Gravity Question

The FAQ says that some FE'ers believe that the underside of the FE is rocks, but wouldn't the rocks fly off because gravity would be reversed?

They are obviously attached the the earth somehow.

No, they think gravity is created by the earth constantly accelerated.

How do we know that a FE has rocks on the bottom? Is there any evidence of the depth of a FE

No, they think gravity is created by the earth constantly accelerated.

In a FE, the Earth is flying up at the spped of gravity (see FAQ), so gravity would be reversed on the bootom of a FE.

Quote from: "soggycrouton"

No, they think gravity is created by the earth constantly accelerated.

In a FE, the Earth is flying up at the spped of gravity (see FAQ), so gravity would be reversed on the bootom of a FE.

Not quite.  There is no 'gravity'.  On the upper surface, we are 'pinned' down by the earth's acceleration.  On the bottom surface, those things attached to the earth are also accelerated up with the earth.  Things not attached to the earth are left behind.

Theoretically, yes, but it's pretty much safe to assume that the "Rocks" aren't just a few pebbles; it most likely means like a rock-face, not just rocks in general.
Plus, it's also pretty much safe to assume that the force that is contsantly accelerating us to form the gravity is pushing from the underside of the Earth (where else would it push from?), and therefore even if it was just a bunch of pebbles, they would be going along for the ride.


~D-Draw

Theoretically, yes, but it's pretty much safe to assume that the "Rocks" aren't just a few pebbles; it most likely means like a rock-face, not just rocks in general.
Plus, it's also pretty much safe to assume that the force that is contsantly accelerating us to form the gravity is pushing from the underside of the Earth (where else would it push from?), and therefore even if it was just a bunch of pebbles, they would be going along for the ride.


~D-Draw

Are you saying that on a FE there's some sort of object that's shooting the FE into the air?

Forget the rocks! theres four elephants and a turtle on the underside

Are you saying that on a FE there's some sort of object that's shooting the FE into the air?

Most likely not an "object" in the sense of a gigantic solid mass, but yeah, basically. Something is pushing the earth "up" with a force sufficient to accelerate the disc at 9.8 m/s^2.

Forget the rocks! theres four elephants and a turtle on the underside

Amen to that

The FAQ says that some FE'ers believe that the underside of the FE is rocks, but wouldn't the rocks fly off because gravity would be reversed?

No because whatever is pushing the Earth up, (dark energy, etc) would be pushing up the rocks as well.

Quote from: "holybrain"

Are you saying that on a FE there's some sort of object that's shooting the FE into the air?

Most likely not an "object" in the sense of a gigantic solid mass, but yeah, basically. Something is pushing the earth "up" with a force sufficient to accelerate the disc at 9.8 m/s^2.

No. If that where the case then we wouldnt be able to see the rest of our solar system, or anything in space for that matter, because if we've been accelerating at 9.8m/s^2 for thousands of years, we would be going so infathomably fast that quite literally we wouldnt be able to see anything for long enough to register what it is/was. Not to mention that you're suggesting a perfectly vertical accelleration through the vaccum of space, what happens when another large object gets in our way, or even if we pass something like a planet etc, what about their gravitational forces affecting this 'disk'.


Im sorry but its not plausible to try to dismiss something like gravity. And I thought that someone saying that the skys apparant colour isnt really blue was bad.

No. If that where the case then we wouldnt be able to see the rest of our solar system, or anything in space for that matter, because if we've been accelerating at 9.8m/s^2 for thousands of years, we would be going so infathomably fast that quite literally we wouldnt be able to see anything for long enough to register what it is/was.

Everything we see is moving just about the same speed we are. Of course we'll be able to see them.

Not to mention that you're suggesting a perfectly vertical accelleration through the vaccum of space, what happens when another large object gets in our way,

Ask the dinosaurs.

or even if we pass something like a planet etc, what about their gravitational forces affecting this 'disk'.

I could ask the same question of the round earth model. The universe is a big place.

Im sorry but its not plausible to try to dismiss something like gravity.

Why not? Or is this just another baseless assertion the we all love so much.

Quote:
or even if we pass something like a planet etc, what about their gravitational forces affecting this 'disk'.

I could ask the same question of the round earth model. The universe is a big place.

To answer your question then, our planet reacts to gravitational forces like every other planet in our solar system. We orbit a sun, and our orbit varies depending on the proximity of other objects in that system.

