I guess we're debating how water sticks to a globe again

You still have to prove HOW two gravitons attract each other.

Why would anyone need to do that?

Since you have no possible attractive mechanism, you have nothing.

That is still you.
You are yet to explain your mechanism which replaces gravity.
You are yet to explain how the aether or whatever you want to appeal to imparts a force (proportional to mass) to matter to make it move in a particular direction.

Let's answer the question.
RE: Gravity.
FE: Pure magic.

Currently accepted theory is gravitation is a field.

That accepted theory has a gravitational field equipped with quanta (gravitons). The Gertsenshtein effect: the transformation of an electromagnetic wave into a gravitational wave (graviton-to-photon conversion effect).

https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1742-6596/1390/1/012086/pdf

This explains how water “sticks” to the earth whether you like it or not.

But it doesn't, whether anyone else likes or not.

You still have to prove HOW two gravitons attract each other.

Since you have no possible attractive mechanism, you have nothing.

that does not  answer the question.

Let's answer the question.

FE: rotating Ellis-Wheeler wormholes absorb aether, while the oceans stays in place being bounded on the outside by the ether dome.

RE: pure magic.

Gravitons are not part of GR. No need to strawman.

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=85986.msg2279384#msg2279384

They are not part pf GR, but since they exsist, GR is wrong

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=85986.msg2279384#msg2279384

They are not part pf GR, but since they exsist, GR is wrong

The post you linked to does not prove gravitons. Currently gravitons are only theorized to exist in certain theories. It‘s best not to blindly follow sandokhan.

It‘s best not to blindly follow sandokhan.

FTFY. 

Quote from: sokarul on August 31, 2020, 08:13:14 AM

It‘s best not to blindly follow sandokhan.

FTFY. 

Sandokahn, AKA Sandhokum

Quote from: Code-Beta1234 on August 31, 2020, 08:01:38 AM

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=85986.msg2279384#msg2279384

They are not part pf GR, but since they exsist, GR is wrong

The post you linked to does not prove gravitons. Currently gravitons are only theorized to exist in certain theories. It‘s best not to blindly follow sandokhan.

My appologies, i linked wrong post. My bad

Quote from: sandokhan on August 29, 2020, 06:15:51 AM

Quote from: turtles on August 24, 2020, 04:30:44 PM

As a matter of interest, what makes the water stick to the surface of the flat Earth?

Clearly not attractive gravity (RE).

Unexplained for a spherical Earth.

The other FE models can be taken down with no sweat.

So what does make water stick to the surface of the flat Earth?

Looks like Sandokhan can't answer that one.

Quote from: turtles on August 30, 2020, 07:17:17 AM

Quote from: sandokhan on August 29, 2020, 06:15:51 AM

Quote from: turtles on August 24, 2020, 04:30:44 PM

As a matter of interest, what makes the water stick to the surface of the flat Earth?

Clearly not attractive gravity (RE).

Unexplained for a spherical Earth.

The other FE models can be taken down with no sweat.

So what does make water stick to the surface of the flat Earth?

Looks like Sandokhan can't answer that one.

He told his theory here. It is rotating ellis wormholes somehow related to pressure gravity?

Only thing that i know for sure is that  it is complicated and that ether is related to many things. Like atmospheric pressure is ether on AFET

He told his theory here. It is rotating ellis wormholes somehow related to pressure gravity?

The problem is that his theory is less complete than gravity, the theory he dismisses for an alleged lack of mechanism.
He has still failed to provide the fundamental interaction between matter and whatever magic he wants to appeal to today, to cause it to accelerate in a particular direction with a particular magnitude.

Quote from: turtles on September 02, 2020, 03:44:12 AM

Quote from: turtles on August 30, 2020, 07:17:17 AM

Quote from: sandokhan on August 29, 2020, 06:15:51 AM

Quote from: turtles on August 24, 2020, 04:30:44 PM

As a matter of interest, what makes the water stick to the surface of the flat Earth?

Clearly not attractive gravity (RE).

Unexplained for a spherical Earth.

The other FE models can be taken down with no sweat.

So what does make water stick to the surface of the flat Earth?

Looks like Sandokhan can't answer that one.

He told his theory here. It is rotating ellis wormholes somehow related to pressure gravity?

Only thing that i know for sure is that  it is complicated and that ether is related to many things. Like atmospheric pressure is ether on AFET

Right, yeah he just made some stuff up.

Quote from: Code-Beta1234 on September 25, 2020, 09:00:29 AM

He told his theory here. It is rotating ellis wormholes somehow related to pressure gravity?

The problem is that his theory is less complete than gravity, the theory he dismisses for an alleged lack of mechanism.
He has still failed to provide the fundamental interaction between matter and whatever magic he wants to appeal to today, to cause it to accelerate in a particular direction with a particular magnitude.

