If the Earth is flat, then where is Earth’s center of gravity?

If gravity does exist, then where does it center, because the Theory of Gravity pulls matter into one unit, sphere?

I don't know of a flat earther who claims of gravity but the explainations (theories) are denpressure, the earth rising to create a force like gravity, and another I forgot.

I don't know of a flat earther who claims of gravity but the explainations (theories) are denpressure, the earth rising to create a force like gravity, and another I forgot.

Great, so you have like five different ways of butchering gravity? 

Quote from: Alexei on March 10, 2023, 11:19:14 AM

I don't know of a flat earther who claims of gravity but the explainations (theories) are denpressure, the earth rising to create a force like gravity, and another I forgot.

Great, so you have like five different ways of butchering gravity?

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=91148.0

have fun

If gravity does exist, then where does it center, because the Theory of Gravity pulls matter into one unit, sphere?

That's not a problem if the earth is an infinite plane.

Quote from: Alexei on March 10, 2023, 11:19:14 AM

I don't know of a flat earther who claims of gravity but the explainations (theories) are denpressure, the earth rising to create a force like gravity, and another I forgot.

Great, so you have like five different ways of butchering gravity?

No, I said "3". Stop being illiterate.

Stop spamming Q&A.

If gravity does exist, then where does it center, because the Theory of Gravity pulls matter into one unit, sphere?

The earth is a closed finite plane and thus has no center of gravity. Alternately, an infinite plane also does not.

Quote from: Alexei on March 10, 2023, 11:19:14 AM

I don't know of a flat earther who claims of gravity but the explainations (theories) are denpressure, the earth rising to create a force like gravity, and another I forgot.

Great, so you have like five different ways of butchering gravity?

I believe that's uhhhh three.

The third was mine. Buoyant layers of air pressure.

You can ask anything.

I believe that's uhhhh three.

The third was mine. Buoyant layers of air pressure.

You can ask anything.

How do you measure a buoyant force without gravity? I measure buoyancy with the formula F=D x V x g where:

F = buoyant force
D = Density of the fluid
V = Volume of displaced fluid
G = the force of gravity

If gravity does exist, then where does it center, because the Theory of Gravity pulls matter into one unit, sphere?

According to the flat earth theory, there is no gravity. There is no need  explanation for something that does not exist.

Although there is only one prediction for the downward movement of objects in global belief, there are different scenarios for flat earthers. This is because while the global order imposes a single belief on people, flat earthers are free-thinking people and do not dictate an opinion to each other. In summary,

We can say that globalists are not free in scientific discussion. It is not possible to enter into free discussions with people who are not free and cannot think freely. Because the things that restrict them will prevent the discussion from progressing in any part of the discussion and cuts its.

I would like to summarize some of the theories on this subject.

The first is the UA theory, belongs to John Davis who has been executed by CIA and replaced by the robot. According to this, the earth is moving with acceleration upwards and therefore the objects move downwards. This is the weakest theory and was created to troll flat earthers.

Another theory is that the earth is pulled down, similar to the spherical model, with the usual gravitational effects. This is the equivalent of Gravity in the flat earth model. There is more land below, and downward gravitational acceleration occurs, whether the earth be sphere or flat.

According to simulation theory, there is no force required for objects to move downwards, and only everything on the screen is moving downwards by an assumed gravitational effect.

Another theory concerns the weights and densities of bodies, and heavier or denser bodies move down within the other. For example, while the gas, which is lighter than air, moves up, other objects move down. This is also reasonable.

One new emerging theory is the gravitational effect from the lower world. According to this, there is a world under the world that is completely opposite to the world, and what holds these two worlds together is the opposite of each other and the attraction effect towards each other. If you think that the substances in the upper world are loaded with +, the substances in the lower world are loaded with - and this makes it impossible to leave both worlds and causes the gravity affect.

There are many theories those not came my mind at the moment, and any of them could be correct. Every theory will remain a theory until proven accurate, just like the theory of gravity.

Another theory is that the earth is pulled down, similar to the spherical model, with the usual gravitational effects. This is the equivalent of Gravity in the flat earth model. There is more land below, and downward gravitational acceleration occurs, whether the earth be sphere or flat.

