Gravity Question

Your FAQ disagrees with you.

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.

Your FAQ disagrees with you.

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.

How solid does would the evidence have to be?

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.

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.

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?

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.

Yes, it makes much more sense to utilize it only when it benefits your agenda.

Well, isn't the "law" of gravity considered a "law" because it is universal? Why would gravity apply to some objects and not others?

Well, isn't the "law" of gravity considered a "law" because it is universal? Why would gravity apply to some objects and not others?

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.

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?

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.

but we would be accelorating at the same rate as the earth

Well, isn't the "law" of gravity considered a "law" because it is universal?

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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 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?

When you throw the baseball, it ceases to accelerate