Gravity Question

  • 65 Replies
  • 7843 Views
?

GeoGuy

Gravity Question
« Reply #30 on: October 16, 2006, 02:51:50 PM »
Quote from: "soggycrouton"

Your FAQ disagrees with you.


I know, but until someone provides solid evidence that says we do I have no reason to accept it.

Gravity Question
« Reply #31 on: October 16, 2006, 02:55:18 PM »
Quote from: "GeoGuy"
Quote from: "soggycrouton"

Your FAQ disagrees with you.


I know, but until someone provides solid evidence that says we do I have no reason to accept it.


How solid does would the evidence have to be?

Gravity Question
« Reply #32 on: October 16, 2006, 02:56:41 PM »
Quote from: "soggycrouton"
Your FAQ disagrees with you.


Read this.

Quote from: "The FAQ"
The opinions and beliefs expressed in any posts do not necessarily reflect the beliefs of The Flat Earth Society Forums.
The Flat Earth Society Forums' goal is to promote the free discussion of The Flat Earth Theory as well as the free discussion of and debate of any topic of interest to our members that do not contradict Forum Rules.
The views of any individual or organization (including that of the old Flat Earth Society run by Charles K Johnson) are not nessecarily shared in whole or in part by The Flat Earth Society Forums. The only person qualified to give the official position of the Forums (if required) is Daniel.
Also please remember that views of the Forum are not necessarily shared by the Forum Staff who come from both sides of The Flat/Sphere Debate and whose sole unifying purpose is to promote a smooth running forum so as to encourage the victory of truth throught free disscussion and argument.
 believe the Earth is round.
That doesn't mean the Earth is round.

"If you're going to yell at me every time I do something stupid, then I guess I'm just going to have to stop doing stupid things!" --Homer Simpson

?

GeoGuy

Gravity Question
« Reply #33 on: October 16, 2006, 02:58:33 PM »
Quote from: "soggycrouton"

How solid does would the evidence have to be?


Solid enough to show that we weigh less the higher we go.

Gravity Question
« Reply #34 on: October 16, 2006, 03:15:11 PM »
Quote from: "holybrain"
Quote from: "soggycrouton"
Your FAQ disagrees with you.


Read this.

Quote from: "The FAQ"
The opinions and beliefs expressed in any posts do not necessarily reflect the beliefs of The Flat Earth Society Forums.
The Flat Earth Society Forums' goal is to promote the free discussion of The Flat Earth Theory as well as the free discussion of and debate of any topic of interest to our members that do not contradict Forum Rules.
The views of any individual or organization (including that of the old Flat Earth Society run by Charles K Johnson) are not nessecarily shared in whole or in part by The Flat Earth Society Forums. The only person qualified to give the official position of the Forums (if required) is Daniel.
Also please remember that views of the Forum are not necessarily shared by the Forum Staff who come from both sides of The Flat/Sphere Debate and whose sole unifying purpose is to promote a smooth running forum so as to encourage the victory of truth throught free disscussion and argument.


I know, I was just pointing it out.

Quote
Solid enough to show that we weigh less the higher we go.


But if I linked you to a study or something that demonstrated this, or claimed to have demonstrated this, you would not believe it, correct? I would have to actually demonstrate this for you.

?

GeoGuy

Gravity Question
« Reply #35 on: October 16, 2006, 03:18:44 PM »
Quote from: "soggycrouton"

But if I linked you to a study or something that demonstrated this, or claimed to have demonstrated this, you would not believe it, correct? I would have to actually demonstrate this for you.


It would basically need to be an experiment I could perform myself, yes. And one that wouldn't require to spend thousands of dollars to perform, as I haven't got that kind of cash just lying around.

Gravity Question
« Reply #36 on: October 16, 2006, 03:23:18 PM »
Quote from: "GeoGuy"
Quote from: "soggycrouton"

But if I linked you to a study or something that demonstrated this, or claimed to have demonstrated this, you would not believe it, correct? I would have to actually demonstrate this for you.


It would basically need to be an experiment I could perform myself, yes. And one that wouldn't require to spend thousands of dollars to perform, as I haven't got that kind of cash just lying around.


