variations in gravity

  • 31 Replies
  • 3981 Views
variations in gravity
« on: February 07, 2015, 06:55:37 AM »
The version of flat Earth theory I am most familiar with states that there is no gravity and that what we experience as gravity is in fact the Earth constantly accelerating upwards through space. Exactly how this is happening and what is fuelling it isn't explained. It does have a superficial plausibility, indeed Einstein's equivalence principle states that gravity and acceleration are physically indistinguishable. I have asked on another thread what kind of force is being applied and where the energy is coming from but no satisfactory answer was forthcoming.

It is well established that the acceleration downwards due to gravity varies quite a bit across the Earth. However, if the Earth was a flat disc accelerating through space the acceleration due to gravity would be exactly the same everywhere. There wouldn't even be slight variations. How does flat Earth theory then account for these variations?

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2013/09/130904105345.htm



?

guv

  • 1132
Re: variations in gravity
« Reply #1 on: February 07, 2015, 07:02:42 AM »
They don't They will just derail the thread. Did you hear that jroa went for a job as a train driver but he didn't get the job because he kept getting off the rails.

*

Misero

  • 1261
  • Of course it's flat. It looks that way up close.
Re: variations in gravity
« Reply #2 on: February 07, 2015, 07:18:35 AM »
Apparently there IS gravity now, but only when it's convenient. The FE itself has no gravity, it seems, and the stars do. But they only pull on objects, not the FE and derailing it off the 'wind' pushing it upwards.
I am the worst moderator ever.

Sometimes I wonder: "Why am  I on this site?"
Then I look at threads about clouds not existing and I go back to posting and lurking. Lurk moar.

*

Slemon

  • Flat Earth Researcher
  • 12176
Re: variations in gravity
« Reply #3 on: February 07, 2015, 07:49:24 AM »
It depends who you ask. Scepti has his theory of gravity-but-I'd-rather-not-call-it-that, while more serious FEers have UA, and counter it with the stars having a gravity which influences the higher peaks of the world. The problem being why it's only the stars that have such a pull, and why there aren't more serious repercussions.
We all know deep in our hearts that Jane is the last face we'll see before we're choked to death!

Re: variations in gravity
« Reply #4 on: February 07, 2015, 09:43:43 AM »
They don't They will just derail the thread. Did you hear that jroa went for a job as a train driver but he didn't get the job because he kept getting off the rails.
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.

*

Orifiel

  • 226
  • Stalwart Pumpkin god supporter
Re: variations in gravity
« Reply #5 on: February 07, 2015, 04:41:28 PM »
They don't They will just derail the thread. Did you hear that jroa went for a job as a train driver but he didn't get the job because he kept getting off the rails.

That was hilarious. I legit lol'd in my pants
Je parle Franšais and yes, I am une fille

Pumpkin god 4 lyf

*

Pongo

  • Planar Moderator
  • 6753
Re: variations in gravity
« Reply #6 on: February 07, 2015, 08:54:39 PM »
Let's watch the low-content posting. Consider this a warning.

*

th3rm0m3t3r0

  • At least 3 words, please.
  • 4696
  • It's SCIENCE!
Re: variations in gravity
« Reply #7 on: February 09, 2015, 12:07:51 PM »
Apparently there IS gravity now, but only when it's convenient. The FE itself has no gravity, it seems, and the stars do. But they only pull on objects, not the FE and derailing it off the 'wind' pushing it upwards.
Celestial gravitation is not a new theory.

http://wiki.tfes.org/Celestial_Gravitation (This page was last modified on 2 December 2013, at 03:13.)

Maybe if RE-enthisiasts actually cared enough to learn the concepts of the other side, we wouldn't argue so much.


I don't profess to be correct.
Quote from: sceptimatic
I am correct.

*

mikeman7918

  • 5431
  • Round Earther
Re: variations in gravity
« Reply #8 on: February 09, 2015, 12:14:55 PM »
Apparently there IS gravity now, but only when it's convenient. The FE itself has no gravity, it seems, and the stars do. But they only pull on objects, not the FE and derailing it off the 'wind' pushing it upwards.
Celestial gravitation is not a new theory.

http://wiki.tfes.org/Celestial_Gravitation (This page was last modified on 2 December 2013, at 03:13.)

Maybe if RE-enthisiasts actually cared enough to learn the concepts of the other side, we wouldn't argue so much.

So the Earth having gravity is silly and absurd while the stars having gravity makes perfect sense?
I am having a video war with Jeranism.
See the thread about it here.

