# Flat-Earth's gravity Vs Planes

• 18 Replies
• 4943 Views
?

#### 6strings

• The Elder Ones
• 689
##### Flat-Earth's gravity Vs Planes
« on: December 11, 2005, 07:39:51 PM »
I have a question about the flat-earth theory of gravity; it assumes that the world is flying upwards, causing the "illusion" of things falling to the ground right?

But if you think about this, and how it would affect airplanes, wouldn't an airplane that's flying at a level attitude be constantly falling towards the earth, as the earth is rising toward the plane?

If this isn't the case, the plane would have to be rising at the same rate as the ground is coming towards it, but as the plane has no propulsion on the bottom of it to keep it parallel and rising and a constant rate, this isn't possible.

So, could any flat-earther explain this phenomenon to me?

?

#### Lykos7D0

• 12
##### Flat-Earth's gravity Vs Planes
« Reply #1 on: December 14, 2005, 04:36:26 PM »
Bump.

This question is pretty valid.

?

#### 6strings

• The Elder Ones
• 689
##### Flat-Earth's gravity Vs Planes
« Reply #2 on: December 14, 2005, 06:28:33 PM »
I know, and yet everyone seems too afraid to answer it, and yet if I said something ridiculous like that the existance of penguins proves the fac that the earth is round, people would be arguing for pages...sigh...

?

#### moasre

##### Flat-Earth's gravity Vs Planes
« Reply #3 on: December 14, 2005, 06:42:05 PM »
Why doesn't a ball you throw up while traveling in a bus whizz backwards?  Same principle here.

?

#### 6strings

• The Elder Ones
• 689
##### Flat-Earth's gravity Vs Planes
« Reply #4 on: December 14, 2005, 07:49:43 PM »
Actually, no, see the reason a ball doesn't whizz back is because the velocity of the bus is added to that of the ball, so that it's travelling at the same speed in the dame direction as the bus.  However, in the case of an airplane, it has to defeat gravity (pulling down) before going anywhere, however, once in the air, it levels off, and as it has defeated gravity, it's force isn't added to the plane.  So the ground should still be rushing up to meet it.

?

#### TheMantisMan

• 10
##### Flat-Earth's gravity Vs Planes
« Reply #5 on: December 16, 2005, 08:17:06 PM »
The earth is rising upwards at a constantly accellerating rate.  The air sits on top of the earth, and is pushed upwards by it.  The plane, in turn, flies through the air, and the airfoil shape of its wings gives it lift - as is well understood.

The question of gravity-vs-accelleration is moot in this case.  In fact (ask any physicist) the effects of gravity are indistinguishable from those of steady accelleration.  Anyone who's ridden the "Gravitron" ride at the fair should be aware of this.[/i]

?

#### 6strings

• The Elder Ones
• 689
##### Flat-Earth's gravity Vs Planes
« Reply #6 on: December 19, 2005, 03:15:37 PM »
Touche, that makes sense...of a sort, assuming you accept the fundamentally flawed theory of a flat eart, but I digress...

But that still begs a few questions, how does flat-earth style gravity explain terminal velocity? And also, the earth can't possibly be accelerating as you state it is, because we'd eventually hit the speed of light, which is impossible given that we can all accept that the earth has mass.

?

#### rat7878

• 9
##### Flat-Earth's gravity Vs Planes
« Reply #7 on: December 19, 2005, 06:10:39 PM »
A rising object would not cause a air pocket big and strong enough to hold a plane in the air

Face it mate, its bullshit
hate you all... The world is a god damn icosahedron you bunch of flatearther bogans.

?

#### 6strings

• The Elder Ones
• 689
##### Flat-Earth's gravity Vs Planes
« Reply #8 on: December 22, 2005, 12:19:01 PM »
To be fair, I don't  think that's his contention, I think he's assuming that the air would be moving, or pushed up, at the same rate as the earth, and he'd be quite right in stating that, if he understood how a plane's design kept it in the air.  Allow me to elaborate:

The plane's airfoil design does in fact give it lift, as he stated, but this lift is provided by the air flowing under the wings having more pressure than that over the wings causing it to lift, if the "air pocket" on top of earth were to be added to this equation, it would gain even more lift, as the air pocket would add to the resistance under the wing.

