# Gravity Problem-Solved?

• 34 Replies
• 5434 Views
?

#### MrQweep

• 3
##### Gravity Problem-Solved?
« on: December 19, 2014, 02:06:54 PM »
Alright, so the flat earth theory runs into some problems when it comes to gravity:
1. Gravity decreases as height increases. If the earth were accelerating in a linear path, this wouldn't happen.
2.If Earth accelerated at 9.81m/s², it reach the speed of light within one year. This hasn't happened(and don't tell me about weird space-time warping and stuff)
would
To solve this, we have to forget the idea of the earth accelerating in a straight path and instead think of it going in a circle, with the surface towards the center. This way, a constant acceleration can occur without the earth actually speeding up.
Also, if the radius decreases(e.g. you climb a mountain) with the angular speed stays the same, acceleration decreases as well. We can also observe this on our earth.

To calculate the angular speed as well as the radius of the circle we are moving in, we can use some of the observed data: from sea level to 9000 gravity decreases by 0.29%. Now, with the formula a=ω²r we can create the equation:
ω²(r-9000)=(ω²r)-(0.0029*g)
If g is the standard gravity of 9.80665m/s², we can solve this for ω and we get the result:
ω≈0.0017762s⁻¹
If we use this in the equation a/ω²=r we can conclude that:
r≈3126859m=3126.859km

This post shows how when you solve some problems of a weird theory, others pop into existence...

Thank you for reading this and have a good day

MrQweep

#### Lemmiwinks

• 2161
• President of the Non-Conformist Zetetic Council
##### Re: Gravity Problem-Solved?
« Reply #1 on: December 19, 2014, 02:14:12 PM »
Wouldn't this necessitate the earth being a bowl shape to maintain equal force across it?
I have 13 [academic qualifications] actually. I'll leave it up to you to guess which, or simply call me a  liar. Either is fine.

Quod gratis asseritur, gratis negatur

?

#### MrQweep

• 3
##### Re: Gravity Problem-Solved?
« Reply #2 on: December 19, 2014, 02:34:14 PM »
Wouldn't this necessitate the earth being a bowl shape to maintain equal force across it?

Rather a circle laid along a cylinder as it is actually moving around a line, but yes. Before calculating this, I assumed the radius would be much bigger than 3000km, thus making the curvature very slight and excusable by the fact that gravity is observably weaker on the north pole, but it turned out to be very small and not realistic(as if any of this was ).
Indeed it is kind of a failed theory But it was the first thing that came across my mind when thinking about a flat earth and I just felt like sharing it...

#### Lemmiwinks

• 2161
• President of the Non-Conformist Zetetic Council
##### Re: Gravity Problem-Solved?
« Reply #3 on: December 19, 2014, 02:43:50 PM »
Wouldn't this necessitate the earth being a bowl shape to maintain equal force across it?

Rather a circle laid along a cylinder as it is actually moving around a line, but yes. Before calculating this, I assumed the radius would be much bigger than 3000km, thus making the curvature very slight and excusable by the fact that gravity is observably weaker on the north pole, but it turned out to be very small and not realistic(as if any of this was ).
Indeed it is kind of a failed theory But it was the first thing that came across my mind when thinking about a flat earth and I just felt like sharing it...

To be clear I am a round earther here to hone debate skills, but its refreshing to have someone here actually trying to figure out how to fix the problems with FET instead of ignoring them!
I have 13 [academic qualifications] actually. I'll leave it up to you to guess which, or simply call me a  liar. Either is fine.

Quod gratis asseritur, gratis negatur

?

#### MrQweep

• 3
##### Re: Gravity Problem-Solved?
« Reply #4 on: December 19, 2014, 03:05:34 PM »
Wouldn't this necessitate the earth being a bowl shape to maintain equal force across it?

Rather a circle laid along a cylinder as it is actually moving around a line, but yes. Before calculating this, I assumed the radius would be much bigger than 3000km, thus making the curvature very slight and excusable by the fact that gravity is observably weaker on the north pole, but it turned out to be very small and not realistic(as if any of this was ).
Indeed it is kind of a failed theory But it was the first thing that came across my mind when thinking about a flat earth and I just felt like sharing it...