*

th3rm0m3t3r0

  • At least 3 words, please.
  • 4696
  • It's SCIENCE!
Re: variations in gravity
« Reply #9 on: February 09, 2015, 12:31:23 PM »
Apparently there IS gravity now, but only when it's convenient. The FE itself has no gravity, it seems, and the stars do. But they only pull on objects, not the FE and derailing it off the 'wind' pushing it upwards.
Celestial gravitation is not a new theory.

http://wiki.tfes.org/Celestial_Gravitation (This page was last modified on 2 December 2013, at 03:13.)

Maybe if RE-enthisiasts actually cared enough to learn the concepts of the other side, we wouldn't argue so much.

So the Earth having gravity is silly and absurd while the stars having gravity makes perfect sense?
Could you not be bothered to even read the 3 sentences?

Quote
This is not the same as Gravity, since Celestial Gravitation does not imply an attraction between objects of mass on Earth.



I don't profess to be correct.
Quote from: sceptimatic
I am correct.

*

mikeman7918

  • 5431
  • Round Earther
Re: variations in gravity
« Reply #10 on: February 09, 2015, 01:00:54 PM »
Apparently there IS gravity now, but only when it's convenient. The FE itself has no gravity, it seems, and the stars do. But they only pull on objects, not the FE and derailing it off the 'wind' pushing it upwards.
Celestial gravitation is not a new theory.

http://wiki.tfes.org/Celestial_Gravitation (This page was last modified on 2 December 2013, at 03:13.)

Maybe if RE-enthisiasts actually cared enough to learn the concepts of the other side, we wouldn't argue so much.

So the Earth having gravity is silly and absurd while the stars having gravity makes perfect sense?
Could you not be bothered to even read the 3 sentences?

Quote
This is not the same as Gravity, since Celestial Gravitation does not imply an attraction between objects of mass on Earth.

So only the magically floating sky objects have gravity, got it.
I am having a video war with Jeranism.
See the thread about it here.

*

th3rm0m3t3r0

  • At least 3 words, please.
  • 4696
  • It's SCIENCE!
Re: variations in gravity
« Reply #11 on: February 09, 2015, 01:03:16 PM »
Apparently there IS gravity now, but only when it's convenient. The FE itself has no gravity, it seems, and the stars do. But they only pull on objects, not the FE and derailing it off the 'wind' pushing it upwards.
Celestial gravitation is not a new theory.

http://wiki.tfes.org/Celestial_Gravitation (This page was last modified on 2 December 2013, at 03:13.)

Maybe if RE-enthisiasts actually cared enough to learn the concepts of the other side, we wouldn't argue so much.

So the Earth having gravity is silly and absurd while the stars having gravity makes perfect sense?
Could you not be bothered to even read the 3 sentences?

Quote
This is not the same as Gravity, since Celestial Gravitation does not imply an attraction between objects of mass on Earth.

So only the magically floating sky objects have gravity, got it.
If you care to debate, it would be in your best interest to not build your argument on sarcasm.
Otherwise, why are you here?


I don't profess to be correct.
Quote from: sceptimatic
I am correct.

*

mikeman7918

  • 5431
  • Round Earther
Re: variations in gravity
« Reply #12 on: February 09, 2015, 01:14:51 PM »
Apparently there IS gravity now, but only when it's convenient. The FE itself has no gravity, it seems, and the stars do. But they only pull on objects, not the FE and derailing it off the 'wind' pushing it upwards.
Celestial gravitation is not a new theory.

http://wiki.tfes.org/Celestial_Gravitation (This page was last modified on 2 December 2013, at 03:13.)

Maybe if RE-enthisiasts actually cared enough to learn the concepts of the other side, we wouldn't argue so much.

So the Earth having gravity is silly and absurd while the stars having gravity makes perfect sense?
Could you not be bothered to even read the 3 sentences?

Quote
This is not the same as Gravity, since Celestial Gravitation does not imply an attraction between objects of mass on Earth.

So only the magically floating sky objects have gravity, got it.
If you care to debate, it would be in your best interest to not build your argument on sarcasm.
Otherwise, why are you here?

OK then, I will rephrase it:

Why do only sky objects have gravity in FET?  And on a related note: why don't objects in the sky fall to Earth if UA is true?
I am having a video war with Jeranism.
See the thread about it here.

*

th3rm0m3t3r0

  • At least 3 words, please.
  • 4696
  • It's SCIENCE!
Re: variations in gravity
« Reply #13 on: February 09, 2015, 08:46:28 PM »
Apparently there IS gravity now, but only when it's convenient. The FE itself has no gravity, it seems, and the stars do. But they only pull on objects, not the FE and derailing it off the 'wind' pushing it upwards.
Celestial gravitation is not a new theory.

http://wiki.tfes.org/Celestial_Gravitation (This page was last modified on 2 December 2013, at 03:13.)

