# Gravity consensus

• 9 Replies
• 2375 Views

#### EvolvedMantisShrimp

• 928
• Physical Comedian
##### Gravity consensus
« on: December 22, 2017, 07:19:02 PM »
What is the consensus on the existence of gravity among Flat Earthers? I've heard a few different things. What I've heard the most is that gravity exists but it's much weaker than Newton's math predicts and for some reason that I would like clarified, Earth itself is exempt.

Is this accurate? The reason I ask is because if gravity exists but is weaker then it can still be quantified. If it can be quantified, then it can be measured.
Nullius in Verba

#### Hutton

• 55
##### Re: Gravity consensus
« Reply #1 on: December 22, 2017, 07:27:03 PM »
Most answers begin with these four letters: "dens" -- "density" or "denspressure."  Experience bears out that low-wattage FE brains aren't capable of processing the concept of cause -- viz. that density is a property of, and dependent on, gravity.

Nevertheless, have at it!

#### Bullwinkle

• The Elder Ones
• 21053
• Standard Idiot
##### Re: Gravity consensus
« Reply #2 on: December 22, 2017, 08:16:33 PM »
Most answers begin with these four letters: "dens" -- "density" or "denspressure."  Experience bears out that low-wattage FE brains aren't capable of processing the concept of cause -- viz. that density is a property of, and dependent on, gravity.

Nevertheless, have at it!

You snotty little bitches just can't help but be pricks.

#### Bullwinkle

• The Elder Ones
• 21053
• Standard Idiot
##### Re: Gravity consensus
« Reply #3 on: December 22, 2017, 08:20:31 PM »

density is a property of, and dependent on, gravity.

Plus, you're fucking stupid.

#### rabinoz

• 26528
• Real Earth Believer
##### Re: Gravity consensus
« Reply #4 on: December 22, 2017, 08:48:27 PM »
What is the consensus on the existence of gravity among Flat Earthers? I've heard a few different things. What I've heard the most is that gravity exists but it's much weaker than Newton's math predicts and for some reason that I would like clarified, Earth itself is exempt.

Is this accurate? The reason I ask is because if gravity exists but is weaker then it can still be quantified. If it can be quantified, then it can be measured.
Consensus and Flat Earthers have no place in the same sentence. Flat Earthers are "free-thinkers" and so there seems be almost as many Flat Earth theories as Flat Earthers. They seem to agree on no more than that "the earth is flat".

What we call "gravity" is caused by depends on who you ask:
• Newton's Law of Universal Gravitation, as suggested by John Davis in his "Infinite Flat Earth",
• Universal Acceleration, as many here and especially in TFES.org seem to insist,
• Denpressure, as asserted by sceptimatic,
• Simple density as many seem to claim,
• Aether push or dextro-rotary quarks or something from Sandokhan,
• Another sort of aether explanation from JRoweskeptic or maybe even
• İntikam's "atmosphere push".
• And some say simply that "Things have a propensity to fall down  .

And John Davis, in particular, seems to have a few "backup hypotheses" so, who knows?

#### disputeone

• 25244
• Or should I?
##### Re: Gravity consensus
« Reply #5 on: December 22, 2017, 10:58:39 PM »
Tesla was right.

Why would that be inciting terrorism?  Lorddave was merely describing a type of shop we have here in the US, a bomb-gun shop.  A shop that sells bomb-guns.

#### disputeone

• 25244
• Or should I?
##### Re: Gravity consensus
« Reply #6 on: December 22, 2017, 10:59:19 PM »
Most answers begin with these four letters: "dens" -- "density" or "denspressure."  Experience bears out that low-wattage FE brains aren't capable of processing the concept of cause -- viz. that density is a property of, and dependent on, gravity.

Nevertheless, have at it!

You snotty little bitches just can't help but be pricks.

You need some irl friends man.
Why would that be inciting terrorism?  Lorddave was merely describing a type of shop we have here in the US, a bomb-gun shop.  A shop that sells bomb-guns.

