Round earth Gravity vs. Flat earth "Gravity"

  • 67 Replies
  • 15860 Views
?

6strings

  • The Elder Ones
  • 689
Round earth Gravity vs. Flat earth "Gravity"
« on: January 02, 2006, 05:11:42 PM »
Ok, so I'm sitting in this plane right? And the captain's all, "Ladies and gentlemen, if you look your windows, you'll see that the earth is flat."
So I look and my window, and I'll be damned, he was right, I even saw that crazy ice wall.  And that all got me thinking, "hey, maybe I was wrong, maybe I was a little harsh on all those guys on that forum".

But then my trip started going bad and monkeys started throwing their feces at me 'till the LSD wore off, and then, clear minded and lucid, I thought: "What are those glue-sniffing pseudo-hippies on? And how can I get some?  And hey, if there's no gravity, why are my feet hitting the ground?"

That last thought stayed with me for a while, and the more I thought about it, the more I realized it didn't make sense.  See, the way gravity works is that every mass that's smaller than earth (which is you) is pulled towards the center of earth's gravity, which means that as I walk, my foot is pulled towards the ground.

But flat-earthers don't believe that's how gravity works, they believe that the earth rushes up at a rate of 9.8m/s/s.  Ignoring the many obvious flaws with this, such as the fact that we should have, reached the speed of light, this means my foot shouldn't hit the ground.  

Try this experiment:
-Stand up
-Lift your leg
-Release all the muscles in your leg

Notice how your leg falls to the ground?  Iff the earth were rushing up, this wouldn't happen, because your other leg would act as a brace between the ground and your body.  Meaning your leg should float.  It doesn't.

QED.  Gravity is not the result of the earth rushing upwards.

Anyone care to explain to me why I'm wrong?

Round earth Gravity vs. Flat earth "Gravity"
« Reply #1 on: January 03, 2006, 12:17:52 AM »
have you ever jumped off a building?
first off, try it

second, the same principles apply.  when you're free falling, yes, that's true, your other leg should float, but when there's a ground rushing up towards you (because that's what happens, not the other way around), your "floating" leg surely won't be floating anymore.  this is because there's a little thing called a "ground", it is pushing up so fast you feel that you're getting pulled down onto it, your entire body, not just one leg and the other magically floating up, your entire theory is hogwash

Round earth Gravity vs. Flat earth "Gravity"
« Reply #2 on: January 03, 2006, 12:46:34 AM »
Alright so if the world is magically flat, and is rushing up at us at 9.8 meters per second, then explain why objects accelerate when falling. a simple expirament would be to drop something or jump off a short ledge, drop a couple of feet and land no problem, then jump off the building and youll go faster and faster untel you hit terminal velocity, at which point the friction of air will keep you at a steady rate of fall (which i dont think would work in a flat-earth setting). anyways my arguement doesnt do much to prove the earth is flat, i just want to make sure we all know what gravity is. This is my first post and honestly some of the "flat-earth" posts and arguements ive read are complete crap and i cant belive anyone could seriously belive this. they take for granted that they are using super advanced computer technology and the internet  (both of which were made over a long period of time by scientists and governments, using the scientific method) to communicate there ideas and then say that NASA and everyone that belives the earth is round, and all is liars, conspirators, or whatever. i dont know but i love reading your posts 6strings, i think you are very intelligent. novak67 is a dippy.
-Crass

Round earth Gravity vs. Flat earth "Gravity"
« Reply #3 on: January 03, 2006, 12:49:55 AM »
Learn how to spell. And what the hell is a dippy?

Round earth Gravity vs. Flat earth "Gravity"
« Reply #4 on: January 03, 2006, 12:54:04 AM »
apparently I am, and this non-believer just resorted to personal insults when seeing his theory disproven

Round earth Gravity vs. Flat earth "Gravity"
« Reply #5 on: January 03, 2006, 12:55:44 AM »
sorry about my spelling, and what theory of mine was disproven?
p.s. dippy is a word i came up with because at first i typed dipshit, but i thought it was to harsh.

Round earth Gravity vs. Flat earth "Gravity"
« Reply #6 on: January 03, 2006, 01:00:03 AM »
I went on to research this insult on urbandictionary, where all the cool kids get their vocabularies from. Apparently a dippy is a joint dipped in formaldehyde. Yes navak...you are in fact a joint dipped in formaldehyde.
And Crass, there is a loophole in your theory. You say that terminal velocity occurs because of the friction of air. First of all, there is no such thing as friction of air -- you may be referring to air resistance. Secondly, how can something go upwards if there is gravity? I mean, the resistance comes from something going opposite of yourself, does it not?

