Explain gravity in the Flat Earth Theory

The theory of gravity is still a theory. The very math describing it is full of errors.  For the sake of argument consider.
The Earth is a spinning ball creating centrifugal force.
Things are not thrown off the face of the Earth because of gravity which pulls it back toward the center of Earth's mass.
At the equator where the centrifugal force is strongest the force of gravity has to be strong enough to counter it.
Things have weight in excess so gravity is a bit stronger than centrifugal force.
The force of gravity is almost exactly the same at any spot on the ball Earth.
Given that the above is true at the poles of the Earth where there is no centrifugal force gravity would make things very heavy, so.
A 100 lb block at the equator would weight how much at the poles.
500 lbs?
400 lbs?
200 lbs?
150 lbs?
125 lbs?
No, the 100 lb block weights most the same thing anywhere on Earth, 100 lbs.
This fact alone disproves the spinning ball Earth theory.

The Earth is and always has been a flat plane.

The theory of gravity is still a theory. The very math describing it is full of errors.  For the sake of argument consider.
The Earth is a spinning ball creating centrifugal force.
Things are not thrown off the face of the Earth because of gravity which pulls it back toward the center of Earth's mass.
At the equator where the centrifugal force is strongest the force of gravity has to be strong enough to counter it.
Things have weight in excess so gravity is a bit stronger than centrifugal force.
The force of gravity is almost exactly the same at any spot on the ball Earth.
Given that the above is true at the poles of the Earth where there is no centrifugal force gravity would make things very heavy, so.
A 100 lb block at the equator would weight how much at the poles.
500 lbs?
400 lbs?
200 lbs?
150 lbs?
125 lbs?
No, the 100 lb block weights most the same thing anywhere on Earth, 100 lbs.
This fact alone disproves the spinning ball Earth theory.

The Earth is and always has been a flat plane.

CENTRIFUGAL FORCE IS NOT A THING

https://xkcd.com/123/

Now you are just being silly, checkmate.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Centrifugal_force

Gravity is real. It is displayed along the entire world and the universe. Without gravity the would would fly out of its orbit of the sun and our entire planet will freeze over. You can't say centrifugal force is the reason we all fall down. The world is too big. I also have a question,what is on the other side of the "flat earth"? Is it countries? Because I'm pretty sure without gravity earthquakes wouldn't exist, we would float away and our planet wouldn't spin at all. without gravity all fundamental physics would cease to exist, therefore making us rethink every single thing we believe

Yes that is true, you need to rethink most everything you have been mislead about. Take heed though many of the hard working smart people that when realize the world is a flat plane and that gravity is not what it is presented to be may well be the ones who discover the science of the world as it is. This really changes noting but perception. Why live within a lie when the whole world is around waiting to be discovered and explained. Join the good work as the Earth has no curve and it is and always has been a flat plane.

Now you are just being silly, checkmate.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Centrifugal_force

OK,  I looked that up!  It told me: "In Newtonian mechanics, the term centrifugal force is used to refer to an inertial force (also called a 'fictitious' force) that appears to act on all objects when viewed in a rotating reference frame, drawing them away from the axis."  Yes a 'fictitious' force,  just the way gravity is often described.
Having sorted that out. A 100lb block at the equator would weigh about 100.3lb at one of the poles.
This is quite consistent with the centripetal acceleration at the equator calculated from a radius of 3,959 miles and rotating at 1 revolution each 23.93 hours. .
What's your problem?  Just how does that disprove a spinning earth?
BTW How is the variation of apparent acceleration due to gravity with latitude and altitude (plus a couple more variables we'll leave out for now) explained on a flat earth?

Your example is laughable. If gravity were that weak your orbiting spinning ball Earth would be out in left field somewhere. You fail.

Quote from: ronxyz on November 27, 2015, 08:58:17 PM

Now you are just being silly, checkmate.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Centrifugal_force

OK,  I looked that up!  It told me: "In Newtonian mechanics, the term centrifugal force is used to refer to an inertial force (also called a 'fictitious' force) that appears to act on all objects when viewed in a rotating reference frame, drawing them away from the axis."  Yes a 'fictitious' force,  just the way gravity is often described.
Having sorted that out. A 100lb block at the equator would weigh about 100.3lb at one of the poles.
This is quite consistent with the centripetal acceleration at the equator calculated from a radius of 3,959 miles and rotating at 1 revolution each 23.93 hours. .
What's your problem?  Just how does that disprove a spinning earth?
BTW How is the variation of apparent acceleration due to gravity with latitude and altitude (plus a couple more variables we'll leave out for now) explained on a flat earth?