And lets not forget that Ellis was talking about black holes, or atleast that is what rab told me

Gravity pulls everything to the center of a mass. The bigger the mass is, the stronger the gravity. So, the oceans can be held onto the Earth's surface, along with you and your stubborn, close-minded society.

Gravity pulls everything to the center of a mass. The bigger the mass is, the stronger the gravity. So, the oceans can be held onto the Earth's surface, along with you and your stubborn, close-minded society.

No

Sandokhan is asking how does gravity do it, by what mechanic does mass attract mass. How does mass curve space time...

Now, it is hypocritical beacuse he doesn't provide mechanic he is asking for in his alternative theory

Quote from: FlatEarthisStupid on January 17, 2021, 09:18:00 AM

Gravity pulls everything to the center of a mass. The bigger the mass is, the stronger the gravity. So, the oceans can be held onto the Earth's surface, along with you and your stubborn, close-minded society.

No

Sandokhan is asking how does gravity do it, by what mechanic does mass attract mass. How does mass curve space time...

Now, it is hypocritical beacuse he doesn't provide mechanic he is asking for in his alternative theory

If Sandokhan told you to skydive without a parachute said it was safe because he can't understand space-time curvature and therefore doesn't believe gravity is real... would you do it?

If not, why believe him when he says gravity is all a lie for exactly the same reason?

I don't know how tall you are, but if someone said you were 500 meters tall, I'd know they were wrong. If asked I couldn't tell you your EXACT height... but would that mean that you might be that tall?  No.  Just because I don't know EVERYTHING doesn't mean I don't know ANYTHING.

There are things we don't know yet, there are things we will never know... but what we do know a LOT about many things, gravity being one of them.

Why are you acting like we don't agree on this?

FlatEarthIsStupid said he is asking for explanation. No, what sandokhan is asking fot mechanic, probably luring RE to say "gravitons" so he can post theoretical papers about them.

Explain the attractive mechanism: how do four trillion billion liters of water adhere to the outer surface of a sphere?

Unless you can do so, your globe reality is really just a poorly written SF story.

Oh boy oh boy here I go fucking some flat earthers.
 
Because of gravity on a globe model isn't just "down", all the water in the world is attempting to go to the center of the globe there for it's not flying away.
 
If you want an example take a spherical magnet and put a metal bead on it, as you will see this bead stays on it no matter the direction it's facing. (yes I know magnets use magnetism but that's not the point)

Quote from: sandokhan on May 24, 2020, 07:46:52 AM

Explain the attractive mechanism: how do four trillion billion liters of water adhere to the outer surface of a sphere?

Unless you can do so, your globe reality is really just a poorly written SF story.

Oh boy oh boy here I go fucking some flat earthers.
 
Because of gravity on a globe model isn't just "down", all the water in the world is attempting to go to the center of the globe there for it's not flying away.
 
If you want an example take a spherical magnet and put a metal bead on it, as you will see this bead stays on it no matter the direction it's facing. (yes I know magnets use magnetism but that's not the point)

He is asking for mechanism. How does mass atract mass? How does it bend space-time? You don't get his argument

Quote from: 9 Koins_YT on January 18, 2021, 09:27:05 AM

Quote from: sandokhan on May 24, 2020, 07:46:52 AM

Explain the attractive mechanism: how do four trillion billion liters of water adhere to the outer surface of a sphere?

Unless you can do so, your globe reality is really just a poorly written SF story.

Oh boy oh boy here I go fucking some flat earthers.
 
Because of gravity on a globe model isn't just "down", all the water in the world is attempting to go to the center of the globe there for it's not flying away.
 
If you want an example take a spherical magnet and put a metal bead on it, as you will see this bead stays on it no matter the direction it's facing. (yes I know magnets use magnetism but that's not the point)

He is asking for mechanism. How does mass atract mass? How does it bend space-time? You don't get his argument

Well that is typical Sandhokum -- divert the discussion to why something happens and away from the fact that it actually does happen.  The fact that masses attract each other has been established.  That fact enables us, among other things, to put satellites in orbit while making it impossible to explain satellites on a flat earth. And oh, by they way, explains why water is attracted to the earth.

The fact that (real) scientists are still working to understand the details of why  masses attract is just a diversion.

yes
it would be nice if flat earth could catch up to round earth at least to the level of physics understanding.

oh wait...

@themightykabool

That's funny.

Sandokhan's whole point is that RE'rs (honestly, most all people) do not know the physics, as evidenced by his unanswerable "trick question" - which few in this thread have recognized as such...

I already answered his question in this thread.

@themightykabool

That's funny.

Sandokhan's whole point is that RE'rs (honestly, most all people) do not know the physics, as evidenced by his unanswerable "trick question" - which few in this thread have recognized as such...

Not really. Most REers aren't on this forum, because they don't really give a damn if a bunch of fools believe Earth is flat.

