • Planar Moderator
  • 8505
  • Homines, dum docent, dispenguin.
Re: Gravity
« Reply #6 on: October 23, 2011, 06:40:58 PM »
Well, if one is willing to dispense with SR as a starting point, why would he/she be concerned about the speed limit?
"Never think you can turn over any old falsehood without a terrible squirming of the horrid little population that dwells under it." -O.W. Holmes "Truth forever on the scaffold, Wrong forever on the throne.."

?

pook

  • 14
  • Photographer and University Lecturer.
Re: Gravity
« Reply #7 on: October 23, 2011, 11:16:55 PM »
OK, to keep things more simple, let's do just that, and dispense with SR.  That still begs the question, what is causing the earth to accelerate in the first place?   In the FE model of physics, it can't be gravity, so what is the means of propulsion?

?

pook

  • 14
  • Photographer and University Lecturer.
Re: Gravity
« Reply #8 on: October 24, 2011, 01:03:36 PM »
No takers?   Propulsion?  Anyone?

*

Ski

  • Planar Moderator
  • 8505
  • Homines, dum docent, dispenguin.
Re: Gravity
« Reply #9 on: October 24, 2011, 03:35:00 PM »
I have no idea why the earth is accelerating. Why is the universe accelerating in round earth cosmology?
"Never think you can turn over any old falsehood without a terrible squirming of the horrid little population that dwells under it." -O.W. Holmes "Truth forever on the scaffold, Wrong forever on the throne.."

Re: Gravity
« Reply #10 on: October 24, 2011, 03:36:08 PM »
Consequences of the big bang? Know the theory?
“The Earth looks flat, therefore it is” FEers wisdom.

*

Ski

  • Planar Moderator
  • 8505
  • Homines, dum docent, dispenguin.
Re: Gravity
« Reply #11 on: October 24, 2011, 03:40:35 PM »
That poorly-understood theory only posits that the universe would move outward. Why is it accelerating?
"Never think you can turn over any old falsehood without a terrible squirming of the horrid little population that dwells under it." -O.W. Holmes "Truth forever on the scaffold, Wrong forever on the throne.."

Re: Gravity
« Reply #12 on: October 24, 2011, 04:10:01 PM »
Less attraction from the galaxies.
“The Earth looks flat, therefore it is” FEers wisdom.

*

Roundy the Truthinessist

  • Flat Earth TheFLAMETHROWER!
  • The Elder Ones
  • 27043
  • I'm the boss.
Re: Gravity
« Reply #13 on: October 24, 2011, 07:38:25 PM »
Less attraction from the galaxies.

That does not answer the question.
Where did you educate the biology, in toulet?

Re: Gravity
« Reply #14 on: October 25, 2011, 12:57:22 PM »
It does. Read more, troll less.
“The Earth looks flat, therefore it is” FEers wisdom.

*

Roundy the Truthinessist

  • Flat Earth TheFLAMETHROWER!
  • The Elder Ones
  • 27043
  • I'm the boss.
Re: Gravity
« Reply #15 on: October 25, 2011, 03:04:07 PM »
It does. Read more, troll less.

How about if you explain it, since you're making the claim?  How does "less attraction from the galaxies" lead to a universe that is accelerating?  The RE universe is huge, and it's supposedly been accelerating for billions of years!  My God, where is all that energy coming from?  "Less attraction from the galaxies" does not answer that question.
« Last Edit: October 25, 2011, 03:07:09 PM by Roundy the Truthinessist »
Where did you educate the biology, in toulet?

?

Nolhekh

  • 1669
  • Animator
Re: Gravity
« Reply #16 on: October 25, 2011, 03:09:52 PM »
Less attraction from the galaxies.
Less attraction means less deceleration, not more acceleration.

Re: Gravity
« Reply #17 on: October 25, 2011, 03:16:16 PM »
You're right. ow it's time to use the term of "Dark Energy".
“The Earth looks flat, therefore it is” FEers wisdom.