So you believe nothing unless it has been demonstrated to you personally?

?

GeoGuy

Gravity Question
« Reply #37 on: October 16, 2006, 03:28:45 PM »
Quote from: "soggycrouton"

So you believe nothing unless it has been demonstrated to you personally?


Myself no, I'm willing to accept many scientific theories that I believe have strong enough supporting evidence, but I doubt the FE's will be convinced so easily.

?

Erasmus

  • The Elder Ones
  • 4242
Gravity Question
« Reply #38 on: October 16, 2006, 03:34:19 PM »
Quote from: "soggycrouton"
Yet you then complain that gravity doesn't make any sense. Either it's not part of your theory, and you can use it to criticize the RE model, or it IS part of your theory, and you shouldn't critisize the RE model for utilizing gravity.


We criticize the RE model for utilizing gravity universally.
Why did the chicken cross the Möbius strip?

Gravity Question
« Reply #39 on: October 16, 2006, 04:29:40 PM »
Yes, it makes much more sense to utilize it only when it benefits your agenda.

Gravity Question
« Reply #40 on: October 16, 2006, 05:03:19 PM »
Quote from: "Ambassadork"
Yes, it makes much more sense to utilize it only when it benefits your agenda.


Yes, and it also makes sense to troll this forum instead of asking for clarification.
 believe the Earth is round.
That doesn't mean the Earth is round.

"If you're going to yell at me every time I do something stupid, then I guess I'm just going to have to stop doing stupid things!" --Homer Simpson

Gravity Question
« Reply #41 on: October 16, 2006, 05:09:37 PM »
Well, isn't the "law" of gravity considered a "law" because it is universal? Why would gravity apply to some objects and not others?

Gravity Question
« Reply #42 on: October 16, 2006, 05:12:17 PM »
Quote from: "Ambassadork"
Well, isn't the "law" of gravity considered a "law" because it is universal? Why would gravity apply to some objects and not others?


It is the law of gravity in the RE model. Not in the FE model.
 believe the Earth is round.
That doesn't mean the Earth is round.

"If you're going to yell at me every time I do something stupid, then I guess I'm just going to have to stop doing stupid things!" --Homer Simpson

Gravity Question
« Reply #43 on: October 16, 2006, 05:15:46 PM »
Quote from: "Ambassadork"
Well, isn't the "law" of gravity considered a "law" because it is universal? Why would gravity apply to some objects and not others?

In a technical sense, a law doesn't have to apply to everything in the Universe; just some subset of objects in the Universe. The strong nuclear force, for example, has laws written regarding its strength, range, etc., but it only affects certain types of subatomic particles. Likewise, the laws that govern electrical attraction only apply to charged objects, not neutral ones like neutrinos.
 want a Flat-Earther to PM me, and tell me why they believe Samuel Rowbotham in the first place. If a Flat-Earther requires proof in order to believe something, then why do they believe this man, even though he provided no proof himself?

Gravity Question
« Reply #44 on: October 16, 2006, 05:17:47 PM »
So in the FE model it's a magical mystical force that affects everything except Earth?

I'm really just trying to understand all of this. It just seems odd that the flat earth people denounce gravity, yet at the same time use gravity as an explanation for something.

Gravity Question
« Reply #45 on: October 16, 2006, 05:25:48 PM »
Quote from: "Ambassadork"
So in the FE model it's a magical mystical force that affects everything except Earth?

I'm really just trying to understand all of this. It just seems odd that the flat earth people denounce gravity, yet at the same time use gravity as an explanation for something.


The FE model is by no means finished. There may not exist gravity at all in the FE model. In an FE, the Earth doesn't have a gravitational pull, but instead is accelerating upwards. Read the FAQ. If you can prove that people weigh a bit less at high altitudes, then the sun, moon, and stars emit gravity in The FE theory. If you weigh the same everywhere, then there is no gravity, but just the aforementioned acceleration.
 believe the Earth is round.
That doesn't mean the Earth is round.

"If you're going to yell at me every time I do something stupid, then I guess I'm just going to have to stop doing stupid things!" --Homer Simpson

?

