Gravity. It disproves FE Theory.

  • 104 Replies
  • 8442 Views
Gravity. It disproves FE Theory.
« on: April 27, 2013, 09:29:27 PM »
Gravity. At any point on earth the force of gravity is almost the same (because gravity pulls centers of objects to centers of objects and as we move along the surface our distance from the center doesn't change). We observe gravitational forces between all masses.

If the earth is a disc, then people on the edges would feel less gravity than the people in the middle since their distance from the centre is higher. But this isn't the case.

If the disc is accelerating at 9.8 m/s^2 upwards, then we'd observe that level of acceleration towards the earth at every point above the earth. But that number of 9.8m/s^2 only applies to the acceleration on the surface. As you move further from the surface we records lower acceleration rates.....


So, basically, FE theory does not work if you believe in gravitational theory (all masses are attracted to each other in a manner proportional to their masses and inversely proportional to the square of the radius between object centres).

*

Ski

  • Planar Moderator
  • 8730
  • Homines, dum docent, dispenguin.
Re: Gravity. It disproves FE Theory.
« Reply #1 on: April 27, 2013, 09:35:29 PM »
Perhaps you could spend a few minutes perusing the FAQ (Frequently Asked Questions) before you author another dozen threads.
"Never think you can turn over any old falsehood without a terrible squirming of the horrid little population that dwells under it." -O.W. Holmes "Truth forever on the scaffold, Wrong forever on the throne.."

Re: Gravity. It disproves FE Theory.
« Reply #2 on: April 28, 2013, 04:16:02 PM »
FE usually does not involve gravity, so gravity doesn't disprove FE. Also, the UA is only a theory, and everything the FAQ says isn't what's 100% correct.

Re: Gravity. It disproves FE Theory.
« Reply #3 on: April 29, 2013, 09:35:01 AM »
Our own weight and the weight of everything else is sufficient to keep us on the ground on a flat infinite earth, which is the floor of the universe above us.

Yes, you are 100% correct, weight is what keep us on ground.

But.. You do realize what weight is, right ? Because the first part of your reply actually contradict entirely the second part.

(just in case : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Weight).

It's kind of funny to see you instinctively understand what the idea of gravity is, explaining us how it works, while completely reproving the word itself.
« Last Edit: April 29, 2013, 09:38:50 AM by Ze_PilOt »

*

DuckDodgers

  • One Duck to Rule Them All
  • 5369
  • What's supposed to go here?
Re: Gravity. It disproves FE Theory.
« Reply #4 on: April 29, 2013, 09:59:16 AM »
I don't see any need for gravity at all. It's just something that's made up to account for what we are told to perceive as to what we are in the universe and what is happening in the universe.

I don't believe there is any such thing as gravity at all. Our own weight and the weight of everything else is sufficient to keep us on the ground on a flat infinite earth, which is the floor of the universe above us.

Last time I checked, I didn't have to be told to perceive an object falling towards the Earth, except by my own brain. 

And what causes weight?  By your logic, it would seem that more massive objects should fall faster than less massive objects.
markjo, what force can not pass through a solid or liquid?
Magnetism for one and electric is the other.

Re: Gravity. It disproves FE Theory.
« Reply #5 on: April 29, 2013, 10:01:09 AM »
Our own weight and the weight of everything else is sufficient to keep us on the ground on a flat infinite earth, which is the floor of the universe above us.

Gravity is just a made up word to describe a force that nobody knows about,

So you agree, there is a force that keeps us on the ground then.  And that society has named that force gravity.  Glad you agree gravity exists :D

*

DuckDodgers

  • One Duck to Rule Them All
  • 5369
  • What's supposed to go here?
Re: Gravity. It disproves FE Theory.
« Reply #6 on: April 29, 2013, 10:16:24 AM »
I don't see any need for gravity at all. It's just something that's made up to account for what we are told to perceive as to what we are in the universe and what is happening in the universe.

I don't believe there is any such thing as gravity at all. Our own weight and the weight of everything else is sufficient to keep us on the ground on a flat infinite earth, which is the floor of the universe above us.

Last time I checked, I didn't have to be told to perceive an object falling towards the Earth, except by my own brain. 