However, in the scenario TheMantisMan describes, there would always be this force due to a rising air pocket.  Now, I can't use actual scientific equations to prove this false, as I'll simply be torn to shreds for unquestioningly believing what I'm told, so I'll give any flat-earthers an observable demostration to prove this is not the case:

Take a piece of paper, hold it parallel to the floor.  If the situation were as MantisMan describes it, the force of the rising "air pocket" would keep the paper in the air.  Notice how it doesn't?

QED.
Any other plausible explanations for airplanes?

EDIT: Also MantisMan, apparantly we aren't allowed to ask scientists anything on this site, because they're all part of "the conspiracy".  And even if we were, the reason gravity's effects (although they don't believe in gravity) are indistiguishable from those of acceleration is because gravity pulls at 9.8 m/s/s which means it IS a form of acceleration, so stating that was needless.

?

#### 6strings

• The Elder Ones
• 689
##### Flat-Earth's gravity Vs Planes
« Reply #9 on: December 27, 2005, 05:24:03 PM »
Alright, come on, could someone please explain this to me, because I don't want you flat earthers to just ignore it to death.

?

#### F Kid

• 34
##### Flat-Earth's gravity Vs Planes
« Reply #10 on: January 03, 2006, 10:04:28 AM »
dont sweat it. there s a flaw. if a plane sits on top of the air, that is moving with the earth, there is no gravity because the air is no longer stayin in place creating the illusion that gravity is real. mantis man, you feked up.
efore making fun of someone, walk a mile in their shoes. Then your a mile away and you have their shoes.

?

#### F Kid

• 34
##### Flat-Earth's gravity Vs Planes
« Reply #11 on: January 12, 2006, 04:57:42 PM »
yeah that shut y'all up.
efore making fun of someone, walk a mile in their shoes. Then your a mile away and you have their shoes.

?

#### 6strings

• The Elder Ones
• 689
##### Flat-Earth's gravity Vs Planes
« Reply #12 on: January 12, 2006, 05:42:29 PM »
Gravedig much?

?

#### Dill

• 35
##### Flat-Earth's gravity Vs Planes
« Reply #13 on: January 12, 2006, 06:36:43 PM »
dude no grave diggin, it aint cool man

?

#### TofuGlove

• 37
##### Flat-Earth's gravity Vs Planes
« Reply #14 on: January 13, 2006, 10:31:56 PM »
they gotta make a living doing something.

?

#### Erasmus

• The Elder Ones
• 4242
##### Flat-Earth's gravity Vs Planes
« Reply #15 on: January 14, 2006, 11:20:44 PM »
Actually, what Mantis Man describes does make sense, though he explains it somewhat tersely.  Airplanes work because of airfoils: this is an interaction with a body of air that overcomes the fact that the Earth is rushing up to meet the airplane.  The piece of paper dropped from a state of rest in a windless room has no such advantage.

I think Mantis Man understands this, and is *not* claiming that Earth pushes air pushes plane.  What he is saying is, the Earth isn't rising *through* the air, because then yes, the plane (whose lift is not an interaction with the Earth) would appear to fall.  Rather, the air is rising *with* the Earth.  That is to say, gravity affects air just as it affects airplanes.  Air falls towards the Earth until it hits the Earth or other air, at which point it can't fall any farther.  The air that's resting on the ground experiences the upward force of the Earth just as everybody else does.  The air that's sitting just on top of the air directly on the ground also experiences this upward push: Earth pushes air, which pushes more air, etc.  This explains why the air pressure is higher near the ground: that's where the "piston" of the Earth is.

