Gravity on a flat Earth.

Disputeone


"Yeah he's been told that numerous times.

I'm betting he's gonna go the same way as physics teacher did." And that makes you chuckle right 


No, i'm quitte tough.
And I practice my English.
And i like talking to people,btw i acknowledge my lack of mutual understanding, but i think this is not all my fault!

Well, sorry if I was unnecessarily rude.

"I am just saying that the statement "we derived g from G and M" is wrong, the scale was just a joke"

-I misjudged you based on someone parroting you're post and highlighted this specific piece of text.
And because you didnt correct that person, my apologies.
 

Kami,

Just one question left,

"Certainly the earth appears to be a globe and all evidence points to it, but "

What sort of knowledge do you posses that i don't have to be agnostic about the shape of the Earth

"I am a huge fan of general relativity, which contradicts this assumption on large scales. Otherwise, I agree with you"

-Assumption....yeah i had to change the term assumption there.
This is not an assumption on small scales.
General relativity is what we use on a larger scale and small scale correct, but newton's laws work perfect on smal scale and calculates a lot easier.

From what I understand after watching several documentaries (please correct me of I'm wrong) the bending of space-time is caused by waves in the higgs field. And every elementary "particle" is simply a wave in a corresponding field.

I love wave theory.

"the bending of space-time"

-Mass is pushing on the fabric of space-time, bending that space so objects don't appear to follow a straight path anymore when it travels near that mass, or orbiting that mass.
Not only mass but light too, when light travels over a big mass it falls a bit in the gravitational field and follows the curve.

Shitty explanation...
I'l try tomorrow iam sleepy
 

What about looking at the topic and  real question in the OP

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
My question,

How does the flat earth society determine this number 9.8m/s² without the mass of the Earth and radius of the Earth squared?

Yes, "How does the flat earth society determine this number 9.8m/s²"?

My simple answer is that there is no evidence in "the Wiki" or anywhere else that "The Flat Earth Society" ever did.
I suspect that they just "borrowed" it from main stream science - like they have done elsewhere when it suits them.

They could measure "g" by dropping a weight - Galileo did not have the means of measuring time accurately so he used a "ball and ramp" as in:

Galileo Galilei
One prominent example is the "ball and ramp experiment." In this experiment Galileo used an inclined plane and several steel balls of different weights. With this design, Galileo was able to slow down the falling motion and record, with reasonable accuracy, the times at which a steel ball passed certain markings on a beam.

Once the theory of pendulums was developed the timing of a pendulum could be used to determine "g".

1673: Huygens' Horologium Oscillatorium
In 1673, Christiaan Huygens published his theory of the pendulum.

Robert Hooke, Isaac Newton and others (eg Jean Richer in a trip to Cayenne, French Guiana in 1671) used pendulums as a method of comparing "g" at various latitudes and altitudes.

So, there are a number of ways they could measure "g", but have they?

We need a reply from Flat Earthers for that! We cannot answer it.

Would it help if I video taped myself dropping a bunch of shit onto plates with solonoids wired in for a precise measurement of impact? (could easily make this myself) and we did some calculus?

Could drop them off a first floor second floor third etc with a timer and release for controlled conditions.

Or the pendulum (also a great west Australian band) experiment surely would suffice?

This seems to be the last argument left here, Bal has pulled the "yeah but the earth is actually round, I'm smart you're dumb" card.

Then we can cite it in the wiki if we want.

I used audacity as a measurement of the time it takes a rolling ball to drop.

What about looking at the topic and  real question in the OP

Quote from: BalGehakt on October 30, 2016, 01:35:54 PM

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
My question,

How does the flat earth society determine this number 9.8m/s² without the mass of the Earth and radius of the Earth squared?

Yes, "How does the flat earth society determine this number 9.8m/s²"?

My simple answer is that there is no evidence in "the Wiki" or anywhere else that "The Flat Earth Society" ever did.
I suspect that they just "borrowed" it from main stream science - like they have done elsewhere when it suits them.

They could measure "g" by dropping a weight

I agree and numerous posters including yourself have pretty much stated this already pages ago. I don't even know what the debate is about anymore. I don't think there is any disagreement with BalGehakt's equations, it is with his insistence that there is no way to come up with 9.8m/s² as g or as the rate at which we are accelerating according to flat earth theory. I posted the following near the beginning of page 2:

Quote from: BalGehakt on October 30, 2016, 01:35:54 PM

                                     
How does the flat earth society determine this number 9.8ms2 without the mass of the Earth and radius of the Earth squared?

The answer to your question is this. Nobody currently posting in this thread knows for 100% certain. We think they just borrowed it from RE theory. However, the consensus is that it could be determined to some level of accuracy by timing falling objects. And you are right in that this method doesn't account for the distance from the earths center. Neither does it account for air resistance. If this experiment is done at or near the surface of the earth with a heavy, streamlined object the effect from these two factors should be minimal. BTW I have done this experiment myself so I know it works.

I like your posts BTW. I find them very interesting and informative. I learn more from reading posts like that than I do from textbooks.

That's why I still post here Boots, I learn heaps from spending time here.