Centrifugal force may be considered a fictitious force, but Centripetal force is a true force. 

Quote from: rabinoz on November 27, 2015, 10:07:45 PM

Quote from: ronxyz on November 27, 2015, 08:58:17 PM

Now you are just being silly, checkmate.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Centrifugal_force

OK,  I looked that up!  It told me: "In Newtonian mechanics, the term centrifugal force is used to refer to an inertial force (also called a 'fictitious' force) that appears to act on all objects when viewed in a rotating reference frame, drawing them away from the axis."  Yes a 'fictitious' force,  just the way gravity is often described.

Centrifugal force may be considered a fictitious force, but Centripetal force is a true force.

I don't believe I mentioned "Centripetal force". 
But since you did:  Is "Centripetal force"  any more real than "Gravitational force"? 

Im my own little theory, the earth is an infinite 4D shape carved by GeoTeratheral Forces. Gravity exists and is the beginning of everything. Space itself is just the 4D part of the earth, just like water and earth. Both RE and FE are wrong. The all science in RE and FE are hoaxes by the government. Gravity exists on another plain of existense, but is bent into our dimension by GeoTeratheral forces.

Quote from: jroa on November 27, 2015, 10:22:46 PM

Quote from: rabinoz on November 27, 2015, 10:07:45 PM

Quote from: ronxyz on November 27, 2015, 08:58:17 PM

Now you are just being silly, checkmate.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Centrifugal_force

OK,  I looked that up!  It told me: "In Newtonian mechanics, the term centrifugal force is used to refer to an inertial force (also called a 'fictitious' force) that appears to act on all objects when viewed in a rotating reference frame, drawing them away from the axis."  Yes a 'fictitious' force,  just the way gravity is often described.

Centrifugal force may be considered a fictitious force, but Centripetal force is a true force.

I don't believe I mentioned "Centripetal force". 
But since you did:  Is "Centripetal force"  any more real than "Gravitational force"? 

Yes, Centripetal force is much more real than Gravitational force.  Thanks for asking. 

Centrifugal force is said to imaginary or a belief that you can feel a weight pulling at a string as you spin a weight from it. You do know how retarded this is don't you? Centrifugal Force only does not exist in Newtonian physics, Everyone else makes use of it for real world control and mechanisms. Lets just call it the spin-fun force, SFF.

Hunting and fighting slings have been used for thousands of years. Long before they were impossible because of Newtonian physics. Just put a rock in a pouch at the end of a string and give it a spin. When you release the string the rock goes out thanks to SFF.

Without SFF  the expression 'balls to the wall' would have never been coined. Early engines used heavy balls at the end of rods to control the operating speed. As rpm increased the balls would rise up because of SFF to the point where the counter spring were set to. This controlled the speed of the engines. When the balls were really spinning fast the would be straight, balls to the wall. Without SFF it would not work and this handy term never coined.

Millions and millions of cars, trucks and other things that use a distributor have spinning weights counter poised by springs in them. The faster the engine spins the more the weights are forced outward by SFF. As they are forced out the timing of the ignition is advanced. Without SFF this would be impossible.

Any spinning thing when it is spinning fast enough will self destruct and explode apart. Care has to be taken not to spin anything faster than it's limits. Even bullets if spinning to fast will disintegrate. If SFF did not exits you could spin anything as fast as you wanted, it would not matter.

Anyone who has used a washing machine knows that the SPIN cycle uses SFF to throw the water out from the clothes. Without SFF this would be impossible.

SFF does exits and is a real world force. Newtonian physics is a theory only, a failed one that.

If the Earth were a spinning ball you would be crushed by gravity at the poles because there is no Centrifugal force at the poles to balance gravity out.

There is no physical proof of the ball Earth theory, none. The Earth always has been and yet remains a flat plane.

I hate to be nit-picky (wait, no I don't), but "Balls to the wall" is an aviation term.  It refers to pushing the throttle levers (which have balls on the end) all the way forward, to the firewall/instrument panel.  Thus, when you are going all out, as absolutely fast as you can, you are pushing the throttle lever balls all the way to the firewall.  "Balls to the wall." 

Interesting and makes sense, but steam engines predated jets by many years. This could be one of those things you read that is hearsay or borrowed.  Most all steam engines had flying ball governors, how many planes had balls on the throttle? In any case the earliest reference to 'balls to the wall' historically will show the likely origin. The meaning is the same as in going all out and is widely used for anything hauling ass. This is a common term used in factories and machine shops where fly-ball governors are were used. Very few people would be aware of the saying if it was used by a few pilots. Finally does a pilot refer to his dashboard as a wall? The pilots were most likely using  the old 'balls to to wall' as a general way to express going all out.

how many planes had balls on the throttle?