Now what i'm getting at is that if we are just accelerating upwards at a constant rate, and this is the only reason that stuff sticks to the 'disks' surface, then if we happen to pass something massive, say a planet the size of jupiter, then suddenly things wont just be accellerating down, they would also move towards that gravitational pull as we pass it.I.e. drop a stone, it shoots sideways for a brief moment. Not down.

Now, if you want to start dismissing gravity aswell, then please wander off the side of your flat earth. Because gravity is infact a byproduct of the electromagnetic forces holding everything in this existance together. Our atoms, and their components, are held together by the same fundamental force that keeps our feet on the ground, that also keeps large masses of rock in space like planets sperical, or at least, not flat.

Because gravity is infact a byproduct of the electromagnetic forces holding everything in this existance together. Our atoms, and their components, are held together by the same fundamental force that keeps our feet on the ground,

Wow, and you say we are the ones just throwing conventional science out the window!

Hate to be the one to break it to you, but gravity has nothing to do with the electromagnetic force, or the nuclear forces. Really, you've lost quite a bit of credibility with that one.

no, i ran off the tracks there i must admit. Im having good fun arguing this however, but i mixed my forces up a little bit.

Let me go back to my flat earth model I was talking about in my other thread, and throw a cup of water on my lap.

eureka, gravity! Stuff falling down is much more plausible than the floor moving rapidly towards the stuff.

Let me go back to my flat earth model I was talking about in my other thread, and throw a cup of water on my lap.

eureka, gravity! Stuff falling down is much more plausible than the floor moving rapidly towards the stuff.

To which I say, eureka, acceleration!  The earth accelerating is much more plausible than stuff interacting with an unkown force that causes things not in contact to react to each other.

if we've been accelerating at 9.8m/s^2 for thousands of years, we would be going so infathomably fast that quite literally we wouldnt be able to see anything for long enough to register what it is/was.

Wrong!

our planet reacts to gravitational forces like every other planet in our solar system.

No it doesn't.

We orbit a sun,

No we don't.

if we happen to pass something massive, say a planet the size of jupiter,

Doesn't happen.

Because gravity is infact a byproduct of the electromagnetic forces holding everything in this existance together.

No it isn't.

Our atoms, and their components, are held together by the same fundamental force that keeps our feet on the ground,

No they aren't.

eureka, gravity! Stuff falling down is much more plausible than the floor moving rapidly towards the stuff.

What's the difference?  Surely the question of which is falling towards the other can only be based around our frame of reference.

According to RE theory we are moving at 1,800 km per hour in terms of the spin of the Earth, 108,000 km/hr in terms of the orbit of the Earth around the Sun, 900,000 km/hr in terms of the Solar System moving in the Milky Way and 1,080,000 km/hr in terms of our galaxy relative to the other local galaxies.  So I'm moving at more than 1 million km/hr and yet I don't notice anything.  Frame of reference.

Of course that is assuming the Earth is Round, which it isn't, but newtonian physics work just as well in flat Earth theory too.

Of course that is assuming the Earth is Round, which it isn't, but newtonian physics work just as well in flat Earth theory too.

Except for gravity, which you guys have trouble explaining some aspects of, like why we weight slightly less at high altitudes.

... why we weight slightly less at high altitudes.

We don't.

Quote from: "soggycrouton"

... why we weight slightly less at high altitudes.

We don't.

In a FE world, either we weigh slightly less at high altitudes and the sun, moon, etc. are responsible, are we weigh the same everywhere and the aforementioned objects make no difference.

Yeah, it's one of those.

Quote from: "GeoGuy"

Quote from: "soggycrouton"

... why we weight slightly less at high altitudes.

We don't.

In a FE world, either we weigh slightly less at high altitudes and the sun, moon, etc. are responsible, are we weigh the same everywhere and the aforementioned objects make no difference.

What do you mean either? Which is it? How could the sun and moon be responsible if gravity doesn't exist?

OH SNAP!!!

haha, and i just had another thought...ill make a new post for it  :lol:

Well, answer please?

Just because the earth is gravatationally 'neutral' doesn't mean everything else in the universe is.

Just because the earth is gravatationally 'neutral' doesn't mean everything else in the universe is.

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 don't.

Your FAQ disagrees with you.