Gravity Inconsistency

  • 38 Replies
  • 6819 Views
*

RealScientist

  • 417
  • Science does not care for Earth's shape
Re: Gravity Inconsistency
« Reply #30 on: January 27, 2013, 12:49:11 PM »
Back to gravitational inconsistencies it is! Why then can two objects be seen to attract themselves in experiments then ? A.K.A Cavendish experiment

The FE explanation for Cavendish, I'm guessing, would be that gravity affects some things but not others.  In this case, it affects the balls used in the experiment but not the Earth.
Not quite. In this site the fact that you cannot easily get much better than 1% error is used as an excuse to declare the experiment totally bunk. Fact is, even though it is difficult to get many digits of precision, this experiment can be done easily with better than 10% error, which makes the existence of gravitational pull in general like the one we feel from a round Earth a scientific fact.

Re: Gravity Inconsistency
« Reply #31 on: January 27, 2013, 12:51:11 PM »
So dark energy pulls the Earth upwards, eh?
(Go here to see how I pwned the FlatEarthSociety:
http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php/topic,57409.0.html#.UP7nVSfhpgI)

Well, imma pwn you some more. If Gravity doesn't exist, how do Io and Ganymede go around Jupiter?
How does, the Moon go around the Earth? How does the Earth go around the sun? How do the other planets move? Do they accelerate upwards too? Blegh.

Educate yourselves on Gravity!
http://www.nowykurier.com/toys/gravity/gravity.html
It's a fun-little game where you can make your own celestial-objects and watch them have intergalactic sex!

I do not know about Jupiter's moons, as I have never been there.  Have you?

The moon does not go around the earth.  It circles above it.  The earth does not go around the sun.  The sun circles above us.  As do the planets and the other bodies in the celestial sphere.  And yes, everything appears to be affected by the UA just as the earth is.  If you'd do a little research here before 'pwning' us you may have a better chance at presenting a compelling argument.

Why do the moon and sun circle above us? What's causing them to circle? Aren't they being accelerated upwards like the Earth?  ???

Why don't we observe retrograde movement of the Sun and Moon?
« Reply #32 on: January 27, 2013, 02:14:53 PM »
I'd like the FE'ers to suggest reasons why this effect is not observed.
http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php/topic,57410.msg1443271.html#msg1443271
Founder member of the League Of Scientific Gentlemen and Mademoiselles des Connaissances.
I am pompous, self-righteous, thin skinned, and smug.

Re: Gravity Inconsistency
« Reply #33 on: January 28, 2013, 11:06:14 AM »
Why has my thread on a different topic to this one been moved back in here? I thought starting a new topic was better, as it's a different subject. Oh well, at least I can talk about this as much as I like in here without any accusation of going off topic.
Founder member of the League Of Scientific Gentlemen and Mademoiselles des Connaissances.
I am pompous, self-righteous, thin skinned, and smug.

*

Beorn

  • Flat Earth Editor
  • 6543
  • If I can't trust my eyes, what can I trust?
Re: Gravity Inconsistency
« Reply #34 on: January 28, 2013, 11:56:35 AM »
Back to gravitational inconsistencies it is! Why then can two objects be seen to attract themselves in experiments then ? A.K.A Cavendish experiment

The FE explanation for Cavendish, I'm guessing, would be that gravity affects some things but not others.  In this case, it affects the balls used in the experiment but not the Earth.
Not quite. In this site the fact that you cannot easily get much better than 1% error is used as an excuse to declare the experiment totally bunk. Fact is, even though it is difficult to get many digits of precision, this experiment can be done easily with better than 10% error, which makes the existence of gravitational pull in general like the one we feel from a round Earth a scientific fact.

There are a lot of reasons why no one should trust the Cavendish experiment, REer or FEer alike.
Quote
Only one thing can save our future. Give Thork a BanHammer for Th*rksakes!

*

markjo

  • Content Nazi
  • The Elder Ones
  • 39564
Re: Gravity Inconsistency
« Reply #35 on: January 28, 2013, 04:30:21 PM »
Back to gravitational inconsistencies it is! Why then can two objects be seen to attract themselves in experiments then ? A.K.A Cavendish experiment

The FE explanation for Cavendish, I'm guessing, would be that gravity affects some things but not others.  In this case, it affects the balls used in the experiment but not the Earth.
Not quite. In this site the fact that you cannot easily get much better than 1% error is used as an excuse to declare the experiment totally bunk. Fact is, even though it is difficult to get many digits of precision, this experiment can be done easily with better than 10% error, which makes the existence of gravitational pull in general like the one we feel from a round Earth a scientific fact.