And what causes weight?  By your logic, it would seem that more massive objects should fall faster than less massive objects.
More mass objects will fall faster than less mass ones up to a point but the point is, they simply fall and hit the ground and stay there by their own weight.

This has been prove false time and time again.  Do an experiment and fill a box with shirts and another with books, make sure these boxes are the same size. Time each box as it falls from a specific height.  You would see that it takes approximately the same time for both to hit the ground, leaving some room for human error of course.  But alas, I know you will not even take the time to do this simple and quick experiment.
markjo, what force can not pass through a solid or liquid?
Magnetism for one and electric is the other.

*

DuckDodgers

  • One Duck to Rule Them All
  • 5369
  • What's supposed to go here?
Re: Gravity. It disproves FE Theory.
« Reply #7 on: April 29, 2013, 10:47:45 AM »
I don't see any need for gravity at all. It's just something that's made up to account for what we are told to perceive as to what we are in the universe and what is happening in the universe.

I don't believe there is any such thing as gravity at all. Our own weight and the weight of everything else is sufficient to keep us on the ground on a flat infinite earth, which is the floor of the universe above us.

Last time I checked, I didn't have to be told to perceive an object falling towards the Earth, except by my own brain. 

And what causes weight?  By your logic, it would seem that more massive objects should fall faster than less massive objects.
More mass objects will fall faster than less mass ones up to a point but the point is, they simply fall and hit the ground and stay there by their own weight.

This has been prove false time and time again.  Do an experiment and fill a box with shirts and another with books, make sure these boxes are the same size. Time each box as it falls from a specific height.  You would see that it takes approximately the same time for both to hit the ground, leaving some room for human error of course.  But alas, I know you will not even take the time to do this simple and quick experiment.
Air resistance will make the falls differ by a little. If the objects were heavier and made the air resistance pointless, then yes they would hit the ground at the same time. So what's your point here?

My dear Scepti, you've made my point for me.  Absent of air resistance, objects fall at the same speed.  Meaning weight cannot be the cause of the fall or else the objects would not fall at the same speed.

It also amazes me that you can not only contradict yourself in a matter of one post to the next but also within a single post.  But I'm glad you accept the idea if gravity if not the name of it.
markjo, what force can not pass through a solid or liquid?
Magnetism for one and electric is the other.

*

Rama Set

  • 6877
  • I am also an engineer
Re: Gravity. It disproves FE Theory.
« Reply #8 on: May 01, 2013, 12:38:15 PM »
I don't see any need for gravity at all. It's just something that's made up to account for what we are told to perceive as to what we are in the universe and what is happening in the universe.

I don't believe there is any such thing as gravity at all. Our own weight and the weight of everything else is sufficient to keep us on the ground on a flat infinite earth, which is the floor of the universe above us.

Last time I checked, I didn't have to be told to perceive an object falling towards the Earth, except by my own brain. 

And what causes weight?  By your logic, it would seem that more massive objects should fall faster than less massive objects.
More mass objects will fall faster than less mass ones up to a point but the point is, they simply fall and hit the ground and stay there by their own weight.

This has been prove false time and time again.  Do an experiment and fill a box with shirts and another with books, make sure these boxes are the same size. Time each box as it falls from a specific height.  You would see that it takes approximately the same time for both to hit the ground, leaving some room for human error of course.  But alas, I know you will not even take the time to do this simple and quick experiment.
Air resistance will make the falls differ by a little. If the objects were heavier and made the air resistance pointless, then yes they would hit the ground at the same time. So what's your point here?

My dear Scepti, you've made my point for me.  Absent of air resistance, objects fall at the same speed.  Meaning weight cannot be the cause of the fall or else the objects would not fall at the same speed.

It also amazes me that you can not only contradict yourself in a matter of one post to the next but also within a single post.  But I'm glad you accept the idea if gravity if not the name of it.
I never said weight was the cause of a fall. If things leave the ground, they fall back down as long as they are heavier than air. There is no gravity needed for anything.

You have most definitely said that objects fall because of their weight.  If it is not their own weight, but an outside force, you are describing gravity in all but name.
Aether is the  characteristic of action or inaction of charged  & noncharged particals.

