Question about gravity

I was reading your faq and you mentioned that gravity is not real but that the earth is accelerating upward at 1g 9.8m/s^2 or 36.2 ft/s^2 if you prefer. yet it has been proven that at differant elevations gravity changes. ie as you go to the top of mount everest gravitational force decreases. This seems to fit the universal law of gravity

F(gravity)= (M1*M2)/d^2

 better than an "earth is accelerating" theory. as you can see from the equation as the distance from the center of a so called round earth increased the gravtitional force would decrease as has been observed. does anybody have any explenation for this.

Gravity still exists in the FE model. It is just not the primary force which holds your feet to the ground.

The government fibbed those results.  They aren't true.

The government fibbed those results.  They aren't true.

the government didn't fib my results. I have performed this experiment myself.

Gravity still exists in the FE model. It is just not the primary force which holds your feet to the ground.

ok but it has been shown that the univesal law of gravitation, which presupses a round earth, exactly predicts the changes in the gravitational force that are observed.

I too, have preformed these experiments.

I was joking...

I was joking...

you never can tell around here

Gravity still exists in the FE model. It is just not the primary force which holds your feet to the ground.

ok so there are two forces which hold us to the ground. gravity which is a lesser force and simple F=ma force from an accelerating earth. yet gravity has been shown to be directly proportional the the square of the diamter of the distance from you to the center of a supposed round earth. when I say directly proportional I mean that interpolation of the experimental data shows that at the center of the earth gravity = 0. this could not be possible in a flat earth theory. at any elevation you would allways have the constant force from the accelerating earth.

ok so there are two forces which hold us to the ground. gravity which is a lesser force and simple F=ma force from an accelerating earth. yet gravity has been shown to be directly proportional the the square of the diamter of the distance from you to the center of a supposed round earth. when I say directly proportional I mean that interpolation of the experimental data shows that at the center of the earth gravity = 0. this could not be possible in a flat earth theory. at any elevation you would allways have the constant force from the accelerating earth.

No. It's just that not everything necessarily has a gravitational field. For example, the Earth does not. However that doesn't mean that other celestial bodies don't.

~D-Draw

Quote from: "michiman"

ok so there are two forces which hold us to the ground. gravity which is a lesser force and simple F=ma force from an accelerating earth. yet gravity has been shown to be directly proportional the the square of the diamter of the distance from you to the center of a supposed round earth. when I say directly proportional I mean that interpolation of the experimental data shows that at the center of the earth gravity = 0. this could not be possible in a flat earth theory. at any elevation you would allways have the constant force from the accelerating earth.

No. It's just that not everything necessarily has a gravitational field. For example, the Earth does not. However that doesn't mean that other celestial bodies don't.

~D-Draw

I'm not sure if we are talking about the same thing. so since you came into this discussion a little late I will restate my first question. how do you account for changes in gravitational forces at differant elevations?

I'm not sure if we are talking about the same thing. so since you came into this discussion a little late I will restate my first question. how do you account for changes in gravitational forces at differant elevations?

No, I was talking about the same thing. I was picking up from Tom Bishop's argument. If celestial bodies had gravitational fields, they could account for the difference, because you're being ever-so-slightly less-accelerated when you're closer to one of the other planets in our solar system.

And if you refuse to believe that I'll mention that the change in acceleration from a high place to a low place is so miniscule that you could basically write it off as a fluke.

~D-Draw

Quote from: "michiman"

I'm not sure if we are talking about the same thing. so since you came into this discussion a little late I will restate my first question. how do you account for changes in gravitational forces at differant elevations?

No, I was talking about the same thing. I was picking up from Tom Bishop's argument. If celestial bodies had gravitational fields, they could account for the difference, because you're being ever-so-slightly less-accelerated when you're closer to one of the other planets in our solar system.

And if you refuse to believe that I'll mention that the change in acceleration from a high place to a low place is so miniscule that you could basically write it off as a fluke.

~D-Draw

oh I see it's possible that at a higher elevation we feel the effects of other celestial bodies because they are not that far away. you didn't say that but I assume that is what you mean.