A grave situation

Gravity is slightly less at the equator how is this possible on a flat earth.

Does this not meet the criteria for being moved? How surprising, that all the momentum for this turning into an interesting debate died in the original thread where FE'rs could simply use an argumentum ad moderatium and avoid having to give difficult answers in that silo of a forum.

UA.  The earth accelerates more at the imaginary line called the equator than at the center and rim of the disc.

UA.  The earth accelerates more at the imaginary line called the equator than at the center and rim of the disc.

So then by now there should be some giant mountains all around the equator I presume?

Quote from: macrohard on July 31, 2014, 04:39:33 PM

UA.  The earth accelerates more at the imaginary line called the equator than at the center and rim of the disc.

So then by now there should be some giant mountains all around the equator I presume?

Or perhaps some large rifts in the Earth?

This makes a pizza planet and UA look a bit silly. The first person to say this would happen was Newton and it proved to be right. If UA works different at the equator I am glad I don't live there.

This makes a pizza planet and UA look a bit silly. The first person to say this would happen was Newton and it proved to be right. If UA works different at the equator I am glad I don't live there.

I did a little calculating and if there was a difference in acceleration from UA at the Equator it would be travelling 200,000 m/s less than a place with exactly 9.8 m/s^2 UA.  The Earth would be rent in to pieces.

I am surprised how no FEr came up with something like "the Earth is thinner in those areas, therefore you are shielded less from the UA, which also pushes you up with a tiny amount of force". That should make sense in their models.

I am surprised how no FEr came up with something like "the Earth is thinner in those areas, therefore you are shielded less from the UA, which also pushes you up with a tiny amount of force". That should make sense in their models.

Did you happen to notice that this is a repeat thread, and the original, from just a couple of days ago, had lots of responses? 

Quote from: Macpie on August 01, 2014, 12:04:23 AM

I am surprised how no FEr came up with something like "the Earth is thinner in those areas, therefore you are shielded less from the UA, which also pushes you up with a tiny amount of force". That should make sense in their models.

Did you happen to notice that this is a repeat thread, and the original, from just a couple of days ago, had lots of responses?

No it did not. After a mention of some "celestial gears" it devolved into a mostly yours and RRs rant how people can start a debate in a thread which started in FE Debate and was later moved. What is your problem now? I have proposed something which to me looks like a simple and logical explanation according to your "aetheric wind" idea, which I have not seen mentioned anywhere, and now I get chewed for it?

Edit:

Celestial gravitation or other similar attraction mechanisms are often attributed for the discrepancies.

was the only answer to the question so far. I will give the macrohard's answer a pass, as it doesn't work in any case - if the Earth was accelerating somewhere more than in other places, it would be ripped apart. If it was rigid enough to not get ripped apart, it would not be accelerating faster in some places. Simple.

Gravity is slightly less at the equator how is this possible on a flat earth.

The sun rotates more or less around the equator.  The mass of the sun slightly pulls upwards and tricks gravity sensors into reporting a slightly lower downward pull.  For proof, read up on Spring Tides.

I guess the real rational question is............how the hell can there be poles and an equator on a flat disc?

Experiment with a frisbee. Tell me if you can spot the equator on one.

Does this not meet the criteria for being moved? How surprising, that all the momentum for this turning into an interesting debate died in the original thread where FE'rs could simply use an argumentum ad moderatium and avoid having to give difficult answers in that silo of a forum.

The other thread was moved out of FE General.  It's always been perfectly fine to start debates with questions in FE Debate.

I guess the real rational question is............how the hell can there be poles and an equator on a flat disc?

Experiment with a frisbee. Tell me if you can spot the equator on one.

Much round-earth terminology is used for the sake of simplicity.  When we use terms like atmosphere, north or, the eastern hemisphere, it isn't a "checkmate" moment for round-earthers.  We use them because it's easier for people to understand than atmoplane, hubward, or the widdershins semicircle.

