Solar system is wrong.

Planets and satellites rotate in their orbit. There is no compulsion for the planets to rotate around the stars or the sun. Because there is no gravitational force in their.

How are you defining a force in this context?  What is the mechanism then that causes the huge clouds of molecular hydrogen in the Galaxy to collapse and form protostars if it isn't gravity? 

I need to know because I'm doing a university module about star formation at the moment and according to that the entire evolution of stars is controlled by gravity and gas pressure. If they have got it all wrong according to you then I need to contact the university staff urgently and ask them to rewrite the module materials.  But based on what because you haven't said?

Planets and satellites rotate in their orbit. There is no compulsion for the planets to rotate around the stars or the sun. Because there is no gravitational force in the universe.

True dat.

(Spelling)

And that means what exactly?

Abu has been active. I admire that.

Planets and satellites rotate in their orbit. There is no compulsion for the planets to rotate around the stars or the sun. Because there is no gravitational force in the universe.

Got anything to back that up?

So far all the evidence indicates gravity is real and the planets do orbit the sun.

Also, without gravity why would satellites have orbits? These orbits are based upon gravity.

Planets and satellites rotate in their orbit. There is no compulsion for the planets to rotate around the stars or the sun. Because there is no gravitational force in the universe.

So why do things fall down?

because abu lives in an isolated elevator and has no reference or comparison to any other object or person in the rest of the universe.

Going through Abu Jafar post history, I am 90% sure it is a machine learning Bot working with a reinforcement learning algorithm.

It has a 3 step process which is repeated.
1 - Start a new thread (with an old idea as a topic)
2 - Single sentence outlining the new theory
3 - up to maybe 3 posts to keep the thread moving
repeat

Very low effort for a person.
The level of reaction from other people is probably the reward which it tries to maximize.
Notice how bad its ability to actually engage in discussions are, it has a very bad concept of context, which is very common to most chat bot logarithms even now.

But you guys are helping it learn very well, soon the whole Flat Earth Society will be automated.

Going through Abu Jafar post history, I am 90% sure it is a machine learning Bot working with a reinforcement learning algorithm.

It has a 3 step process which is repeated.
1 - Start a new thread (with an old idea as a topic)
2 - Single sentence outlining the new theory
3 - up to maybe 3 posts to keep the thread moving
repeat

Very low effort for a person.
The level of reaction from other people is probably the reward which it tries to maximize.
Notice how bad its ability to actually engage in discussions are, it has a very bad concept of context, which is very common to most chat bot algorithms even now.

But you guys are helping it learn very well, soon the whole Flat Earth Society will be automated.

But how long before all the angry globists become bots and the place runs itself.

But how long before all the angry globists become bots and the place runs itself.

Well, it would save us all a lot of time!

Surely the earth isn't round OR flat. It can't be flat cause all the other planets aren't, but it's quite clearly not round. I'm calling it- the earth is a very stretched ellipsis.

Quote from: Abu Jafar on March 17, 2020, 06:39:08 AM

Planets and satellites rotate in their orbit. There is no compulsion for the planets to rotate around the stars or the sun. Because there is no gravitational force in the universe.

Got anything to back that up?

So far all the evidence indicates gravity is real and the planets do orbit the sun.

Also, without gravity why would satellites have orbits? These orbits are based upon gravity.

I'd love to hear why you'd back up a gravitational force in spite of the best round earth model ruling it out.

Quote from: JackBlack on March 17, 2020, 01:20:12 PM

Quote from: Abu Jafar on March 17, 2020, 06:39:08 AM

Planets and satellites rotate in their orbit. There is no compulsion for the planets to rotate around the stars or the sun. Because there is no gravitational force in the universe.

Got anything to back that up?

So far all the evidence indicates gravity is real and the planets do orbit the sun.

Also, without gravity why would satellites have orbits? These orbits are based upon gravity.

I'd love to hear why you'd back up a gravitational force in spite of the best round earth model ruling it out.

Please explain how the best round earth model rules it out?
Making such a statement has to be backed up.

Quote from: John Davis on March 18, 2020, 10:40:45 AM

Quote from: JackBlack on March 17, 2020, 01:20:12 PM

Quote from: Abu Jafar on March 17, 2020, 06:39:08 AM

Planets and satellites rotate in their orbit. There is no compulsion for the planets to rotate around the stars or the sun. Because there is no gravitational force in the universe.

Got anything to back that up?

So far all the evidence indicates gravity is real and the planets do orbit the sun.

Also, without gravity why would satellites have orbits? These orbits are based upon gravity.

I'd love to hear why you'd back up a gravitational force in spite of the best round earth model ruling it out.

Please explain how the best round earth model rules it out?
Making such a statement has to be backed up.

