More plausible gravity theory

  • 42 Replies
  • 10046 Views
More plausible gravity theory
« on: January 10, 2006, 04:36:20 PM »
Well, since I've decided to aid 6string in his quest to help the Flat-Earthers develop better arguments and defend their beliefs in a logical way, I have decided to start posting better explanations for certain phenomena for which the current falt-earth explanation downright sucks. I'm sorry, but "atmospheric conditions" just doesn't cut it.

The first is gravity. Gravity as explained by current science is the attraction of small masses towards a large mass's center. Like people to a planet. This is why on a spherical Earth if you were to dig straight down, you would start going up after you hit the center. On a flat Earth, gravity could very well work in exactly the same way.

My theory is that the Earth actually sits on a much larger mass, possibly another disk, but very close to the center. I have made a diagram to demonstrate:



In this model, the red lines represent gravity. The force is still pulling towards the center of the disk, but the Earth is so close to the center on the surface, that the angle at which gravity pulls is practically non-existant.

Some of you might say "Well then why haven't we noticed the angle? I notice when I'm on a slight incline". The answer is evolution. Don't say evolution is just a theory, it's not. It happens, it's real, and it's still happening. The only part of it which is under debate is whether or not we come from apes. So, anyways, the purpose of evolution is to adapt to the environment. If it's hot our skin darkens, if it's cold, animals grow fur, if the entire world seems to be at a slight incline, our balance is adjusted to compensate.

Also, when the body is subjected to something constantly and it is out of the ordinary, the body normally tries to fix the problem. I remember hearin of an experiment where people were given special glasses which mirrored the image and made it seem as thoguh everything were upside-down. After a period of time, all of them adjusted and their brains automatically compensated and reversed the image.

The same occurs when there is a smell in the air for a long time. After an hour you won't smell it, but it's still there. You just "got used to it". The same goes for sound. Sometimes I like to set my watch to beep every second just to piss people off and after a while, you don't hear it anymore unless there's either a long, dead silence or you try to hear it.

"Getting used to" something really means that the body, mind, or both have adapted temporarily to the environment to help make you more comfortable. It's pretty much temporary evolution. The same thing happens with the angle of gravity. We've gotten used to it, and since the angle is always there, the adaptation has become permanent. We have, effectively, evolved to compensate what could be perceived as a slightly tilted Earth.

?

Cinlef

  • The Elder Ones
  • 969
  • The Earth is a Sphere
More plausible gravity theory
« Reply #1 on: January 10, 2006, 04:51:38 PM »
Sigh
alex2538 if your going to be a flat earther you must abide by their principles.
Under flat earther logic you have no basis for this statement
Quote
Some of you might say "Well then why haven't we noticed the angle? I notice when I'm on a slight incline". The answer is evolution. Don't say evolution is just a theory, it's not. It happens, it's real, and it's still happening.

How do you know it's real have you observed it personally? NO you haven't
If your going to be a flat earther you must abide by a tenet of their beliefs and arguments that pretty much anything they have not personally observed and the results of any experiment they have not personally done either is or can be part of a giant government gconspiracy.
If you dont accpet that then this argument should be solved by doing this


Thats not an acceptable argument for the reasons flat earthers have stated above. Fair enought but parameters for acceptable evidence have to work both ways. For you to use evolution in your argument you must prove it logically from statements I myself can confirm or disprove.

Since you haven't done that you cna not use evolution in your argument and it therefore falls to pieces as I and everyone else would notice the incline
For the record I believe in evolution  and I know you are only being a flat earther to amuse yourself. By the way what exactly is so amusing about using twisted logic to make people believe lies?
But irregardless if your going to try to prove the Earth is flat you must only use evidence that is acceptable by the parameters flat earthers themselves have set.
So your flat earth gravity theory, unless you can personaly prove evolution logically from staements that are testable by everyone on the forum, is worthless
An enraged
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

More plausible gravity theory
« Reply #2 on: January 10, 2006, 05:18:16 PM »
Quote
alex2538 if your going to be a flat earther you must abide by their principles.
Under flat earther logic you have no basis for this statement
That's the thing; flat-earther logic sucks, so I substitute my own. That and my name has a "9" not an "8". The thing is though, evolution itself is a constantly occuring event. It adapts a species to their environment. but at such a slow rate that it's not noticed. You have to remember that it won't happen in an individual, but when they have children. The children will be slightly more evolved than the parents. That means that each step takes an entire generation to advance, so about 20-30 years.