Under this scenario, the center of gravity on a flat earth would be under the north pole. The force of gravity would pull everything towards the Arctic regions.

Another theory concerns the weights and densities of bodies, and heavier or denser bodies move down within the other. For example, while the gas, which is lighter than air, moves up, other objects move down. This is also reasonable.

I've asked this question elsewhere ITT, but I'll ask it here as well. How can anybody measure a buoyant force without gravity? The formula to calculate a buoyant force includes the force of gravity. What formula would you use?

One new emerging theory is the gravitational effect from the lower world. According to this, there is a world under the world that is completely opposite to the world, and what holds these two worlds together is the opposite of each other and the attraction effect towards each other. If you think that the substances in the upper world are loaded with +, the substances in the lower world are loaded with - and this makes it impossible to leave both worlds and causes the gravity affect.

This is an interesting theory, but like the simulation theory, it cannot be disproven nor tested, therefore neither of these theories hold very much scientific weight.

I have not encountered a flat earth explanation for the downward force we call gravity that is compatible with simple observations we can make about the world around us.

Under this scenario, the center of gravity on a flat earth would be under the north pole. The force of gravity would pull everything towards the Arctic regions.

Wrong. This situation varies according to the shape of the ground under the earth. The center of gravitational influence anywhere in our flat world is not the center of the world. For example, in a way, this situation can also be outward. Like this example:



As you can see here, the N point, which is the center of the gravity of the earth, is not the center of gravity when issue comes to gravitional attraction for any point. The strongest of the gravitational forces acting on a point will come from the landmasses closest to that point, and it is 90 degrees down in any case. As you will clearly see, the lateral gravitational effect is one-four-millionth of the vertical gravitational effect, and this is a negligible magnitude. In fact, this theoretical value is even lower in practice and is perhaps incalculably small. For this, it is necessary to make a calculation by including the integral. You can deal with it if you want. However, in any case, since we do not know the shape under the earth, we must act according to the most likely scenario, and this is not a bad approach that I have drawn. Obviously gravity is through downward in flat earth.

In another way, where the underground is flat, I'll simplify it for you to understand:



As you will clearly see, the resultant gravitational effects anywhere in the world will be downward in any case, since the effect of nearby masses will be greater. Exception points will occur at points touching the dome. Oh, don't worry, we'll never get a chance to observe this, as the British navy does not allow any closer to the edge.

I've asked this question elsewhere ITT, but I'll ask it here as well. How can anybody measure a buoyant force without gravity? The formula to calculate a buoyant force includes the force of gravity. What formula would you use?

I don't think that's the subject of this thread. sceptimatic is better in these matters, it would be better to ask him. I can ask you a question about it. For example, it is about how much the pressure affects you when you dive 100 meters deep in water, or how normal it is for the creatures at 3000 meters depth to not feel uncomfortable under this pressure. Doesn't this cause a question mark in your mind about pressure and hypothetical gravity?

This is an interesting theory, but like the simulation theory, it cannot be disproven nor tested, therefore neither of these theories hold very much scientific weight.

I have not encountered a flat earth explanation for the downward force we call gravity that is compatible with simple observations we can make about the world around us.

We analyzed the gravitational effect you observed above for two different subsurface shapes of flat earth, which is consistent with the flat earth model. It looks compatible. The real problem here is that your observation of gravity is wrong. I'll give you a simple example that you can calculate if you want. Think of the top of a mountain. And here's a high cliff, completely flat. And according to the law of gravity, the object you throw from the top down should approach the mountain and fall. You can calculate this if you want. Or put two large plates side by side with a millimeter distance between them. Is there any gravitational attraction between them? Has such an observation been made? Clearly, the masses do not attract each other. Gravity is an imaginary force. Ah yes, it may just stay there for now until we find something better, but we don't have to accept it, and we don't.

Wrong.

Rude.

The center of gravitational influence anywhere in our flat world is not the center of the world.

Gravity pulls objects towards the center of mass. The force emanates in all directions equally. To imply that the center of gravity and the center of mass are not the same flies in the face of all gravitational observations.

[H]ow much the pressure affects you when you dive 100 meters deep in water, or how normal it is for the creatures at 3000 meters depth to not feel uncomfortable under this pressure. Doesn't this cause a question mark in your mind about pressure and hypothetical gravity?

