# Phase 0: Gravitation

• 105 Replies
• 3964 Views

#### neutrino

• 635
• FET is a religion. You can't fight faith.
##### Phase 0: Gravitation
« on: July 27, 2016, 03:30:28 PM »
Good day my fellow explorers,

I'm new here. I spent some 3 hours reading the information about FE theory and, I must admit, I'm totally blown with that. It's so radically opposite to what we were tought in school, university. So for the first time I want to try to understand this new to me point of view. I am an amateur astronomer. I do own a nice 11" Cassegrain telescope and I spend nights in outskirts of main star paths on the sky. So my interest in this is pure natural curiosity.

I want to start a series of questions that arose while reading the FE theory. I would appreciate if you could help me understand FE. So here I start:

Gravitation - I suppose that in FE we believe there is no gravitation. If there was gravitation, then the flat disk of earth would pull everything toward its center of mass (center of disk).

Or if there was gravitation: There is no disk, but endless, infinite plane (with mass). It is easy to show that in such a case a gravitation in any point above the plane (on either side) will point toward plane (i.e. perpendicularly to a plane), which is pretty much what we observe.

As I understood, the force that pulls everything towards Earth Plane is constant acceleration of this plane 'upwards' at 9.8 m/sec^2. This is a nice theory but observations show that g is not uniform on the surface of Earth. This is pretty easy to check, for example even using my lab scales with precision of 0.00001g (yes, enclosed glass box etc...). It is impossible that plane accelerates at constant g, but has deviations here or there. This would show that Earth is highly partitioned and each hunk has its own acceleration/speed which is not what we see.

How tides are explained in FE theory? Since there is no gravitation, water is not pulled by Moon if I get it correctly.

I think it is clear that there are moons orbiting around planets. Such as Four Galileo Moons orbiting Jupiter etc... I saw numerous of times it myself, the actual orbiting - they orbit pretty fast (Io's 42 hours as opposed to 29 days of Moon), so occasionally I just check each 15 minutes and sketch the positions of four moons. BTW you can do it tonight! So why other moons orbit planets?

What force keeps Sun and Moon high above Earth Plane? Why don't they 'fall' on the Earth surface? Is it the same force that moves the plane moves them too? Why this force doesn't affect other objects that actually fall onto surface if released at some height?

Also, pretty sure it was mentioned earlier on this forum, but for record I'll note it in this post. If we will accelerate at constant g, it's easy to show that we'll get to speed of light pretty fast:
Vt = Vo + at
Assuming Vo = 0
t = Vt/a = c/g = 299,792,458/9.8 = ~ 1 year
So taking into account that Earth is older than 1 year (which is obvious, I'm at 34, my daughter 10, son 7, another daughter 3...) there are only two options:
0) we greatly exceeded speed of light which contradicts with GR
1) we stopped accelerating, so why there is force pulling everything to the Earth?

Kindest regards, Greg (neutrino).
« Last Edit: July 28, 2016, 12:15:33 AM by neutrino »
FET is religion. No evidence will convince a FE-er. It would be easier to convince Muslims they are wrong.

?

#### origamiscienceguy

• 2138
##### Re: Phase 0: Gravitation
« Reply #1 on: July 27, 2016, 03:43:04 PM »
The best answers you will get from flat-earthers are "perspective, dark energy" and "You're an idiot"

Their "theory" falls apart if anybody with knowledge about physics or astronomy asks a simple question.

Believe it or not, they can't answer why the sun sets and rises.
I wonder how obnoxious I can make my signature?

#### Ski

• Planar Moderator
• 8505
• Homines, dum docent, dispenguin.
##### Re: Phase 0: Gravitation
« Reply #2 on: July 27, 2016, 03:46:18 PM »
Welcome!  I don't think there is much debate that some sort of celestial gravitation exists. Frankly, if anything like GR is true, it seems to me the earth must exhibit some amount of gravitation because it would contribute to the SEM-tensor.
"Never think you can turn over any old falsehood without a terrible squirming of the horrid little population that dwells under it." -O.W. Holmes "Truth forever on the scaffold, Wrong forever on the throne.."