The mere fact that people have different coloured skin proves evolution. People from hot and/or desert climates have darker skin to cope with the sun, while people from colder regions have lighter skin and hair. Also, the pinky toe is a good example. It's almost dissappeared, and other toes are shrinking with it. If you look at a pre-historic man, his toes are almost the same length. This is because the purpose of toes is for balance. Man used to have to stand much more, and since the spine wasn't as straight his toes would compensate for him and allow him to balance upright. No that we have straighter spine and also because we spend just so much more time seated, toes are becoming less necessary and are being phased out. Eventually, they'll have all phased out and people will be toe-less. This won't be for millions of years, but it'll happen eventually... that is unless some cataclysm occurs and strands us in a primitive world. Then they'll probably come back out of necessity.

Also, you cannot deny the fact that the body and mind adapt to the environment to compensate change. It happens all the time when you get used to something. It happens to everyone and is basically just part of being a living human. When you get a Christmas tree, you smell pine at first, but then after it's been in your house for a while, you don't smell it anymore. That is, until you leave the house and come back. This could also happen with gravity. Many people are put in Zero-G situations all the time. There is a kind of plane that will take you so high up in the atmosphere (or is it atmosflat? or atmosdome?) then initiate a free-fall for a length of time. Because you are inside the plane, there is no air resistance from falling. That's all outside. Since everything inside is effectively accelerating at 9.8m/s², it seems as though there is no gravity. People often claim that they experience disorientation and dizziness and whatnot during this event. It then re-occurs when they reach the ground. This is because they have left the environment and returned, just like you would have done with the tree.

?

6strings

  • The Elder Ones
  • 689
More plausible gravity theory
« Reply #3 on: January 10, 2006, 05:30:33 PM »
Actually, he's postulating a theory, which, for the record, you have done nothing to disprove.
The train of thought is something like this:
Assuming that the earth is flat, how does gravity work?
Assuming gravity works by it's proposed mechanism, how does this apply to a flat earth?

Now if you were to disprove any of the following points:
A) The earth being flat
B) Gravity working by the proposed mechanism
C) The earth not being near the center of something larger
or
D)Evolution
His theory falls apart, but until then you haven't disproved his theory.

Next, onto your claims of inconsistency in his arguments.
Quote
Some of you might say "Well then why haven't we noticed the angle? I notice when I'm on a slight incline". The answer is evolution. Don't say evolution is just a theory, it's not. It happens, it's real, and it's still happening.
Quote
How do you know it's real have you observed it personally? NO you haven't

Granted that this is true, but his theory relies evolution being true; so feel free to disprove evolution, then you'll have proven that his theory is flawed.

Basically, he's postulating a theory.  Remember Hume, and feel free to disprove it, but asking him to prove it is pointless.  Besides, if it's wrong, you should have no problem disproving his theory, right?

More plausible gravity theory
« Reply #4 on: January 10, 2006, 05:38:35 PM »
Oh, but I've very close to proved that evolution occurs. I've given at least a very good explanation of its existance and I find it would be hard to disprove evolution anyways, because that would rely on either creating a better explanation. Tell me Mr. Cinlef, why it is that in hot countries skin darkens? Why are Africans black? Indians brown? Hell, even South Americans are pretty freaking tan. And it's not a tan, since a tan is really just sorta burning your skin to be just brown, and is not a genetic trait like skin colour. Why is it that camels have humps? Evolution and adaption to the environment.

?

Cinlef

  • The Elder Ones
  • 969
  • The Earth is a Sphere
More plausible gravity theory
« Reply #5 on: January 10, 2006, 06:06:18 PM »
Okay responce time.
alex2539 said
Quote
That's the thing; flat-earther logic sucks, so I substitute my own. That and my name has a "9" not an "8".

Not a valid point,well execpt about the name for which I apologize. The only way you can argue a flat earth existts is to say tons of evidence is doctored due to a global conspiracy and is inadmissable as evidence. That means that evolution without you proving is is inadmissable. Since otherwise it could be excluded by the same paramters as my picture of the Earth form space. IE could be doctored untrue a lie etc
Those parameters also disqualify this stament of yours
Quote
Also, the pinky toe is a good example. It's almost dissappeared, and other toes are shrinking with it. If you look at a pre-historic man, his toes are almost the same length. This is because the purpose of toes is for balance. Man used to have to stand much more, and since the spine wasn't as straight his toes would compensate for him and allow him to balance upright. No that we have straighter spine and also because we spend just so much more time seated, toes are becoming less necessary and are being phased out. Eventually, they'll have all phased out and people will be toe-less. This won't be for millions of years, but it'll happen eventually... that is unless some cataclysm occurs and strands us in a primitive world. Then they'll probably come back out of necessity.

