Offline yash.paz123

  • *
  • Posts: 32
  • Round Earth Scientist
    • View Profile
Re: Gravity...
« Reply #20 on: June 27, 2017, 07:30:26 PM »
Just curious, are you a flat farther or a round farther
F = m*a.
F = m*v^2/r.
F = -G*m1*m2/r^2.

*

Offline junker

  • Planar Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 5372
  • Boom
    • View Profile
Re: Gravity...
« Reply #21 on: June 27, 2017, 07:36:40 PM »
Just curious, are you a flat farther or a round farther

Yes. I am not sure how that is relevant to the discussion, however.
Please make sure to check out these resources to ensure that your time at tfes.org is enjoyable and productive.

1. The Rules

2. The FAQ

3. The Wiki

You're doing God's work, junker.

Offline yash.paz123

  • *
  • Posts: 32
  • Round Earth Scientist
    • View Profile
Re: Gravity...
« Reply #22 on: June 27, 2017, 11:02:02 PM »
Should check out this link.

F = m*a.
F = m*v^2/r.
F = -G*m1*m2/r^2.

Offline yash.paz123

  • *
  • Posts: 32
  • Round Earth Scientist
    • View Profile
Re: Gravity...
« Reply #23 on: June 27, 2017, 11:03:14 PM »
You're right, not so relevant.
F = m*a.
F = m*v^2/r.
F = -G*m1*m2/r^2.

*

Offline Boots

  • *
  • Posts: 368
  • ---- Cogito, ergo sum. ---- -Descartes
    • View Profile
Re: Gravity...
« Reply #24 on: June 27, 2017, 11:09:47 PM »
Should check out this link.



He seems like quite a neat kid but I think he's a little misinformed.
Where the senses fail us, reason must step in. - Galileo Galilei

Offline yash.paz123

  • *
  • Posts: 32
  • Round Earth Scientist
    • View Profile
Re: Gravity...
« Reply #25 on: June 27, 2017, 11:15:13 PM »
That kid's me
F = m*a.
F = m*v^2/r.
F = -G*m1*m2/r^2.

*

Offline Boots

  • *
  • Posts: 368
  • ---- Cogito, ergo sum. ---- -Descartes
    • View Profile
Re: Gravity...
« Reply #26 on: June 27, 2017, 11:51:09 PM »
Cool.

Well, I think UA theory is that the earth is accelerating at 9.8m/s2. According to Einstein's equivalence principle, the gravitational "force" as experienced locally while standing on a massive body (such as the Earth) is the same as the pseudo-force experienced by an observer in a non-inertial (accelerated) frame of reference.

Also, I believe the celestial bodies are also accelerating at the same rate under UAT.
« Last Edit: June 28, 2017, 12:01:59 AM by Boots »
Where the senses fail us, reason must step in. - Galileo Galilei

Offline yash.paz123

  • *
  • Posts: 32
  • Round Earth Scientist
    • View Profile
Re: Gravity...
« Reply #27 on: June 28, 2017, 12:41:36 AM »
The earth can't accelerate at different rates for each ball though. Velocity equals the initial velocity plus the square root of two times height times acceleration due to gravity. For the ten meter ball, initial velocity is zero, and will fall at:
   t=0, h=10, v=0; 
   h=10, v=7;
   h=9, v=20.28;
   h=8, ....
   ..............
   ................
 
  Same process repeated with the two balls.

The rate of change in velocity between two points in time between t=0 and t=ball2onthefloor is different for both of the balls. Such a task would require an accelerating disk where every atom of it increased or decreased velocity based on the acceleration of the ball in order to acheive such a simulation of gravity. in other words, this idea of the earth being a huge disk and that it needs to accelerate upwards for "gravity" is a silly and complex idea as to how a flat world would achieve "artificial gravity". You could simply say that the "flat earth" was spinning on its axis to produce a gravitational field.
F = m*a.
F = m*v^2/r.
F = -G*m1*m2/r^2.

