What's Wrong With Gravity?

Quote from: koolkat67 on April 09, 2013, 10:22:31 PM

Quote from: mbone99 on April 09, 2013, 02:19:12 PM

Once again, we have a FAQ. I suggest you read it.

again no answer.  I can do the same and refer you to millions of documents on gravity.  Read what section you're in...Debate.

To be honest I am new here but I can already see the that FE followers can basically be categorized into three groups based on their reaction when faced with a difficult question:

1. Quiet ones: those who prefer to stay silent
2. Lazy ones:  those who suggest to read the FAQ without bothering to understand the topic
3. Noisy ones: those who propose nonsensical argument, although so far I haven't seen anyone of this group in this thread

Funny, I was about to write the exact same thing to you.  It's just a bunch of trollers.  I dont think any truly believes in Flat Earth!  They think Round Earth doesn't exist.  I think the Flat Earth Society doesn't exist.

I think the Flat Earth Society doesn't exist.

I am starting to have the same impression too

None of them explained why they don't like the concept of gravity.

Gravity cannot be reproduced in a laboratory. It's a theory based on a bunch of assumptions, many of which are misguided.

 

Gravity cannot be reproduced in a laboratory. It's a theory based on a bunch of assumptions, many of which are misguided.

Do you mean gravity cannot be reproduced artificially or gravitation cannot be observed?

Quote from: Cartesian on April 10, 2013, 01:03:38 AM

None of them explained why they don't like the concept of gravity.

Gravity cannot be reproduced in a laboratory. It's a theory based on a bunch of assumptions, many of which are misguided.

Care to share which ones are misguided as example? And what glue you to earth if it wasn't the gravity force? UA?

Quote from: Cartesian on April 10, 2013, 01:03:38 AM

None of them explained why they don't like the concept of gravity.

Gravity cannot be reproduced in a laboratory. It's a theory based on a bunch of assumptions, many of which are misguided.

But what laboratory can verify anything about the UA and the supposed dark matter? Truly nobody has any idea of what might be pushing the earth from the bottom side in a flat earth model. It could be gigantic man with a wheelbarrow pushing us along or billions of small bees.

Gravity cannot be reproduced in a laboratory.

No, but effects of gravity can be observed in a laboratory.

Quote from: Cartesian on April 10, 2013, 01:03:38 AM

None of them explained why they don't like the concept of gravity.

Gravity cannot be reproduced in a laboratory. It's a theory based on a bunch of assumptions, many of which are misguided.

Can you point me to any laboratory experiments / reproductions of this UA you gibber on about?

Regardless, an artificial reproduction of gravity is not a requirement to prove its existence. 

Regardless, an artificial reproduction of gravity is not a requirement to prove its existence.

You nailed it down perfectly.

Regardless, an artificial reproduction of ***** is not a requirement to prove its existence.

Could be any explanation for anything on this site. Gets into circular logic pretty quickly. This is a legitimate gripe that FE's have.

If I may, I will support this argument for gravity. If one were to refute the existence of one of the four fundamental forces of nature just to conform to a mindset, they are a very arrogant person. If gravity simply doesn't exist, then anything above the ground, such as a plane, would not experience a force perpendicular to itself on a flight path parallel to the ground. If the plane is flying in exactly the prograde direction (the direction of motion/net force) it will still have all of it's passengers feeling this force. There are glasses of water with the water staying inside them, there are people actually not being able to float about the fuselage, and many more examples. Not only does the entire world of aeronautics rely on the fundamental force, everything does, and everyone on this site who refuses to look at a SCIENTIFIC FACT is just simply closed minded.

If I may, I will support this argument for gravity. If one were to refute the existence of one of the four fundamental forces of nature just to conform to a mindset, they are a very arrogant person. If gravity simply doesn't exist, then anything above the ground, such as a plane, would not experience a force perpendicular to itself on a flight path parallel to the ground. If the plane is flying in exactly the prograde direction (the direction of motion/net force) it will still have all of it's passengers feeling this force. There are glasses of water with the water staying inside them, there are people actually not being able to float about the fuselage, and many more examples. Not only does the entire world of aeronautics rely on the fundamental force, everything does, and everyone on this site who refuses to look at a SCIENTIFIC FACT is just simply closed minded.

You should read up on Einstein's Equivalence Principle.  It basically says that gravitational acceleration is equivalent to the acceleration of an inertially moving body.

In other words, if you are accelerating upwards at a rate of 9.8m/s/s, you would pulled downwards with the same force that people call gravity.

You should read up on Einstein's Equivalence Principle.  It basically says that gravitational acceleration is equivalent to the acceleration of an inertially moving body.

In other words, if you are accelerating upwards at a rate of 9.8m/s/s, you would pulled downwards with the same force that people call gravity.

No, in reality it is you who should read a little bit more about that principle. It holds a single word that you, the FE'ers forget each and every time: "locally".

It is true that if all the information you can get is limited to your immediate surroundings (hence the word "locally") you cannot distinguish between gravity and acceleration. But as soon as you look at non-local objects the whole equivalence you try to make crumbles like a condemned building. Watch the stars and FE does not make sense. Watch a ship at about 20 or more kilometers, and FE does not make sense. Check the "local g" in several locations on Earth, and the whole FE... you know. And the list can go forever.

So, if you are going to lecture someone on the Equivalence Principle, please do not reinvent it to fit your needs.

Quote from: muggsybogues1 on April 09, 2013, 08:19:33 AM

Quote from: koolkat67 on April 09, 2013, 08:12:37 AM

Quote from: Cartesian on April 09, 2013, 08:06:31 AM

Quote from: koolkat67 on April 09, 2013, 07:59:45 AM

hmmm...how about everything goes down?  any explanation on flat earth how that happens?  what causes an object to go down instead of any other direction with its weight?

I guess FE'ers don't disagree with the existence of 9.8 m/s force that keeps you "glued" to earth. They just don't believe that it is caused by gravitation. They said that the earth is constantly accelerating upward at a rate of 9.8 m/s. But if that was true, then that force would have been constant throughout the surface of FE which can easily be demonstrated as incorrect.

well lets see if one these jokers say that accelerating at 9.8m/s^2...hmmmm...wonder how fast we're moving...lol.  what the hell is UA?  United Airlines?  lol  use your words, muggsy

The same question has been answered dozens of times. This site has a FAQ section.

another chicken out.  I seem to be able to do this on this site frequently.  when the going gets tough they either start non sequitur, divert from the question, start picking on grammer and spelling or now this.  its just a trolling site.  you dont see me sending you off to gravity.com.  this is the Debate section not the "im a chicken shit and here is where you find the answer" section.

Or because you're asking a question that has been asked a million times.

Also, as far as lack of explanations and answers, we don't know everything. We're all just ordinary people so we don't have any way to figure out what keeps us on the earth, etc. We can only theorize and thus your lack of answers.