See primitive man the skeletons all of those things can be dissmissed under the doctored evidence defence the flat earthers employ to discount my picture of the earth from space.

I'm now going to quote two things in succesion

Quote from: "6strings"
Actually, he's postulating a theory, which, for the record, you have done nothing to disprove.
The train of thought is something like this:
Assuming that the earth is flat, how does gravity work?
Assuming gravity works by it's proposed mechanism, how does this apply to a flat earth?

Now if you were to disprove any of the following points:
A) The earth being flat
B) Gravity working by the proposed mechanism
C) The earth not being near the center of something larger
or
D)Evolution
His theory falls apart, but until then you haven't disproved his theory.

Next, onto your claims of inconsistency in his arguments.
Quote
Some of you might say "Well then why haven't we noticed the angle? I notice when I'm on a slight incline". The answer is evolution. Don't say evolution is just a theory, it's not. It happens, it's real, and it's still happening.
Quote
How do you know it's real have you observed it personally? NO you haven't

Granted that this is true, but his theory relies evolution being true; so feel free to disprove evolution, then you'll have proven that his theory is flawed.

Basically, he's postulating a theory.  Remember Hume, and feel free to disprove it, but asking him to prove it is pointless.  Besides, if it's wrong, you should have no problem disproving his theory, right?


Quote from: "alex2539"
Oh, but I've very close to proved that evolution occurs. I've given at least a very good explanation of its existance and I find it would be hard to disprove evolution anyways, because that would rely on either creating a better explanation. Tell me Mr. Cinlef, why it is that in hot countries skin darkens? Why are Africans black? Indians brown? Hell, even South Americans are pretty freaking tan. And it's not a tan, since a tan is really just sorta burning your skin to be just brown, and is not a genetic trait like skin colour. Why is it that camels have humps? Evolution and adaption to the environment.


First off 6 strings is right I haven't disproved his theory, however his theory doesnt disprove the round earth theory either. As Mundi has pointed out since round earthers are the majority the burden of disproving our model should rest with you.

In responce to the comment of how do I explain all the things evolution explains I refer you to 6 strings post. I could if I wanted too create an elaborate explanation to explain all the factors caused by evolution that doesn't involve evolution just as you have done to explain gravity and a flat earth.It would be total fiction like your theory.
Am I correct to assume the burden of disprove would then be on you based on 6 strings staement above?

You may ask why I haven't posted that theory. I do beleive that evolution s the correct theory my demand to prove it was to pint out you citing it a proof for your theory that your logic should exclude. The only way you could prevent me from creating my own explanation for the phenomenons caused by evolution would be to from first principle explain evolution adn disprove all other possible explanations. YOu have yet to do this
I have yet to post an alternate explanation because unlike some people I when I believe something is true I wont devote my mental energy to create another model which could lead people into ignorance simply for kicks.
HOwever if you really want me to I shall creat a fake explanation that takes into account all evolutionary phenomenons. Then you would have to disprove it.

As for pointing out other flaws in your model I shall tommorow as I'm currently pressed for time and I wnated you to show logical consistency first.
An enraged
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

important notice
« Reply #6 on: January 10, 2006, 06:22:52 PM »
People, you're arguing with someone over whether the earth is round or not! And alot of you seem to be taking this whole thing quite seriously! Can't you see how silly this all is? If some JohnNoBrain wants to believe the earth is flat, LET 'EM!!!!! Who CARES??? HAHAHAHAHAHA

More plausible gravity theory
« Reply #7 on: January 10, 2006, 07:00:14 PM »
nah alex and 6strings think its round but theyre bored so they wanna see if they can do better

More plausible gravity theory
« Reply #8 on: January 10, 2006, 08:19:36 PM »
Cinlef, so far all you've done is try to say I'm wrong because I'm using something you believe but don't have proof for. What other explanations am I going to disprove? Put one on the table! As of yet, this is the only theory, and as a matter of fact, not the one at hand.