"Indeed you can determine g at a certain point with observation and fixed gravity g= 9.8 ms2, but it also tells you the distance to the earth's center from that point.
It gives us the radius of the earth, your observation matches the radius of the Earth!
Because at the surface 9.8 ms2 matches exactly the Earth radius of 6.371 km"

-So...everyone agrees with this fact?

Flat earthers don't accept gravity as we know it or GTR, was that really all I needed to say?

" Bal has pulled the "yeah but the earth is actually round, I'm smart you're dumb" card."

-Sorry.
But if i look at the equation i read the Earth's radius 2.
I know how fast it falls, and i know why.
Curvature of space-time by mass pushing the fabric of space-time.
This g depends on your distance to that center of mass, the radius.

That's what i read.
So is it not right to say 9.8ms2 comes from the Earth's radius2 and that distance is 6371km?
Maybe i'm missing something.

disputeone,

Universal acceleration states a uniform gravitational field, or did i read that part wrong in the flat wiki page ?
Do you believe in a flat Earth, and based on what knowledge?
 

Sigh.

From what I understand,
The earth is an oblate spheroid spinning on its axis, orbiting our sun in the milky way galaxy, orbiting the supermassive black hole at the centre.

Defying GR by its (outer arms of the milky way galaxy) rotational speed and observable mass so we hypothesised dark matter to fill in gaps in our understanding, however there seems to be a move away from dark matter now.

To make it perfectly clear you have not debated with one flat earther on this thread, was hoping Ski would put you down but he was most likely busy.

A lot of the guys you insinuated were stupid are very highly educated, intelligent and some work in scientific fields.

UA assumes a uniform acceleration not a gravitational field, however as SCG stated the equivalence principal shows that these are indistinguishable.

I assume you are aware.

Many people have come here trying to debunk UA, nearly all have failed.

I could give you some tips but honestly I don't want to.

UA assumes a uniform acceleration.

What equation shows this uniform acceleration?
Who is sky?

UA assumes a uniform acceleration.

What equation shows this uniform acceleration?
Who is sky?

Drop a few things and calculus, uniform acceleration. This has been covered already.

I have absolutely no idea who sky is.

Learn how to quote people.

I don't even know what the debate is about anymore.

For a new poster this guy is awesome.
Bravo Boots.

Quote from: BalGehakt on November 02, 2016, 01:02:37 AM

UA assumes a uniform acceleration.

What equation shows this uniform acceleration?
Who is sky?

Drop a few things and calculus, uniform acceleration. This has been covered already.

I have absolutely no idea who sky is.

Learn how to quote people.

My next topic is about the strong equivalence principle don't worry.
Maybe  ski can join us there.

Ok great cause this thread has been resolved and you lost this debate. (the earth is still most likely a sphere)

Hope you have done your homework.

Ok great cause this thread has been resolved and you lost this debate. (the earth is still most likely a sphere)

Hope you have done your homework.

That's what you believe.
Avoiding the equation that shows the earth is round is ignoring a fact. 

Your equation doesn't actually prove the earths shape.

Last count was about 10 nay 1 yay and Rab who has to side with roundies even when they are wrong.

Good day sir.

Curvature of space-time by mass pushing the fabric of space-time.
This g depends on your distance to that center of mass, the radius.

No that's not losing.
where did you get that idea?

What about looking at the topic and  real question in the OP

Quote from: BalGehakt on October 30, 2016, 01:35:54 PM

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
My question,

How does the flat earth society determine this number 9.8m/s² without the mass of the Earth and radius of the Earth squared?

Yes, "How does the flat earth society determine this number 9.8m/s²"?

My simple answer is that there is no evidence in "the Wiki" or anywhere else that "The Flat Earth Society" ever did.
I suspect that they just "borrowed" it from main stream science - like they have done elsewhere when it suits them.

They could measure "g" by dropping a weight - Galileo did not have the means of measuring time accurately so he used a "ball and ramp" as in:

Quote from: Wikipedia, History of experiments

Galileo Galilei
One prominent example is the "ball and ramp experiment." In this experiment Galileo used an inclined plane and several steel balls of different weights. With this design, Galileo was able to slow down the falling motion and record, with reasonable accuracy, the times at which a steel ball passed certain markings on a beam.

Once the theory of pendulums was developed the timing of a pendulum could be used to determine "g".

Quote from: Wikipedia, Pendulum

1673: Huygens' Horologium Oscillatorium
In 1673, Christiaan Huygens published his theory of the pendulum.

Robert Hooke, Isaac Newton and others (eg Jean Richer in a trip to Cayenne, French Guiana in 1671) used pendulums as a method of comparing "g" at various latitudes and altitudes.

So, there are a number of ways they could measure "g", but have they?

We need a reply from Flat Earthers for that! We cannot answer it.

Even Rab put you down on this one actually. My apologies.

Because you are assuming GR holds, if the earth was flat and GR was correct the earth would collapse into a sphere. (obviously)

Can you not see the logical fallacy in the debate?

Just admit you were wrong, it is a sign of maturity and intelligence.

Edit, its not even funny anymore hope your next thread is more successful, I'm gonna go smoke a bowl.

I can't see the contradiction to the equation I showed in rab  his post.
That's my point.

If somehow the equation is based on wrong numbers  I like to know which  numbers.

Because the equation shows me the round earth.
What did I miss here in this topic!

Disputeone.

Why are you angry?