?

darknavyseal

  • 439
  • Round Earth, for sure, maybe.
Re: Gravity. It disproves FE Theory.
« Reply #9 on: May 01, 2013, 12:50:17 PM »
Skepti, you have stated multiple times that the reason we stay on the ground is weight. This force of nature you call weight cannot be seen. Why DOES weight keep us on the ground? I don't see any magical thing pushing us down. Nice try, trying to trick us into believing your made up force called weight.

In all seriousness, you are exactly describing gravity. Some unknown force in the universe that brings objects towards eachother.

*

Rama Set

  • 6877
  • I am also an engineer
Re: Gravity. It disproves FE Theory.
« Reply #10 on: May 02, 2013, 09:00:49 AM »
The thing that on your view that is inherent in mass and brings it to the ground?  That's a force, nothing spooky there.  This force, lets call it weight, follows a predictable law that was discovered by a scientist, lets call him Sceptimatic senior, hundreds of years ago.  Some people like to call this gravity, some like to call it weight.  That is semantics really because it behaves exactly the same no matter what you call it.

How this force arises is unclear at this point.  You say it is inherent in mass, many disagree, but there is no conclusive evidence for how it arises yet.
Aether is the  characteristic of action or inaction of charged  & noncharged particals.

*

Rama Set

  • 6877
  • I am also an engineer
Re: Gravity. It disproves FE Theory.
« Reply #11 on: May 02, 2013, 09:26:05 AM »
I am saying you believe there is a force that is inherent in mass that causes it to fall.  That is pretty consistent with everything you have said.  A few definitions so we are not confused:

Force-Something that causes a change in movement, direction or geometric construction.

Going from not moving to moving is a change in movement and direction, so the action of a falling object has a force acting on it.

Inherent-Existing in something as permanent, essential or characteristic attribute.

You say that it is the mass itself that makes it fall.  So the force that makes the mass fall is inherent in the mass.

Mass-The quantity of matter in an object.

The force you believe in (a force inherent in mass that makes it fall down) behaves in a way that has been accurately described for hundreds of years.  You can easily predict that all mass falls at 9.8m/s^2.  This is what orthodox science also believes.  No difference there.  The disagreement you have is not how it behaves on Earth, but how it arises.  Orthodox science says it arises from an external force, you say the force is inherent in matter. 

You could be right about how it arises, but what is not true is that what we are talking about is radically different.  Your about the burglary is not totally off the mark: we disagree about how your house is burgled, but we do not disagree that burglary took place.
Aether is the  characteristic of action or inaction of charged  & noncharged particals.

*

Tausami

  • Head Editor
  • Flat Earth Editor
  • 6767
  • Venerated Official of the High Zetetic Council
Re: Gravity. It disproves FE Theory.
« Reply #12 on: May 07, 2013, 05:15:24 PM »
Because the natural position of Earthly objects is the center of the universe, of course  ::)

In seriousness, though, the prevailing theories are that the Earth is either accelerating upwards at 9.81 m/s2 or that the Earth is infinitely large.

Re: Gravity. It disproves FE Theory.
« Reply #13 on: May 08, 2013, 09:18:39 AM »
Because the natural position of Earthly objects is the center of the universe, of course  ::)

In seriousness, though, the prevailing theories are that the Earth is either accelerating upwards at 9.81 m/s2 or that the Earth is infinitely large.
So does an Earth that is an infinite plane have gravity?
I'd like to agree with you but then we'd both be wrong!

*

Roundy the Truthinessist

  • Flat Earth TheFLAMETHROWER!
  • The Elder Ones
  • 27043
  • I'm the boss.
Re: Gravity. It disproves FE Theory.
« Reply #14 on: May 08, 2013, 10:14:38 AM »
Things fall at a measurable rate.  I don't see how that fact disproves FE Theory.  And that's really all we have to go on as far as "gravity" is concerned.
Where did you educate the biology, in toulet?

?

Shmeggley

  • 1909
  • Eppur si muove!
Re: Gravity. It disproves FE Theory.
« Reply #15 on: May 08, 2013, 10:15:05 AM »
Because the natural position of Earthly objects is the center of the universe, of course  ::)

In seriousness, though, the prevailing theories are that the Earth is either accelerating upwards at 9.81 m/s2 or that the Earth is infinitely large.
So does an Earth that is an infinite plane have gravity?
No. Gravity does not exist.
There is magnetism and atmospheric pressure and that's roughly about it. There's no reason for gravity at all, it's simply made up.