Quote
First off 6 strings is right I haven't disproved his theory, however his theory doesnt disprove the round earth theory either. As Mundi has pointed out since round earthers are the majority the burden of disproving our model should rest with you.
But here's the thing; it's been asked before "Well if the Earth is flat, then why (blah blah blah)?" I'm trying to come up with those answers first. Why would I start attacking your side if I can't defend my own? I was angry at bullhorn because every time something he can't explain comes up he stops making comments. How does he have a chance of disproving the round-earth if he can't even properly defend the flat  earth? I'm just trying to make sure my side is still standing when I try to crumble yours.

My theory there has yet to have a flaw pointed out except for you saying I can't prove evolution. I think I did a fair job defending it. You basically dismissed one comment I made about primitive man, out of all of the other examples I gave, and all you said was that people can doctor photos. That still doesn't explain the camel's hump. Also, why do Zebras have stripes and horses don't? Horses aren't goingto be jumped by a Lion is why. Zebras evolved striped fur to camouflage in the grass. If you want to get back to people, then why is it Russians are traditionally said to be big, hairy men while an Asian man is much less so? It's because people are pretty much animals with thumbs, and when an animal enters a cold climate, it grows fur to stay warm. People grow chest hair.

All-in-all, you still haven't disproved my statement, only a part of it. You're also trying to dismantle somthing you believe to be true. Why? Is it because you want me to be wrong so much you're willing to refute what you believe yourself just to disprove me?

6string said it right "feel free to disprove it, but asking him to prove it is pointless". So, go ahead and disprove the fact that living organisms adapt to their environment.

More plausible gravity theory
« Reply #9 on: January 10, 2006, 08:25:23 PM »
All I got from that post is that Russians aren't people.

More plausible gravity theory
« Reply #10 on: January 11, 2006, 02:43:55 PM »
THat's because you obviously missed the point entirely. Anyways, talking to 6string and Cinlef today, Cinlef further elaborated on what he was saying and we decided that "evolution" is not usable as an argument. Adaptation is, and it was proved to happen thanks to my examples; the Christmas tree and free-fall airplane (but mostly the Christmas tree since that can be observed by anyone around mid-December).

So, my theory still stands, but with evolution replaced by adaptation. THey're basically the same thing in my book, but it's much harder to disprove adaptation.

?

Cinlef

  • The Elder Ones
  • 969
  • The Earth is a Sphere
More plausible gravity theory
« Reply #11 on: January 12, 2006, 04:58:17 PM »
Sorry to interrupt the argument flow but
Quote from: "Selling"
All I got from that post is that Russians aren't people.

how the hell did you get that from his points I mean wow
Anyway alex has rightly summarized my point which was by the parameters nessecary to present a theory of the flat earth evolution is not a valid piece of evidence. His adaptaion thing is however. Note that his model of gravity while making far more sense the the flat earther earth rushing upwards thing is a most and equally valid explanation for the phenomenon of gravity and therefore does not disprove the round earth model. SInce I know alex premise is merely to see if he can create an explanation for all phenomenons that would work on a flat earth he seems to have proved his point which is that gravity as we understand it could work on a flat earth assuming that flat earth rests on a much larger mass. None of that invalidates the round earth theory or gives a plausible reason to believe a flat earth instead of a round earth.
An enraged
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

More plausible gravity theory
« Reply #12 on: January 13, 2006, 11:34:39 PM »
Quote from: "Selling"
All I got from that post is that Russians aren't people.


I think all he got was that Russians and asians are still animals. and "sian" animals at that. Not so unlike the "ish" humanoid animals. or the "ic" type either. In either case, I'm glad to see that he even attempted to make sense of our situation using his prior knowledge applied to our "common" knowledge, in a way that explains why things are the way they are. His postulate, or theory, or whatever you wanna call it, isn't too unbelievable but for me it complicates the idea of how our moon travels due to the disk shape of the earth object he's created. Explaining this to me might make me happy though  :wink:

More plausible gravity theory
« Reply #13 on: January 14, 2006, 08:41:08 AM »
Quote from: "Selling"
All I got from that post is that Russians aren't people.



lol someone hates communists. Nah joking russians are cool

More plausible gravity theory
« Reply #14 on: January 14, 2006, 12:49:34 PM »
well, according to your theory, the point of gravity is a the center of a disk, which means that every single physical object would be puuled toward the center, therefore it would be impossible to stand anywhere else but right atop of that center of gravity. That's why the earth is a shphere, cause the center of gravity is located at the center of the sphere.  We can stand anywhere on the surface of the earth and the force of gravity will always be pulling us in the same direction, towards it's center, to the ground...