#### neutrino

• 635
• FET is a religion. You can't fight faith.
##### Re: Phase 0: Gravitation
« Reply #3 on: July 28, 2016, 12:18:39 AM »
Welcome!  I don't think there is much debate that some sort of celestial gravitation exists. Frankly, if anything like GR is true, it seems to me the earth must exhibit some amount of gravitation because it would contribute to the SEM-tensor.
Hi Ski,

So there is gravitation? And Earth has it too? So you don't think that hypothesis of accelerating plane is correct?

Could someone help me with other questions?

Thank you!
FET is religion. No evidence will convince a FE-er. It would be easier to convince Muslims they are wrong.

#### Ski

• Planar Moderator
• 8505
• Homines, dum docent, dispenguin.
##### Re: Phase 0: Gravitation
« Reply #4 on: July 28, 2016, 12:32:52 AM »
I think it's likely that it exhibits some amount of gravitation,  but don't think it's consequential.  A pencil, for example, also exhibits gravitation, but doesn't fold itself into a sphere.
"Never think you can turn over any old falsehood without a terrible squirming of the horrid little population that dwells under it." -O.W. Holmes "Truth forever on the scaffold, Wrong forever on the throne.."

#### neutrino

• 635
• FET is a religion. You can't fight faith.
##### Re: Phase 0: Gravitation
« Reply #5 on: July 28, 2016, 01:42:56 AM »
I'm sorry, I wasn't clear. I meant that Jupiter for example has 'pretty strong' gravitation so it holds four visible moons in place. So do you agree that there is force of gravity? And that in this particular case it forces those four Galileo Moon's to stay at orbit?

So what you are saying is that on earth this gravity force is very weak and still majority of g is contributed by accelerating plane 'upwards'. Is this correct?

And yes, thank you for the analogous example of pencil. This is true, it does not collapse into sphere, but it does have some gravitational field. In classic physics this explained by relatively small amount of mass. Unfortunately we cannot conduct an experiment with mass big enough to cause gravitational collapse into sphere. Fluids in weightlessness (for example food consumed by astronauts) take form of sphere due to surface tension and not self-gravity.

With that being said, do you have explanation to why other planets are spheres? How to explain usual things that people believe are due to gravitational forces like tides which do correlate with Moon position?
FET is religion. No evidence will convince a FE-er. It would be easier to convince Muslims they are wrong.

#### neutrino

• 635
• FET is a religion. You can't fight faith.
##### Re: Phase 0: Gravitation
« Reply #6 on: July 28, 2016, 06:19:15 AM »
Hello neu tri no .you are one of these anoying gays..er..guys that actualy believe that
The world is rounded.if you will post some more theories you wil be banned.
Good day,
I'm not just believing in this or that. I'm in a constant search for models/theory that fit my own observations, data I collect from trusted (for me) sources. But I'm not brainwashed. I'm a programmer and as programmer I'm always open for new points of view. You know today NoSQL databases come as replacement for conventional ones. Who could imagine such a twist? The World Model for me is the same. If there is a 'better' model which describes events better in sense of rationalism I would support it.

I'm not a gay, not sure why you decided so, but I have no problems with them either. I'm pretty liberal gay (or guy )

I do respect opinions of others and I'm sure there is always something you can pick from a person, even if his views are not aligned perfectly with yours. So all I'm trying to do is to understand as much as my brain will allow. That's it. If my approach somehow violates rules of this forum, please point me, where exactly. I cannot find such a rule.

But of course you can ban me. This will not satisfy my hunger for information though...
FET is religion. No evidence will convince a FE-er. It would be easier to convince Muslims they are wrong.

?