The real problem with the Earth-as-piston theory is not what happens to airplanes, but what happens to air.  Air is a fluid, and if not kept in a container, would flow away from areas of high pressure (e.g., the Earth-as-piston).  So if the Earth were a circular disc acting as a piston, air would flow away from the center of the piston, unless some other force held it in (pistons in engines, for example, sit inside cylinders).  The ancients hypothesized a Firmament to perform this function.  I don't know what the status on this site is concerning moon landings, but if you're willing to throw out that and various other evidence as being features of a conspiracy or delusion, then I can accept that there's some sort of Firmament that holds in the air, and the Earth+Firmament is rushing upwards, accelerating at 9.8 m/s.

Also, it's likely that with a Firmament, we can do away with much of modern physics, in particular, that which came as a result of the Michelson-Morley experiments "proving" the absence of an aether to transmit light as a wave.  The problem was that it was assumed the Earth was moving through space and that the aether permeated all materials.  But then there would be certain effects when observing light that nobody saw, from which they concluded that there is no aether.  But if the Earth is surrounded by a Firmament, about which little is known, then perhaps it could hold in the aether much as it holds in the air.  Then light would have its limit on speed, but since the Earth itself is not travelling through the aether but merely carrying aether along with it, it is not subject to such restrictions, and can accelerate arbitrarily.

-Erasmus
Why did the chicken cross the Möbius strip?

?

#### alex2539

• 63
##### Flat-Earth's gravity Vs Planes
« Reply #16 on: January 14, 2006, 11:29:24 PM »
Quote
The real problem with the Earth-as-piston theory is not what happens to airplanes, but what happens to air. Air is a fluid, and if not kept in a container, would flow away from areas of high pressure (e.g., the Earth-as-piston). So if the Earth were a circular disc acting as a piston, air would flow away from the center of the piston, unless some other force held it in (pistons in engines, for example, sit inside cylinders). The ancients hypothesized a Firmament to perform this function. I don't know what the status on this site is concerning moon landings, but if you're willing to throw out that and various other evidence as being features of a conspiracy or delusion, then I can accept that there's some sort of Firmament that holds in the air, and the Earth+Firmament is rushing upwards, accelerating at 9.8 m/s
First off, who are "the ancients"? Other than that, you're pretty much right. There's a better reason as to why it doesn't work though, and that is because if the Earth WAS accelerating at a speed of 9.8m/s^2, then just before the end of its first year of existance, it would have hit light speed and theoretically even started travelling back in time. This is obviously not the case.

?

#### Erasmus

• The Elder Ones
• 4242
##### Flat-Earth's gravity Vs Planes
« Reply #17 on: January 15, 2006, 12:08:29 AM »
Yes, I would hardly disagree that any remotely viable flat-Earth theory couldn't help but contradict much of modern physics, relatively notwithstanding.  That in itself doesn't mean flatEarthism is wrong -- relatively could be wrong, for some sufficiently weak definition of "could".

-Erasmus
Why did the chicken cross the Möbius strip?

?

#### miane371

• 22
##### Flat-Earth's gravity Vs Planes
« Reply #18 on: January 22, 2006, 01:50:05 AM »
Quote from: "Erasmus"
Yes, I would hardly disagree that any remotely viable flat-Earth theory couldn't help but contradict much of modern physics, relatively notwithstanding.  That in itself doesn't mean flatEarthism is wrong -- relatively could be wrong, for some sufficiently weak definition of "could".

-Erasmus

If you are a Popperian all scientific knowledge is mutible.  Science is 'conjectural knowledge."

Flat earth theories do have inconsistencies with einstein's relativity.  all the gravity wells that we so nicely compute will have to be recomputed for "disc" shaped objects and there are heaps of them.
futhermore, this flat earth this is an extremely Euclidean perspective.  the experiemental data today shows that space (aka the visible universe) is Rhiemannian (i.e. curved like the "surface of a globe").

relativity is an extension of the newtonian world which is an extension of the copernican world.  by rejecting as Immanuel Kant called it "the copernican turn" you are in fact falsifiying relativity.

As far as I can discern, all flat earth theories of x, y & "Zed" are inconsistent with contemporary scientific knowledge - only human observables such as "I can't see the earths curvature"  is acceptable to flat-earthers along with conspiracy theories of USA and Russia.  I think I'm going to quit this forum now - I've put in my 10 cents.