More plausible gravity theory
« Reply #15 on: January 14, 2006, 01:24:00 PM »
God, I already explained that! There's even a freaking DIAGRAM!!! Of course things are pulled towards the center, that's why I've located the center. I said that the earth is so close to the center that the angle it's being pulled at is small. So small in fact, that people have adapted to it and don't notice its existance. Also, I never said the large object was a disk, I just used a disk as an example. No one has seen this object, so it could very well be a cube, a pyramid, or a sphere wherein the placement of the Earth wouldn't matter. I only used a disk because it is similar to the Earth's alleged shape.

More plausible gravity theory
« Reply #16 on: January 14, 2006, 07:38:49 PM »
well, angle or no angle, it doesn't make any difference... I know you're pretending, but making up a theory based on faith doesn't validate it.
and why would planet earth be the only non-spheric planet?

?

6strings

  • The Elder Ones
  • 689
More plausible gravity theory
« Reply #17 on: January 14, 2006, 08:03:23 PM »
He's not making up a theory based on faith...you even said you knew he was pretending...so, not only does statement B not follow statement A, it contradicts it.  Way to go.

http://www.newscientist.com/article.ns?id=dn6236
Why would our solar system be unique?  Weird, huh?  Guess we can't explain everything.  Also, why would the earth be an oblate spheroid, rather than a sphere?  And why would it rotate on an angle?

?

Erasmus

  • The Elder Ones
  • 4242
More plausible gravity theory
« Reply #18 on: January 14, 2006, 10:19:01 PM »
As a bit of a latecomer to this endeavor, I can't help but wonder what your big-disc/little-Earth theory is supposed to explain.  That being said, I would like to point out a flaw.

Evolution would certainly explain adaptation to an environmental stressor such as gravity pulling at a funny angle, but *only* in case the angle is more or less the same all the time.  In particular, the direction at which gravity pulls should never cross the normal to the surface of the Earth.  By this I mean, for example, if gravity pulls 0.01 degree east of Straight Up 50% of the time, and 0.01 degree west of Straight Up 50% of the time, then the stress on an organism caused by this would average out over the organism's lifetime and no adaptation would occur.

Next, consider that people's bodies point in different directions all the time, so this averaging-out process is almost sure to be taking place.  So there's no reason to think that the environment offers any consistent "slanty" gravity stress to organisms that nature might use to select the best-adapted individuals.

So, getting back to my original question.  Are you trying to explain why gravity seems to point the same direction no matter where you are on the surface of the Earth?  If so, note that what you're trying to do is say, "yes, the effect is radial, but from our perspective, the rays of gravity are close to being parallel."  However, for you to avail yourself of such an argument, you would need to show that the angle between gravity rays is small.  If the Earth is close to the centre of the mother disc, there's no reason to believe this.

However, if the Earth rests atop a mother Pillar, or perhaps atop a very long stack of elephants standing on each other's backs, very far away from the centre of the pillar, then gravity rays will be almost parallel.

If your intention was other than an explanation for the apparent invariance in the direction of gravity's pull, I apologize for the digression.

-Erasmus
Why did the chicken cross the Möbius strip?

More plausible gravity theory
« Reply #19 on: January 14, 2006, 11:25:37 PM »
I'm trying to come up with a:
Quote from: "From the topic's title"
More plausible gravity theory

This means that there was another theory beforehand and I have a better one. Otherwise, what am I more plausible than. Basically nothing you said is relavent to the topic. Go read some other topics (who's titles include the word "gravity") and come back later.

?

Erasmus

  • The Elder Ones
  • 4242
More plausible gravity theory
« Reply #20 on: January 14, 2006, 11:51:05 PM »
Hi, I'm back.

So, what I meant was, "Exactly which observable phenomenon do other theories of flat-Earth or round-Earth gravity fail to address, which you hope your theory adequately explains?"
Why did the chicken cross the Möbius strip?

More plausible gravity theory
« Reply #21 on: January 15, 2006, 09:24:50 AM »
Quote from: "6strings"
He's not making up a theory based on faith...you even said you knew he was pretending...so, not only does statement B not follow statement A, it contradicts it.  Way to go.


