Gravity, Static and Polarity

Now, I don't claim to be on any side of this debate, but I have a simple question for any FE'ers or RE'ers who're willing to tell me what the hell is keeping my feet on this ground. What is it?

I've seen The Engineer ask many times, but I've never seen anybody come out and explain gravity without using evidence and science that assumes the earth is round. So, for RE'ers, tell me what Gravity is without telling me the earth is round.

Likewise, I would like FE'ers to explain 'gravity' ( or it's logical lack thereof) to me without assuming the earth is flat. I've actually read many posts and articles about this particularly, but nothing that explains water's static. For you, I would like to know what's keeping me, the oceans and the assortment of things on the planet down without accusing water of being static, or -everything- of having polar qualities.

Any insight will be loved.
-Derek Hart

I've seen The Engineer ask many times, but I've never seen anybody come out and explain gravity

I've never seen anybody explain what gravity is period.


The force felt as 'gravity' on the FE is acceleration and inertia.

Quote from: "Derek"

I've seen The Engineer ask many times, but I've never seen anybody come out and explain gravity

I've never seen anybody explain what gravity is period.


The force felt as 'gravity' on the FE is acceleration and inertia.

Thats impossible, the earth would loose its atmosphere to diffusion

Quote from: "TheEngineer"

Quote from: "Derek"

I've seen The Engineer ask many times, but I've never seen anybody come out and explain gravity

I've never seen anybody explain what gravity is period.


The force felt as 'gravity' on the FE is acceleration and inertia.

Thats impossible, the earth would loose its atmosphere to diffusion

Why?  It's essentially the same as swinging a bucket of water over your head.  There is acceleration (even though it is angular the results are the same) and a wall containing the fluid on the sides (ice wall).  You could do the same kind of experiment with a heavy gas in a bucket, as well.

Im talking about diffusion... liquid water doesn't diffuse into the volume
surrounding it, unless evaporation occurs, so your analogy doesn't apply.

Diffusion is the net action of matter (particles or molecules), heat, momentum, or light whose end is to minimize a concentration gradient. The process of diffusion, therefore, minimizes thermodynamic Gibbs free energy (though, it is not a chemical reaction), and is thus a spontaneous process

spontaneous

Quote from: "wikipedia"

Diffusion is the net action of matter (particles or molecules), heat, momentum, or light whose end is to minimize a concentration gradient. The process of diffusion, therefore, minimizes thermodynamic Gibbs free energy (though, it is not a chemical reaction), and is thus a spontaneous process

spontaneous

I think I smell what you're stepping in, but I'll post it in another thread so as to stay on topic:

http://theflatearthsociety.org/forums/viewtopic.php?p=101868#101868

Just to confuse the issue further I will reply here (instead of the thread linked above) because it is more relevant to this topic.  

In my original post, I assumed people would argue that the same force that causes the earth to accelerate, would also cause the atmosphere to do likewise. So in a sense, there is no inertia felt by the atmosphere, and no force exerted on it by the earth. When this is the case, there is nothing to stop the entire atmosphere diffusing out into space.

Ah, so you're talking about a kind of "force at a distance" acceleration.  Such as the "dark matter" idea, wherein a large mass of something we can't see is pulling Earth up?  Or the universal acceleration idea?  

One could also argue, in that case, that we would not be forced toward the surface of the Earth.  Which is clearly not the case of our experience.  

So there bust be some force applied only to the Earth directly and with no "action at a distance."

 
One could also argue, in that case, that we would not be forced toward the surface of the Earth.  Which is clearly not the case of our experience.  

So there bust be some force applied only to the Earth directly and with no "action at a distance."

lol.... true  :idea:

Alright.. Very insightful. Now I have a miasma of reasons why gravity doesn't exist. Where are all of your brilliant Round-Earthers doing more then using irrelevant centrifugal analogies? And again, you're still assuming that the earth is round.

Alright.. Very insightful. Now I have a miasma of reasons why gravity doesn't exist. Where are all of your brilliant Round-Earthers doing more then using irrelevant centrifugal analogies? And again, you're still assuming that the earth is round.

I will be the first to admit that I'm decidedly not brilliant: I'm as blind as a man can be.  

I would very much like to understand your point of view, Derek.  I honestly would.  There is so much misinformation coming from pretty much everyone in this forum about what the FE really is that I resort to only discussing FE with those whom I agree with.  The conversations we have in this forum go in circles, interrupted frequently by insults and digression.  We're not getting anywhere.  