#### Antares__

• 30
• Catch me shills...
##### Re: Phase 0: Gravitation
« Reply #7 on: July 28, 2016, 08:35:12 AM »
'Gravity' is fake! Have you watched that movie??

Oh.

Sorry.

You mean that other 'gravity'.

That's not real either.
The shills are everywhere. They intercept every communication to insert ball earth propaganda. Disgusting!!

#### Ski

• Planar Moderator
• 8505
• Homines, dum docent, dispenguin.
##### Re: Phase 0: Gravitation
« Reply #8 on: July 28, 2016, 09:37:15 AM »
So what you are saying is that on earth this gravity force is very weak and still majority of g is contributed by accelerating plane 'upwards'. Is this correct?

With that being said, do you have explanation to why other planets are spheres? How to explain usual things that people believe are due to gravitational forces like tides which do correlate with Moon position?

Broadly speaking, I have no issues with celestial gravitation.
"Never think you can turn over any old falsehood without a terrible squirming of the horrid little population that dwells under it." -O.W. Holmes "Truth forever on the scaffold, Wrong forever on the throne.."

#### markjo

• Content Nazi
• The Elder Ones
• 38907
##### Re: Phase 0: Gravitation
« Reply #9 on: July 28, 2016, 09:56:17 AM »
So what you are saying is that on earth this gravity force is very weak and still majority of g is contributed by accelerating plane 'upwards'. Is this correct?

With that being said, do you have explanation to why other planets are spheres? How to explain usual things that people believe are due to gravitational forces like tides which do correlate with Moon position?

Broadly speaking, I have no issues with celestial gravitation.
Oh?  Then you don't have a problem with galaxies rotating so fast that they should fly apart but don't?
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.

?

#### origamiscienceguy

• 2138
##### Re: Phase 0: Gravitation
« Reply #10 on: July 28, 2016, 11:04:43 AM »
So what you are saying is that on earth this gravity force is very weak and still majority of g is contributed by accelerating plane 'upwards'. Is this correct?

With that being said, do you have explanation to why other planets are spheres? How to explain usual things that people believe are due to gravitational forces like tides which do correlate with Moon position?

Broadly speaking, I have no issues with celestial gravitation.
Oh?  Then you don't have a problem with galaxies rotating so fast that they should fly apart but don't?
They are not spining fast at all. one rotation every 200 million years is very slow.
I wonder how obnoxious I can make my signature?

#### Luke 22:35-38

• 3598
• The earth is a globe, DUH! prove its not
##### Re: Phase 0: Gravitation
« Reply #11 on: July 28, 2016, 11:51:05 AM »
Shalom and welcome to the trenches OP.
The Bible doesn't support a flat earth.

Scripture, facts, science, stats, and logic is how I argue.

#### Ski

• Planar Moderator
• 8505
• Homines, dum docent, dispenguin.
##### Re: Phase 0: Gravitation
« Reply #12 on: July 28, 2016, 12:37:11 PM »
Oh?  Then you don't have a problem with galaxies rotating so fast that they should fly apart but don't?

I said broadly speaking. Clearly noone has a complete grasp on gravitation,  which is why hounding planoterrestrialists about it seems hypocritical to me. Galaxy paradoxes are just one example.
Broadly speaking, I have no issues with celestial gravitation.
« Last Edit: July 28, 2016, 12:39:40 PM by Ski »
"Never think you can turn over any old falsehood without a terrible squirming of the horrid little population that dwells under it." -O.W. Holmes "Truth forever on the scaffold, Wrong forever on the throne.."

?

#### Physicsteacher

• 386
##### Re: Phase 0: Gravitation
« Reply #13 on: July 28, 2016, 12:40:33 PM »
So what you are saying is that on earth this gravity force is very weak and still majority of g is contributed by accelerating plane 'upwards'. Is this correct?