To be clear I am a round earther here to hone debate skills, but its refreshing to have someone here actually trying to figure out how to fix the problems with FET instead of ignoring them!

I am too, of course, but I view this more like a physics/logic puzzle with many people collaborating to find a solution on how to make a flat earth work without discarding all observations as a conspiracy.

But let's not get too off topic here, we have a problem at hand which is: the radius is too small to be unnoticeable. Any physicist or mathematican got a way to increase the radius while letting the ratio of gravity on different heights be intact?

#### Lemmiwinks

• 2161
• President of the Non-Conformist Zetetic Council
##### Re: Gravity Problem-Solved?
« Reply #5 on: December 19, 2014, 03:11:42 PM »
Wouldn't this necessitate the earth being a bowl shape to maintain equal force across it?

Rather a circle laid along a cylinder as it is actually moving around a line, but yes. Before calculating this, I assumed the radius would be much bigger than 3000km, thus making the curvature very slight and excusable by the fact that gravity is observably weaker on the north pole, but it turned out to be very small and not realistic(as if any of this was ).
Indeed it is kind of a failed theory But it was the first thing that came across my mind when thinking about a flat earth and I just felt like sharing it...

To be clear I am a round earther here to hone debate skills, but its refreshing to have someone here actually trying to figure out how to fix the problems with FET instead of ignoring them!

I am too, of course, but I view this more like a physics/logic puzzle with many people collaborating to find a solution on how to make a flat earth work without discarding all observations as a conspiracy.

But let's not get too off topic here, we have a problem at hand which is: the radius is too small to be unnoticeable. Any physicist or mathematican got a way to increase the radius while letting the ratio of gravity on different heights be intact?

Sounds like something Alpha could probably do. Though I don't know if he would want to give FErs an ironclad theory.
I have 13 [academic qualifications] actually. I'll leave it up to you to guess which, or simply call me a  liar. Either is fine.

Quod gratis asseritur, gratis negatur

#### Rama Set

• 6877
• I am also an engineer
##### Re: Gravity Problem-Solved?
« Reply #6 on: December 19, 2014, 03:31:16 PM »
Alright, so the flat earth theory runs into some problems when it comes to gravity:
1. Gravity decreases as height increases. If the earth were accelerating in a linear path, this wouldn't happen.
2.If Earth accelerated at 9.81m/s², it reach the speed of light within one year. This hasn't happened(and don't tell me about weird space-time warping and stuff)
would
To solve this, we have to forget the idea of the earth accelerating in a straight path and instead think of it going in a circle, with the surface towards the center. This way, a constant acceleration can occur without the earth actually speeding up.
Also, if the radius decreases(e.g. you climb a mountain) with the angular speed stays the same, acceleration decreases as well. We can also observe this on our earth.

To calculate the angular speed as well as the radius of the circle we are moving in, we can use some of the observed data: from sea level to 9000 gravity decreases by 0.29%. Now, with the formula a=ω²r we can create the equation:
ω²(r-9000)=(ω²r)-(0.0029*g)
If g is the standard gravity of 9.80665m/s², we can solve this for ω and we get the result:
ω≈0.0017762s⁻¹
If we use this in the equation a/ω²=r we can conclude that:
r≈3126859m=3126.859km

This post shows how when you solve some problems of a weird theory, others pop into existence...

Thank you for reading this and have a good day

MrQweep

Why shouldn't we mention weird space time things?
Aether is the  characteristic of action or inaction of charged  & noncharged particals.

#### Cartesian

• 1965
##### Re: Gravity Problem-Solved?
« Reply #7 on: December 20, 2014, 02:04:33 AM »
Wouldn't this necessitate the earth being a bowl shape to maintain equal force across it?

Rather a circle laid along a cylinder as it is actually moving around a line, but yes. Before calculating this, I assumed the radius would be much bigger than 3000km, thus making the curvature very slight and excusable by the fact that gravity is observably weaker on the north pole, but it turned out to be very small and not realistic(as if any of this was ).
Indeed it is kind of a failed theory But it was the first thing that came across my mind when thinking about a flat earth and I just felt like sharing it...

Actually I quite like this model for its simplicity. It can also explain the variation of gravity observed in real life. Ironically, this idea has to come from a round earther.