Sceptimatic, are you suggesting air pressure holds us down? And/or magnetism attracts us to the Earth?
Giess what? I am a tin foil hat conspiracy lunatic who knows nothing... See what I'm getting at here?

*

DuckDodgers

  • One Duck to Rule Them All
  • 5369
  • What's supposed to go here?
Re: Gravity. It disproves FE Theory.
« Reply #16 on: May 08, 2013, 10:30:54 AM »
Because the natural position of Earthly objects is the center of the universe, of course  ::)

In seriousness, though, the prevailing theories are that the Earth is either accelerating upwards at 9.81 m/s2 or that the Earth is infinitely large.
So does an Earth that is an infinite plane have gravity?
No. Gravity does not exist.
There is magnetism and atmospheric pressure and that's roughly about it. There's no reason for gravity at all, it's simply made up.

Sceptimatic, are you suggesting air pressure holds us down? And/or magnetism attracts us to the Earth?

He had suggested it before and will undoubtedly do so again even though he abandoned the last attempt to defend his distance.
markjo, what force can not pass through a solid or liquid?
Magnetism for one and electric is the other.

*

Roundy the Truthinessist

  • Flat Earth TheFLAMETHROWER!
  • The Elder Ones
  • 27043
  • I'm the boss.
Re: Gravity. It disproves FE Theory.
« Reply #17 on: May 08, 2013, 10:37:32 AM »
Okay, guys, keep focusing on the easy target if that's what you feel you need to do (I understand, arguing for RE when the Earth is so obviously flat is hard!).  Just remember that you're arguing with a single goofball with, um, opinions of his own that most of us consider, um, controversial, and not the FES when you go after him.
Where did you educate the biology, in toulet?

*

DuckDodgers

  • One Duck to Rule Them All
  • 5369
  • What's supposed to go here?
Re: Gravity. It disproves FE Theory.
« Reply #18 on: May 08, 2013, 11:46:05 AM »
Trust me, I realize who I'm talking to and that he doesn't reflect TFES directly. 

And Scepti, proofs on gravity weren't presented, but reasons why pressure and magnetism can't be the cause were.  But that is behind us now.
markjo, what force can not pass through a solid or liquid?
Magnetism for one and electric is the other.

?

Shmeggley

  • 1909
  • Eppur si muove!
Re: Gravity. It disproves FE Theory.
« Reply #19 on: May 08, 2013, 12:00:38 PM »
Because the natural position of Earthly objects is the center of the universe, of course  ::)

In seriousness, though, the prevailing theories are that the Earth is either accelerating upwards at 9.81 m/s2 or that the Earth is infinitely large.
So does an Earth that is an infinite plane have gravity?
No. Gravity does not exist.
There is magnetism and atmospheric pressure and that's roughly about it. There's no reason for gravity at all, it's simply made up.

Sceptimatic, are you suggesting air pressure holds us down? And/or magnetism attracts us to the Earth?
Nope. I'm saying that is basically all that is acting upon our bodies, not what holds us to the earth.
We don't need any outside force to hold us onto the earth, as we cannot fall off a flat infinite earth, either side ways or upwards, because the earth is the floor, all the way down, infinitely.
Above us is the sky and what we know as space.
Gravity does not exist, it doesn't need to.

You can say that no force is necessary all you like. The fact is there is a force, which we can measure. If you don't like calling it gravity, call it whatever you want, Sceptilition, Thorkitude, Fred, whatever.

I'm still not sure why you say it doesn't need to exist. It's a useful concept in physics, engineering, etc. It explains why the planets have the orbits they do and why mass coalesces into spheres.

And I don't think you've ever explained why you think magnetism is real but gravity isn't. Can you explain that?
Giess what? I am a tin foil hat conspiracy lunatic who knows nothing... See what I'm getting at here?

?

Shmeggley

  • 1909
  • Eppur si muove!
Re: Gravity. It disproves FE Theory.
« Reply #20 on: May 08, 2013, 12:25:39 PM »
I see magnets stick together, so I know there is a magnetic force. I can also feel the repelling of magnets.
I see and feel nothing of gravity.