I'm afraid you didn't get it... I'm not saying he has faith in his theory, that's exactly why I said "I know you're pretending", but he pulled his thoery out of his ass and his explanation was basically "trust me, I'm right..." that's why I said that his theory was based on faith rather than facts.
Also, maybe I should have said "why would planet earth be the only non-spheric planet in our solar system?" or "why haven't we observed any other flat planet yet?"
And the earth is an oblate spheroid because of it,s rotation...

More plausible gravity theory
« Reply #22 on: January 15, 2006, 10:35:19 AM »
Quote
Hi, I'm back.

So, what I meant was, "Exactly which observable phenomenon do other theories of flat-Earth or round-Earth gravity fail to address, which you hope your theory adequately explains?"
The other one was torn to shreds in every way possible, so I took it upon myself to make this one.

And pablo, a theory is basically that. You take what you know and put togehter a likely explanation. I "know" that the Earth is flat, that gravity accelerates objects at a rate of 9.8m/s^2, that living beings can adpat to changse in their environment, and that gravity is caused by the mass of an object and the attraction to its center. If the Earth itself were attracting us with its gravity,then people would be standing at angles of something around 5 degrees in some places of the world, more so as they get closer to the rim, which just doesn't work. So, it stands to reason that there must be a larger object on which the Earth rests to allow gravity to occur in a more natural, liveable manner. That manner which we currently experience.

More plausible gravity theory
« Reply #23 on: January 15, 2006, 10:47:41 AM »
Quote from: "alex2539"
Quote
Hi, I'm back.

So, what I meant was, "Exactly which observable phenomenon do other theories of flat-Earth or round-Earth gravity fail to address, which you hope your theory adequately explains?"
The other one was torn to shreds in every way possible, so I took it upon myself to make this one.

And pablo, a theory is basically that. You take what you know and put togehter a likely explanation. I "know" that the Earth is flat, that gravity accelerates objects at a rate of 9.8m/s^2, that living beings can adpat to changse in their environment, and that gravity is caused by the mass of an object and the attraction to its center. If the Earth itself were attracting us with its gravity,then people would be standing at angles of something around 5 degrees in some places of the world, more so as they get closer to the rim, which just doesn't work. So, it stands to reason that there must be a larger object on which the Earth rests to allow gravity to occur in a more natural, liveable manner. That manner which we currently experience.


Sorry man, a theory is more than an assumption that can't be tested or verified. A theory is an assumption that things are what they are based on observed facts.
Until you can test your so-called theory, it remains your own personnal belief and you will need much more than that to convince people that you are right...

More plausible gravity theory
« Reply #24 on: January 15, 2006, 11:07:13 AM »
Quote
A theory is an assumption that things are what they are based on observed facts.
That's what I said. I even stated my observations:
Quote
I "know" that the Earth is flat, that gravity accelerates objects at a rate of 9.8m/s^2, that living beings can adpat to changse in their environment, and that gravity is caused by the mass of an object and the attraction to its center.
And then made an assumption based on these facts that my model is how gravity works. A theory isn't proved. That's why it's called a "theory" and not a "statement of fact".

?

Erasmus

  • The Elder Ones
  • 4242
More plausible gravity theory
« Reply #25 on: January 15, 2006, 11:15:27 AM »
Quote
The other one was torn to shreds in every way possible, so I took it upon myself to make this one.


I'll repeat my question, then: "What observable phenomenon does your off-center hypothesis explain that other theories fail to account for?"  For these purposes I don't count "I disagree with other theories" as an observable phenomenon, despite its being clearly observable and, well, phenomenal.

Another way of thinking about it would be, "Do you believe you theory would break down if you removed the off-center clause?  If so, how?"

And look, I'm not attacking the theory, I'm just trying to get clarification.

-Erasmus[/u]
Why did the chicken cross the Möbius strip?

More plausible gravity theory
« Reply #26 on: January 15, 2006, 12:16:22 PM »
Quote
"What observable phenomenon does your off-center hypothesis explain that other theories fail to account for?" For these purposes I don't count "I disagree with other theories" as an observable phenomenon, despite its being clearly observable and, well, phenomenal.
What you fail to grasp is that there is no other theory right now for gravity on a flat Earth since the other one was disproven in so many ways. So, until THIS one is disproven it will remain.

I've already given by observations. I've given them repeatedly. I even quoted myself stating my observations in my last post.