I think, therefore I am

?

#### Alpha2Omega

• 3981
##### Re: Gravity Problem-Solved?
« Reply #8 on: December 20, 2014, 08:07:16 AM »
That's a clever approach. I wish I'd thought of it.

Heck, if I could find an ironclad theory in favor for how a flat earth worked I'd believe it myself. And maybe win the friggin Nobel Prize!
"Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not to his own facts." - Daniel Patrick Moynihan

#### Son of Orospu

• Jura's b*tch and proud of it!
• Planar Moderator
• 37834
• I have artificial intelligence
##### Re: Gravity Problem-Solved?
« Reply #9 on: December 20, 2014, 08:18:38 AM »
2.If Earth accelerated at 9.81m/s², it reach the speed of light within one year. This hasn't happened(and don't tell me about weird space-time warping and stuff)
would

Actually, SR tells us that, no matter how long someone accelerated at a constant rate, they would never reach the speed of light.

#### JimmyTheCrab

• 9436
##### Re: Gravity Problem-Solved?
« Reply #10 on: December 20, 2014, 10:05:50 AM »
2.If Earth accelerated at 9.81m/s², it reach the speed of light within one year. This hasn't happened(and don't tell me about weird space-time warping and stuff)
would

Actually, SR tells us that, no matter how long someone accelerated at a constant rate, they would never reach the speed of light.
SR is also predicated on gravity, which you reject, so...bollocks.

Why not try a non-stock answer for a change - this guy is actually helping you.
Quote from: mikeman7918
a single photon can pass through two sluts

Quote from: Chicken Fried Clucker
if Donald Trump stuck his penis in me after trying on clothes I would have that date and time burned in my head.

#### Son of Orospu

• Jura's b*tch and proud of it!
• Planar Moderator
• 37834
• I have artificial intelligence
##### Re: Gravity Problem-Solved?
« Reply #11 on: December 20, 2014, 10:38:47 AM »
2.If Earth accelerated at 9.81m/s², it reach the speed of light within one year. This hasn't happened(and don't tell me about weird space-time warping and stuff)
would

Actually, SR tells us that, no matter how long someone accelerated at a constant rate, they would never reach the speed of light.
SR is also predicated on gravity, which you reject, so...bollocks.

Why not try a non-stock answer for a change - this guy is actually helping you.

I was addressing the OP's concerns about the Earth reaching the speed of light.  Are you now claiming that Einstein was wrong?

#### mikeman7918

• 5431
• Round Earther
##### Re: Gravity Problem-Solved?
« Reply #12 on: December 20, 2014, 12:16:17 PM »
2.If Earth accelerated at 9.81m/s², it reach the speed of light within one year. This hasn't happened(and don't tell me about weird space-time warping and stuff)
would

Actually, SR tells us that, no matter how long someone accelerated at a constant rate, they would never reach the speed of light.
SR is also predicated on gravity, which you reject, so...bollocks.

Why not try a non-stock answer for a change - this guy is actually helping you.

I was addressing the OP's concerns about the Earth reaching the speed of light.  Are you now claiming that Einstein was wrong?
Hitler believed that Einstein was wrong, and according to your signature that makes Einstein right.
I am having a video war with Jeranism.

#### Son of Orospu

• Jura's b*tch and proud of it!
• Planar Moderator
• 37834
• I have artificial intelligence
##### Re: Gravity Problem-Solved?
« Reply #13 on: December 20, 2014, 12:30:52 PM »
2.If Earth accelerated at 9.81m/s², it reach the speed of light within one year. This hasn't happened(and don't tell me about weird space-time warping and stuff)
would

Actually, SR tells us that, no matter how long someone accelerated at a constant rate, they would never reach the speed of light.
SR is also predicated on gravity, which you reject, so...bollocks.

Why not try a non-stock answer for a change - this guy is actually helping you.

I was addressing the OP's concerns about the Earth reaching the speed of light.  Are you now claiming that Einstein was wrong?
Hitler believed that Einstein was wrong, and according to your signature that makes Einstein right.

My question was directed to someone and asked if they thought Einstein was wrong.  Perhaps you are having some reading comprehension problems today?