Offline yash.paz123

  • *
  • Posts: 32
  • Round Earth Scientist
    • View Profile
Re: Gravity...
« Reply #28 on: June 28, 2017, 12:44:39 AM »
The flat earth means that each part of the disk would be accelerating at different rates. it would mean moving every single atom of the world at a different velocity. But then that would also mean cutting the earth into tiny pieces.
F = m*a.
F = m*v^2/r.
F = -G*m1*m2/r^2.

*

Offline Boots

  • *
  • Posts: 368
  • ---- Cogito, ergo sum. ---- -Descartes
    • View Profile
Re: Gravity...
« Reply #29 on: June 28, 2017, 12:54:21 AM »
Well, I think that the entire earth would be accelerating at the same rate of 9.8m/s2. The ball at ten feet and the ball at twenty feet are going to accelerate at almost exactly the same rate. You might have a point if you're referring to gravitational differences due to elevation. Under UA this is explained by slight gravitational pull from other celestial bodies.

Check this link out for a little more information.
Where the senses fail us, reason must step in. - Galileo Galilei

Offline yash.paz123

  • *
  • Posts: 32
  • Round Earth Scientist
    • View Profile
Re: Gravity...
« Reply #30 on: June 28, 2017, 12:59:23 AM »
One other thing, gravity is not a hoax, here are a few examples:

The moon (and all other satellites), orbits the earth every ~27 days. If gravity didn't exist, then the moon would shoot away from the earth at an approximate right angle due to the centrifugal force acting outwards with no gravity to pull it back in. Also, if the "flat earth" were actually accelerating upwards, then the earth should crash into the moon.

The Great Pyramid of Geeza (or however you spell it), since it takes the mass (not actually mass) of 3,600,000 tons, has been proven to SLOW DOWN TIME by a tiny bit. Due to gravitational time dilation, there can (almost) only be one explanation for this phenomena, which is that the incredible mass allows for a decent gravitational field to be created (technically 'created' wouldn't be the best choice of wording'). This is proof that gravity exists and is not a hoax.

PS. The reason why I mentioned the Pyramid instead of in space or near a black hole is because it is something that can be proven while still on earth. Why go to space to test this theory when by the time we are in space, we can just see how round the earth really is...
F = m*a.
F = m*v^2/r.
F = -G*m1*m2/r^2.

Offline yash.paz123

  • *
  • Posts: 32
  • Round Earth Scientist
    • View Profile
Re: Gravity...
« Reply #31 on: June 28, 2017, 01:01:07 AM »
The closer you are to or the stronger the source of gravitation will cause this difference in time.
F = m*a.
F = m*v^2/r.
F = -G*m1*m2/r^2.

Offline yash.paz123

  • *
  • Posts: 32
  • Round Earth Scientist
    • View Profile
Re: Gravity...
« Reply #32 on: June 28, 2017, 01:07:06 AM »
This is what somebody stated in refutation to my statement on gravity. If you can't trust others, then what science are you supposed to believe?

If you want to have any chance of persuading an FE'er that they are wrong...then "appeal to authority" doesn't cut it.

Anything that cannot be directly observed - with at most simple equipment - is simply dismissed as being a part of the grand NASA/UN conspiracy.

So forget that we have photos (taken by NASA) of a clearly spherical earth...forget that we can use telescopes to clearly demonstrate that the sun and moon are not 30 miles across and 3000 miles away...forget everything that cannot EASILY be demonstrated.

Not that these aren't perfectly valid arguments...just that you won't get anywhere in talking to FE'ers about those things.

The argument about gravity is one I've recently explored here - and one problem with discussing it is that there are (at last count) FOUR different FE theories about the Earth's gravity - and a couple more about the gravity of Sun and Moon.