Maybe if RE-enthisiasts actually cared enough to learn the concepts of the other side, we wouldn't argue so much.

So the Earth having gravity is silly and absurd while the stars having gravity makes perfect sense?
Could you not be bothered to even read the 3 sentences?

Quote
This is not the same as Gravity, since Celestial Gravitation does not imply an attraction between objects of mass on Earth.

So only the magically floating sky objects have gravity, got it.
If you care to debate, it would be in your best interest to not build your argument on sarcasm.
Otherwise, why are you here?

OK then, I will rephrase it:

Why do only sky objects have gravity in FET?  And on a related note: why don't objects in the sky fall to Earth if UA is true?
Well, because that's just how it works. The objects don't fall to Earth because the acceleration is universal.


I don't profess to be correct.
Quote from: sceptimatic
I am correct.

*

Rama Set

  • 6877
  • I am also an engineer
Re: variations in gravity
« Reply #14 on: February 09, 2015, 09:05:25 PM »

Well, because that's just how it works. The objects don't fall to Earth because the acceleration is universal.

Except when it isn't.  Like when I jump in the air right?  Or a plane is flying.
Aether is the  characteristic of action or inaction of charged  & noncharged particals.

*

EnglshGentleman

  • Flat Earth Editor
  • 9548
Re: variations in gravity
« Reply #15 on: February 09, 2015, 09:10:03 PM »

Well, because that's just how it works. The objects don't fall to Earth because the acceleration is universal.

Except when it isn't.  Like when I jump in the air right?  Or a plane is flying.

When you jump you are momentarily moving faster than the Earth, but since you are no longer being affected by UA, the Earth catches up with you.

*

Rama Set

  • 6877
  • I am also an engineer
Re: variations in gravity
« Reply #16 on: February 09, 2015, 09:11:34 PM »

Well, because that's just how it works. The objects don't fall to Earth because the acceleration is universal.

Except when it isn't.  Like when I jump in the air right?  Or a plane is flying.

When you jump you are momentarily moving faster than the Earth, but since you are no longer being affected by UA, the Earth catches up with you.

Yes, FE 101.  But then why is the moon able to maintain a constant altitude?  This is the source of much ad-hockiness.
Aether is the  characteristic of action or inaction of charged  & noncharged particals.

Re: variations in gravity
« Reply #17 on: February 10, 2015, 05:01:40 AM »

Well, because that's just how it works. The objects don't fall to Earth because the acceleration is universal.

Except when it isn't.  Like when I jump in the air right?  Or a plane is flying.

When you jump you are momentarily moving faster than the Earth, but since you are no longer being affected by UA, the Earth catches up with you.

So UA isn't universal then....?
Never attribute to malice that which can be explained by ignorance or stupidity.

Re: variations in gravity
« Reply #18 on: February 10, 2015, 05:11:52 AM »
So UA isn't universal then....?
It is what it needs to be at any given time in the debate.  It is universally adaptable.
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.

*

th3rm0m3t3r0

  • At least 3 words, please.
  • 4696
  • It's SCIENCE!
Re: variations in gravity
« Reply #19 on: February 10, 2015, 06:46:56 AM »

Well, because that's just how it works. The objects don't fall to Earth because the acceleration is universal.

Except when it isn't.  Like when I jump in the air right?  Or a plane is flying.

When you jump you are momentarily moving faster than the Earth, but since you are no longer being affected by UA, the Earth catches up with you.

So UA isn't universal then....?
It is. All bodies in the universe are accelerated at a constant rate.
When you stop being pushed by one of these bodies, say, Earth,  you stop being accelerated.
This gives the said body time to catch up to you.
If you think about it, you wouldn't really be able to be pushed or accelerated by the air on Earth.


I don't profess to be correct.
Quote from: sceptimatic
I am correct.

*

Lemmiwinks

  • 2161
  • President of the Non-Conformist Zetetic Council
Re: variations in gravity
« Reply #20 on: February 10, 2015, 08:18:15 AM »

Well, because that's just how it works. The objects don't fall to Earth because the acceleration is universal.

Except when it isn't.  Like when I jump in the air right?  Or a plane is flying.

When you jump you are momentarily moving faster than the Earth, but since you are no longer being affected by UA, the Earth catches up with you.

So UA isn't universal then....?
It is. All bodies in the universe are accelerated at a constant rate.
When you stop being pushed by one of these bodies, say, Earth,  you stop being accelerated.
This gives the said body time to catch up to you.
If you think about it, you wouldn't really be able to be pushed or accelerated by the air on Earth.

