Why do Sun and Earth remain "tied" to each other ?

Hello,

I've seen that the FE explanation for "gravity" is air pression : the air in the atmosphere keeps things "on the floor".

1) Why does the Sun stay relatively close to the Earth ? Is there an atmosphere above the Sun, that keeps it in the Earth's surroundings ?

2) And what about the "centrifugal force" ? The air on the side of the Sun, keeps it in the Earth's surroundings, that's the explanation ?

3) Another question, related to "air pression" :

If I put 1 gallon of water in a barrel, and close the barrel : it's the upper surface of the barrel that will determine the pression ( air ) it will be subjected to, right ? And that determines what they call "weight" in RET, right ?

Then, I take the same barrel, and put 100 gallons of water in it : the upper surface of the barrel is still the same. Then it should weigh the same, right ?

Yet, you can easily verify it's not true...

I was answered the other one and you are opening a new topic with same type of but a different question. Are you shill?

Well... I must say I didn't get what you said...  I'm not allowed to ask VERY DIFFERENT questions at "the same time" ?

I guess you're not the only person, here, who's able to answer my questions : thanks for your answers, but I'm not addressing you only.

Btw, I responded meanwhile in the other thread.

I was answered the other one and you are opening a new topic with same type of but a different question. Are you shill?

They are only the "same type" in the sense that they call out FE on its bullshit.
Do you have an answer?

To say 2) more clearly :

"2) And what about the "centrifugal force" ? The air on the side of the Sun, keeps it in the Earth's surroundings, that's the explanation ?"

I meant that the centrifugal force should "throw the Sun away", of course.

How come it stays next to the Earth ?

To say 2) more clearly :

"2) And what about the "centrifugal force" ? The air on the side of the Sun, keeps it in the Earth's surroundings, that's the explanation ?"

I meant that the centrifugal force should "throw the Sun away", of course.

How come it stays next to the Earth ?

Perhaps a better way to phrase it:
What causes the sun to follow a circular path, rather than just sitting still or flying off away from Earth?

Perhaps a better way to phrase it:
What causes the sun to follow a circular path, rather than just sitting still or flying off away from Earth?

Ok, thanks : still trying to improve my English 

Which model are you referring to?  I have seen the celestial gears model, and aetheric whirlpool model.  If you try to understand the non-euclidean model, the Sun and Moon travels in a straight line, intriguing but over my head.

Which model are you referring to?  I have seen the celestial gears model, and aetheric whirlpool model.  If you try to understand the non-euclidean model, the Sun and Moon travels in a straight line, intriguing but over my head.

'Model' seems like a very generous term.

If you try to understand the non-euclidean model, the Sun and Moon travels in a straight line, intriguing but over my head.

If you actually understand them you realise they merely defined them to be straight lines like they defined Earth to be flat.

There is no justification at all for their manipulation of space-time.

1) Why does the Sun stay relatively close to the Earth ? Is there an atmosphere above the Sun, that keeps it in the Earth's surroundings ?

I'll only attempt to "answer" the bit about, "Why does the Sun stay relatively close to the Earth?"

  What's your problem?  The Prof Orlando Ferguson flat earth map  makes it all quite clear!  See:
Read all about it in: A Bizarrely Complicated Late-19th-Century Flat-Earth Map, By Rebecca Onion.
Please note the angels at each of the four corners, just to make sure it keeps working like clockwork, I guess.

I believe that at least one member thinks this is pretty close to "true map".

Quote from: neutral22 on December 06, 2013, 05:24:49 PM

no mention of Orlando Fergesun?
http://americandigest.org/a2-Orlando-Ferguson-flat-earth-map.jpg

He proposed concave model very similar or identical to what you described as a possibility.

I like this idea, it's not too far off from my thinking, except I have an ice dome covering mine, plus mine does not have square edges.
The rest of it looks pretty good though.

But, for other answers to the question in the OP, "Why do Sun and Earth remain "tied" to each other?" Ask Jane, she knows everything about the FE, see:

Quote from: EvolvedMantisShrimp on December 30, 2017, 08:12:17 AM

While we are asking universal acceleration questions:
What keeps the Sun and Moon away?

That one's easy. There's an 'exclusion field' over the Earth where there's a lack of the accelerator. It's why we stay on the Earth's surface rather than being pushed up ourselves.
When you get to a sufficient altitude, the accelerator closes in again so everything up there is being accelerated at the same rate. that includes the Sun, moon, stars etc.

@rabinoz :

I guess there are plenty of other "models" to explain how the Earth, or the Universe, works : it may be pretty hard to decide which is the right one ; sounds like "religion" matters, to me. So, for the moment, I'll keep regarding the RE model as the "right one", as you do, it seems.

-----------

In the original post, I asked the following question :

*****************
"3) Another question, related to "air pression" :

If I put 1 gallon of water in a barrel, and close the barrel : it's the upper surface of the barrel that will determine the pression ( air ) it will be subjected to, right ? And that determines what they call "weight" in RET, right ?

Then, I take the same barrel, and put 100 gallons of water in it : the upper surface of the barrel is still the same. Then it should weigh the same, right ?

Yet, you can easily verify it's not true..."
*****************

There's something more :

How come objects don't levitate ? Indeed, if you take an object, lift it a bit, then let go of it : how come that object won't stay still "up in the air" ? Why does it have to "fall" ? I mean, the air pressure is the same below AND above the object, so, the denpressure theory implies that the object should stay where it is : and, in fact, the higher you go, the lower the air pressure, so... objects should "fall" upwards, NOT downwards !

And, anyway, what does "upwards" and "downwards" mean, in the "denpressure theory" ? I mean : why should air molecules move toward the surface of the Earth, rather than heading toward "the sky" ? One could tell me : "Because : the air exerts a pressure on itself, due to its weight" ; Ok, I know that, but... this is RE theory, NOT FE theory. Again, according to FE theory, the closer to the Earth, the higher the pressure of the air, so : it should be the air next to the surface of the Earth that exerted a pressure on the air above it : air should "fall" upward.

For some actual science regarding air pressure:
The variations in air pressure (caused by gravity, due to the air below needing to support the air above) is what causes buoyancy (in the air, the same principle applies for other fluid).
The increase in pressure at the bottom of the object (compared to the top) results in an upwards force on the object.
Note, this matches would you would expect for air pressure, the resultant force (i.e. the buoyant force) is independent of what the substance is.
All that matters is the volume displaced as the cross sectional area is what the force acts on and the height is what determines the pressure differential.
Switching to a different medium results in a different force, which is based upon the properties of that medium.

I was answered the other one and you are opening a new topic with same type of but a different question. Are you shill?

Listen, I know English isn't your first language, but this is really bugging me because it's so obvious to pick up and yet you're still useless at it.
In English, countable singular nouns (a word naming a general object) always have an article before it, e.g. "a shill" or "the shill".
Without an article, the sentence treats the word as an adjective, i.e. a word describing a property something has, such as cold, greasy, pathetic, etc.

If you can manage with "opening a new topic" (you didn't say "opening new topic") then surely you can get that it should be "are you a shill?"