Just about all of them.  It's a pretty universal thing.

In any case the earliest reference to 'balls to the wall' historically will show the likely origin.

Right and like I said, it's an aviation term.

Very few people would be aware of the saying if it was used by a few pilots.

The earliest known use of the term is in aviation.

Finally does a pilot refer to his dashboard as a wall?

Since the proper name for this part of the aircraft is the 'firewall', yes, yes he does.

The pilots were most likely using  the old 'balls to to wall' as a general way to express going all out.

Nope.  They were literally pushing the balls to the [fire]wall in order to go 'all out'.  Hence the phrase.

Ok, as logic is disregarded proof is required. In most all the references to the expression it is said that the origin is not known, but fly-ball governors are the likely source. Some do mention the it was used by a few pilots. Until a source is found using the term before any pilot could use it, it remains an unknown. Though by logic the term is from fly-ball governors that were WIDELY used.  Like I said it is a common term used by mechanics machinist and workmen in factories and machine shops. It would not have wide spread use from a few pilots using the term. I acknowledge that pilots used the term, but they did not originate it. Until definite proof is obtained it is a moot point. (Though am likely right  )

http://www.wordorigins.org/index.php/balls_to_the_wall/

The phrase balls to the wall, meaning an all-out effort, comes from the world of aviation. On an airplane, the handles controlling the throttle and the fuel mixture are often topped with ball-shaped grips, referred to by pilots as (what else?) balls. Pushing the balls forward, close to the front wall of the cockpit increases the amount of fuel going to the engines and results in the highest possible speed.

https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/balls_to_the_wall

First attested in the 1960s in the context of aviation. Probably coined by pilots whose throttle levers, mixture levers and propeller governor levers had round, ball-like tops and for whom putting the "balls to the wall" (the firewall of the aircraft) meant increasing rpm, using maximum rich mixture and full throttle, making the aircraft fly as quickly as possible. Probably not, as sometimes suggested, from railroad jargon.[1]

Sucks to be you. 

Oh, did I forget to mention, that I am a pilot?

I found just as many sources stating that "balls to the wall' is from fly-ball governors. Being a pilot has no bearing on it. I have flown planes before and did not use the term.
I remember looking into this years ago and found then some per-flight books with the term being used. Logic dictates that I am right, just think about it for a bit.

Perhaps if you had actually clicked the link you would have seen this little gem:

The earliest written citation is from 1967, appearing in Frank Harvey’s Air War—Vietnam:

You know what happened on that first Doomsday Mission (as the boys call a big balls-to-the-wall raid) against Hanoi oil.

Logic dictates that I am right

Logic does no such thing.  In fact, stating that "balls to the wall" refers to fly ball governors is about as illogical as they come.

I believe you are getting your colloquialisms mixed up.  "Balls to the wall" originated from aviation in the position of the throttle in relation to the firewall.  However, "balls out" was often used to describe the state of a fly ball governor (balls-in, balls-out).  So going balls out, while similar to balls to the wall, would mean to go fast/all out, but would have a different origin. 

Yes, you could be right. I know at one time years ago there was information on it. I looked around while we were discussing it and could find very little. Most sources are not sure and say it could be either one or maybe something else. I think reading the history of Casey Jones and his steam engine operating the term all-out, balls-out,balls-to-the-wall or some such thing was used a lot as he drove em hard and fast.

The legend himself Jay Leno explains what the term "balls to the ball" or "balls out" means.
" class="bbc_link" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">
-------
 term's etymology:
    On old steam engines, there was a governor device that had an arm with two steel balls on each end. This spun around, and as the engine went faster the centrifugal force spun the balls higher and higher. When the engine reached its maximum safe power, the balls would be spinning fast and high. When they reached a specific height, a spring would shut down steam and not allow the engine to blow up (over speed itself). So "balls to the wall" means: as fast as the engine possibly can go.
--------
History of steam engines
When engineers asked mechanics at what speed an engine was running, they’d reply, “balls out” or “balls to the wall” to indicate it was humming along at full steam.
--------
I followed about a hundred links and no accurate confirmed sources were found for the expression 'balls to the walls'.
These all all mentioned. They are order of first mentioned date.