What happens to the weight of an object as we remove more and more air pressure from its environment? Put a marble on a scale in a bell jar. Weigh it at normal pressure. Then, remove as much air as you can from the chamber. Does the weight of the object change?

'Gravity' doesn't exist, it is a made up 'force', to explain their made up ball Earth flying through a made up 'endless space', and so forth.

This is because while the global order imposes a single belief on people, flat earthers are free-thinking people and do not dictate an opinion to each other.

There is no global order imposing a single belief.
Instead, the quite conclusive evidence leads to a single conclusion, so people accept it.

If you think you need to reject reality to be a free thinker, then you aren't really free.

Every theory will remain a theory until proven accurate, just like the theory of gravity.

They will remain a completely unfounded hypothesis, unlike gravity, which is a theory due to the mountains of evidence supporting it.

As you will clearly see, the lateral gravitational effect is one-four-millionth of the vertical gravitational effect, and this is a negligible magnitude.

Care to explain how you arrived at this number?

And what pressure does that cause for Earth?

Doesn't this cause a question mark in your mind about pressure and hypothetical gravity?

Care to elaborate on just what you think the question should be?
There are mountains of evidence supporting this pressure gradient.
And deep sea creatures are fine with it because their insides are full of water at that same pressure.

This immense pressure is mainly a problem for small metal tubes or spheres people like getting inside to go deep under water.

We analyzed the gravitational effect you observed above for two different subsurface shapes of flat earth, which is consistent with the flat earth model. It looks compatible. The real problem here is that your observation of gravity is wrong. I'll give you a simple example that you can calculate if you want. Think of the top of a mountain. And here's a high cliff, completely flat. And according to the law of gravity, the object you throw from the top down should approach the mountain and fall. You can calculate this if you want. Or put two large plates side by side with a millimeter distance between them. Is there any gravitational attraction between them? Has such an observation been made? Clearly, the masses do not attract each other. Gravity is an imaginary force. Ah yes, it may just stay there for now until we find something better, but we don't have to accept it, and we don't.

And this is where you show your hypocrisy.
You happily dismiss an insignificant force when it would be a problem for your model; but for the RE model you don't want to. Why?
Why don't you calculate it for us and show it is significant?

Or you could accept the results of the Cavendish experiment (or replicate them yourself) rather than dismissing every instance as fake.

'Gravity' doesn't exist, it is a made up 'force', to explain their made up ball Earth flying through a made up 'endless space', and so forth.

Except it clearly isn't made up, with all the evidence supporting it.

It was made to explain, but not in the sense you are pretending.
It is the best explanation we have so far.

But if your nonsense worked, it would work just as well for a RE, flying through an 'endless space'. It would not require Earth to be flat.

'Gravity' doesn't exist, it is a made up 'force', to explain their made up ball Earth flying through a made up 'endless space', and so forth.

What force pulls us towards the ground?

Quote from: turbonium2 on July 21, 2023, 04:43:59 PM

'Gravity' doesn't exist, it is a made up 'force', to explain their made up ball Earth flying through a made up 'endless space', and so forth.

What force pulls us towards the ground?

No force pulls anything to anything.
It's all resistance. It's all push or to make it more blunt, it's all squeeze.

No force pulls anything to anything.
It's all resistance. It's all push or to make it more blunt, it's all squeeze.

If there is no “force of attraction” how is anything pulled together to create “squeeze”. 

 As “resistance” is made negligible by evacuating as much atmosphere as possible out of a chamber so the  “squeeze” of your atmosphere is made negligible, a feather will fall faster.  You don’t need continued resistance to accelerate an object, you need an unbalanced force. 

No force pulls anything to anything.
It's all resistance. It's all push or to make it more blunt, it's all squeeze.

Rejecting reality wont help you.
If there is only resistance, there isn't any pushing either.
If it is only a push, then the air pressure below will push things up against the lower air pressure above.
And if it is all push, then solids can't hold themselves together.

'Gravity' doesn't exist, it is a made up 'force', to explain their made up ball Earth flying through a made up 'endless space', and so forth.

So why go through the trouble and extreme expenditure of faking the shape of the Earth.  I don't see anything that could be gained from it. 