I did a loaded Google Search to zero in on something that suits my argument and cherry picked this article for your perusal. Provided you dont actually click the link and read the entire thing you can just read my cherry picked quotes from it as well

https://bigthink.com/paul-ratner/remarkable-new-theory-says-theres-no-gravity-no-dark-matter-and-einstein-was-wrong

But Professor Erik Verlinde, an expert in string theory from the University of Amsterdam and the Delta Institute of Theoretical Physics, thinks that gravity is not a fundamental force of nature because it's not always there. Instead it’s “emergent” - coming into existence from changes in microscopic bits of information in the structure of spacetime.

What’s more, the Dutch professor now published an elaboration of his previous work in “Emergent Gravity and the Dark Universe”, which argues there’s no “dark matter” - a mysterious kind of matter that along with dark energy theoretically makes up 95% of the universe, but has not really been discovered yet. Dark matter alone is thought to account for nearly 27% of the universe's mass-energy.

There has undoubtedly been something scientifically disconcerting about giving so much significance to a force that’s never been detected directly. It’s existence has only been inferred through gravitational effects.

The circumference of the Earth's orbit is probably 309052 km.

Quote from: MouseWalker on March 18, 2020, 11:45:48 AM

Quote from: John Davis on March 18, 2020, 10:40:45 AM

I'd love to hear why you'd back up a gravitational force in spite of the best round earth model ruling it out.

Please explain how the best round earth model rules it out?
Making such a statement has to be backed up.

I did a loaded Google Search to zero in on something that suits my argument and cherry picked this article for your perusal. Provided you dont actually click the link and read the entire thing you can just read my cherry picked quotes from it as well

https://bigthink.com/paul-ratner/remarkable-new-theory-says-theres-no-gravity-no-dark-matter-and-einstein-was-wrong

Quote

But Professor Erik Verlinde, an expert in string theory from the University of Amsterdam and the Delta Institute of Theoretical Physics, thinks that gravity is not a fundamental force of nature because it's not always there. Instead it’s “emergent” - coming into existence from changes in microscopic bits of information in the structure of spacetime.

What’s more, the Dutch professor now published an elaboration of his previous work in “Emergent Gravity and the Dark Universe”, which argues there’s no “dark matter” - a mysterious kind of matter that along with dark energy theoretically makes up 95% of the universe, but has not really been discovered yet. Dark matter alone is thought to account for nearly 27% of the universe's mass-energy.

There has undoubtedly been something scientifically disconcerting about giving so much significance to a force that’s never been detected directly. It’s existence has only been inferred through gravitational effects.

And a little less (or more ?) "cherry-picking" would show that Professor Erik Verlinde does not claim that there is no gravity nor even that mass/energy does not bend spacetime.

Verlinde's new theory of gravity passes first test
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Verlinde now claims that he not only explains the mechanism behind gravity with his alternative to Einstein's theory, but also the origin of the mysterious extra gravity, which astronomers currently attribute to dark matter. Verlinde's new theory predicts how much gravity there must be, based only on the mass of the visible matter.

Brouwer calculated Verlinde's prediction for the gravity of 33,613 galaxies, based only on their visible mass. She compared this prediction to the distribution of gravity measured by gravitational lensing, in order to test Verlinde's theory. Her conclusion is that his prediction agrees well with the observed gravity distribution, but she emphasizes that dark matter could also explain the extra gravitational force. However, the mass of the dark matter is a free parameter, which must be adjusted to the observation. Verlinde's theory provides a direct prediction, without free parameters.

Credit: Astronomie.nl

The new theory is currently only applicable to isolated, spherical and static systems, while the universe is dynamic and complex. Many observations cannot yet be explained by the new theory, so dark matter is still in the race. Brouwer: "The question now is how the theory develops, and how it can be further tested. But the result of this first test definitely looks interesting."

Explore further
New theory of gravity might explain dark matter

But Prof. Erik Verlinde's new theory of gravitation, whether correct or not, is no comfort to gravity deniers or space deniers.
It is simply an excellent example of how science works and it is quite likely that this new theory is compatible with Quantum Theory.

You weren't supposed to go that far...

The circumference of the Earth's orbit is probably 309052 km.

How did you arrive at that figure?

Quote from: John Davis on March 18, 2020, 10:40:45 AM

Quote from: JackBlack on March 17, 2020, 01:20:12 PM

Quote from: Abu Jafar on March 17, 2020, 06:39:08 AM

Planets and satellites rotate in their orbit. There is no compulsion for the planets to rotate around the stars or the sun. Because there is no gravitational force in the universe.

Got anything to back that up?

So far all the evidence indicates gravity is real and the planets do orbit the sun.

Also, without gravity why would satellites have orbits? These orbits are based upon gravity.

I'd love to hear why you'd back up a gravitational force in spite of the best round earth model ruling it out.

Please explain how the best round earth model rules it out?
Making such a statement has to be backed up.

According to GR, gravity is not a force.

You weren't supposed to go that far...

Oops, so sorry !

Earth's real orbit circumference = Earth's velocity  ×  31536000 s = 9.8m/s  × 31536000 s = 309052800 m.

Earth's orbit circumference = Earth's velocity  ×  31536000 s = 9.8m/s  × 31536000 s = 309052800 m.

