GRAVITY PROOF

"There is still gravity at the ISS".

 

Yes

As said before, satellites are kept in orbit with gravity. However, they are moving so fast around earth that they are basically free-falling which creates a zero G environment. Every now and then, satellites need to increase speed by thrusting or they would slowly de-orbit and fall to earth.

Quote from: Jane on August 29, 2018, 02:01:46 PM

Quote from: rabinoz

So now please explain why the sun, moon, planets and stars haven't fallen down long ago.

Expanding space is the answer I've seen in old posts, just waiting on whether it's still the standard. Might write it up anyway, but right now don't know enough about it to say much beyond the basic idea.

This I've got to see. With nothing to hinder the sun 5000 km up would crash into the earth in about 5 min 20 secs.
And might be quite a sight, travelling at over 3000 m/s. (If, on the unlikely chance that, my calculations are correct! )

Not really a huge figure when compared to the rate of the universe's expansion under RET, for example. What's your problem?

Why would I? But just because you suggest something not mean that there is a feasible FE explanation for it.

Which, amazingly, is something that has to be shown, rather than your trick of just pretending the whole conversation never happened, never even acknowledging the replies you already know exist, and claiming victory simply because no one wants to explain the exact same things to someone that couldn't be bothered to actually address them the first time around.

Gravity fades away as high as ISS station. And then it gives effect again as high as the moon, even the sun even more than that distance.

Good job, RET 

Wrong. Gravity is nearly as strong at the level of the ISS as at sea level. The ISS is in orbit though.  The station and everything in it are all falling around the Earth at the same rate. But thank you for proving you know the least about the subject you argue against.

Quote from: rabinoz on August 30, 2018, 08:02:42 PM

Quote from: Jane on August 29, 2018, 02:01:46 PM

Quote from: rabinoz

So now please explain why the sun, moon, planets and stars haven't fallen down long ago.

Expanding space is the answer I've seen in old posts, just waiting on whether it's still the standard. Might write it up anyway, but right now don't know enough about it to say much beyond the basic idea.

This I've got to see. With nothing to hinder the sun 5000 km up would crash into the earth in about 5 min 20 secs.
And might be quite a sight, travelling at over 3000 m/s. (If, on the unlikely chance that, my calculations are correct! )

Not really a huge figure when compared to the rate of the universe's expansion under RET, for example. What's your problem?

Really?

Hubble's Constant: H₀ = 67.15 ± 1.2 (km/s)/Mpc. For every million parsecs of distance from the observer, the rate of expansion increases by about 67 kilometers per second

Now 1 parsec is about 3.086 x 10¹³ km so the expansion of the universe is about 2.20 x 10^-18 km/sec per km or 2.20 x 10^-12 mm/sec per km.

Now the FE sun is supposedly about 5000 km above the earth so the expansion between the sun and the earth would be about 1.10 x 10^-08 mm/sec.

You might check my sums, but the expansion of the universe is really very very slow over distances in our solar system.

And you ask, "Not really a huge figure when compared to the rate of the universe's expansion under RET, for example. What's your problem?"

So as I said, "This I've got to see".

Jane:
FE has no feasible explanation for anything.
Seriously.
There are dream theroies that get quite creative but as we've pointed out dont make shitall sense.
We can acknowledge they cover 1 facet of a "problem" but in no way are a viable model of the physical universe.
Just the worst.
Seriously.

And you ask, "Not really a huge figure when compared to the rate of the universe's expansion under RET, for example. What's your problem?"

So as I said, "This I've got to see".

...'rate of expansion increases,' not 'rate of expansion is.' The rate of expansion growing is a pretty well-known fact.

Jane:
FE has no feasible explanation for anything.
Seriously.
There are dream theroies that get quite creative but as we've pointed out dont make shitall sense.
We can acknowledge they cover 1 facet of a "problem" but in no way are a viable model of the physical universe.
Just the worst.
Seriously.

Great. The problem is you are god-awful at showing that, you're great at spamming "You're the worst!" and terrible at answering a straight question. Maybe spen dless time complaining and more time learning how to make a straight argument?
Do you still think an infinite Earth would exert infinite gravity?

Do you still think an infinite Earth would exert infinite gravity?

Infinite Plane Earth would have infinite mass.  Infinite Mass would have infinite Gravity, collectively.  Assuming that Infinite Plane Earth has a finite depth, the gravitational force would be limited at that surface point because there is a finite amount of mass that is pulling on you in a unilateral direction (ie. down). 

In an infinite plane earth, the further you move from the surface, the more mass that will have a downward gravitational effect on you.

