I love how you guys think there is no proof for a flat earth

So when I accelerate at a constant rate in my car, I should run out of gas instantly?

No, but you'll run out eventually.

Any and every massive body, from the smallest particle to the largest galaxy, creates a gravitational field.  Fields move radially outward with constant flux, which accounts for the proportionality to 1/r^2.  The space around masses is essentially "warped," as is directly observable by the bending of light passing through large gravitational fields (for example, starlight passing near the sun during a total eclipse is observably bent).  Also note that this effect was predicted before it was observed.

Speaking purely about gravitational fields, I can't explain to you what it is in the inherent nature of mass that causes it to create a gravitational field.  I can try to provide you with some rational reasoning about why gravity makes more sense than UA.

In the RE model, nature is not selective.  Any laws that apply to one object apply to any other.  Gravity affects me just as it affects you, baseballs, bullets, airplanes, the moon, the earth, the other planets, the sun, and galaxies.  Gravitational fields (and hence, gravitational forces) occur in the presence of mass, and they have always been observed to be attractive.

In the FE model, UA applies to something under the earth, which holds us to the ground.  If it applied to the surface of the earth, I should be able to throw a piece of dirt and never see it hit the ground.  It must also somehow apply to the sun, moon, and stars, as they do not crash into the earth.  This force does not apply to me, though, nor you, nor any creature on the planet.  There is also seemingly nothing causing the force; it just seems to happen by necessity.

I hope, taking nothing else into consideration, this is some clue as to why the FE theory seems illogical.

Any and every massive body, from the smallest particle to the largest galaxy, creates a gravitational field.

Interesting assumption.

In the RE model, nature is not selective.  Any laws that apply to one object apply to any other.

Then how come neutrons don't interact electromagnetically?  How come electrons don't interact strongly?  How come REers don't interact intelligently?

[UA]must also somehow apply to the sun, moon, and stars, as they do not crash into the earth.

Not necessarily.  There's lots of stuff up in the sky which doesn't fall for one reason or another.  Birds are a good example.  Rooftops are another.

Quote from: "Curious"

I guess that almost works, but if we ever hit a comet (since we see them periodically, they msut be accelerating along with us), then there'll be a lot of explaining to do!

How does that apply only to the FE?

Because under the RE model the comets are orbiting the sun, due to gravity, and their orbits can be affected by the gravity of the planets and the earth.

Under the FE, the comets must be subject to the "universal acceleration" which must "Fail" for them to fall to the earth.

Not that there will ba anyone left to argue the point if it happens.

Quote

In the RE model, nature is not selective. Any laws that apply to one object apply to any other.

Then how come neutrons don't interact electromagnetically? How come electrons don't interact strongly? How come REers don't interact intelligently?

Gravity operates on mass.  But let's call it gravitational charge (IT IS ONLY BY INCREDIBLE COINCIDENCE THAT GRAVITATIONAL CHARGE IS EXACTLY EQUAL TO MASS.  IT DID NOT HAVE TO BE THIS WAY).  The electromagnetic forces act on electric charges.  Strong forces act in quark interactions.  Weak forces act in radioactive decay.

Neutrons have no electric charge, hence the name, so they don't interact electromagnetically.  Electrons are leptons, not quarks.  The grouping also is not arbitrarily done for the purpose of fitting the RE model, it is done based on spin numbers and particle make-up.  An electron is an electron, and that's all.  A proton is two up-quarks and one down-quark.  Quarks must form particles with zero color charge and a unit charge of 0 or +-1.

Gluons, W and Z bosons, and photons have all been experimentally observed.  Nothing is contradictory about the way nature is operating.

Quote

[UA]must also somehow apply to the sun, moon, and stars, as they do not crash into the earth.

Not necessarily. There's lots of stuff up in the sky which doesn't fall for one reason or another. Birds are a good example. Rooftops are another.

Then there's another problem with the FE, as we now have the moon and sun mysteriously generating lift, or an invisible support beam attached to the bottom of each.

EDIT:  Got rid of the first sentence, it was uncalled for, changed some words.