Quote from: rottingroom on July 31, 2014, 10:09:39 AM

Does this not meet the criteria for being moved? How surprising, that all the momentum for this turning into an interesting debate died in the original thread where FE'rs could simply use an argumentum ad moderatium and avoid having to give difficult answers in that silo of a forum.

The other thread was moved out of FE General.  It's always been perfectly fine to start debates with questions in FE Debate.

Oh so now debates aren't aloud in FEG if the original post or topic contains a question? Pongo, this is getting ridiculous. Stop moving threads.

Quote from: Umurweird on August 01, 2014, 12:09:10 PM

I guess the real rational question is............how the hell can there be poles and an equator on a flat disc?

Experiment with a frisbee. Tell me if you can spot the equator on one.

Much round-earth terminology is used for the sake of simplicity.  When we use terms like atmosphere, north or, the eastern hemisphere, it isn't a "checkmate" moment for round-earthers.  We use them because it's easier for people to understand than atmoplane, hubward, or the widdershins semicircle.

Well alright.

So basically you make up new terms to replace ones that obviously blow your "theory" out the water and prove it's pure crap?

Quote from: rottingroom on July 31, 2014, 09:29:20 AM

Gravity is slightly less at the equator how is this possible on a flat earth.

The sun rotates more or less around the equator.  The mass of the sun slightly pulls upwards and tricks gravity sensors into reporting a slightly lower downward pull.  For proof, read up on Spring Tides.

I'll buy this answer for now.  I'm curious what scepti's explanation is considering he doesn't believe in gravity.

Quote from: rottingroom on July 31, 2014, 09:29:20 AM

Gravity is slightly less at the equator how is this possible on a flat earth.

The sun rotates more or less around the equator.  The mass of the sun slightly pulls upwards and tricks gravity sensors into reporting a slightly lower downward pull.  For proof, read up on Spring Tides.

Unfortunately we get this effect around the whole equator, all year long. The sun would only pull up more on the equator around the time of each equinox.

I started this thread in FE general because of the new FE/QA rules, I just wanted to watch the sport, it seems to be working. Keep trying 3 people have got the idea.

Quote from: Pongo on August 01, 2014, 12:15:51 PM

Quote from: Umurweird on August 01, 2014, 12:09:10 PM

I guess the real rational question is............how the hell can there be poles and an equator on a flat disc?

Experiment with a frisbee. Tell me if you can spot the equator on one.

Much round-earth terminology is used for the sake of simplicity.  When we use terms like atmosphere, north or, the eastern hemisphere, it isn't a "checkmate" moment for round-earthers.  We use them because it's easier for people to understand than atmoplane, hubward, or the widdershins semicircle.

Well alright.

So basically you make up new terms to replace ones that obviously blow your "theory" out the water and prove it's pure crap?

No, it's like how when you call someone sinister, you aren't implying that they are left handed despite that being the origins of the word. Language is an ever changing and fluid thing and when our discussions break down to the point of trivial semantics we've usually strayed well off the path into unproductive areas. So, whenever a flat-earther uses the term "solar-system" to ease in explaining another idea, you may do your little victory dance, laugh in our faces, and award yourself 15 Internet Points, but you'll be missing the core and essence of our words and meanings.

Quote from: Pongo on August 01, 2014, 12:09:34 PM

Quote from: rottingroom on July 31, 2014, 10:09:39 AM

Does this not meet the criteria for being moved? How surprising, that all the momentum for this turning into an interesting debate died in the original thread where FE'rs could simply use an argumentum ad moderatium and avoid having to give difficult answers in that silo of a forum.

The other thread was moved out of FE General.  It's always been perfectly fine to start debates with questions in FE Debate.

Oh so now debates aren't aloud in FEG if the original post or topic contains a question? Pongo, this is getting ridiculous. Stop moving threads.