You also see a ball drop when you let it go, and feel pressure on the soles of your feet when you stand, yet you deny gravity exists.

You could just as easily say there is no magnetic force, that it's just the nature of magnets to do what they do, yet you don't. Why not?
Giess what? I am a tin foil hat conspiracy lunatic who knows nothing... See what I'm getting at here?

?

Jingle Jangle

  • 284
  • I breathe therefore I am
Re: Gravity. It disproves FE Theory.
« Reply #21 on: May 08, 2013, 12:26:41 PM »
Gravity theories I find to be utterly fallacious and hypocritical.  If gravity were related to mass really, then a bowling ball and a feather would not fall at the same rate in a vacuum.  Yet what is seen is that everything falls at the same rate.  The disc rises upward at 32 feet squared.  Case is closed and chalk one up for the home team.  Parallax already proved the earth was flat and thusly disproved even the electronic surveying equipment.  This is because if light really bends so that you see through the telescope, technically the range finder instrument would not detect a curve either.  Its all hypocrisy and reverse mind bending.  I will prove it to you.  Go out 80 miles from the shore and use a telescope.  When you see the coast line,  everyone just needs to hang it up and say the earth was flat actually...

?

Shmeggley

  • 1909
  • Eppur si muove!
Re: Gravity. It disproves FE Theory.
« Reply #22 on: May 08, 2013, 12:46:46 PM »
Gravity theories I find to be utterly fallacious and hypocritical.  If gravity were related to mass really, then a bowling ball and a feather would not fall at the same rate in a vacuum.  Yet what is seen is that everything falls at the same rate.  The disc rises upward at 32 feet squared.  Case is closed and chalk one up for the home team.  Parallax already proved the earth was flat and thusly disproved even the electronic surveying equipment.  This is because if light really bends so that you see through the telescope, technically the range finder instrument would not detect a curve either.  Its all hypocrisy and reverse mind bending.  I will prove it to you.  Go out 80 miles from the shore and use a telescope.  When you see the coast line,  everyone just needs to hang it up and say the earth was flat actually...

You could only say that about the feather and bowling ball, if you did not understand how gravity works. Therefore you have no grounds to call it fallacious.

I would like to see the telescope results though. Somehow I doubt you will get the results you expect.
Giess what? I am a tin foil hat conspiracy lunatic who knows nothing... See what I'm getting at here?

?

Shmeggley

  • 1909
  • Eppur si muove!
Re: Gravity. It disproves FE Theory.
« Reply #23 on: May 08, 2013, 01:05:17 PM »
Trust me, I realize who I'm talking to and that he doesn't reflect TFES directly. 

And Scepti, proofs on gravity weren't presented, but reasons why pressure and magnetism can't be the cause were.  But that is behind us now.
I've never said magnetism and air pressure keeps us on earth. I said no force was needed, except for our own weight.

So where does this weight come from?
Giess what? I am a tin foil hat conspiracy lunatic who knows nothing... See what I'm getting at here?

?

Jingle Jangle

  • 284
  • I breathe therefore I am
Re: Gravity. It disproves FE Theory.
« Reply #24 on: May 08, 2013, 02:59:04 PM »
Its simple, if it applies to bowling balls and feathers it applies to a giant boulder and a feather as well.  The earth rising upward is a more plausible statement.  Gravity being related to mass is disproven by the before mentioned experiment.

?

Jingle Jangle

  • 284
  • I breathe therefore I am
Re: Gravity. It disproves FE Theory.
« Reply #25 on: May 08, 2013, 03:07:42 PM »
In addition to the above information, I would like to add that in certain portions of Hudson Bay, Canada there is absolutely no force to pull down on objects.  Some just spring off the table.  This situation opens the door to the paranormal and supernatural... It represents that there is some phenomena not explained by science.  You can even google this phenomena and discover the mystery.  I know how gravity works by the way.  Gravity is proportional to mass; however this postulate is disproven when a boulder and a feather are dropped side by side in a vacuum...

?

Shmeggley

  • 1909
  • Eppur si muove!
Re: Gravity. It disproves FE Theory.
« Reply #26 on: May 08, 2013, 03:13:14 PM »
Its simple, if it applies to bowling balls and feathers it applies to a giant boulder and a feather as well.  The earth rising upward is a more plausible statement.  Gravity being related to mass is disproven by the before mentioned experiment.