There are a lot of reasons why no one should trust the Cavendish experiment, REer or FEer alike.

But are there any reasons why anyone should trust Miles Mathis over Cavendish?
http://scientopia.org/blogs/goodmath/2010/11/16/grandiose-crackpottery-proves-pi4/
Science is what happens when preconception meets verification.
Quote from: Robosteve
Besides, perhaps FET is a conspiracy too.
Quote from: bullhorn
It is just the way it is, you understanding it doesn't concern me.

Re: Gravity Inconsistency
« Reply #36 on: January 29, 2013, 01:12:45 AM »
Back to gravitational inconsistencies it is! Why then can two objects be seen to attract themselves in experiments then ? A.K.A Cavendish experiment

The FE explanation for Cavendish, I'm guessing, would be that gravity affects some things but not others.  In this case, it affects the balls used in the experiment but not the Earth.
Not quite. In this site the fact that you cannot easily get much better than 1% error is used as an excuse to declare the experiment totally bunk. Fact is, even though it is difficult to get many digits of precision, this experiment can be done easily with better than 10% error, which makes the existence of gravitational pull in general like the one we feel from a round Earth a scientific fact.

There are a lot of reasons why no one should trust the Cavendish experiment, REer or FEer alike.

That link gets blocked by my spyware filter.
Founder member of the League Of Scientific Gentlemen and Mademoiselles des Connaissances.
I am pompous, self-righteous, thin skinned, and smug.

*

RealScientist

  • 417
  • Science does not care for Earth's shape
Re: Gravity Inconsistency
« Reply #37 on: January 29, 2013, 01:50:29 AM »
Back to gravitational inconsistencies it is! Why then can two objects be seen to attract themselves in experiments then ? A.K.A Cavendish experiment

The FE explanation for Cavendish, I'm guessing, would be that gravity affects some things but not others.  In this case, it affects the balls used in the experiment but not the Earth.
Not quite. In this site the fact that you cannot easily get much better than 1% error is used as an excuse to declare the experiment totally bunk. Fact is, even though it is difficult to get many digits of precision, this experiment can be done easily with better than 10% error, which makes the existence of gravitational pull in general like the one we feel from a round Earth a scientific fact.

There are a lot of reasons why no one should trust the Cavendish experiment, REer or FEer alike.
There is just about one single person claiming that the Cavendish Experiment is wrong apart from the FE "theorists": Miles Mathis. And even he is questioning the precision of the experiment, not the existence of gravity as Newton expressed in his laws. Even though he thinks Newton's gravity is a unified field that includes effects not previously considered, he considers Newtons equation essentially correct.

What FE "theorists" need for their UA is the total rejection of Newton's Law of Universal Gravitation, not just the possibility that the calculated value of "G" (the "big G", as it is called by some) might be slightly wrong.

Quote from: Miles Mathis
My compound field is all contained within Newton's equation and within the historical F. Unlike LeSage, in my theory gravity is still there, expressed not by a bombarding field but by simple acceleration. It is the E.M foundational field that is blocked or shielded here, not gravity. Look above: gravity is never shielded or absorbed or expressed as an emitted or bombarding field.

*

RealScientist

  • 417
  • Science does not care for Earth's shape
Re: Gravity Inconsistency
« Reply #38 on: January 29, 2013, 02:40:47 AM »
Back to gravitational inconsistencies it is! Why then can two objects be seen to attract themselves in experiments then ? A.K.A Cavendish experiment

The FE explanation for Cavendish, I'm guessing, would be that gravity affects some things but not others.  In this case, it affects the balls used in the experiment but not the Earth.
Not quite. In this site the fact that you cannot easily get much better than 1% error is used as an excuse to declare the experiment totally bunk. Fact is, even though it is difficult to get many digits of precision, this experiment can be done easily with better than 10% error, which makes the existence of gravitational pull in general like the one we feel from a round Earth a scientific fact.

There are a lot of reasons why no one should trust the Cavendish experiment, REer or FEer alike.

That link gets blocked by my spyware filter.
Try going to viproxy_._info (or any other proxy page) and write the ur_l "http://mi_lesmathis.c om/caven.html" on the w_eb ad_dress box.

The previous paragraph is full of spurious "_" because the forum's software does not like something in that line. Please ignore them.

This is a very dense article that requires a lot of time to work through, but the main point is that what we have seen as gravity until now is really a combination of forces and effects. But even Miles Mathis thinks that there is something called gravity (or gravitational pull, if you prefer) and that it makes up most of what Newton expressed in his formula for gravitation.