With that being said, do you have explanation to why other planets are spheres? How to explain usual things that people believe are due to gravitational forces like tides which do correlate with Moon position?
I said broadly speaking. Clearly noone has a complete grasp on gravitation,  which is why hounding planoterrestrialists about it seems hypocritical to me. Galaxy paradoxes are just one example.
Broadly speaking, I have no issues with celestial gravitation.
Oh?  Then you don't have a problem with galaxies rotating so fast that they should fly apart but don't?

Galaxies do fly spin so fast they should fly apart.  But the fact you acknowledge galaxies exist proves you believe in gravity - otherwise they would not orbit a common center.

Dark matter is the currently accepted theory for what makes the missing mass - but a nobel prize awaits the person to prove this :-)

#### Ski

• Planar Moderator
• 8505
• Homines, dum docent, dispenguin.
##### Re: Phase 0: Gravitation
« Reply #14 on: July 28, 2016, 12:50:16 PM »
Hypothetical matter which has no known properties other than those needed to fix the problem in equations involving a "law" of the Orthodoxy doesn't really smack of a true theory to me. It's a placeholder, not a theory.  Which is fine, some things are beyond our knowing, but I'd havea lot more respect for you lot if you admitted it.
"Never think you can turn over any old falsehood without a terrible squirming of the horrid little population that dwells under it." -O.W. Holmes "Truth forever on the scaffold, Wrong forever on the throne.."

#### Blue_Moon

• 846
• Defender of NASA
##### Re: Phase 0: Gravitation
« Reply #15 on: July 28, 2016, 04:55:19 PM »
Hypothetical matter which has no known properties other than those needed to fix the problem in equations involving a "law" of the Orthodoxy doesn't really smack of a true theory to me. It's a placeholder, not a theory.  Which is fine, some things are beyond our knowing, but I'd have a lot more respect for you lot if you admitted it.

I'll admit that dark matter is a placeholder for until we can directly observe and describe what all that extra massive stuff is that holds galaxies together and refracts light from distant galaxies.  Until that happens, dark matter is good enough for me.  I'll also admit that we aren't yet fully sure of the entire nature of gravity, although some good ideas have been put forth.  That doesn't change the fact that gravity exists, and is the best explanation for tides and orbits.
Aerospace Engineering Student
NASA Enthusiast
More qualified to speak for NASA than you are to speak against them

#### markjo

• Content Nazi
• The Elder Ones
• 38907
##### Re: Phase 0: Gravitation
« Reply #16 on: July 28, 2016, 08:59:53 PM »
Oh?  Then you don't have a problem with galaxies rotating so fast that they should fly apart but don't?

I said broadly speaking. Clearly noone has a complete grasp on gravitation,  which is why hounding planoterrestrialists about it seems hypocritical to me.
I don't see how it's any more hypocritical than FE'ers hounding RE'ers about it.

Broadly speaking, I have no issues with celestial gravitation.
Then why do you have issues with terrestrial gravitation?
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.

#### Ski

• Planar Moderator
• 8505
• Homines, dum docent, dispenguin.
##### Re: Phase 0: Gravitation
« Reply #17 on: July 28, 2016, 09:28:11 PM »
I've never seen the earth fold itself into a ball.
"Never think you can turn over any old falsehood without a terrible squirming of the horrid little population that dwells under it." -O.W. Holmes "Truth forever on the scaffold, Wrong forever on the throne.."

#### markjo

• Content Nazi
• The Elder Ones
• 38907
##### Re: Phase 0: Gravitation
« Reply #18 on: July 29, 2016, 05:28:52 AM »
I've never seen the earth fold itself into a ball.
Why would you ever expect to?
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.

#### rabinoz

• 24308
• Real Earth Believer
##### Re: Phase 0: Gravitation
« Reply #19 on: July 29, 2016, 05:59:31 AM »
I've never seen the earth fold itself into a ball.
I thought that was John Davis' line with his non-Euclidean space making a flat earth seem like a ball.

?