Round earth Gravity vs. Flat earth "Gravity"
« Reply #7 on: January 03, 2006, 01:03:50 AM »
he has a point, if you expect me to believe in this round-earth rubbish, at least explain objects going upwards and not flying off?

here's your proof, you say that "gravity" is affected by larger masses, well, isn't your "sun" a larger mass than the earth? if so, why does the ball you toss up into the air not fly directly and stick to the sun?

diss-proven

Round earth Gravity vs. Flat earth "Gravity"
« Reply #8 on: January 03, 2006, 01:04:21 AM »
sweet smoking dippys is fun. anyways i did a google on air resistance, with a define: prefix. second definition was: Friction, or drag, that acts on some­thing moving through air.
air is in fact made up of particles, and even pieces of dust and spores, hence the magical atmosphere conditiontions that a cause a 24 hour day/night cycle of flat-earth. and when particles hit and rub against each other it cause friction, and heat. ever wonder why the columbia shuttle blew up on atmosphere rentry in 2003?
so we can all pull up our dictionaries and play with words, but you get my point. do a search on terminal velocity dipshit.

navak, im not even going to argue with you. you have totally stunned me with ur brillant insight. gravity is in fact a lie.

Round earth Gravity vs. Flat earth "Gravity"
« Reply #9 on: January 03, 2006, 01:07:45 AM »
Quote from: "Crass"
do a search on terminal velocity dipshit.


ahh, finally, we have someone admit that he has no idea about what he's talking about, and tells us to (get this) LOOK IT UP FOR HIM, in my opinion, he already knows he has lost this argument

so please, don't make any accusitions until you at least know what you're talking about

Round earth Gravity vs. Flat earth "Gravity"
« Reply #10 on: January 03, 2006, 01:09:45 AM »
no i could go and find it and copy and paste all the info on terminal velocity you need. i just think u guys should go out and read more, play with wikipedia and learn about whatever interests you. personally i am a nerd and like space and airplanes and phyics so i read up and want to learn and eventually work for a space related company.

Round earth Gravity vs. Flat earth "Gravity"
« Reply #11 on: January 03, 2006, 01:12:14 AM »
unfortunately, you forget that wikipedia is an unreliable source of information because it can literally be edited by anyone.

Round earth Gravity vs. Flat earth "Gravity"
« Reply #12 on: January 03, 2006, 01:13:00 AM »
well if you plan on working with a space company, you better damned well know how to explain a round earth, because so far, you've done nothing of the sort

Round earth Gravity vs. Flat earth "Gravity"
« Reply #13 on: January 03, 2006, 01:15:06 AM »
ShorD143 your forgetting the point, wikipedia was just an example, do a google.
novak your just a dipshit.
end of my posts tonight, goodnight guys :)

Round earth Gravity vs. Flat earth "Gravity"
« Reply #14 on: January 03, 2006, 01:15:11 AM »
Quote from: "navak37"
well if you plan on working with a space company, you better damned well know how to explain a round earth, because so far, you've done nothing of the sort

Since every space administration in the world agrees with him, I don't think he has too much explaining to do about a round Earth. They think it's round too, and they seem to do a pretty good job of sending craft into space and getting them back again. You'd think there would be more crashes if they were wrong.

Round earth Gravity vs. Flat earth "Gravity"
« Reply #15 on: January 03, 2006, 01:15:14 AM »
And also learn how to write. You have to make reports too, unless you like piecing metal together with a screwdriver. And please, try to use your own ideas, they've probably heard everything you have to say.

Round earth Gravity vs. Flat earth "Gravity"
« Reply #16 on: January 03, 2006, 01:29:19 AM »
well, all i'm saying is that if he's going to go off and head a spacecraft, he might as well know what he's revolving around right?  and if he doesn't know exactly what he's doing, tell me why not the government couldn't just TELL him the earth was round, and him believe it, then make up a bunch of fake statistics so he thinks he is revolving around the sun, when really he might just be in a staged simulation?

your only fault, mundi, is trusting what you've heard

Round earth Gravity vs. Flat earth "Gravity"
« Reply #17 on: January 03, 2006, 08:46:57 AM »
Quote from: "navak37"
your only fault, mundi, is trusting what you've heard

You're saying you don't, and that you've got proof of everything that you say/have personal experience of a flat earth, like having visited the famed ice wall around the plate?

?