Quote from: turbonium2 on July 21, 2023, 04:43:59 PM

'Gravity' doesn't exist, it is a made up 'force', to explain their made up ball Earth flying through a made up 'endless space', and so forth.

So why go through the trouble and extreme expenditure of faking the shape of the Earth.  I don't see anything that could be gained from it.

What about billions of dollars on a fake 'space program', over the last 60 years or so?

What about controlling what people believe, and think, and fear, and who they believe will SAVE them, and the Earth, from all these perils, while Earth flies through 'endless space'?

Who do people think 'sees' any such dangers, out in 'space'? Save us, o great astronomers, who see all things before they near the ball Earth!


A lot more, as well.

What about billions of dollars on a fake 'space program', over the last 60 years or so?

Funny.  From the international space station to seeing starlink satellites orbit overhead.  From using satellite TV in the 1980’s to having satellite email while at sea in the military.  To being in the NAVY that has real IBCM’s.  To humankind changing the night sky by adding hundreds of new light in the night sky, to people taking time lapse photos of geosynchronous satellites, to weather satellites, to satellite internet, to sat phones, to amateurs that out spy satellites.  To space junk lighting up the night sky on falling to earth.  Yeah, space travel is a thing. 

What about billions of dollars on a fake 'space program', over the last 60 years or so?

You mean which would have required even more money to fake?
And would allow them to be exposed, if it was actually fake, and cause all sorts of problems?

Why not just funnel that money into the black budget?

What about controlling what people believe, and think, and fear, and who they believe will SAVE them, and the Earth, from all these perils, while Earth flies through 'endless space'?

And who is doing that?
Look at people like you, still believing delusional BS, with no evidence to support it.
People don't believe NASA or the like will save them.

What you are describing are religions, like Christianity, that tell people what to believe, claim they are doomed and will be going to hell, but the church can save them, if you pay the priests and obey them.

Quote from: Mikey T. on July 28, 2023, 02:01:24 PM

Quote from: turbonium2 on July 21, 2023, 04:43:59 PM

'Gravity' doesn't exist, it is a made up 'force', to explain their made up ball Earth flying through a made up 'endless space', and so forth.

So why go through the trouble and extreme expenditure of faking the shape of the Earth.  I don't see anything that could be gained from it.

What about billions of dollars on a fake 'space program', over the last 60 years or so?

What about controlling what people believe, and think, and fear, and who they believe will SAVE them, and the Earth, from all these perils, while Earth flies through 'endless space'?

Who do people think 'sees' any such dangers, out in 'space'? Save us, o great astronomers, who see all things before they near the ball Earth!


A lot more, as well.

It would cost factors of magnitude more than that over 60 years to fake. 
Again how does faking the Earth give power over others?  Seriously how, explain it. 
How do astronomers save us?  How much danger are you in from getting hit by a meteor that the astronomers supposedly save us from?  What exactly do you think they are supposedly lying about that saves us? 
Make this make sense, because the conspiracy supposition makes zero sense at all.  It's always, oh the government lies, they do it for power, they do it for money, but when you actually look at it the government sucks at keeping secrets, there is no mechanism for this supposed power to be created or utilized, and it would cost so much more money to fake than every government in every country has. 

Funny.  From the international space station to seeing starlink satellites orbit overhead.  From using satellite TV in the 1980’s to having satellite email while at sea in the military.  To being in the NAVY that has real IBCM’s.  To humankind changing the night sky by adding hundreds of new light in the night sky, to people taking time lapse photos of geosynchronous satellites, to weather satellites, to satellite internet, to sat phones, to amateurs that out spy satellites.  To space junk lighting up the night sky on falling to earth.  Yeah, space travel is a thing.

You've seen a bunch of small lights that moved through the pitch black skies above you, nothing else BUT small lights in a dark sky. 

But, hey, wait a minute! There's supposed to be THOUSANDS of 'satellites' in 'Earth orbit', right? So why don't we see thousands of THOSE, as little lights, moving across the sky, at night,  AND at daytime?

I guess when they claim to have thousands of satellites above us, flying in 'orbit', which have NEVER been seen, moving across the sky, as a tiny light in a dark sky, or in a BLUE sky, that's not a problem for you, right?