Earth:
1) The disk is infinite and gravity is as it is in RET.  (Doesn't work because of variability of gravity at poles and equator).
2) There is no gravity.  The Earth is accelerating upwards at 9.8 m/s/s.  (Doesn't work because of variablilty of gravity at poles, equator and tall mountains).
3) Air pressure causes the phenomenon of objects falling and having "weight".  (I can't begin to explain how insanely broken this one is!  Put an object under a bell jar, pump out the air - and ask why it doesn't float around inside the jar!)...kinda/sorta explains why gravity is less on tops of mountains and absent entirely in orbiting spacecraft.
4) Some combination of (1) and (2) or (1) and (3) or (2) and (3)...makes life more complicated - but still doesn't explain pole/equator gravity changes.

Moon:
1) The moon really does have actual gravity - of course because it's small and despite being relatively close - we have to adjust the universal gravitational constant - but this is said to "explain" the tides.   (Sadly, it fails because there are TWO high tides and TWO low tides every day...and without centrifugal forces due to moon's rotation around the earth - the FET explanation doesn't work).
2) The moon just attracts water and nothing else...I'm not sure that this is different to (1)...at least for common observations.
3) The moon repels water (which explains the high tide when the moon is not in the sky - but not the one when it is!)

Sun:
...well, I'm not sure how FE'ers feel about solar gravity.  Since the tidal effects of the sun in "the real world" are small - but definitely measurable - in FET, it might maybe have much less gravity than the moon - despite being the same exact size and distance.  Maybe it's less dense or something.

Where does this leave us?

As far as I can tell, FET is broken - there are just such an incredible number of SIMPLE daily experiences that it cannot explain.   Not things that require us to trust scientists or that can be hand-waved away with "NASA-conspiracy!"...things like you standing on a beach on a crystal clear night - and watching the tide roll in at midnight with the moon nowhere in the sky.  That one, SIMPLE experiment says that the world is round.  It's irrefutable given FET as currently described.

You can be traveling at 9.8m/s/s, it's simply impossible. You can't travel at acceleration. You can travel at a velocity that changes at a rate of 9.8m/s/s.
F = m*a.
F = m*v^2/r.
F = -G*m1*m2/r^2.

Offline yash.paz123

  • *
  • Posts: 32
  • Round Earth Scientist
    • View Profile
Re: Gravity...
« Reply #33 on: June 28, 2017, 01:10:17 AM »
How can the moon be a source of gravity but not the earth? They are both made out of the same stuff. Atoms, Protons neutrons electrons, Hadrons, quarks gluons.
F = m*a.
F = m*v^2/r.
F = -G*m1*m2/r^2.

Re: Gravity...
« Reply #34 on: June 28, 2017, 01:12:03 AM »
You are an exceptionally intelligent kid (assuming the kid in the video is in fact you).  Hat's off to you and I hope you grow to use this talent for good.

Offline yash.paz123

  • *
  • Posts: 32
  • Round Earth Scientist
    • View Profile
Re: Gravity...
« Reply #35 on: June 28, 2017, 01:15:51 AM »
Is that a compliment
F = m*a.
F = m*v^2/r.
F = -G*m1*m2/r^2.

Offline yash.paz123

  • *
  • Posts: 32
  • Round Earth Scientist
    • View Profile
Re: Gravity...
« Reply #36 on: June 28, 2017, 01:20:29 AM »
Continue debate in topic 'Gravity (2.0) '. This page is too cluttered.
F = m*a.
F = m*v^2/r.
F = -G*m1*m2/r^2.

*

Offline Rounder

  • *
  • Posts: 586
  • What in the Sam Hill are you people talking about?
    • View Profile
Re: Gravity...
« Reply #37 on: June 28, 2017, 05:25:39 AM »
Continue debate in topic 'Gravity (2.0) '. This page is too cluttered.

...says the person responsible for 14 of the 36 posts...
Proud member of ─░ntikam's "Ignore List"
Ok. You proven you are unworthy to unignored. You proven it was a bad idea to unignore you. and it was for me a disgusting experience...Now you are going to place where you deserved and accustomed.
Quote from: SexWarrior
You accuse {FE} people of malice where incompetence suffice