6strings

  • The Elder Ones
  • 689
Round earth Gravity vs. Flat earth "Gravity"
« Reply #18 on: January 03, 2006, 11:27:01 AM »
Alright, you're all freaking idiots, and I'm going to tear apart basically every post that's come on this thread since the beginning because next to none of you understand...well...anything.

Quote
ave you ever jumped off a building?
first off, try it

second, the same principles apply. when you're free falling, yes, that's true, your other leg should float, but when there's a ground rushing up towards you (because that's what happens, not the other way around), your "floating" leg surely won't be floating anymore. this is because there's a little thing called a "ground", it is pushing up so fast you feel that you're getting pulled down onto it, your entire body, not just one leg and the other magically floating up, your entire theory is hogwash

Congratulations, you've failed Physics 101.  You're assuming (wrongly) that I'm talking about free fall.  I'm not.  See, the way I explained, you're still standing on the ground, so let's assume the earth is rushing up to me at 9.8 m/s/s, I'm still standing on the ground, therefore my entire body is experiencing the same acceleration, including my upraised leg, in this case, my leg wouldn't "fall" to the ground, because it would be moving at the same rate as the ground is.  Your entire post was hogwash.

Now, I can tolerate this idiot trying to disprove this by completely misinterpretting it, that's what they do.  But then Crass comes in, not to point out the obvious flaw, but to prove that he too has failed Physics 101.
Quote
Alright so if the world is magically flat, and is rushing up at us at 9.8 meters per second, then explain why objects accelerate when falling.

Because they clearly state in their view of gravity that its travelling upwards at 9.8 m/s/s, which causes acceleration.  In fact, I fucking stated that in my post, it didn't even require you to do research!  Christ...

Quote
i dont know but i love reading your posts 6strings, i think you are very intelligent.

Thank you, I retract my statement about you being a moron, just think before you post.

Next...

Quote
You say that terminal velocity occurs because of the friction of air. First of all, there is no such thing as friction of air-- you may be referring to air resistance.

Aren't synonyms fun kids? They're are, as Cras will point out later, the same thing, don't try to trump him by correcting him, especially if you can't do it.

Quote
he has a point, if you expect me to believe in this round-earth rubbish, at least explain objects going upwards and not flying off?

Again, for all you flat-earthers who don't understand gravity, the reason thing go up and don't fly off is because of gravity.  You'll notice how airplanes have to constantly exert enough force to overcome gravity while they're in the air?  Yes, the could hypothetically fly off, but they'd have to exert a lot more force.

Quote
here's your proof, you say that "gravity" is affected by larger masses, well, isn't your "sun" a larger mass than the earth? if so, why does the ball you toss up into the air not fly directly and stick to the sun?


diss-proven

You're right...it's almost like we're somehow closer to the earth and therefore more affected by its gravitational pull than the sun which is so far away.

diss-prov...no wait, that just sounds stupid...

Quote
navak, im not even going to argue with you. you have totally stunned me with ur brillant insight. gravity is in fact a lie.

crass, this sounds like the kind of thing I'd say, except I would have actually proven that he was in fact wrong.  I know you're trying, but now you're just baiting him without disproving him, a definate no-no in arguments.

Alright, we can skip the next few posts, because they basically just bitch and moan at each other without actually making valid points (again guys, unless you've got something relevant to the topic, don't say anything)

Then Mundi comes along, great guy (or girl) that Mundi.  And anyway, to paraphrase, basically says:
A)Navigaiton is based on the assumption of a round earth
B)Correct navigation works
Ergo, the earth is round.
While this is a valid point, I was hoping Mundi would point out why bascaly all the posts prior to his were full of holes.

And then yay, the two idiots, ShorD143 and navak37, continue their little pissing war with Crass, even though he's clearly stated he's going to bed.
Then navak37 has the audacity to say

Quote
your only fault, mundi, is trusting what you've heard

Without providing anything to back this up, or any foundation upon which this argument is based.
Good job, your posts are a waste of space.

And then Major Tom has the good sense to show navak37 the hypocricy of his statement.

Right, so in conclusion, nearly none of you know what the hell you're talking about, more pointedly, ShorD143 and navak37, you've not only failed to disprove my original point but also somehow managed, in all your posts to say nothing meaningful that would contribute to this argument.

Now again, could anyone please try to show me why my original theory was wrong?  Because clearly, those two idiots couldn't.