With that said, could you please come down from your proverbial tower and speak with a common man about the topic at hand rather than merely commenting on this rat-race of a discussion?

I didn't mean any disrepect from it, I simply don't catch the relevance of your analogy.
And I cannot join the debate. I have very minimal information on the subject, nothing that will add any intruge into the topic. It's why I asked the questions to begin with. It's one of the downfalls to proverbial towers; good grammar, genuine curioity.

As much as I hate being one of 'those guys', I've seen lots of good arguements either way either for or opposing a flat/round earth. I'd seen so much great information regarding the FES that I had to inquire, thus the topic. But again, I know little more then what I question.

When I know something, expect a grossly long post, full of nonsense and criticism for all.

- Derek

F = GMm / r^2

(where masses act grom the relevant centres of gravity)
a formula that sctually does work, with G precisely calculated, in FE or RE. since everyone stands perpendicularly against the ground, using this formula you can assume the earth is spherical around the centre of gravity. If we were on a FE, the centre of gravity for the earth would be exclusively beneath the north pole, and everyone would be walking at a funny angle.

F = GMm / r^2

(where masses act grom the relevant centres of gravity)
a formula that sctually does work, with G precisely calculated, in FE or RE. since everyone stands perpendicularly against the ground, using this formula you can assume the earth is spherical around the centre of gravity. If we were on a FE, the centre of gravity for the earth would be exclusively beneath the north pole, and everyone would be walking at a funny angle.

I think G is only accurate to 3 significant figures. (I may be wrong) Thats
pretty bad compared to most constants, but its good enough for me.

Quote from: "Ezkerraldean"

F = GMm / r^2

(where masses act grom the relevant centres of gravity)
a formula that sctually does work, with G precisely calculated, in FE or RE. since everyone stands perpendicularly against the ground, using this formula you can assume the earth is spherical around the centre of gravity. If we were on a FE, the centre of gravity for the earth would be exclusively beneath the north pole, and everyone would be walking at a funny angle.

I think G is only accurate to 3 significant figures. (I may be wrong) Thats
pretty bad compared to most constants, but its good enough for me.

you mean g. G and g are different.

No... Im talking about G, the Universal Gravitational Constant.
Not g which can be measured to a very high degree of accuracy

No... Im talking about G, the Universal Gravitational Constant.
Not g which can be measured to a very high degree of accuracy

fair dos. g is not a constant anyway remember.


but like you said it's accurate enough. accurate enough for astrophysicists anyway. but maybe it's all a Conspiracy.

Quote from: "CharlesJohnson"

No... Im talking about G, the Universal Gravitational Constant.
Not g which can be measured to a very high degree of accuracy

fair dos. g is not a constant anyway remember.


but like you said it's accurate enough. accurate enough for astrophysicists anyway. but maybe it's all a Conspiracy.

I guess.... but it could be considered to be a constant in a localised area
of spacetime.

F = GMm / r^2

(where masses act grom the relevant centres of gravity)
a formula that sctually does work, with G precisely calculated, in FE or RE. since everyone stands perpendicularly against the ground, using this formula you can assume the earth is spherical around the centre of gravity. If we were on a FE, the centre of gravity for the earth would be exclusively beneath the north pole, and everyone would be walking at a funny angle.

And that explains gravity, how?

a force acts between masses. it is called gravity. it is proportional to the product of the masses involved divides by the square of the distance between them.

a force acts between masses. it is called gravity. it is proportional to the product of the masses involved divides by the square of the distance between them.

Yeah, thanks for that. Now explain why it works.

You could keep asking why for just about any scientifically accepted
principal, and eventually the scientist you're asking will just shrug and
say I dont know... weve just found that to be the case.

The notion of gravity is not universally accepted because its understood,
Its universally accepted because it accurately describes the manner in
which the universe behaves.

Quote from: "Ezkerraldean"

a force acts between masses. it is called gravity. it is proportional to the product of the masses involved divides by the square of the distance between them.

Yeah, thanks for that. Now explain why it works.

isnt that what particle physics is currently about? finding the Higgs boson.


why is the earth flat?
why does the sun shine?
why do radios work?
why do lightbulbs work?
why does my car drive when i put petrol in it?
why do the clouds outside move?

 we know how, but why?
"why" is subjective.


we know very well how gravity works. wether we are on a FE or a RE. and it doesnt really seem to fit the FE idea.