#### droidfuel

• 16
##### Re: Phase 0: Gravitation
« Reply #20 on: July 29, 2016, 08:16:38 AM »
Good day my fellow explorers,

I'm new here. I spent some 3 hours reading the information about FE theory and, I must admit, I'm totally blown with that. It's so radically opposite to what we were tought in school, university. So for the first time I want to try to understand this new to me point of view. I am an amateur astronomer. I do own a nice 11" Cassegrain telescope and I spend nights in outskirts of main star paths on the sky. So my interest in this is pure natural curiosity.

I want to start a series of questions that arose while reading the FE theory. I would appreciate if you could help me understand FE. So here I start:

Gravitation - I suppose that in FE we believe there is no gravitation. If there was gravitation, then the flat disk of earth would pull everything toward its center of mass (center of disk).

Or if there was gravitation: There is no disk, but endless, infinite plane (with mass). It is easy to show that in such a case a gravitation in any point above the plane (on either side) will point toward plane (i.e. perpendicularly to a plane), which is pretty much what we observe.

As I understood, the force that pulls everything towards Earth Plane is constant acceleration of this plane 'upwards' at 9.8 m/sec^2. This is a nice theory but observations show that g is not uniform on the surface of Earth. This is pretty easy to check, for example even using my lab scales with precision of 0.00001g (yes, enclosed glass box etc...). It is impossible that plane accelerates at constant g, but has deviations here or there. This would show that Earth is highly partitioned and each hunk has its own acceleration/speed which is not what we see.

How tides are explained in FE theory? Since there is no gravitation, water is not pulled by Moon if I get it correctly.

I think it is clear that there are moons orbiting around planets. Such as Four Galileo Moons orbiting Jupiter etc... I saw numerous of times it myself, the actual orbiting - they orbit pretty fast (Io's 42 hours as opposed to 29 days of Moon), so occasionally I just check each 15 minutes and sketch the positions of four moons. BTW you can do it tonight! So why other moons orbit planets?

What force keeps Sun and Moon high above Earth Plane? Why don't they 'fall' on the Earth surface? Is it the same force that moves the plane moves them too? Why this force doesn't affect other objects that actually fall onto surface if released at some height?

Also, pretty sure it was mentioned earlier on this forum, but for record I'll note it in this post. If we will accelerate at constant g, it's easy to show that we'll get to speed of light pretty fast:
Vt = Vo + at
Assuming Vo = 0
t = Vt/a = c/g = 299,792,458/9.8 = ~ 1 year
So taking into account that Earth is older than 1 year (which is obvious, I'm at 34, my daughter 10, son 7, another daughter 3...) there are only two options:
0) we greatly exceeded speed of light which contradicts with GR
1) we stopped accelerating, so why there is force pulling everything to the Earth?

Kindest regards, Greg (neutrino).

#### sokarul

• 16574
• Discount Chemist
##### Re: Phase 0: Gravitation
« Reply #21 on: July 29, 2016, 08:23:47 AM »
In your own words, explain away an Einstein Cross.
Sokarul

ANNIHILATOR OF  SHIFTER

Run Sandokhan run

#### Ski

• Planar Moderator
• 8505
• Homines, dum docent, dispenguin.
##### Re: Phase 0: Gravitation
« Reply #22 on: July 29, 2016, 03:33:34 PM »
There are four pretty lights aligned around a fifth light in a crude representation of a cross.

PS -- read some Halton Arp.
PPS -- I don't have a theoretical issue with lensing, but am not convinced this is it
"Never think you can turn over any old falsehood without a terrible squirming of the horrid little population that dwells under it." -O.W. Holmes "Truth forever on the scaffold, Wrong forever on the throne.."

#### neutrino

• 635
• FET is a religion. You can't fight faith.
##### Re: Phase 0: Gravitation
« Reply #23 on: July 30, 2016, 07:41:35 AM »
Hello guys,

Thanks for the replies, I went through each of them, DroidFuel, I watched your video on Youtube, thank you. This is great that there is a controversy like FE because this places canonical physics at test. I believe that such tests may only improve our models.