Round earth Gravity vs. Flat earth "Gravity"
« Reply #19 on: January 04, 2006, 09:36:44 PM »
Ya know what, maybe these kooky people have a point. Maybe we should all just start believing the world is flat. While we're at it, why don't we all become Christians too. While we're doing THAT let's all just forget about the holocaust. and STILL while we're doing THAT why don't we all just believe that unicorns exist and that candy corn is REALLY just corn in a sugary disguise. btw.  :lol:  :lol: at anyone disagreeing with 6strings.

?

Cinlef

  • The Elder Ones
  • 969
  • The Earth is a Sphere
Round earth Gravity vs. Flat earth "Gravity"
« Reply #20 on: January 07, 2006, 10:23:48 AM »
I have a question about so called flat earth gravity simmilar I think to 6 strings.
Alright according to flat earth theory the earth is rushing upwards at 9.8meters per second correct? Okay assuming that is correct how do you explain helicopters?
I personally have seen helicopters hovering just of the ground for longer than a second. If flat earth gravity was correct wouldn't the earth rush up to meet the helicopter?
Also why is it that so many flat earthers bash round earthers for having faith in something we cant see or touch ike gravity when many of them are religious fanatics?
Not to bash religion as I'm a devout Catholic but faith in God requires the ability to believ in something you cannot see and touch with many less observable conseuences than gravity.Its odd.

Anyway I'd like helicopters to be explained to me under flat earth gravity?
Note neither magic nor atmspheric phenomenon are explanations

An bemused
Cinlef
Truth is great and will prevail-Thomas Jefferson

I've said it before and I'll say it again, Cinlef is the bestest!

Melior est sapientia quam vires-Wisdom

Round earth Gravity vs. Flat earth "Gravity"
« Reply #21 on: January 07, 2006, 12:16:01 PM »
The helicopter thing could be explained with flat earth phys, not that I believe in flat earth
If the helicopter has the power to lift up from the rising earth why should the earth rush up at them? if the helicopters blades where to suddenly tear off then the earth would rush up at it, although the gradual drop suggests something pulling.

?

Cinlef

  • The Elder Ones
  • 969
  • The Earth is a Sphere
Round earth Gravity vs. Flat earth "Gravity"
« Reply #22 on: January 07, 2006, 12:36:15 PM »
Because the helicopter is hovering at a constant height.
Truth is great and will prevail-Thomas Jefferson

I've said it before and I'll say it again, Cinlef is the bestest!

Melior est sapientia quam vires-Wisdom

Round earth Gravity vs. Flat earth "Gravity"
« Reply #23 on: January 07, 2006, 04:24:59 PM »
If the only thing that affected its height was it's own power, under round earth phys the earth would spin off underneath leaving it behind in space. Which isn't the case.

Round earth Gravity vs. Flat earth "Gravity"
« Reply #24 on: January 07, 2006, 05:41:35 PM »
Quote from: "Frank"
If the only thing that affected its height was it's own power, under round earth phys the earth would spin off underneath leaving it behind in space. Which isn't the case.

Assuming that the earth has no gravity, yes. However, this is not the case. Gravity is still pulling on the helicopter, that is why it can only hover over the ground. Otherwise, it would simply continue rising. Therefore, the helicopter will stay with the earth, rather than simply flying away into space.



Ok, moving on, the flat earth explanation as to why gravity exists is because the earth is flying up at amazing speeds. But then, if you were to jump, why would you come back down? For the sake of argument, lets say that the earth is going up at 100 mph. When you jump, you would go faster than the earth (that's why you go ahead of it), so lets say 105 mph. What would slow you down? Why would you not simply continue going 105? I am assuming the argument will be that friction between you and the air slows you down. Ignoring the fact that the amount of friction required between you and the air to slow you down five mph in about a second is insanely high, at best, you would slow back down to 100 mph. You wouldn't be able to slow down further because the air friction would actually push you back up, since the air is moving at 100 mph. That means you were going 105 for awhile, causing you to come off the ground, then slowed back down to 100, keeping you from going any further up. You cannot slow back down, because of the same friction that slowed you down to begin with, so you would be levitating over the ground forever. This doesn't happen. When you jump, there is another force that pulls you back down, something that the flat earth model lacks. The round earth model has this, and it is gravity.
nyone who truly believes the earth is flat needs to get thrown down an elevator shaft.

?

6strings

  • The Elder Ones
  • 689
Round earth Gravity vs. Flat earth "Gravity"
« Reply #25 on: January 07, 2006, 08:55:43 PM »
For someone willing to insult everyone in their name alone, you aren't doing a very good job of appearing intelligent, "You undeducated morons".  Look the flat earth model states that the earth is rushing upwards at 9.8 m/s/s; as stated TWICE in this thread, in BOTH my posts.  Ignoring the obvious flaws with this, such as the fact we should be well past light speed by now, your point doesn't hold up.