Rainer

Gravity Question
« Reply #46 on: October 16, 2006, 05:33:48 PM »
OK, so if gravity is simply the Earth thrusting upwards by some personaly unknown force, then we would be movin at the same velocity.  If that is true then why do we fall back to Earth?  If we jump and we are moving at the same speed then wouldn't we be going at the current speed of the Earth plus the speed just added by the jump?  Or if we were to throw something into the air, then why does it come back if it was already moving at the same speed as the Earth when trown?

Gravity Question
« Reply #47 on: October 16, 2006, 05:36:32 PM »
Because the earth is constantly accelerating not just moving at a constant speed.

*

TheEngineer

  • Planar Moderator
  • 15483
  • GPS does not require satellites.
Gravity Question
« Reply #48 on: October 16, 2006, 05:37:01 PM »
Because the earth is accelerating.


"I haven't been wrong since 1961, when I thought I made a mistake."
        -- Bob Hudson

?

Rainer

Gravity Question
« Reply #49 on: October 16, 2006, 05:41:59 PM »
but we would be accelorating at the same rate as the earth

Gravity Question
« Reply #50 on: October 16, 2006, 05:44:40 PM »
Quote from: "Rainer"
OK, so if gravity is simply the Earth thrusting upwards by some personaly unknown force, then we would be movin at the same velocity.  If that is true then why do we fall back to Earth?  If we jump and we are moving at the same speed then wouldn't we be going at the current speed of the Earth plus the speed just added by the jump?  Or if we were to throw something into the air, then why does it come back if it was already moving at the same speed as the Earth when trown?


This is the paradox of the"moving upwards" thing that I keep wondring about. People beleive in it even though they can throw objects up themselves and see them come back down. But I'm not even sure if they will understand the concept tha tan object that accelerates in the same direction as an other below it at greater speed would never come back down.

Quote
for example, has laws written regarding its strength, range, etc., but it only affects certain types of subatomic particles. Likewise, the laws that govern electrical attraction only apply to charged objects, not neutral ones like neutrinos.


That is incorrect. Object that have a neutral charge are still subject to the magnetic force. In order to be neutral, an object needs to have it's positive charge equal to it's negative charge. A neutral charge is not the same as an abcense of therof.
atttttttup was right when he said joseph bloom is right, The Engineer is a douchebag.

Gravity Question
« Reply #51 on: October 16, 2006, 05:45:49 PM »
Quote from: "Rainer"
but we would be accelorating at the same rate as the earth


Not unless you had a jetpack.
 believe the Earth is round.
That doesn't mean the Earth is round.

"If you're going to yell at me every time I do something stupid, then I guess I'm just going to have to stop doing stupid things!" --Homer Simpson

?

Erasmus

  • The Elder Ones
  • 4242
Gravity Question
« Reply #52 on: October 16, 2006, 05:56:48 PM »
Quote from: "Ambassadork"
Well, isn't the "law" of gravity considered a "law" because it is universal?


What do you think the "law of gravity" is?  I'm aware that Newton proposed a "Law of Universal Gravitation", in which he stated all objects attract each other in such and such a fashion.

It's not the word "law" that makes it universal, it's the word "universal".
Why did the chicken cross the Möbius strip?

?

Rainer

Gravity Question
« Reply #53 on: October 16, 2006, 06:04:27 PM »
Quote from: Erasmus
Quote from: "Ambassadork"
Well, isn't the "law" of gravity considered a "law" because it is universal?


What do you think the "law of gravity" is?  I'm aware that Newton proposed a "Law of Universal Gravitation", in which he stated all objects attract each other in such and such a fashion.

Quote
It's not the word "law" that makes it universal, it's the word "universal".



I agree and am glad that someone said it.  Its a law because its a fact.  It is only universal when it applies to everything.  I am currently unaware of a law of universal gravitation in the FE theory.  If I am wrong or just sound stupid, please tell me.

Gravity Question
« Reply #54 on: October 16, 2006, 06:11:41 PM »
Quote
That is incorrect. Object that have a neutral charge are still subject to the magnetic force. In order to be neutral, an object needs to have it's positive charge equal to it's negative charge. A neutral charge is not the same as an abcense of therof.