The difference in mass between a feather, bowling ball or boulder is negligible compared to the mass of the Earth. That's why their acceleration is seen to be the same in a vacuum. (EDIT: Not exactly. see my other post as to why the acceleration is the same) You would know this if you took high school physics and understood it. That's why I recommend you study the accepted theory before you dismiss it based on your intuitions about how you think nature should work.

While it's true acceleration is indistinguishable from gravity on short scales, gravity also explains the motions of the planets, and why the sun and planets are spheres. Acceleration can't do this.
« Last Edit: May 08, 2013, 03:26:07 PM by Shmeggley »
Giess what? I am a tin foil hat conspiracy lunatic who knows nothing... See what I'm getting at here?

?

Shmeggley

  • 1909
  • Eppur si muove!
Re: Gravity. It disproves FE Theory.
« Reply #27 on: May 08, 2013, 03:23:26 PM »
In addition to the above information, I would like to add that in certain portions of Hudson Bay, Canada there is absolutely no force to pull down on objects.  Some just spring off the table.  This situation opens the door to the paranormal and supernatural... It represents that there is some phenomena not explained by science.  You can even google this phenomena and discover the mystery.  I know how gravity works by the way.  Gravity is proportional to mass; however this postulate is disproven when a boulder and a feather are dropped side by side in a vacuum...

You mean the very small deviation in gravity in Hudson Bay? http://science.howstuffworks.com/environmental/earth/geophysics/missing-gravity.htm

This doesn't break the theory of gravity in the slightest, variations in the gravitational field on Earth are well known and we know why they occur.

EDIT: In fact this disproves the idea the acceleration of the Earth causes objects to fall. If there were a uniform acceleration (and it would have to be uniform or the Earth would rip apart) then there should be no local variations.

Also, yes it's true that gravity is proportional to the mass - the Force of gravity. The acceleration due to gravity is the same though. Consider a 1Kg mass vs a 10Kg mass. The Force on the 10Kg mass is ten times greater. However the acceleration is also proportional to the mass (F=ma) and the mass cancels out. In other words, it takes a ten times greater force to accelerate a ten times greater mass. Sorry man, this is high school stuff, and I graduated a long time ago. Either you haven't got there yet, or you slept through it.
« Last Edit: May 08, 2013, 03:28:31 PM by Shmeggley »
Giess what? I am a tin foil hat conspiracy lunatic who knows nothing... See what I'm getting at here?

?

Jingle Jangle

  • 284
  • I breathe therefore I am
Re: Gravity. It disproves FE Theory.
« Reply #28 on: May 08, 2013, 03:40:08 PM »
Gravity fails to explain the motion of planets.  And it always fails to explain the reason why the orbits of planets have lasted as long as they have.  If the universe was really billions of years old, the orbits of many planets would have decayed already and entered the sun.  There is a deity hence there has to be a flat earth model.  There is another force at work besides gravity that makes the orbits established.  Just mere Big Bang does not suffice...

*

DuckDodgers

  • One Duck to Rule Them All
  • 5369
  • What's supposed to go here?
Re: Gravity. It disproves FE Theory.
« Reply #29 on: May 08, 2013, 03:55:43 PM »
In addition to the above information, I would like to add that in certain portions of Hudson Bay, Canada there is absolutely no force to pull down on objects.  Some just spring off the table.  This situation opens the door to the paranormal and supernatural... It represents that there is some phenomena not explained by science.  You can even google this phenomena and discover the mystery.  I know how gravity works by the way.  Gravity is proportional to mass; however this postulate is disproven when a boulder and a feather are dropped side by side in a vacuum...

You fail to understand the proof which finds the value of acceleration on Earth, g. 

F=(G*(m1/r2)*m2  m1 is the mass of the Earth and m2 is the mass of the object
F=m2a,  since we are solving Earthly gravitational acceleration, a=g.
m2g = (G*(m1/r2)*m2
g=G*(m1/r2)

This shows that gravitational acceleration on the surface of Earth is dependent only on the mass and radius of Earth, and not dependent on the falling object at all.

markjo, what force can not pass through a solid or liquid?
Magnetism for one and electric is the other.