Not necessarily.  There's lots of stuff up in the sky which doesn't fall for one reason or another.  Birds are a good example.  Rooftops are another.

Once again, gravity is an incredibly weak force.  The mass of birds and their ability to navigate wind currents enables them to counteract the downward force of gravity.

Also fathomak, thanks for summing up gravity in a much better way than I am able to.

The mass of birds...enables them to counteract the downward force of gravity.

Um, wouldn't their mass hinder their ability to counteract the force of gravity? :?

Also fathomak, thanks for summing up gravity in a much better way than I am able to.

Again, everything fathomak said is nothing new.  You people are always telling us what gravity does, not what it is.  

I don't understand why it is so hard for an RE'er to simply admit that the RE does not have all the answers.  The reason the question of gravity is posed is not as an argument against it, but as an example that even the RE model does not know how everything works.  

So far, fathomak is the only one to admit, although he is trying to cover it up by spitting out a science book, that we don't know what causes gravity.

I can't explain to you what it is in the inherent nature of mass that causes it to create a gravitational field.

RE'ers, why is this so hard to admit?

So far, fathomak is the only one to admit, although he is trying to cover it up by spitting out a science book, that we don't know what causes gravity.

I'm not trying to cover it up, but I suppose to be clearer I should have said:

I can't explain to you what it is in the inherent nature of mass that causes it to create a gravitational field because we don't know.

So yes, I spent a lot of time talking about science, but then I tried to approach the issue from a purely philosophical point of view.  This was not intended to prove anything, but argue that one view is more feasible than the other.

In the RE model, nature is not selective. Any laws that apply to one object apply to any other. Gravity affects me just as it affects you, baseballs, bullets, airplanes, the moon, the earth, the other planets, the sun, and galaxies. Gravitational fields (and hence, gravitational forces) occur in the presence of mass, and they have always been observed to be attractive.

In the FE model, UA applies to something under the earth, which holds us to the ground. If it applied to the surface of the earth, I should be able to throw a piece of dirt and never see it hit the ground. It must also somehow apply to the sun, moon, and stars, as they do not crash into the earth. This force does not apply to me, though, nor you, nor any creature on the planet. There is also seemingly nothing causing the force; it just seems to happen by necessity.

I suppose I probably should also not have said "nature is not selective," because thinking about it, it sure is.  Gravity doesn't have any effect on charged particles, and in the same sense charges "choose" not to create gravitational fields.  I guess what I was more or less trying to get at is that there are logical ways to categorize different objects or particles to easily explain why certain forces effect one thing and not another.  We can distiguish between a "mass" and a "charge," and these distinctions seem to be absent when explaining forces in FE theory.  I hope this explanation is a little clearer.

Because under the RE model the comets are orbiting the sun, due to gravity, and their orbits can be affected by the gravity of the planets and the earth.

And if the timing was just right we could hit one.  If the acceleration of the earth and a comet were just right, we could hit it.  How are these two points any different?

or an invisible support beam attached to the bottom of each.

Yep, it kind of reminds me of the invisible bungie cord that keeps me on the earth.

Quote from: "Curious"

Because under the RE model the comets are orbiting the sun, due to gravity, and their orbits can be affected by the gravity of the planets and the earth.

And if the timing was just right we could hit one.  If the acceleration of the earth and a comet were just right, we could hit it.  How are these two points any different?

Because if they are currently being acted upon by the same force the earth is, then they should continue to maintain their motions in the sky, as there is nothing to change them, their paths are fixed.
In the RE universe, they are constantly affected by gravitational pulls and could come in contact with the earth, since it's gravity would attract them.

Quote

or an invisible support beam attached to the bottom of each.

 

Yep, it kind of reminds me of the invisible bungie cord that keeps me on the earth.

No, did you read all of my posts (I don't mean this sarcastically, I just mean if you didn't you should)?  I wasn't saying gravity makes perfect sense; I was talking about the consistency of the RE theory of gravity vs. the FE theory of UA.

Just because we are accelerating at the same rate does not mean we are traveling at the same speed.

Interesting assumption.