#### rabinoz

• 26528
• Real Earth Believer
##### Re: Gravity consensus
« Reply #7 on: December 23, 2017, 01:14:19 AM »
Tesla was right.

What I can't work out is why Tesla seems to be held up as a hero by so many flat earthers.  He certainly did not believe the earth to be flat or stationary! See this address by him:
HOW COSMIC FORCES SHAPE OUR DESTINIES, ("Did the War Cause the Italian Earthquake") by Nikola Tesla
also at — How Cosmic Forces Shape Our Destinies — ("Did the War Cause the Italian Earthquake"), New York American, February 7, 1915  in which he states:
Quote from: Nicola Tesla
NATURAL FORCES INFLUENCE US
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Accepting all this as true let us consider some of the forces and influences which act on such a wonderfully complex automatic engine with organs inconceivably sensitive and delicate, as it is carried by the spinning terrestrial globe in lightning flight through space. For the sake of simplicity we may assume that the earth's axis is perpendicular to the ecliptic and that the human automaton is at the equator. Let his weight be one hundred and sixty pounds then, at the rotational velocity of about 1,520 feet per second with which he is whirled around, the mechanical energy stored in his body will be nearly 5,780,000 foot pounds, which is about the energy of a hundred-pound cannon ball.
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
The sun, having a mass 332,000 times that of the earth, but being 23,000 times farther, will attract the automaton with a force of about one-tenth of one pound, alternately increasing and diminishing his normal weight by that amount

Though not conscious of these periodic changes, he is surely affected by them.

The earth in its rotation around the sun carries him with the prodigious speed of nineteen miles per second . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
From the above address.
I have also read, though I cannot verify it right now, that one reason Tesla disliked Einstein so much is that he believed that  Einstein destroyed "Newton's gravitation".
From what I can gather, Tesla did not deny Newton's Law of Universal Gravitation, just differed with Einstein's "curved spacetime" explanation of it.

Sure, Nicola Tesla had a lot of "different ideas", but he most certainly did not believe in a flat stationary earth.

#### disputeone

• 25244
• Or should I?
##### Re: Gravity consensus
« Reply #8 on: December 23, 2017, 01:34:02 AM »
Nicola Tesla most certainly did not believe in a flat stationary earth.

I agree. Tesla was most certainly not a flat earther.
Why would that be inciting terrorism?  Lorddave was merely describing a type of shop we have here in the US, a bomb-gun shop.  A shop that sells bomb-guns.

#### EvolvedMantisShrimp

• 928
• Physical Comedian
##### Re: Gravity consensus
« Reply #9 on: December 23, 2017, 01:47:03 AM »
What is the consensus on the existence of gravity among Flat Earthers? I've heard a few different things. What I've heard the most is that gravity exists but it's much weaker than Newton's math predicts and for some reason that I would like clarified, Earth itself is exempt.

Is this accurate? The reason I ask is because if gravity exists but is weaker then it can still be quantified. If it can be quantified, then it can be measured.
Consensus and Flat Earthers have no place in the same sentence. Flat Earthers are "free-thinkers" and so there seems be almost as many Flat Earth theories as Flat Earthers. They seem to agree on no more than that "the earth is flat".

What we call "gravity" is caused by depends on who you ask:
• Newton's Law of Universal Gravitation, as suggested by John Davis in his "Infinite Flat Earth",
• Universal Acceleration, as many here and especially in TFES.org seem to insist,
• Denpressure, as asserted by sceptimatic,
• Simple density as many seem to claim,
• Aether push or dextro-rotary quarks or something from Sandokhan,
• Another sort of aether explanation from JRoweskeptic or maybe even
• İntikam's "atmosphere push".
• And some say simply that "Things have a propensity to fall down  .

And John Davis, in particular, seems to have a few "backup hypotheses" so, who knows?

I suspect this is why scientists test, collect data, retest and seek peer review and independent testing. I mean, how am I supposed to take any of these hypotheses seriously if there's no adherence to scientific methodology?
Nullius in Verba