#### mikeman7918

• 5431
• Round Earther
##### Re: Gravity Problem-Solved?
« Reply #14 on: December 20, 2014, 02:13:33 PM »
2.If Earth accelerated at 9.81m/s², it reach the speed of light within one year. This hasn't happened(and don't tell me about weird space-time warping and stuff)
would

Actually, SR tells us that, no matter how long someone accelerated at a constant rate, they would never reach the speed of light.
SR is also predicated on gravity, which you reject, so...bollocks.

Why not try a non-stock answer for a change - this guy is actually helping you.

I was addressing the OP's concerns about the Earth reaching the speed of light.  Are you now claiming that Einstein was wrong?
Hitler believed that Einstein was wrong, and according to your signature that makes Einstein right.

My question was directed to someone and asked if they thought Einstein was wrong.  Perhaps you are having some reading comprehension problems today?
Your signature is still flawed because Hitler actually believed in the concave Earth hypothesis and the current pope believes that the Earth is round.
I am having a video war with Jeranism.

#### Son of Orospu

• Jura's b*tch and proud of it!
• Planar Moderator
• 37834
• I have artificial intelligence
##### Re: Gravity Problem-Solved?
« Reply #15 on: December 20, 2014, 02:17:21 PM »
2.If Earth accelerated at 9.81m/s², it reach the speed of light within one year. This hasn't happened(and don't tell me about weird space-time warping and stuff)
would

Actually, SR tells us that, no matter how long someone accelerated at a constant rate, they would never reach the speed of light.
SR is also predicated on gravity, which you reject, so...bollocks.

Why not try a non-stock answer for a change - this guy is actually helping you.

I was addressing the OP's concerns about the Earth reaching the speed of light.  Are you now claiming that Einstein was wrong?
Hitler believed that Einstein was wrong, and according to your signature that makes Einstein right.

My question was directed to someone and asked if they thought Einstein was wrong.  Perhaps you are having some reading comprehension problems today?
Your signature is still flawed because Hitler actually believed in the concave Earth hypothesis and the current pope believes that the Earth is round.

Could we try to stay on topic here?  And, by the way, my sig is a joke.  I guess you just don't get humor.

?

#### Bdonvr

• 58
##### Re: Gravity Problem-Solved?
« Reply #16 on: January 04, 2015, 03:07:28 PM »
I just want to touch on one statement here...

Quote
a constant acceleration can occur without the earth actually speeding up.

Do you understand what acceleration is? I think you meant centrifugal force.
That would require that the Earth, ironically enough would have to be round. (In the opposite way as RET, but..)
And let's not even get started on the fact that if that were the case we should be able to see the other side of the world by simply looking up.

?

#### Bdonvr

• 58
##### Re: Gravity Problem-Solved?
« Reply #17 on: January 05, 2015, 06:53:44 PM »
What's the problem? No answer for that?

#### Son of Orospu

• Jura's b*tch and proud of it!
• Planar Moderator
• 37834
• I have artificial intelligence
##### Re: Gravity Problem-Solved?
« Reply #18 on: January 05, 2015, 07:04:20 PM »
Whom are you quoting?  You could be quoting anyone without context.  Why would anyone care to remark on a quote that they do not know the origins of?  Maybe you do not know how a discussion works?  Or maybe you are just confused about the whole quote thing?  I don't know, but you seem seem to be confused about something.

#### macrohard

• 139
• IQ over 180
##### Re: Gravity Problem-Solved?
« Reply #19 on: January 05, 2015, 11:50:21 PM »
Jroa derails another otherwise insightful and creative thread....

I think it's pretty cool that RE folks seem to come up with the math to make FE theories more concrete, only to be thrashed and dismissed.

Reminds me when I postulated a possible motivation behind the Great Conspiracy that many REs could buy in to, only to be met with "nope it's financial."
« Last Edit: January 05, 2015, 11:58:50 PM by macrohard »

?

#### guv

• 1132
##### Re: Gravity Problem-Solved?
« Reply #20 on: January 07, 2015, 01:04:02 AM »
You need a tube of frozen helium around the axle for the sun and stars to reflect off.

?

#### Ringl3t

• 25
• SKape!
##### Re: Gravity Problem-Solved?
« Reply #21 on: January 08, 2015, 03:42:07 AM »
If gravity can pull in light (black hole) why doesn't it fall from the roof to the ground?
Must be the...