The dark energy of deep space exerts a negative pressure. Pushes out ward rather than inward. Its part and parcel of the expansion of deep space. It propels the earth upward through space. giving the illusion of gravity.

My original thought was the infibite earth with infinite depth.
You claim a finite depth causing me to switch.
Which i acknoweledged in my reply.
The proportional formula shows the gravity strength of an infinite plane-finite depth will have a ratio of 1/1 when distancing from surface.
No descrease due to distance involved.
Ever expanding space will need to push a sun and moon and stars and shit all out at apprpropriate and equal rates.
Dont mention F.
Im talking about accellertion.
The force is the force required and the force is different depending on mass.
we all understand this no matter how many times you scream it.

So
Your ever expanding space starts where?
Must be expanding at magical 9.8m/s^2.
Is it expanding down and up?
Must be linear starting a sea level?
What about below sea level?There is a possibility to get under the expansion.
How high is sun?
How high is moon?
How high are stars?
If expanding at a rate, that rate would inly be in play for distance y.
But sun moon stars are at different distances.
Yet for infinite plane finite depth, all experience same 9.81.

You claim i dodge but i keep responding to the confines/parameters of the made up universe.
Sorry
You are the worst.

Quote from: rabinoz on August 31, 2018, 05:51:10 AM

And you ask, "Not really a huge figure when compared to the rate of the universe's expansion under RET, for example. What's your problem?"

So as I said, "This I've got to see".

...'rate of expansion increases,' not 'rate of expansion is.' The rate of expansion growing is a pretty well-known fact.

Such wonderful authority "The rate of expansion growing is a pretty well-known fact."

I repeat, with one small addition:

Quote

Hubble's Constant: H₀ = 67.15 ± 1.2 (km/s)/Mpc. For every million parsecs of distance from the observer, the rate of expansion increases by about 67 kilometers per second

Now 1 parsec is about 3.086 x 10¹³ km so at the present time the expansion of the universe is about 2.20 x 10^-18 km/sec per km or 2.20 x 10^-12 mm/sec per km.

Now the FE sun is supposedly about 5000 km above the earth so the expansion between the sun and the earth would be about 1.10 x 10^-08 mm/sec.

You might check my sums, but the expansion of the universe is really very very slow over distances in our solar system.

And you ask, "Not really a huge figure when compared to the rate of the universe's expansion under RET, for example."
On a local scale, the current expansion of the universe is very slow and the acceleration of that expansion is very low.

So, Jane, I do not have a problem, you do! Your "Not really a huge figure when compared to the rate of the universe's expansion under RET, for example."

Quote from: Jane on August 31, 2018, 06:02:38 AM

Quote from: rabinoz on August 31, 2018, 05:51:10 AM

And you ask, "Not really a huge figure when compared to the rate of the universe's expansion under RET, for example. What's your problem?"

So as I said, "This I've got to see".

...'rate of expansion increases,' not 'rate of expansion is.' The rate of expansion growing is a pretty well-known fact.

...
I repeat, with one small addition:

Don't repeat, read.
Sure, I'm happy to admit if I'm wrong, but nothing I've seen has lead me to the conclusion that the expansion is meant to be uniform.

"There is still gravity at the ISS".

Yes. Now read and understand what I said.
With gravity -> ISS orbits Earth.
Without gravity -> ISS goes flying off into deep space.
Which one seems to match reality?

There would be no significant difference to those inside the ISS as they are falling with the ISS.

...'rate of expansion increases,' not 'rate of expansion is.'

And just what are you trying to relate this to?
Your claim was that it wasn't huge compared to the rate of expansion.
You didn't compare it to the rate of increase of the rate of expansion, which will be insignificant compared to what is required for FE.

There is even a nice simply way to realise this:
If the rate of expansion of the universe, and its increase, was going to be huge for a RE compared to a FE, the sun would have flown away long ago.

Great. The problem is you are god-awful at showing that

And just how do you expect people to show that FE has no explanation?
You sure do love propping up your FE buddies and acting like they have no burden of proof and should be fine to just assert pure nonsense unchallenged.

Do you still think an infinite Earth would exert infinite gravity?

If you bothered reading his comments you would no the answer to that.
Before you complain about him not knowing straight away, remember that you boldly asserted a completely false reason for why it wouldn't and asserted that it would decrease as you got further away.

Not really a huge figure when compared to the rate of the universe's expansion under RET, for example. What's your problem?

Do you actually know what that figure is or is this more pulling shit out of thin air?