The bigger issue with Sandokhan is his play of semantics over exactly what constitutes a mechanism.
The mechanism by which the water adheres to the surface is gravity.
But like everything, that can be pushed back to ask for the mechanism of gravity, then the mechanism of that and so on.
e.g. someone provides mass curves spacetime which results in objects following geodesics which convert motion through time into motion through space; then he asks for the mechanism by which mass curves spacetime and the mechanism by which curved spacetime accelerates objects.

But it doesn't matter what you pick, this will always be the case with you always being able to push things an extra step back.
Sandy refuses to accept that and wants to pretend you can have a perfect mechanism with no extra questions, so he can pretend that gravity simply being like all fundamental forces is a problem for the RE.

Sandy refuses to accept that and wants to pretend you can have a perfect mechanism with no extra questions, so he can pretend that gravity simply being like all fundamental forces is a problem for the RE.

This seems to be the common thread that ties Flat Earthers and conspiracy theorists in general.  Trying to make a complex world simple.

The world is a mess because of a thousand reasons and people and countries make it that way, and fixing it is a complicated and nobody really knows how to do it. Much more comforting to think the world is a mess because that one guy running things, and if we just get rid of him then it will all be better! See, simple.

The universe is vast and complicated and life is a mystery and... no it's not, the universe is a tiny snow globe made for us and it's all simple and comforting.

Everyone feels this way at times.  It just gets taken to extremes in some cases.  Like the context of this thread.  It's complicated and confusing for some to to imagine living on a sphere where down is different for everyone and it's rotating and orbiting. Easier to imagine it's flat and unmoving. Simple to understand.

Quote from: JackBlack on January 19, 2021, 12:04:52 PM

Sandy refuses to accept that and wants to pretend you can have a perfect mechanism with no extra questions, so he can pretend that gravity simply being like all fundamental forces is a problem for the RE.

This seems to be the common thread that ties Flat Earthers and conspiracy theorists in general.  Trying to make a complex world simple.

The world is a mess because of a thousand reasons and people and countries make it that way, and fixing it is a complicated and nobody really knows how to do it. Much more comforting to think the world is a mess because that one guy running things, and if we just get rid of him then it will all be better! See, simple.

The universe is vast and complicated and life is a mystery and... no it's not, the universe is a tiny snow globe made for us and it's all simple and comforting.

Everyone feels this way at times.  It just gets taken to extremes in some cases.  Like the context of this thread.  It's complicated and confusing for some to to imagine living on a sphere where down is different for everyone and it's rotating and orbiting. Easier to imagine it's flat and unmoving. Simple to understand.

The world is simple. It's people that make it appear complex by hiding realities behind cloaks.

The world is simple. It's people that make it appear complex by hiding realities behind cloaks.

The world is only extremely simple when you ignore the majority of it.
As soon as you start honestly investigating just what there is in the world, you realise it is at least somewhat more complex.

But there is no need for anything like the massive complexity the FEers claim to explain reality.

The bigger issue seems to be things which go against what FEers claim rather than something actually being complex.

Quote from: sceptimatic on January 19, 2021, 10:33:33 PM

The world is simple. It's people that make it appear complex by hiding realities behind cloaks.

The world is only extremely simple when you ignore the majority of it.
As soon as you start honestly investigating just what there is in the world, you realise it is at least somewhat more complex.

But there is no need for anything like the massive complexity the FEers claim to explain reality.

The bigger issue seems to be things which go against what FEers claim rather than something actually being complex.

It is simple.
The real issue is in reverse engineering the physical and the mental to get to the simple.

It is simple.
The real issue is in reverse engineering the physical and the mental to get to the simple.

Yes, the RE model is quite simple. That is one reason to favour it over the much more complex and convoluted FE models.

The fact that both Sandokhan and Sceptimatic ignore the findings of science when it suits them, which is most of the time, then choose to make stuff up instead explains both their positions.
Sandokhan, if you have read any of his posts constantly distorts the truth warping facts and telling blatant lies, for example maintaining the discovery and existence of sub-quarks and gravitons, when in truth neither have been proven to exist. He is also fond of quoting scientists none of which would support his views to put it mildly.
Sceptimatic on the other hand puts forward views that are in direct opposition to known scientific facts and laws. Him claiming that atmosphere can permeate solids without having the means to observe such a phenomena is proof that he just made it up to suit his own belief.
The problem when debating with either is they are close minded refusing to believe proven facts when it suits them. A good example is Sceptimatic refusal to believe in the existence of vacuums! Which are routinely used in many industrial applications on a routine basis. More to the point all of Sceptimatic views can all be shown to be nonsense simply by looking at how a range of common industrial processes actually function.
Making stuff up is no substitute for factual knowledge no matter how much you want it to be true.
It also never fails to amaze how someone like Sceptimatic can take a stance that’s in direct opposition to not just science, but science fact that’s used in many applications on a daily basis.