1. fly-ball governors, balls full out was the top speed setting
2. uk foot ball, balls out
3. WW2 US submarine engine room crew, balls to the wall
4. Viet war bird pilots, balls to the wall
5. The sound of the ball Earth theory being smashed, BALLS  to the Wall

This is from physical tests, not a Newton's Law of Gravitation that uses math that is full of errors. By his own math it does not exists as he describes it. Flawed math wrong answer. He just assumed a theory and forced a failed math proof to support it. Just go through his proof step by step and you will see the errors of it.

Netwon's Law of Gravitation can be derived from Newton's laws of motions and Kepler's laws. Kepler's laws are usually formulated for planets, but they work for more general setup. I went through the proof, presented it to the wide audience few years ago and noone has found any mistake. The proof I presented was baed on Newton's. If you can see any errors, why do not you post them? I will be very interested.

The legend himself Jay Leno explains what the term "balls to the ball" or "balls out" means.
" class="bbc_link" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">

A video of Jay explaining something he obviously overheard at some point?  What does that prove?

Yes, you could be right. I know at one time years ago there was information on it. I looked around while we were discussing it and could find very little. Most sources are not sure and say it could be either one or maybe something else. I think reading the history of Casey Jones and his steam engine operating the term all-out, balls-out,balls-to-the-wall or some such thing was used a lot as he drove em hard and fast.

The legend himself Jay Leno explains what the term "balls to the ball" or "balls out" means.
" class="bbc_link" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">
-------
 term's etymology:
    On old steam engines, there was a governor device that had an arm with two steel balls on each end. This spun around, and as the engine went faster the centrifugal force spun the balls higher and higher. When the engine reached its maximum safe power, the balls would be spinning fast and high. When they reached a specific height, a spring would shut down steam and not allow the engine to blow up (over speed itself). So "balls to the wall" means: as fast as the engine possibly can go.
--------
History of steam engines
When engineers asked mechanics at what speed an engine was running, they’d reply, “balls out” or “balls to the wall” to indicate it was humming along at full steam.
--------
I followed about a hundred links and no accurate confirmed sources were found for the expression 'balls to the walls'.
These all all mentioned. They are order of first mentioned date.

1. fly-ball governors, balls full out was the top speed setting
2. uk foot ball, balls out
3. WW2 US submarine engine room crew, balls to the wall
4. Viet war bird pilots, balls to the wall
5. The sound of the ball Earth theory being smashed, BALLS  to the Wall

1.  Please stop adding things to your posts after people have responded.  Most people don't go back to read previous posts.  If you have something new to add, make a new post.
2.  Since you are going to Jay Leno as the authority on the subject, in this video at the 4:25 mark, he explains balls out vs balls to the wall. " class="bbc_link" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">

After 3 pages of waffle about balls,no one can tell me what causes the gravity in the flat earth theory-and it cant be acceleration upwards!

It is the exact same thing as it is in the real world as we know it, Earth as a flat plane. The ball Earth is just an unproven theory so any gravity on an imaginary ball Earth would be much like fairy dust.

After 3 pages of waffle about balls,no one can tell me what causes the gravity in the flat earth theory-and it cant be acceleration upwards!

Uh, no, it is upwards acceleration of the FE which causes what we normally describe as 'gravity'.

Quote from: gazza711 on November 29, 2015, 01:20:11 AM

After 3 pages of waffle about balls,no one can tell me what causes the gravity in the flat earth theory-and it cant be acceleration upwards!

Uh, no, it is upwards acceleration of the FE which causes what we normally describe as 'gravity'.

Perhaps gazza711 does not believe in Einstein or his Equivalence Principle as well.  Maybe he thinks that he is smarter than Einstein?  I don't know, but he is funny. 

Quote from: TheEngineer on November 29, 2015, 08:32:31 AM

Quote from: gazza711 on November 29, 2015, 01:20:11 AM

After 3 pages of waffle about balls,no one can tell me what causes the gravity in the flat earth theory-and it cant be acceleration upwards!

Uh, no, it is upwards acceleration of the FE which causes what we normally describe as 'gravity'.

Perhaps gazza711 does not believe in Einstein or his Equivalence Principle as well.  Maybe he thinks that he is smarter than Einstein?  I don't know, but he is funny. 

He sure is, since this would be like me saying:
"No one can tell me what causes the gravity in the round earth theory-and it can't be deformation of spacetime!"

This group of roundies do not believe in bendy space-time.  They are fixated on Newtonian Physics.  Go figure. 

Im a FE'r who knows the acceleration theory is flawed.