The rate of the expansion of space in the real model is roughly 70 km/s MPc, or to put it in simpler units, roughly 0.0000000000000000023 per second.
Over the 5000 km to the alleged FE sun, that would amount to roughly 0.00000000000001 km/s or 0.00000000001 m/s.
And you think 3000 m/s is not a huge figure compared to that?
You think a number which is larger by 14 orders of magnitude is not huge?

Do you expect anyone that actually knows this stuff to take you seriously?

rather than your trick of just pretending the whole conversation never happened, never even acknowledging the replies you already know exist, and claiming victory simply because no one wants to explain the exact same things to someone that couldn't be bothered to actually address them the first time around.

You mean like you repeatedly do?

Sure, I'm happy to admit if I'm wrong, but nothing I've seen has lead me to the conclusion that the expansion is meant to be uniform.

And there you go throwing science out the window again, and your own argument.
You were discussing what current science accepts.
The simple fact is your claim that the expansion required for FE is not huge compared to the expansion of accepted science.
That has been shown to be pure nonsense.

The dark energy of deep space exerts a negative pressure. Pushes out ward rather than inward. Its part and parcel of the expansion of deep space. It propels the earth upward through space. giving the illusion of gravity.

You spouted this same nonsense before, and it was refuted before. Don't pretend it didn't happen.

The expansion of space due to dark energy would accelerate Earth and things on it at a very similar rate. This would not result in our perception of gravity.
In fact, if there was space between you and Earth, then dark energy would increase the size of that space, making you appear to fly away from Earth.
Dark energy is effectively anti-gravity, with the strength based upon the distance between you and the object.

Dark energy CANNOT explain why things fall to Earth.

In fact, if there was space between you and Earth, then dark energy would increase the size of that space, making you appear to fly away from Earth.

So dark energy does not exist?

So dark energy does not exist?

At the scale of Earth, a good approximation is that it doesn't.

Sure, I'm happy to admit if I'm wrong, but nothing I've seen has lead me to the conclusion that the expansion is meant to be uniform.

Well, admit you are wrong! The expansion of the Universe in the vicinity of the solar system is either miniscule or non-existent!
So please go and learn a little about cosmology before you make a total fool of yourself.

I'll freely admit that I may have had some details wrong (if you can find any) because I'm no Cosmologist but I'm not totally ignorant on these matters.

You might read:

Effects of expansion on small scales
In addition to slowing the overall expansion, gravity causes local clumping of matter into stars and galaxies. Once objects are formed and bound by gravity, they "drop out" of the expansion and do not subsequently expand under the influence of the cosmological metric, there being no force compelling them to do so.
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Once objects are bound by gravity, they no longer recede from each other. Thus, the Andromeda galaxy, which is bound to the Milky Way galaxy, is actually falling towards us and is not expanding away. Within the Local Group, the gravitational interactions have changed the inertial patterns of objects such that there is no cosmological expansion taking place.

But why are you using a modern "scientist notion" like the expansion of the Universe to prop up a hypothetical flat earth model?

Well, admit you are wrong! The expansion of the Universe in the vicinity of the solar system is either miniscule or non-existent!

You are the only one appealing to expansion within the solar system.

But why are you using a modern "scientist notion" like the expansion of the Universe to prop up a hypothetical flat earth model?

I'm not, just pointing out that it's kinda hypocritical to say expansion is ridiculous when you accept it.

Quote from: rabinoz on August 31, 2018, 05:41:18 PM

Well, admit you are wrong! The expansion of the Universe in the vicinity of the solar system is either miniscule or non-existent!

You are the only one appealing to expansion within the solar system.

Quote

But why are you using a modern "scientist notion" like the expansion of the Universe to prop up a hypothetical flat earth model?

I'm not, just pointing out that it's kinda hypocritical to say expansion is ridiculous when you accept it.

Don't leave out JackBlack. He also accepts/rejects expansion.

Quote from: Bullwinkle on August 31, 2018, 04:45:58 PM

So dark energy does not exist?

At the scale of Earth, a good approximation is that it doesn't.

You are the only one appealing to expansion within the solar system.

No, you are as well. You are appealing to it within modern science.

I'm not, just pointing out that it's kinda hypocritical to say expansion is ridiculous when you accept it.

But people aren't saying expansion is ridiculous. People are saying the sheer scale of it needed for FE nonsense is, which you dismissed as not huge compared to reality which was shown to be pure BS.

Quote from: rabinoz on August 31, 2018, 05:41:18 PM

Well, admit you are wrong! The expansion of the Universe in the vicinity of the solar system is either miniscule or non-existent!