As Ive said before, in any scientific theory, there will always be scientific
principles that just need to be accepted before they can be built upon to
come up with sollutions that work.

As far as I can tell, the only science that does describe and explain itself
completely is the science of mathematics.

"why" is subjective.

Not the way I am using it.

we know very well how gravity works. wether we are on a FE or a RE. and it doesnt really seem to fit the FE idea.

No, you "know" that it works. You have no idea what causes Round Earth gravity.

And obviously RE gravity doesn't fit the FE. Its not supposed to, as we don't believe it exists.

No, you "know" that it works. You have no idea what causes Round Earth gravity.

And obviously RE gravity doesn't fit the FE. Its not supposed to, as we don't believe it exists.

we know how it works. there is a formula to describe it. and that formula, combined with everyday observation, goes against FE.

As Ive said before, in any scientific theory, there will always be scientific
principles that just need to be accepted before they can be built upon to
come up with sollutions that work.

I agree pretty much with this.  

Accepting a theory that ends up being false doesn't damn us to hell (though creationists might think otherwise).  It simply means the theory modeled some phenomenon well enough to make some predictions.   When we found a case in which it didn't work, new evidence from this case is brought together to form a new theory.  No harm done, unless one believes it contrary to the word of god and fire-bombs some people.  But I digress.  

Anywho, a theory is not the proper device to explain "why".  I'm not even sure if it could explain "how" something happens.  I'd say it's more of a 'what,' 'where,' and 'when.'  And maybe 'who.'  It is merely a testable set of predictions with limits of application and with the possibility of being disproved.

So let us drop this "why" anything happens debate.  No one knows "why" anything.  WHy are we here, et cetera, et cetera.

Well then, I am going to refuse to accept the Round Earth theory of gravity. I think the Flat Earth theory makes more sense.

Accepting a theory that ends up being false doesn't damn us to hell (though creationists might think otherwise).  It simply means the theory modeled some phenomenon well enough to make some predictions.   When we found a case in which it didn't work, new evidence from this case is brought together to form a new theory.  No harm done, unless one believes it contrary to the word of god and fire-bombs some people.  But I digress.  

Anywho, a theory is not the proper device to explain "why".  I'm not even sure if it could explain "how" something happens.  I'd say it's more of a 'what,' 'where,' and 'when.'  And maybe 'who.'  It is merely a testable set of predictions with limits of application and with the possibility of being disproved.

So let us drop this "why" anything happens debate.  No one knows "why" anything.  WHy are we here, et cetera, et cetera.

I took a philosophy course for one semester on the evolution of
scientific theories. You've pretty much just summed it up.  :lol:

Well then, I am going to refuse to accept the Round Earth theory of gravity. I think the Flat Earth theory makes more sense.

even when the said formula is known to be true? know the Cavendish experiment? i've done it myself a few times for coursework. it works. and FE acceleration shite does not explain it.

I'd like to quote something that I think applies in this case.
This quote is classic...

I am sometimes accused of treating hoax believers as if they are stupid. Let me say this here and now and clearly. I do NOT consider that ALL hoax believers are stupid, okay? Some, possibly, may be quite normal sensible people that have just got the facts wrong - they have been misinformed and do not happen to posses the knowledge or wit to realise it. This is perfectly understandable given the complex knowledge of physics sometimes required to understand what is really going on. Many hoax believers are ignorant of the facts, which is a different matter entirely to being stupid. However, when given the facts, a sensible person will see the logic of it, whatever the subject, and will either have the sense to accept the obvious, or perhaps have the wit to ask another more penetrating follow-up question in order to clarify a point. Fair enough. When the explanation then makes perfect sense and can no longer be challenged, when the evidence presented simply cannot be denied, the sensible person is left with no alternative but to accept that they were wrong.

If however, in this situation, they still insist that they are right, even in the face of incontrovertible evidence, then they shift from a position of being ignorant - they are no longer unaware of the facts - to a position of being stupid. I'm sorry if this offends but there is no other word for it. The dictionary says 'stupid - deficient or dull in understanding: showing lack of reason or judgement: foolish, dull, boring' So yes, many of the hoax believers that I deal with, the ones that send me very strange emails indeed, I do consider to be stupid, they perfectly fit the dictionary definition of the word.

Sourced from: http://www.thekeyboard.org.uk/Did%20we%20land%20on%20the%20Moon.htm