#### mikeman7918

• 5431
• Round Earther
##### Re: Gravity Problem-Solved?
« Reply #22 on: January 08, 2015, 07:45:45 AM »
If gravity can pull in light (black hole) why doesn't it fall from the roof to the ground?

The reason is because Earth's gravity pulls at 9.8 m/s2 and light goes 800,000,000 m/s, soms basic trigonometry would reveal that light does drop, but by an absolutely tiny amount.
I am having a video war with Jeranism.

?

#### Ringl3t

• 25
• SKape!
##### Re: Gravity Problem-Solved?
« Reply #23 on: January 08, 2015, 07:13:12 PM »
If gravity can pull in light (black hole) why doesn't it fall from the roof to the ground?

The reason is because Earth's gravity pulls at 9.8 m/s2 and light goes 800,000,000 m/s, soms basic trigonometry would reveal that light does drop, but by an absolutely tiny amount.

300,000,000* lights a constant though, gravity should effect it regardless of speed, by that logic it would always be dark because light would whizz past us and away from us, look at a candle, the fire is pointing upwards, not being dragged down...

Must be the...

#### sokarul

• 18721
• Extra Racist
##### Re: Gravity Problem-Solved?
« Reply #24 on: January 08, 2015, 07:32:53 PM »
If gravity can pull in light (black hole) why doesn't it fall from the roof to the ground?

The reason is because Earth's gravity pulls at 9.8 m/s2 and light goes 800,000,000 m/s, soms basic trigonometry would reveal that light does drop, but by an absolutely tiny amount.

300,000,000* lights a constant though, gravity should effect it regardless of speed, by that logic it would always be dark because light would whizz past us and away from us, look at a candle, the fire is pointing upwards, not being dragged down...
Light speed in a vacuum is a constant. If light hit's your eyes, it doesn't matter how fast it's going. Candles point up because heat rises.
ANNIHILATOR OF  SHIFTER

It's no slur if it's fact.

#### hoppy

• Flat Earth Believer
• 11684
##### Re: Gravity Problem-Solved?
« Reply #25 on: January 08, 2015, 07:57:46 PM »
If gravity can pull in light (black hole) why doesn't it fall from the roof to the ground?

The reason is because Earth's gravity pulls at 9.8 m/s2 and light goes 800,000,000 m/s, soms basic trigonometry would reveal that light does drop, but by an absolutely tiny amount.

300,000,000* lights a constant though, gravity should effect it regardless of speed, by that logic it would always be dark because light would whizz past us and away from us, look at a candle, the fire is pointing upwards, not being dragged down...
Light speed in a vacuum is a constant. If light hit's your eyes, it doesn't matter how fast it's going. Candles point up because heat rises.
And the weather patterns on the moon and..

#### sokarul

• 18721
• Extra Racist
##### Re: Gravity Problem-Solved?
« Reply #26 on: January 08, 2015, 08:32:19 PM »
If gravity can pull in light (black hole) why doesn't it fall from the roof to the ground?

The reason is because Earth's gravity pulls at 9.8 m/s2 and light goes 800,000,000 m/s, soms basic trigonometry would reveal that light does drop, but by an absolutely tiny amount.

300,000,000* lights a constant though, gravity should effect it regardless of speed, by that logic it would always be dark because light would whizz past us and away from us, look at a candle, the fire is pointing upwards, not being dragged down...
Light speed in a vacuum is a constant. If light hit's your eyes, it doesn't matter how fast it's going. Candles point up because heat rises.
And the weather patterns on the moon and..
Feel free to try and disprove what I said.
ANNIHILATOR OF  SHIFTER

It's no slur if it's fact.

#### mikeman7918

• 5431
• Round Earther
##### Re: Gravity Problem-Solved?
« Reply #27 on: January 08, 2015, 09:02:38 PM »
If gravity can pull in light (black hole) why doesn't it fall from the roof to the ground?

The reason is because Earth's gravity pulls at 9.8 m/s2 and light goes 800,000,000 m/s, soms basic trigonometry would reveal that light does drop, but by an absolutely tiny amount.