*

Roundy the Truthinessist

  • Flat Earth TheFLAMETHROWER!
  • The Elder Ones
  • 27043
  • I'm the boss.
Re: Gravity
« Reply #18 on: October 25, 2011, 03:18:40 PM »
You're right. ow it's time to use the term of "Dark Energy".

ITT: A REer realizes his theory really doesn't explain things better than FE does.
Where did you educate the biology, in toulet?

Re: Gravity
« Reply #19 on: October 25, 2011, 03:25:33 PM »
Global expansion isn't a theory that FE'ers endorse?
“The Earth looks flat, therefore it is” FEers wisdom.

*

Roundy the Truthinessist

  • Flat Earth TheFLAMETHROWER!
  • The Elder Ones
  • 27043
  • I'm the boss.
Re: Gravity
« Reply #20 on: October 25, 2011, 03:30:15 PM »
Global expansion isn't a theory that FE'ers endorse?

What does global expansion have to do with the discussion?
Where did you educate the biology, in toulet?

Re: Gravity
« Reply #21 on: October 25, 2011, 03:32:03 PM »
I have no idea why the earth is accelerating. Why is the universe accelerating in round earth cosmology?

You should read ALL the posts before posting yourself.
“The Earth looks flat, therefore it is” FEers wisdom.

*

Ski

  • Planar Moderator
  • 8505
  • Homines, dum docent, dispenguin.
Re: Gravity
« Reply #22 on: October 25, 2011, 05:17:02 PM »
NONE of your posts has been remotely useful. What makes you assume I did not read any of them?
"Never think you can turn over any old falsehood without a terrible squirming of the horrid little population that dwells under it." -O.W. Holmes "Truth forever on the scaffold, Wrong forever on the throne.."

Re: Gravity
« Reply #23 on: October 25, 2011, 06:49:40 PM »
You're right. ow it's time to use the term of "Dark Energy".

ITT: A REer realizes his theory really doesn't explain things better than FE does.
ITT: Dark Energy and the Big Bang are RET theories.

*

Roundy the Truthinessist

  • Flat Earth TheFLAMETHROWER!
  • The Elder Ones
  • 27043
  • I'm the boss.
Re: Gravity
« Reply #24 on: October 25, 2011, 07:33:32 PM »
Dark Energy and the Big Bang are RET theories.

That is correct.
Where did you educate the biology, in toulet?

Re: Gravity
« Reply #25 on: October 26, 2011, 10:58:17 AM »
In my opinion, serious FEers don't believe in UA.  The idea of UA was probably introduced to FET to make FET seem absurd.


?

Thork

Re: Gravity
« Reply #26 on: October 26, 2011, 11:06:37 AM »
Thank you for your hypothesis and insightful commentary on the Flat Earth Society, Mr 'I have made 34 posts here'. ::)

*

Son of Orospu

  • Jura's b*tch and proud of it!
  • Planar Moderator
  • 37820
  • I have artificial intelligence
Re: Gravity
« Reply #27 on: October 27, 2011, 05:03:36 AM »
Thank you for your hypothesis and insightful commentary on the Flat Earth Society, Mr 'I have made 34 posts here'. ::)

That's right.  Thork is more than 183 times more smart than you because he has 6232 posts.

*

Ski

  • Planar Moderator
  • 8505
  • Homines, dum docent, dispenguin.
Re: Gravity
« Reply #28 on: October 27, 2011, 04:40:01 PM »
No, but Thork is smarter than he if Thork has half a clue what he is talking about.
"Never think you can turn over any old falsehood without a terrible squirming of the horrid little population that dwells under it." -O.W. Holmes "Truth forever on the scaffold, Wrong forever on the throne.."

?

pook

  • 14
  • Photographer and University Lecturer.
Re: Gravity
« Reply #29 on: October 29, 2011, 03:42:29 PM »
So...  no explanation as to why the earth is accelerating, and what it's means of propulsion might be?  Does that not worry you?  Call me old fashioned...  but the earth being round, with a molten iron core, and gravity is is a much more likely explanation.


Oh, one other thing.  I've seen the curvature of the earth with my own eyes.  Have I been hypnotised by the government?