Think about this...

I have gone over and read many of these debates and topics and have a few questions I want answered and thought about, for the members that post in this thread, dont just give me your wasted, dry come backs. I want clear, descriptive answers here as to why you TRUELY think the Earth isnt round.


Q's:

Most importantly, why do the members on this forum think that EVERY LAST GOVERNMENT on the entire planet, like North Korea and Communist China for example, who would probably want to use every chance they could get to fuck over such governments as the US government, why would every government want every last person on the planet to believe that the earth is flat?

If the governments (which I already have questioned above) in fact "pay off" plane pilots to stay quiet, wouldnt that mean that the pilots actually know the truth about the Earth being round because obviously if the earth WASNT round, they wouldnt need to pay the pilots to keep quiet.

If the earth IS flat, how can it be formed? Gravity cannot form something completely flat with material in space unless there is something for it to settle on (i.e when dust settles on furniture with a flat surface) if you believe this, what does it settle on?

Most importantly, why do the members on this forum think that EVERY LAST GOVERNMENT on the entire planet,

We don't think that EVERY LAST GOVERNMENT on the entire planet is in on it.  Just those that have the capability of knowing the truth.

If the governments (which I already have questioned above) in fact "pay off" plane pilots to stay quiet, wouldnt that mean that the pilots actually know the truth about the Earth being round because obviously if the earth WASNT round, they wouldnt need to pay the pilots to keep quiet.

Uh, if the earth wasn't round they wouln't need to pay them off? :?

 Gravity cannot form something completely flat with material in space unless there is something for it to settle on (i.e when dust settles on furniture with a flat surface) if you believe this, what does it settle on?

Your example assumes that there is already a gravitational field causing the matter to settle on something.  That is not what the FE states.

Your example assumes that there is already a gravitational field causing the matter to settle on something.  That is not what the FE states.

Just for confirmation, does the FE theory ask for a revised version of gravity? Because there are experiments confirming gravity as a "property" of mass... (sorry about the property issue, I don't know how to state it better)

FE only denies the idea that gravity is universal.   The FE does not emit a gravitational field.  In the RE we know what the effects of gravity are, but we don't know what it's mechanism is.

FE only denies the idea that gravity is universal.   The FE does not emit a gravitational field.  In the RE we know what the effects of gravity are, but we don't know what it's mechanism is.

Okay, so let me make sure that I have this right: the FE does not emit a gravitational field. It is made out of matter, right? The current theory of gravitation states that any piece of matter attracts all other pieces of matter through gravity. So the FE theory requires a revised theory of gravity, does it not?

It just states that the FE is gravitationally 'neutral'.

It just states that the FE is gravitationally 'neutral'.

Right, and everything else is not, right? And is the FE matter? Because under the current gravitational theory, matter attracts other matter through gravity. So there are either two possibilities: either the FE is not made of matter, or the FE theory requires a revised theory of gravity.

Seeing as how we don't know what the mechanism for gravity is and how it interacts with other particles, the RE just assumes it's the same for everything.

Seeing as how we don't know what the mechanism for gravity is and how it interacts with other particles, the RE just assumes it's the same for everything.

Yes, and there is a theory for gravity; one that so far fits what we observe. I think you might be avoiding the question (purposely?). I still only see two possibilities: (1) either the FE is not made of matter, or (2) the FE theory requires a revision of the currently accepted theory of gravitation.

Edit: Yes, I did a little of bit of reading and saw that there are multiple theories of gravitation, so my statement of the "theory of gravity" is not quite correct. But I don't think there are any theories of gravitation that say that matter does not attract other matter. So the above two possibilities still apply.

The RE makes a rather large assumption about the behavior of the fundamental interaction of gravity, without knowing the fundamental particle.  
The FE does not make this assumption.  So yes, the FE version would differ from the RE version on this point.

The RE makes a rather large assumption about the behavior of the fundamental interaction of gravity, without knowing the fundamental particle.  
The FE does not make this assumption.  So yes, the FE version would differ from the RE version on this point.

Thanks. Questions about gravity are here as not to disturb from the original purpose of the thread, which is to answer locked's questions.

Edit: Oh crap, I was being stupid again. Thinking of other threads. It's too late at night.