Sadly, moderating cannot be done by robots (see Tom Bishop) and needs the touch of a human to make decissions. Lacking a window into the poster's mind, we must guess the intent as best as we can a help sort posts into their proper places. This post for instance clearly fits the least in FEG, better in FED, but probably the best in Q&A.  I did not move this one because I trusted a poster with nearly 4K posts will have the intent to debate. I realize that this is a real titty twister for many people but it's the best we can do.

So happy posting to all! 

Quote from: rottingroom on August 01, 2014, 12:16:44 PM

Quote from: Pongo on August 01, 2014, 12:09:34 PM

Quote from: rottingroom on July 31, 2014, 10:09:39 AM

Does this not meet the criteria for being moved? How surprising, that all the momentum for this turning into an interesting debate died in the original thread where FE'rs could simply use an argumentum ad moderatium and avoid having to give difficult answers in that silo of a forum.

The other thread was moved out of FE General.  It's always been perfectly fine to start debates with questions in FE Debate.

Oh so now debates aren't aloud in FEG if the original post or topic contains a question? Pongo, this is getting ridiculous. Stop moving threads.

Sadly, moderating cannot be done by robots (see Tom Bishop) and needs the touch of a human to make decissions. Lacking a window into the poster's mind, we must guess the intent as best as we can a help sort posts into their proper places. This post for instance clearly fits the least in FEG, better in FED, but probably the best in Q&A.  I did not move this one because I trusted a poster with nearly 4K posts will have the intent to debate. I realize that this is a real titty twister for many people but it's the best we can do.

So happy posting to all! 

You could perhaps, ask the poster?

Yes, but other members will not show the restraint required before responding. If a question gets posted in FED, then I ask the poster's intent, there is nothing stopping other users from firing away into the debate. What am I to do when after 2 pages of debating the poster wants it in Q&A?  You can see the problem.

Overall this truly is a trivial issue. We sort threads in an attempt to keep the forum clean and logically placed. As I said though, we are human and we will make mistakes. In this instance we will apologize to the poster and invite them to repost their question in Q&A.

However, all this being the case, this post should really be moved to CN as it was started with an intent to start a debate about forum rules in FED. I will exercise my human decision making skills and leave it as it may help people understand our forum rules.

Yes, but other members will not show the restraint required before responding. If a question gets posted in FED, then I ask the poster's intent, there is nothing stopping other users from firing away into the debate. What am I to do when after 2 pages of debating the poster wants it in Q&A?  You can see the problem.

Overall this truly is a trivial issue. We sort threads in an attempt to keep the forum clean and logically placed. As I said though, we are human and we will make mistakes. In this instance we will apologize to the poster and invite them to repost their question in Q&A.

However, all this being the case, this post should really be moved to CN as it was started with an intent to start a debate about forum rules in FED. I will exercise my human decision making skills and leave it as it may help people understand our forum rules.

Or there is a PM.... honestly, looking at the post and then looking at the types of things that poster has posted previously it seems obvious to me that this person was not genuinely interested in learning about FET. As a matter of fact, the likely hood of someone being genuinely interested in learning about something like this is so low that it would be much safer for you to just never move a post there at all. There is no criteria that matters here other than intent, and you are no judge of someone else's intent.

Quote from: Umurweird on August 01, 2014, 12:20:09 PM

Quote from: Pongo on August 01, 2014, 12:15:51 PM

Quote from: Umurweird on August 01, 2014, 12:09:10 PM

I guess the real rational question is............how the hell can there be poles and an equator on a flat disc?

Experiment with a frisbee. Tell me if you can spot the equator on one.

Much round-earth terminology is used for the sake of simplicity.  When we use terms like atmosphere, north or, the eastern hemisphere, it isn't a "checkmate" moment for round-earthers.  We use them because it's easier for people to understand than atmoplane, hubward, or the widdershins semicircle.

Well alright.

So basically you make up new terms to replace ones that obviously blow your "theory" out the water and prove it's pure crap?