300,000,000* lights a constant though, gravity should effect it regardless of speed, by that logic it would always be dark because light would whizz past us and away from us, look at a candle, the fire is pointing upwards, not being dragged down...

That's like saying that a bullet should drop to the ground imediately after it leaves the gun's barel because it's effected by gravity.  A bullet fired falls just as fast as a bullet dropped, however the fired bullet has already gone s long distance before it hits the ground.  In the time that it takes an object to fall a few feet from rest light can travel around Earth (assuming it's round) many times.  Basic trigenometry will tell you exactly how much the light will drop as it travels, try it.

Candle flames are not made of light, they are made of burning gasses that are so hot they emit light.  The reason that it rises is because the gas is low density due to the heat and it cools off and stops glowing shortly after being released.  The light emitted from the flame hits your eye making you see the glowing flame.  The flame is not made of light.
« Last Edit: January 08, 2015, 09:41:02 PM by mikeman7918 »
I am having a video war with Jeranism.

?

#### gpssjim

• 514
##### Re: Gravity Problem-Solved?
« Reply #28 on: January 08, 2015, 09:12:56 PM »
If gravity can pull in light (black hole) why doesn't it fall from the roof to the ground?

The reason is because Earth's gravity pulls at 9.8 m/s2 and light goes 800,000,000 m/s, soms basic trigonometry would reveal that light does drop, but by an absolutely tiny amount.

300,000,000* lights a constant though, gravity should effect it regardless of speed, by that logic it would always be dark because light would whizz past us and away from us, look at a candle, the fire is pointing upwards, not being dragged down...
Speed of light in a vacuum, Cvac = 299,792,458 meters per second and in air it is ~ 299,700,000 meters per second.  That  is pretty fast, wouldn't you say?.  Now consider that a particle moving at this speed hitting your eye, if photons had any considerable mass they would obliterate your eye.  Fortunately the mass of a photon is very small, in fact its rest mass is zero.  So we can safely say the mass of a photo is very small, thank goodness for our eyes sake.  This means that the gravitational force between a photon and the earth is very small, in fact nearly zero.  So small that it is damn hard to detect:
F = (G * m1 * m2) / r^2
if m1 is the mass of the earth and m2 is the mass of the photon, m2 -> 0 means F -> 0.

The light in a candle is the result of gases in combustion.  Photons are emitted from the bright areas, some of them in the direction of the viewer.  The shape of candle flame has nothing to do with the direction photons are moving.  Look at a tungsten bulb under low power (use a dimmer switch so you don't hurt your eyes), you will see light emitted from the length of the filament.

?

#### Ringl3t

• 25
• SKape!
##### Re: Gravity Problem-Solved?
« Reply #29 on: January 08, 2015, 10:48:14 PM »
If gravity can pull in light (black hole) why doesn't it fall from the roof to the ground?

The reason is because Earth's gravity pulls at 9.8 m/s2 and light goes 800,000,000 m/s, soms basic trigonometry would reveal that light does drop, but by an absolutely tiny amount.

300,000,000* lights a constant though, gravity should effect it regardless of speed, by that logic it would always be dark because light would whizz past us and away from us, look at a candle, the fire is pointing upwards, not being dragged down...
Speed of light in a vacuum, Cvac = 299,792,458 meters per second and in air it is ~ 299,700,000 meters per second.  That  is pretty fast, wouldn't you say?.  Now consider that a particle moving at this speed hitting your eye, if photons had any considerable mass they would obliterate your eye.  Fortunately the mass of a photon is very small, in fact its rest mass is zero.  So we can safely say the mass of a photo is very small, thank goodness for our eyes sake.  This means that the gravitational force between a photon and the earth is very small, in fact nearly zero.  So small that it is damn hard to detect:
F = (G * m1 * m2) / r^2
if m1 is the mass of the earth and m2 is the mass of the photon, m2 -> 0 means F -> 0.

The light in a candle is the result of gases in combustion.  Photons are emitted from the bright areas, some of them in the direction of the viewer.  The shape of candle flame has nothing to do with the direction photons are moving.  Look at a tungsten bulb under low power (use a dimmer switch so you don't hurt your eyes), you will see light emitted from the length of the filament.

Light trapped in a room? And the flame still has mass?
Must be the...