So yes our understanding of 'gravity' is not complete. Einstein theory is a just next leap of Newtonian physics. I'm sure that in finite time there will be another leap that will finally fix that dark matter in place. The model however is pretty good even nowadays. It does describe different Earth phenomena and for small scale events we have the mathematics that does work without involving 'dark matter'. But I'm with you to improve the theory. I think that to do so we should look at the very basis. We are striking too far trying to contradict the whole physics just with a recent theory of dark matter. Let's start with a much smaller examples where gravity does provide some explanation of how the stuff works.

Here are a list of obviously existing phenomena (I saw it!). I want us to try to find a good model/explanation how these work without gravity:
1) moons orbiting planets (even don't take Moon as an example, but Io, Europe, Callisto and Ganymede I was talking about earlier), there are even asteroids orbiting other bigger asteroids (observable via telescope).
2) Meteors hitting Earth surface as well as other planets
3) Even comet falling on Jupiter surface as example.
4) As I mentioned before, tides

If we will have better model that describes this, maybe we are already on another leap...

Another question that came to me is why relatively large-scale celestial bodies have form of sphere? We should pay attention to how this will fit with the rest of gravitylessness theory.

Now, DroidFuel, I would like to comment on your video, I'll post a video time for better referencing.
0) |0:16| Unfortunately, Tesla did not provide his own gravity theory. At least it's not known for me. He did criticized Einstein's theory though. This doesn't help us in understanding the world.
1) |02:25| Michelson–Morley experiment does not show that Earth is motionless, it hinted that Earth is motionless relatively to aether (which doesn't exist according to modern views)! This further made a big problem to aether supporters. This experiment actually was a keystone which led to development of SR: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michelson%E2%80%93Morley_experiment
2) |02:31| Michelson-Gale-Pearson experiment further investigated this and actually prooved that the angular velocity of Earth as measured by astronomy is correct: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michelson%E2%80%93Gale%E2%80%93Pearson_experiment
3) |02:38| "Airey's failure". Again, as 1) it simple dealt with light speed in aether and showed that there is no aether. I would not reference such experiments, especially that nobody reproduced them recently (am I right?). Do we have this experiment made with latest big telescopes or specially built tubes?
4) |04:10| Sagnac effect was not thrown like you said, it is in use by GPS and is part of SR. Read: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sagnac_effect
The rest of the video is just your opinion. But I would not make such statements.

In general we need experiments remade with latest equipment. Only this will help us to understand whether there is a movement of Earth.

Also, all this is a bit offtopic as I want to keep this thread about gravity. Yes, I know, it is indirectly relates via GR which has gravity as a 'state of space', but I'd like to focus on the 'small-scale' affects like I noted above.
FET is religion. No evidence will convince a FE-er. It would be easier to convince Muslims they are wrong.

?

#### geodesic

• 8
##### Re: Phase 0: Gravitation
« Reply #24 on: July 30, 2016, 11:47:25 PM »
I find doubt in gravity particularly fascinating in flat Earth theory, I have spent my working life in the field of geodesy as an academic and a scientist.  There are no doubt small refinements to be made to gravitational theory, but show me any theory that you can't say that about.

Gravity is not constant over the earth, it changes because the density of matter changes, and because it decreases with height.  Changes in gravity can be measured using a gravimeter and this is an important tool in surveying.  You can infer the height of mountains from gravity measurements, and these heights agree very well with other methods (trig heights, levelling, photogrammetry etc).  How does a flat earth 'moving upward' explain changes in gravity over the earth?

Gravity is even wrapped up into our definition of what height is; mean sea level is a surface of constant gravitational potential, it's called the Geoid.  How do we know where MSL is in the middle of Asia?  Often, by taking gravity measurements.  Why do we need to know?  If we pick some other surface to map heights from that does not have equal gravitational potential (like the WGS84 ellipsoid - GPS does this, then makes a correction for the Geoid), it falls down when we try to make maps; you can end up with rivers flowing uphill.