You messed up putting the numbers in. Earth's velocity is closer to 30 km/s than 9.8 m/s.
Also, Earth's orbit isn't 365 days long.
The average length of a tropical year is 365.2425 days, and due to the precession of the equinox that isn't an entire orbit.

Earth's real orbit circumference = Earth's velocity  ×  31536000 s = 9.8m/s  × 31536000 s = 309052800 m.

Is the earth moving and rotating around anywhere? Have you an evidence about it?

Earth's circumference = Earth's velocity  ×  31536000 s = 9.8m/s  × 31536000 s = 309052800 m.

Not quite.

• The Earth's velocity is not 9.8m/s. 9.8m/s² is the "acceleration due to gravity" at the Earth's surface.
  
  
• The orbital velocity of the Earth around the Sun is about 29.785 km/s so the circumference of the Earth's orbital around the Sun is close to 29.785 km/s x 31536000 s = 939299760 km

But it would have been simpler to calculate as 2 x π x 149.60 = 939.96 million km.
That doesn't quite agree with the other value because the Earth completes one obit in 365.256 days, one sidereal year, and not in 365 days of a normal calender year - all very messy !

Not that the slight distance matters.

Is the earth moving and rotating around anywhere? Have you an evidence about it?

Evidence can be presented yes. I can think of several observations that we can all make which provides evidence that the Earth is both moving through space and rotating on its axis. You would interpret those observations differently because they would have to be made to fit your underlying belief that the Earth is flat and motionless. No consideration given to the possibility that you are wrong. I would base my conclusion on the solution that best fits my observations. You have already come to a conclusion (the Earth is flat and motionless) so you would find a way to make the observations fit that conclusion.

I have a hunch that you believe the Earth is not moving (because you can't feel it moving, Earth is at the centre of the Universe etc etc usual stuff) so any evidence to the contrary you would dismiss.

Is the earth moving and rotating around anywhere? Have you an evidence about it?

Yes. I have personally obtained evidence of the rotation of Earth in the form of Focault's pendulum.
There is also plenty of evidence of the orbit of Earth in the form of parallax and abberation.

We can present all the evidence we wish. But getting someone to accept that as evidence which show that their beliefs are actually wrong is another matter. Flat Earthers will never admit to being wrong, they will simply find another way to interpret that evidence so that it makes the same evidence appear to support their assertion and at the same time dismiss RE.

UA and EA are classic examples although neither of course have been substantiated outside of the FE movement.

We can present all the evidence we wish. But getting someone to accept that as evidence which show that their beliefs are actually wrong is another matter. Flat Earthers will never admit to being wrong, they will simply find another way to interpret that evidence so that it makes the same evidence appear to support their assertion and at the same time dismiss RE.

UA and EA are classic examples although neither of course have been substantiated outside of the FE movement.

And "neither of course have been substantiated" by "the FE movement" other than be the waving of hands and demanding proof that they cannot happen.

"Applied Zetetic Science" seems, in practice, to boil down to "The Earth looks flat and guess everything else to make it fit all the other observations".
A few of the guesses:

• Gravity: It might be "UA", "denpressure", simply "dense have a propensity to fall down" or many others.
  
  
• Sunrises and Sunsets: They might be expainned by "perspective", "atmoplanar lensing", "Electromagnetic Acceleration" or something else.
   
  
• The circling of the Celestial objects around Polaris: Try this!
  Quote from: The Flat Earth Society Wiki

  NEXUS RINGS
  The elliptical orbits observed by Astrophysicists on earth are caused by planets moving along transparent, magnetic nexus rings. All significant celestial objects move along individual nexus rings. In addition, smaller objects such as asteroids may be slightly influenced by the pull of nexus rings. Nexus rings exert a small force on each other, but because of the vast amount of nexus rings in the universe, the net forces on each nexus ring are negligible.

  Meaningless word salad!
   
  
• The different rotation of the northern and southern stars: It might be "reflection in the 'dome'", "a bi-polar map with 'celestial gears'" or deny it happens at all.
  
  
• The 'moon tilt illusion: The "Electromagnetic Acceleration" which bu pure coincidence bends light up, down, left or right to magically match exactly what is observed and easily explained on the Globe.
  
  
• etc, etc.

The 'moon tilt illusion: The "Electromagnetic Acceleration" which bu pure coincidence bends light up, down, left or right to magically match exactly what is observed and easily explained on the Globe.

Exactly. As I pointed out in another discussion somewhere, EA is a creation of flat Earth theorists which is used as a 'fudge' to make real observations fit in with their beliefs. There is no independent evidence available as far as I know which backs up their claims about how EA is supposed to work. In fact it seems that how EA works depends on how it needs to work in order to turn the impossible into the possible.

If the Moon and Sun are constantly above the Earth then there is no way that the Moons phases as we see them can work under the current laws of physics.  So rather than admit they are wrong and the whole concept of FE theory is just a pip dream or ideology, they invent an alternative explanation for the laws of physics which has never been and can never be verified independently.