No, when I think about it, I ask why can we observe celestial bodies all flying away from us if everything is flying in the same direction.

When I think about it, I ask where the infinite energy to move the entire god damned cosmos and its mind numbingly huge amount of mass at near the speed of light is coming from.

When I think about it, I think how much easier it is to believe that gravity works and causes the planet to be round and orbit a star because of mass than to make up fairy tale after fairy tale to continue to explain away all of the holes and inconsistencies of a theory abandoned by humans hundreds of years ago, and proven to not be accurate by the Greeks 2000 years ago.
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

*

markjo

  • Content Nazi
  • The Elder Ones
  • 42466
Re: variations in gravity
« Reply #21 on: February 10, 2015, 09:04:05 AM »
All bodies in the universe are accelerated at a constant rate.
Except for meteors and comets, of course.
Science is what happens when preconception meets verification.
Quote from: Robosteve
Besides, perhaps FET is a conspiracy too.
Quote from: bullhorn
It is just the way it is, you understanding it doesn't concern me.

*

th3rm0m3t3r0

  • At least 3 words, please.
  • 4696
  • It's SCIENCE!
Re: variations in gravity
« Reply #22 on: February 10, 2015, 09:22:00 AM »
All bodies in the universe are accelerated at a constant rate.
Except for meteors and comets, of course.
The gears will do what they do, markjo. I'm sure you're not ignorant of such things.


I don't profess to be correct.
Quote from: sceptimatic
I am correct.

Re: variations in gravity
« Reply #23 on: February 10, 2015, 09:25:24 AM »
It is. All bodies in the universe are accelerated at a constant rate.
When you stop being pushed by one of these bodies, say, Earth,  you stop being accelerated.

Why? What is the difference between a "body" and, say, me?  When I jump up, why doesn't UA accelerate me?  How does it know to differentiate?
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.

*

Rama Set

  • 6877
  • I am also an engineer
Re: variations in gravity
« Reply #24 on: February 10, 2015, 09:42:47 AM »
The gears will do what they do, markjo. I'm sure you're not ignorant of such things.

AD HOC
Aether is the  characteristic of action or inaction of charged  & noncharged particals.

*

Son of Orospu

  • Jura's b*tch and proud of it!
  • Planar Moderator
  • 37834
  • I have artificial intelligence
Re: variations in gravity
« Reply #25 on: February 10, 2015, 09:58:05 AM »
The gears will do what they do, markjo. I'm sure you're not ignorant of such things.

AD HOC

Rama, you know that is low content.  Please cease and desist. 

Re: variations in gravity
« Reply #26 on: February 10, 2015, 11:01:33 AM »
Let's analyse the "official" explanation and see if we can leave it in tatters.

Celestial Gravitation is a part of some Flat Earth models which involve an attraction by all objects of mass on earth to the heavenly bodies. This is not the same as Gravity, since Celestial Gravitation does not imply an attraction between objects of mass on Earth. Celestial Gravitation accounts for tides and other gravimetric anomalies across the Earth's plane.

So let's assume for one moment, as a thought experiment, that this premise is true, and that there is an attraction between some objects and not others - a bit like how a magnet will attract a piece of iron but a piece of iron will not attract another piece of iron.
There are some other things which can be defined as parameters under FET: the distance between the celestial bodies and the earth does not change. This means if UA is true, the sun and moon and stars must be accelerating upwards at the same rate as the earth. So far, none of this has conflicted with FET.
But wait...
If UA is applying an equal force of acceleration on the earth as it is on the moon/sun/whatever, then that means the net acceleration of the earth relative to the celestial bodies is zero.
Still no conflict with FET. But keep waiting...
The FE'ers fully accept the laws of action and reaction, because they accept that guns work, cars drive along roads, and if you punch sceptimatic hard in the face you feel a force on your hand too.
Which means that with no net acceleration between the celestial bodies and the earth, any pull on an earthly object by celestial gravitation will result in an equivalent pull on the celestial body, and the celestial body will be pulled ever closer to the earth until it hits it.
This does not happen.

Pongo, be a good mod and sweep up the tatters on your way out? And don't forget to erase that wiki page too.
Founder member of the League Of Scientific Gentlemen and Mademoiselles des Connaissances.
I am pompous, self-righteous, thin skinned, and smug.

*

th3rm0m3t3r0

  • At least 3 words, please.
  • 4696
  • It's SCIENCE!
Re: variations in gravity
« Reply #27 on: February 10, 2015, 11:46:47 AM »
Let's analyse the "official" explanation and see if we can leave it in tatters.