You just like it when you DO see, one or two times at night, after they ANNOUNCE what it is you'll be seeing as a tiny light, because they want you to believe that tiny light IS the ISS, or some satellite, flying above you, while in 'orbit', and tell you what TIME it will appear above you, and it DOES appear at that exact time they SAID it would!  It MUST be the ISS, they SAID it would be seen in 'orbit', at that time, and over that area, so what ELSE could it be?

They also have excuses for how thousands of 'satellites' are in 'orbit', yet have NEVER been seen at all!  Except they've said the ISS or something will BE visible at night, above some areas, while THEY are in 'orbit', but it should REMAIN visible, over the other areas afterwards, if it's really in 'orbit', but it suddenly disappears from all sight, instead! 

They make up some BS excuse because they cannot fake it throughout, like they can only fake the ISS above some areas, but not over the whole Earth's surface, or even more than one or two States, for several reasons. One, it is ALWAYS faked at night, never in daytime. So the 'ISS" would go into daylight skies if it kept moving over the surface, it would show us it's a fake, and NOT 'in orbit' at all! 

Have you noticed that we always see planes in daylight skies, but hardly see it's tail and wing lights, which ARE on? They can be seen at ANY altitude, when in clear blue skies, right?

That's why they always have their 'little lights' seen at NIGHT, because if they were seen in daylight, we'd know they're all fakes, instantly.

We'd ALWAYS see them in daytime, if they really existed, that is.
 

So now, still unable to explain gravity you run off on another tangent.

You've seen a bunch of small lights that moved through the pitch black skies above you, nothing else BUT small lights in a dark sky.

Importantly, small lights which didn't move like the other small lights. Instead, they moved differently

But, hey, wait a minute! There's supposed to be THOUSANDS of 'satellites' in 'Earth orbit', right? So why don't we see thousands of THOSE, as little lights, moving across the sky, at night,  AND at daytime?

Firstly, why would you expect to seem them during the day?
Do you even understand why you see most of them? The light from the sun reflecting off them.

But more importantly, those thousands of satellites are in a wide variety of orbits.
For those in LEO, at 400 km altitude, they are only visible for roughly 2200 km. That is roughly 1% of the surface of Earth. That means if the thousands were spread out uniformly, you would expect to see roughly 10s.

However, only a portion of that will have a good viewing angle.

But most importantly, YOU NEED TO LOOK.
If you just look at the sky without caring, you likely wont notice.

I guess when they claim to have thousands of satellites above us, flying in 'orbit', which have NEVER been seen, moving across the sky, as a tiny light in a dark sky, or in a BLUE sky, that's not a problem for you, right?

Why would your fantasy be a problem?
How about we stick to reality, where plenty of people have seen satellites moving overhead?

It MUST be the ISS, they SAID it would be seen in 'orbit', at that time, and over that area, so what ELSE could it be?

The ISS is large enough to be resolved. People have taken all sorts of shots of it, like it transiting the moon.

but it should REMAIN visible, over the other areas afterwards, if it's really in 'orbit', but it suddenly disappears from all sight, instead!

No, it doesn't disappear from all sight. It is still visible over other areas. You can go to the tracker and find out where it is visible at any given time.

Yet again, you appeal to paranoid, delusional BS.

However, again, in order to see it, it needs to be in a good position to reflect the light of the sun.
Don't expect to see it at mid night.

One, it is ALWAYS faked at night, never in daytime.

You have basis to support your dishonest, delusional, BS claim that it is faked.
As for why, again, this comes with being able to see it.

You need it to be reflecting the sun's light to see it.

So you would expect it to be quite hard to see during the day.

Have you noticed that we always see planes in daylight skies, but hardly see it's tail and wing lights, which ARE on? They can be seen at ANY altitude, when in clear blue skies, right?

No, once again, that is your fantasy.
Prove you can see a plane when it is at an altitude of 400 km, during the day.
Otherwise, your fantasy is useless.

You can have more or less same gravity in your motionless flat earth as in the real world if it's thick enough to have mass equivalent to the real one. And if this mass is distributed adequately it will even account for variations of weight depending on longitude. All you'd be missing out on are tides. With a bit of imagination I'm sure it'd be possible to figure out some clever mechanism with an an adequate moving mass within the dome to account for that as well.