Hence why I used neutrinos as an example. They are electrically neutral, and are not composed of more fundamental charges.
 want a Flat-Earther to PM me, and tell me why they believe Samuel Rowbotham in the first place. If a Flat-Earther requires proof in order to believe something, then why do they believe this man, even though he provided no proof himself?

Gravity Question
« Reply #55 on: October 16, 2006, 06:16:07 PM »
Quote from: "Kryptid"
Quote
That is incorrect. Object that have a neutral charge are still subject to the magnetic force. In order to be neutral, an object needs to have it's positive charge equal to it's negative charge. A neutral charge is not the same as an abcense of therof.

Hence why I used neutrinos as an example. They are electrically neutral, and are not composed of more fundamental charges.


Neutrinos complacate everything. They refuse to obey the same laws as other memebrs of their family, like water.
atttttttup was right when he said joseph bloom is right, The Engineer is a douchebag.

Gravity Question
« Reply #56 on: October 16, 2006, 06:26:21 PM »
Quote from: "phaseshifter"
Quote from: "Kryptid"
Quote
That is incorrect. Object that have a neutral charge are still subject to the magnetic force. In order to be neutral, an object needs to have it's positive charge equal to it's negative charge. A neutral charge is not the same as an abcense of therof.

Hence why I used neutrinos as an example. They are electrically neutral, and are not composed of more fundamental charges.


Neutrinos complacate everything. They refuse to obey the same laws as other memebrs of their family, like water.


How are neutrinos and water in the same family?
 believe the Earth is round.
That doesn't mean the Earth is round.

"If you're going to yell at me every time I do something stupid, then I guess I'm just going to have to stop doing stupid things!" --Homer Simpson

Gravity Question
« Reply #57 on: October 16, 2006, 07:06:48 PM »
Quote from: "phaseshifter"
This is the paradox of the"moving upwards" thing that I keep wondring about. People beleive in it even though they can throw objects up themselves and see them come back down. But I'm not even sure if they will understand the concept tha tan object that accelerates in the same direction as an other below it at greater speed would never come back down.

Everyone understands that scenario. It is also irrelevent. When you throw the baseball, it ceases to accelerate. Thus, it is not accelerating, and the earth below it - which is accelerating - will catch up with it.

That you fail to understand this damages the credibility of your arguments.

*

TheEngineer

  • Planar Moderator
  • 15483
  • GPS does not require satellites.
Gravity Question
« Reply #58 on: October 16, 2006, 09:54:02 PM »
Quote from: "phaseshifter"

Neutrinos complacate everything. They refuse to obey the same laws as other memebrs of their family, like water.

Quote from: "phaseshifter"
This is the paradox of the"moving upwards" thing that I keep wondring about. People beleive in it even though they can throw objects up themselves and see them come back down. But I'm not even sure if they will understand the concept tha tan object that accelerates in the same direction as an other below it at greater speed would never come back down.

See that train leaving the station?  Your credibility is on it.


"I haven't been wrong since 1961, when I thought I made a mistake."
        -- Bob Hudson

Gravity Question
« Reply #59 on: October 16, 2006, 10:15:57 PM »
Quote from: "holybrain"
Quote from: "phaseshifter"
Quote from: "Kryptid"
Quote
That is incorrect. Object that have a neutral charge are still subject to the magnetic force. In order to be neutral, an object needs to have it's positive charge equal to it's negative charge. A neutral charge is not the same as an abcense of therof.

Hence why I used neutrinos as an example. They are electrically neutral, and are not composed of more fundamental charges.


Neutrinos complacate everything. They refuse to obey the same laws as other memebrs of their family, like water.


How are neutrinos and water in the same family?


Work on deduction by associations would you? Thay are not in the same family.

Man, how hard can it be?  Neutrinos are to other particles as water is to other liquids. They behave differently. It's no wonder you think the earth is flat.......

Quote
When you throw the baseball, it ceases to accelerate


Why would it cease to accelerate?
atttttttup was right when he said joseph bloom is right, The Engineer is a douchebag.