Celestial Gravitation is a part of some Flat Earth models which involve an attraction by all objects of mass on earth to the heavenly bodies. This is not the same as Gravity, since Celestial Gravitation does not imply an attraction between objects of mass on Earth. Celestial Gravitation accounts for tides and other gravimetric anomalies across the Earth's plane.

So let's assume for one moment, as a thought experiment, that this premise is true, and that there is an attraction between some objects and not others - a bit like how a magnet will attract a piece of iron but a piece of iron will not attract another piece of iron.
There are some other things which can be defined as parameters under FET: the distance between the celestial bodies and the earth does not change. This means if UA is true, the sun and moon and stars must be accelerating upwards at the same rate as the earth. So far, none of this has conflicted with FET.
But wait...
If UA is applying an equal force of acceleration on the earth as it is on the moon/sun/whatever, then that means the net acceleration of the earth relative to the celestial bodies is zero.
Still no conflict with FET. But keep waiting...
The FE'ers fully accept the laws of action and reaction, because they accept that guns work, cars drive along roads, and if you punch sceptimatic hard in the face you feel a force on your hand too.
Which means that with no net acceleration between the celestial bodies and the earth, any pull on an earthly object by celestial gravitation will result in an equivalent pull on the celestial body, and the celestial body will be pulled ever closer to the earth until it hits it.
This does not happen.

Pongo, be a good mod and sweep up the tatters on your way out? And don't forget to erase that wiki page too.
Are you sure it doesn't happen?
All of the rules you just laid out also apply to your model.
Isn't the moon eventually going to leave Earth's orbit?
Orbits decay over vast periods of time.
Where is the problem here? If the moon in RE has an effect on the tides, and doesn't "smash into Earth", I'm failing to see the problem.


I don't profess to be correct.
Quote from: sceptimatic
I am correct.

Re: variations in gravity
« Reply #28 on: February 10, 2015, 11:50:06 AM »
Let's analyse the "official" explanation and see if we can leave it in tatters.

Celestial Gravitation is a part of some Flat Earth models which involve an attraction by all objects of mass on earth to the heavenly bodies. This is not the same as Gravity, since Celestial Gravitation does not imply an attraction between objects of mass on Earth. Celestial Gravitation accounts for tides and other gravimetric anomalies across the Earth's plane.

So let's assume for one moment, as a thought experiment, that this premise is true, and that there is an attraction between some objects and not others - a bit like how a magnet will attract a piece of iron but a piece of iron will not attract another piece of iron.
There are some other things which can be defined as parameters under FET: the distance between the celestial bodies and the earth does not change. This means if UA is true, the sun and moon and stars must be accelerating upwards at the same rate as the earth. So far, none of this has conflicted with FET.
But wait...
If UA is applying an equal force of acceleration on the earth as it is on the moon/sun/whatever, then that means the net acceleration of the earth relative to the celestial bodies is zero.
Still no conflict with FET. But keep waiting...
The FE'ers fully accept the laws of action and reaction, because they accept that guns work, cars drive along roads, and if you punch sceptimatic hard in the face you feel a force on your hand too.
Which means that with no net acceleration between the celestial bodies and the earth, any pull on an earthly object by celestial gravitation will result in an equivalent pull on the celestial body, and the celestial body will be pulled ever closer to the earth until it hits it.
This does not happen.

Pongo, be a good mod and sweep up the tatters on your way out? And don't forget to erase that wiki page too.
Are you sure it doesn't happen?
All of the rules you just laid out also apply to your model.
Isn't the moon eventually going to leave Earth's orbit?
Orbits decay over vast periods of time.
Where is the problem here? If the moon in RE has an effect on the tides, and doesn't "smash into Earth", I'm failing to see the problem.

The difference is that in RE, the moon and earth are constantly trying to move away from each other which balances the attractive force. The key difference is that in FET, the earth and moon are static in relation to each other with no force counterbalancing the attraction (the UA, as I showed, simply cancels out).
Founder member of the League Of Scientific Gentlemen and Mademoiselles des Connaissances.
I am pompous, self-righteous, thin skinned, and smug.

*

markjo

  • Content Nazi
  • The Elder Ones
  • 42466
Re: variations in gravity
« Reply #29 on: February 11, 2015, 12:48:05 PM »
All bodies in the universe are accelerated at a constant rate.
Except for meteors and comets, of course.
The gears will do what they do, markjo. I'm sure you're not ignorant of such things.
If Universal Acceleration doesn't affect meteors and comets, then the acceleration is hardly universal, is it?
Science is what happens when preconception meets verification.
Quote from: Robosteve
Besides, perhaps FET is a conspiracy too.
Quote from: bullhorn
It is just the way it is, you understanding it doesn't concern me.