?

Erasmus

  • The Elder Ones
  • 4242
More plausible gravity theory
« Reply #27 on: January 15, 2006, 12:39:45 PM »
Quote
I've already given by observations. I've given them repeatedly. I even quoted myself stating my observations in my last post.


Actually, you stated some observations and some fallacies.  One fallacy was "gravity is caused by the mass of an object and the attraction to its center."  "Attraction to its center" *is* gravity, so the statement you have made is that one of the causes of gravity is gravity.

But moving on, none of these observations is in any addressed by the off-center clause of your theory, which is what I'm asking about.  You seem to be dodging the question.  I suggest that your theory would be just as good if the Earth were placed directly over the center of the mother disc, as opposed to slightly off-center, and I would like you to explain why my suggestion would not work.

For clarification, I propose a new theory: that the Earth sits slightly off-center atop a very large disc, exactly as your theory requires, but that there is also a team of cybernetic puffins playing hopscotch and marbles elsewhere on the disc.  Occassionally, they call board meetings to tally their expenses and sacrifice the puffin with the lowest score to their god, whose name is Steve and is a clerk in a drug store in Dallas.  He doesn't answer their prayers for dental insurance and a special on PBS.

So, while my extention to your theory is hard to disprove, it doesn't add any new explanatory power.  If you want to show that your off-center clause is not just another team of cybernetic puffins, you have to say something like, "Well, if the Earth were *not* off-center, then we would observe X in situation Y, but we don't observe X in situation Y, so the Earth must be off-center."

-Erasmus
Why did the chicken cross the Möbius strip?

More plausible gravity theory
« Reply #28 on: January 15, 2006, 12:48:18 PM »
My putting the Earth slightly off from the center was solely to avoid questions like "Why would the Earth, out of everything else, be what's exactly in the middle?" or "What would happen if it weren't in the exact center?". The Earth may very well be in the exact center. It only works better for my theory if it is, but I myself find that unlikely. Also, I already said the disk is just an example since there's no way of knowing what shape it is. It could be a dodecahedron for all I care, and it would still apply. It could also be a sphere, which would make the placement of the Earth irrelavent, but the disk is just simpler and I find it covers most of my bases...

... and how do you know about my puffins?

?

Erasmus

  • The Elder Ones
  • 4242
More plausible gravity theory
« Reply #29 on: January 15, 2006, 01:26:57 PM »
Quote
My putting the Earth slightly off from the center was solely to avoid questions like "Why would the Earth, out of everything else, be what's exactly in the middle?" or "What would happen if it weren't in the exact center?".


Thank you :)  Your goal of maintaining generality in your theory (i.e. not making unjustified assumptions) is perfectly acceptable and laudable.

Now to get back to my refutation.

Let us create a system of coordiantes for the mother disc.  Call the point on the disc directly over its center of mass the epicenter.  For any given point P on the disc, let theta be the angle between the line from the epicenter through P and an arbitrary fixed index line, theta=0.  Let r be the distance of P from the epicenter.  Thus we can call Earth's coordinates (thetaE, rE).

Now, since gravity pulls towards the center, an object on Earth will feel a pull which has both a downward component and an approximately -thetaE component.  Since the Earth is so small in comparison to the mother disc, we can assume any error in this approximation is not significant: that is, gravity is parallel no matter where on the flat Earth you are (as observed).

Suppose at some point I am facing in the theta=T direction.  Then relative to me, gravity pulls in the T-thetaE direction.  If I change what direction I face, the direction gravity pulls me is different.  So what exactly would natural selection "adapt" to?  Couldn't be "ignore the fact that gravity pulls slightly in direction X, because there is no particular direction X in which gravity pulls."  Also couldn't be, "Ignore changes in the direction gravity pulls whose magnitudes are smaller than so many radians," because that contradicts, "I can tell when I'm standing on a slant."  You can restrict the distance from the center that the Earth can be, but then you've broken the rule you were trying to follow, i.e., I could ask the question, "Why would the Earth be so close to the center?"

You can suggest that the mother disc is slightly bowl-shaped.  Like, very very slightly.  This would explain why the Earth is always very close to the center.  Then you can say that evolution made us ignore sufficiently small changes in the direction gravity pulls, or maybe that the differences are so tiny that they're not noticed anyway.

-Erasmus
Why did the chicken cross the Möbius strip?