Say the earth is travelling at X m/s when you jump, say you jump at X+5 m/s, the earth then accelerates at 9.8 m/s/s, until it reaches you, in this case slightly more than half a second.   So you've managed to attempt to destroy the flat earth model of gravity in possibly the ONLY situation in which it makes sense.

Also, cinlef, for more interesting reading on flat earth gravity and aircrafts, I suggest you read the thread "Airplanes s Flat Earth gravity".  They don't make any points that are valid, but it'll help you understand to what extent they are wrong.

?

ionlylooklazy

Round earth Gravity vs. Flat earth "Gravity"
« Reply #26 on: January 08, 2006, 09:49:31 AM »
well, suppose the 'flat earth' was accelerating upwards at 9.8 m/s/s,

would we not feel constant downward flow of air ? (of course the air is not actually moving downwards, but would onlyappear so due to our relative motion)

?

6strings

  • The Elder Ones
  • 689
Round earth Gravity vs. Flat earth "Gravity"
« Reply #27 on: January 08, 2006, 04:19:45 PM »
No, the flat earth contention seems to be that the air flows up/is pushed up with the ground.

Round earth Gravity vs. Flat earth "Gravity"
« Reply #28 on: January 10, 2006, 10:29:01 PM »
There seems to be some issue for both the round and flat earthers concerning the effect of acceleration and gravity on hovering/flying body, and the difference between a constant trust and an impulse. So I’ll try my best to clarify.

First, the motion of a body (mass) fallows the equation F=M*A, simply put if a body has a force applied to it, it will accelerate in the direction of that force. However if there is no force on a body is will not accelerate and hence, must be moving a constant speed, or not at all.

Visualize a un-moving disk in the vacuum of space, on which an astronaut sits. If the astronaut pushes off from the disk he will briefly accelerate until he no longer is touching the disk, after that he will move at a constant rate. This is called an impulse, as he can only apply force against the disk for a short period of time; he accelerates only a short time. And after that no force= no acceleration

Now back the disk and the astronaut, only this time the disk is accelerating at lets say 9.81 m/s^2 in the “up” direction. The astronaut pushes off in the same manner and at the very moment he leaves the surface of the disk he is traveling faster then the disk. But he is moving at a constant speed. The disk he just left is accelerating and in a manner of moment will overtake him as its speed increases to faster then the astronaut’s

Then the astronaut turns on his jet-pack. The pack provides a constant force on the astronaut and therefore constant acceleration, again something wholly different from the impulse explained above. As the acceleration form the pack moves past 9.81 m/s^2 the astronaut lifts off the disk, why? Well simply because with two objects starting at the same speed (the disk and the astronaut) the one that accelerates faster will move the most.
If you where standing on the disk, you would see the astronaut rising steadily off the disk.
But when the pack runs out, the disk will overtake him again. However you on the disk would not see it that way, what you would see is the man “falling” back down to the disk, since you are not aware of the disks motion relative to everything else.

In short the effect of the disk accelerating is in every way identical to what we perceive as gravity. Though I am a rabid round-earther, this part of the flat earth myth is true.
A scientist came to god and said “Behold our discoveries; we can summon man from dust as you did. It's Nothing more then a parlor trick”
God looked down and said “show me”
The scientist took up a handful of earth
and God said “get your own dirt”

Round earth Gravity vs. Flat earth "Gravity"
« Reply #29 on: January 10, 2006, 11:15:03 PM »
Still though, this doesn't explain the altitude phenomenon with gravity. Which I mentioned in another thread, which I don't feel like finding, so I'll just mention it again. As you reach levels higher than sea level, you'll find that you "weigh" less. Although this isn't a change in mass, your scale will read slightly less than what it did at sea level. According round-earth gravity explanations, this is because the force of gravity becomes lesser as you move away from the object producing the force. You could, however, say that this change in weight could be from the contribution of the atmosphere, and ITS force on you, as the atmosphere is much like an ocean of gases, compressing as you go further "down," sea level being our standard zero point. I don't feel like looking up the density of our atmosphere as a function of altitude, but I don't think that it would extert that much force on you. I could, however, be wrong. If anyone wants to disprove this, please do so and enlighten me. As far as I'm concerned, I still hate you all. With exception of mundi and 6strings. oh and maybe dill. or whoever else seems to have used at least half their brain to argue the fact that the earth is indeed round.