I too am particularly interested in Neutrino's question about tides.

#### Ski

• Planar Moderator
• 8505
• Homines, dum docent, dispenguin.
##### Re: Phase 0: Gravitation
« Reply #25 on: July 31, 2016, 12:07:28 AM »
The tides, by all modern accounts,  seem to be the product of celestial gravitation.

Dr. Rowbotham thought it was merely the earth bobbing on the great deep, though he did not rule out a connection to the moon via some as yet recognized mechanism.

"Never think you can turn over any old falsehood without a terrible squirming of the horrid little population that dwells under it." -O.W. Holmes "Truth forever on the scaffold, Wrong forever on the throne.."

#### neutrino

• 635
• FET is a religion. You can't fight faith.
##### Re: Phase 0: Gravitation
« Reply #26 on: July 31, 2016, 12:13:58 AM »
geodesic,
Yes, this one is very difficult to deal with in Flat Earth Theory. I think I mentioned that gravity is not uniform, so it makes the "accelerating plane" highly partitioned and each part has its own velocity and acceleration. Since they all are moving 'upwards' for so long they should be far apart from one another. I'm too waiting for help from the FE scientists to explain this one and the rest. I struggled for two days now trying to figure out how this could be without success, though not giving up.
FET is religion. No evidence will convince a FE-er. It would be easier to convince Muslims they are wrong.

#### neutrino

• 635
• FET is a religion. You can't fight faith.
##### Re: Phase 0: Gravitation
« Reply #27 on: July 31, 2016, 12:17:41 AM »
The tides, by all modern accounts,  seem to be the product of celestial gravitation.

Dr. Rowbotham thought it was merely the earth bobbing on the great deep, though he did not rule out a connection to the moon via some as yet recognized mechanism.
I don't get it. What is celestial gravitation? The whole theory of FE is built on a fact that there is no gravitation! If there is a celestial gravitation, then Moon has it, Sun has it and so on. This will explain tides for sure, as well as falling apple on Newton's head. But we started with the assumption that there is no gravitation.

Furthermore, what celestial gravitation could have such daily fluctuations that they cause tides? And why there is direct correlation between tides and Moon position?
FET is religion. No evidence will convince a FE-er. It would be easier to convince Muslims they are wrong.

#### rabinoz

• 24308
• Real Earth Believer
##### Re: Phase 0: Gravitation
« Reply #28 on: July 31, 2016, 01:30:06 AM »
The tides, by all modern accounts,  seem to be the product of celestial gravitation.

Dr. Rowbotham thought it was merely the earth bobbing on the great deep, though he did not rule out a connection to the moon via some as yet recognized mechanism.
You claim that "The tides, by all modern accounts,  seem to be the product of celestial gravitation."
What modern accounts? I have seen none.  I'm no expert so that proves little,
though I guess tides being caused by lunar and solar gravitation could be called "celestial gravitation".

No-one has yet explained how we can have significant "celestial gravitation" from the comparively tiny celestial objects, yet none from the far more massive earth. Even the sun and moon on the flat earth model are minute compared to the earth.

And what is the relationship between the force due to this celestial gravitation and the "variables", mass and distance?

It seems to be getting "frighteningly" close to Newtonian gravitation or GR!

#### Ski

• Planar Moderator
• 8505
• Homines, dum docent, dispenguin.
##### Re: Phase 0: Gravitation
« Reply #29 on: July 31, 2016, 07:36:00 AM »
But we started with the assumption that there is no gravitation.
Who started with that assumption? You?  And why? A book written 135 years ago? You? I'm not sure why your misconceptions have any impact on the truth.
"Never think you can turn over any old falsehood without a terrible squirming of the horrid little population that dwells under it." -O.W. Holmes "Truth forever on the scaffold, Wrong forever on the throne.."