You are the only one appealing to expansion within the solar system.

Quote

But why are you using a modern "scientist notion" like the expansion of the Universe to prop up a hypothetical flat earth model?

I'm not, just pointing out that it's kinda hypocritical to say expansion is ridiculous when you accept it.

I didn't "say expansion is ridiculous when I accept it"! All I've ever been saying is that locally there isn't any.
So why do keep on and on with your ridiculous hypothesis. You are wrong, just face facts!

I  was ridiculing you for "using a modern 'scientist notion' like the expansion of the Universe to prop up a hypothetical flat earth model".
No ridgy-didgy flat-earthen would accept any sciency ideas like that!

But my wording would been more obvious had my "ever helpful spell checker" not corrected "scientism" to "scientist" .
So what I intended was,  "But why are you using a modern 'scientism notion' like the expansion of the Universe to prop up a hypothetical flat earth model?".

I didn't "say expansion is ridiculous when I accept it"! All I've ever been saying is that locally there isn't any.

Under the RE model. Who cares? We aren't talking about that.

No ridgy-didgy flat-earthen would accept any sciency ideas like that!

Because it's not like they regularly quote scientific principles at all.

So what I intended was,  "But why are you using a modern 'scientism notion' like the expansion of the Universe to prop up a hypothetical flat earth model?".

Perfectly clear what you meant, and I give the same answer. Why are you being a hypocrite? You accept it exists, why are you objecting to FEers using it?

Don't leave out JackBlack. He also accepts/rejects expansion.

Quote from: JackBlack on August 31, 2018, 05:15:19 PM

Quote from: Bullwinkle on August 31, 2018, 04:45:58 PM

So dark energy does not exist?

At the scale of Earth, a good approximation is that it doesn't.

No to you too!

JackBlack does not "accept/reject expansion"! Surely a smart moose like you has better comprehension than Jane!

JackBlack accepts expansion but adds "At the scale of Earth, a good approximation is that it doesn't."
I go, on good authority, one further and claim that  "at the scale of our galaxy, there is no expansion."

Quote from: rabinoz on August 31, 2018, 07:17:11 PM

I didn't "say expansion is ridiculous when I accept it"! All I've ever been saying is that locally there isn't any.

Under the RE model. Who cares? We aren't talking about that.

Please show me any evidence of Cosmological expansion in any FE model or discussion.

Quote

No ridgy-didgy flat-earthen would accept any sciency ideas like that!

Because it's not like they regularly quote scientific principles at all.

Sure, FEers accept little bits of science but reject any that seems to disprove their hypotheses for no other reason than that.
Though, come to think of it, could you show just what scientific principles do accept without reservation.

Again please show me any evidence of Cosmological expansion being accepted in any FE model or discussion.

Quote

So what I intended was,  "But why are you using a modern 'scientism notion' like the expansion of the Universe to prop up a hypothetical flat earth model?".

Perfectly clear what you meant, and I give the same answer. Why are you being a hypocrite? You accept it exists, why are you objecting to FEers using it?

I am not being a hypocrite at all. Right from the start of this, my main argument has been that on the scale of even our galaxy there is no expansion.

Sure, FEers can accept Cosmological expansion but they/you cannot arbitrarily put their/your own values on it.

Read again the first post where I attempted to put values on the local

Quote from: Jane on August 31, 2018, 04:30:59 AM

Not really a huge figure when compared to the rate of the universe's expansion under RET, for example. What's your problem?

Really?

Quote

Hubble's Constant: H₀ = 67.15 ± 1.2 (km/s)/Mpc. For every million parsecs of distance from the observer, the rate of expansion increases by about 67 kilometers per second

Now 1 parsec is about 3.086 x 10¹³ km so the expansion of the universe is about 2.20 x 10^-18 km/sec per km or 2.20 x 10^-12 mm/sec per km.

Now the FE sun is supposedly about 5000 km above the earth so the expansion between the sun and the earth would be about 1.10 x 10^-08 mm/sec.

You might check my sums, but the expansion of the universe is really very very slow over distances in our solar system.

And you ask, "Not really a huge figure when compared to the rate of the universe's expansion under RET, for example. What's your problem?"

So as I said, "This I've got to see".

Why is it so impossible to get you to understand such a simple matter?

Under the RE model. Who cares? We aren't talking about that.

You brought it up. Don't complain when people show just how flawed your arguments are by pretending you never said anything.

Why are you being a hypocrite? You accept it exists, why are you objecting to FEers using it?