No, it's like how when you call someone sinister, you aren't implying that they are left handed despite that being the origins of the word. Language is an ever changing and fluid thing and when our discussions break down to the point of trivial semantics we've usually strayed well off the path into unproductive areas. So, whenever a flat-earther uses the term "solar-system" to ease in explaining another idea, you may do your little victory dance, laugh in our faces, and award yourself 15 Internet Points, but you'll be missing the core and essence of our words and meanings.

When would solar system ever explain another idea outside of talking about the solar system?

And it's not even a tiny bit weird that those of you that believe in this wild idea of a flat earth have to find new explanations for things that we know to exist and be real? Like the equator and the atmosphere?

Quote from: Pongo on August 01, 2014, 02:58:43 PM

Yes, but other members will not show the restraint required before responding. If a question gets posted in FED, then I ask the poster's intent, there is nothing stopping other users from firing away into the debate. What am I to do when after 2 pages of debating the poster wants it in Q&A?  You can see the problem.

Overall this truly is a trivial issue. We sort threads in an attempt to keep the forum clean and logically placed. As I said though, we are human and we will make mistakes. In this instance we will apologize to the poster and invite them to repost their question in Q&A.

However, all this being the case, this post should really be moved to CN as it was started with an intent to start a debate about forum rules in FED. I will exercise my human decision making skills and leave it as it may help people understand our forum rules.

Or there is a PM.... honestly, looking at the post and then looking at the types of things that poster has posted previously it seems obvious to me that this person was not genuinely interested in learning about FET. As a matter of fact, the likely hood of someone being genuinely interested in learning about something like this is so low that it would be much safer for you to just never move a post there at all. There is no criteria that matters here other than intent, and you are no judge of someone else's intent.

Okay, will you please flip the magical Rottingroom switch and fix everything?  Why have you been holding out on us?

Your suggestion is seriously to PM the user? So every mod needs to shoot the user a PM for a questionable thread?  Are you contractually obligated to be here?

If the Sun was pulling strong enough for it to be measurable, why doesn't the difference manifest itself only around noon, but constantly?

Aren't the variations in gravity minuscule? 

Quote from: rottingroom on August 01, 2014, 03:03:16 PM

Quote from: Pongo on August 01, 2014, 02:58:43 PM

Yes, but other members will not show the restraint required before responding. If a question gets posted in FED, then I ask the poster's intent, there is nothing stopping other users from firing away into the debate. What am I to do when after 2 pages of debating the poster wants it in Q&A?  You can see the problem.

Overall this truly is a trivial issue. We sort threads in an attempt to keep the forum clean and logically placed. As I said though, we are human and we will make mistakes. In this instance we will apologize to the poster and invite them to repost their question in Q&A.

However, all this being the case, this post should really be moved to CN as it was started with an intent to start a debate about forum rules in FED. I will exercise my human decision making skills and leave it as it may help people understand our forum rules.

Or there is a PM.... honestly, looking at the post and then looking at the types of things that poster has posted previously it seems obvious to me that this person was not genuinely interested in learning about FET. As a matter of fact, the likely hood of someone being genuinely interested in learning about something like this is so low that it would be much safer for you to just never move a post there at all. There is no criteria that matters here other than intent, and you are no judge of someone else's intent.

Okay, will you please flip the magical Rottingroom switch and fix everything?  Why have you been holding out on us?

Your suggestion is seriously to PM the user? So every mod needs to shoot the user a PM for a questionable thread?  Are you contractually obligated to be here?

Not really. My suggestion is to never move a thread to Q&A. That's why I wrote a whole paragraph about just that. I did briefly mention pming the user but only because you are making it seem like it isbikpossible to inquire about intent without derailing the thread.

If someone asks a question about the FET, why should it not be moved to FEQ&A?  They are asking a question, and expect a flat Earth answer, not a debate.