It would be an assumption if science wasn't backing him up. Since it is, it is a fact.

Then how come neutrons don't interact electromagnetically? How come electrons don't interact strongly? How come REers don't interact intelligently?

Magnetism still applies to neutrons. Attraction and repulsion require a net charge. You already know this, you're were just hoping that he didn't know weren't you? And insults don't make for a very good argument.

Not necessarily. There's lots of stuff up in the sky which doesn't fall for one reason or another. Birds are a good example. Rooftops are another

Erasmus what's the point? Really?  You already know that this comparison doesn't stand.

Birds are not in the sky at all times, the remain aloft through an effort on their part. Ironically, It is easier for them because their bones are hollow thus causing them tohave a lower mass, thus causing earth's gravitationnal field to b weaker when pulling them. And yes, if they try to stay in the sky when they're tired, birds fall as well.

Rooftops do not float in the sky, I doubt you'll find anyone to agree with you on this. They are in contact with their respective buildings at all times, and if they're yanked off they fall.

You do this everytime you are confronted to an irrefutable statment. If you don,t have anything to say then just don't. It's preferable to throwing insults for no reason.

Also, Under the FE model, comets would never come back.

I still don't understand why the earth can't be a sphere if we don't know why gravity exists. We don't know why any fundamental particle exists, and the universe is still there. And no one ever had any trouble saying we don't know. This is at least the 4rth time.

Of course I read your posts.  If you are going to make a statement about an invisible support structure on the FE, why can't I make a statement about an invisible cord that keeps pulling me to the ground?

Of course I read your posts. If you are going to make a statement about an invisible support structure on the FE, why can't I make a statement about an invisible cord that keeps pulling me to the ground?

The comment about the invisible support structure was just a response to Erasmus' post.  I was trying to demonstrate that his counter-argument didn't really go anywhere.

You're perfectly entitled to make statements about invisible bungee cords holding you to the ground.  I was only saying that the invisible bungee cords work exactly the same for everything that has mass, whereas UA applies only to the earth (but not the surface), possibly to the sun and moon, and not to anyone or anything on the surface, with seemingly no method of distiction other than convention.  That was why I originally said "nature is not selective."

ATTENTION!!!

This is a raid by the Glorious Victorian Bottom Worldly Expeditionary Party!!! Stand By while we load your swag onto our Attack Zeppelins!!

And dont try any funny stuff chaps, these Muskets arent for show you know!!!

And dont try any funny stuff chaps, these Muskets arent for show you know!!!

Those muskets are totally real!

Can any single FEr explain the curvature of the Earth that is easily witnessed at any ocean?  It can be seen with the naked eye, plain as day.

The curvature really isn't that obvious. What can be obvious at the ocean, on a moderately cloudy day, is you can clearly see the clouds curve over the breadth of the sky.

I agree. If the world was flat, than we could go on the highest point on the Earth (CN Tower) and see both edges of the world, but we can't because the world curves ever so slightly. We'd of course have to use a telescope to see both sides. =/

Everest?

C l o u d s .

Indeed.  But there's no reason you'd have to go all the way to the top.

I fly all the time and have never seen the curvature of the earth.

Flat earth'rs: They finally find one insignificant thing to disprove that the earth is round, and keep at it until the round earthers eventully give up

What is that?

I fly all the time and have never seen the curvature of the earth.

That's Aristotle-ism. I see, therefore it's real.

In order to understand reality, we must question what we see - our senses decieve us.

if! for example, there were a sphere. and it were to spin along its axis, placed in the middle of this sphere.

BUT! It were to be orbiting around some object, and it would spin while orbiting.

Now, suppose we're far below this 'some object'. It would appear to go back and forth then straight across the sky. IT'd then disappear for a bit then come back :\

Does this mean that the object, from our observations, must have an erratical path? No. It means we first have to attempt to rationalize that what we see may, or may not be true.

It means we first have to attempt to rationalize that what we see may, or may not be true.

Thanks, Captain Obvious.

I fly all the time and have never seen the curvature of the earth.

Try using an airplane instead of a pipe?