You should go learn what a hypocrite is.
The objection isn't FEers using it. The objection is the FEers baselessly asserting just to pretend their model works with no actual justification.
For the real model of reality, we have plenty of evidence indicating expansion is occuring at a large scale. For the FE there is none, they just need some excuse for why the sun doesn't fall.

Again please show me any evidence of Cosmological expansion being accepted in any FE model or discussion.

This whole discussion is literally about one such instance. Could you stop your usual feigned ignorance tediousness for one damn minute?

I am not being a hypocrite at all. Right from the start of this, my main argument has been that on the scale of even our galaxy there is no expansion.

Who cares? We aren't talking about RET. It doesn't matter in the slightest what the scale of expansion is under the RE model.

Do you accept the notion that space can expand? Yes or no?

Do you accept the notion that space can expand at higher rates than it does within the RE model of the solar system? Yes or no?

Ta-da.

Why is it so impossible to get you to understand such a simple matter?

Says the person incapable of moving on from a point even when it's been addressed. I udnerstand what you're saying just fine, that's why I've been replying to it for a while now. Try doing the same.

Who cares? We aren't talking about RET. It doesn't matter in the slightest what the scale of expansion is under the RE model.

Really?
Just going to pretend your prior claims never happened?
You know, where you claimed the expansion required for FE was nothing huge compared to RE even though it is larger by several orders of magnitude.

Do you accept the notion that space can expand at higher rates than it does within the RE model of the solar system? Yes or no?

Accepting it as a hypothetical possibility is fundamentally different to accepting it as actually occurring.
There is not a single shred of evidence to indicate it is occuring at the scales required for the FE model to work.

It is entirely propped up by circular reasoning to try and force FE to work.

Do you accept the notion that space can expand? Yes or no?

Yes.

Do you accept the notion that space can expand at higher rates than it does within the RE model of the solar system? Yes or no?

Space "within the RE model of the solar system" is not expanding!
So why should I even entertain "the notion that space can expand at higher rates than it does within the RE model of the solar system"?

Ta-da.

Not so fast!
The expansion of the Universe is not part of "the RE model of the solar system" and had no part in the theories of Copernicus, Kepler and Newton.
It forms part of "modern Cosmology" and was not a baseless hypothesis but came from very precise measurements.

So sure, I'll "accept the notion that space can expand at higher rates than it does within the RE model of the solar system".
But not until you show similar "very precise measurements" on space within the FE solar system.

Quote

Why is it so impossible to get you to understand such a simple matter?

Says the person incapable of moving on from a point even when it's been addressed.

You have not addressed the point, space is not expanding in the heliocentric solar system.
The theory of the expanding Universe as a whole is the result of painstaking evidence that you do not have.

You just hypothesise about things and expect us to accept them as plausible explanations, well we do not!
Whether you like it or not a hypothesis remains a hypothesis until sufficient evidence have been accumulated to show that it does actually explain past observations and new observations as they come along.

And hypotheses like the non-Euclidean earth (though that is hardly defined well enough to be called one) and this rapidly expanding solar system have no observational evidence.

Drak energy dark matter are corrections by phycsisits that havent figured out the math on galaxies under the current einstein math.
Still hypothetical.

Quote from: Jane

Do you accept the notion that space can expand at higher rates than it does within the RE model of the solar system? Yes or no?

Space "within the RE model of the solar system" is not expanding!
So why should I even entertain "the notion that space can expand at higher rates than it does within the RE model of the solar system"?

Answer a straight question already.

I get it, you apparently think RET is in such poor shape it cannot bear the fact that amazingly of the multitude of FE models, some are actually capable of answering certain questions, but don't worry, I can assure you RET is doing just fine. You don't need any of this tedious dancing around.

You have not addressed the point, space is not expanding in the heliocentric solar system.

Again, who cares? That's not my point, that's been an irrelevancy I've been trying futilely to drag you away from so we can talk about the actual topic, but apparently that's not happening. Why would I 'address a point' that doesn't matter? Ooh, I can do this too! Not all cats are grey. Fire type pokemon resist grass type attacks. Davros should just be a head by the time of the new series of Doctor Who.
Let's try again: we aren't talking about RET. No one cares what does or doesn't happen under RET right now.

You just hypothesise about things and expect us to accept them as plausible explanations, well we do not!

When have I ever expected you to accept FET? I don't. Even I don't accept it. All I expect you to accept is that you cannot just disprove a model simply by sheer force of ignorance. It has an answer, whether or not there is sufficient evidence for that answer is a whole other question.