[EagerAdam]

Actually, if you look at the FAQs on this very website, you will find that the FES believes that the earth is stationary...And that the "gravity" illusion can be attributed to pressure and density formulas and simple mechanics

The earth is stationary?

Surely that and that fact that it's accelerating all the time can't be possible, or have I misunderstood?

Could you shoot me a link to the formulas as well, couldn't find them myself.

Thanks

[Boots]

Actually, if you look at the FAQs on this very website, you will find that the FES believes that the earth is stationary...And that the "gravity" illusion can be attributed to pressure and density formulas and simple mechanics

The earth is stationary?

Surely that and that fact that it's accelerating all the time can't be possible, or have I misunderstood?

Could you shoot me a link to the formulas as well, couldn't find them myself.

Thanks

I think we pretty well had the generally accepted FET correct earlier. FET is full of competing models though. I suspect that pbrah is a fan of one of these other models. I think he is referring to either sceptimatic's  denpressure idea or sandokhan's FE model or maybe both. Sandokhan is active on this forum but they both post quite regularly on the other forum.

[pbrah]

Here are two direct passages from the Flat Earth Society's website:

What Is Gravity?

Gravity as a theory is false. Objects simply fall.

In the flat earth community there are several theories as to why this happens. Some attempt to explain this with use of mechanics like electromagnetism, density, or pressure. Others make use of traditional mathematics, such as the infinite plane model, and others a new look at the problem - such as the non-euclidean model.

What is certain is sphere earth gravity is not tenable in any way shape or form.

Is the Earth is accelerating upwards?

No. This is popular theory among some small groups to explain gravity, but it is problematic at best. The Earth Is Stationary. We are not whizzing about in space at 67,000 miles/hour or at speeds accelerating towards the speed of light.

Source:https://theflatearthsociety.org/home/index.php/faq

[Boots]

Here are two direct passages from the Flat Earth Society's website:

What Is Gravity?

Gravity as a theory is false. Objects simply fall.

In the flat earth community there are several theories as to why this happens. Some attempt to explain this with use of mechanics like electromagnetism, density, or pressure. Others make use of traditional mathematics, such as the infinite plane model, and others a new look at the problem - such as the non-euclidean model.

What is certain is sphere earth gravity is not tenable in any way shape or form.

Is the Earth is accelerating upwards?

No. This is popular theory among some small groups to explain gravity, but it is problematic at best. The Earth Is Stationary. We are not whizzing about in space at 67,000 miles/hour or at speeds accelerating towards the speed of light.

Source:https://theflatearthsociety.org/home/index.php/faq

OK fair enough. That is from the other site though. I'm not too sure how connected these two groups are. Have a look at the wiki from this site:

http://wiki.tfes.org/Universal_Acceleration

[Boots]

Also, their site appears to have inconsistent information because this FAQ thread supports the UA position:

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=1324.0

[pbrah]

Here is my problem with the UA position.
So much of the flat earth theory and narrative is that we are given these advanced "scientific" calculations that contradict logic and what we see and feel. According to scientists and NASA we are supposed to believe these theories (whether it be gravity, evolution, relativity, Coriolis Effect etc.) without questioning them even though no can definitively prove them or experience them.  So by promoting the UA theory, it contradicts the fundamental basis of the flat earth theory. We can't feel it, we can't prove it anymore than we can prove gravity, so UA promoters are essentially doing exactly what NASA does when they tell us we are on a spinning ball hurdling through space at 1000s of mph.

But that is just my opinion on the subject

[pbrah]

http://www.if.ufrj.br/~pef/producao_academica/artigos/2014_preprint_tort_1.pdf

I found this paper on Gauss' Law of gravitational pulll on a flat earth very interesting. Although the author doesn't promote the FET, he explains how Gauss' Law would work well on a flat earth.

[pbrah]

Actually, if you look at the FAQs on this very website, you will find that the FES believes that the earth is stationary...And that the "gravity" illusion can be attributed to pressure and density formulas and simple mechanics

The earth is stationary?

Surely that and that fact that it's accelerating all the time can't be possible, or have I misunderstood?

Could you shoot me a link to the formulas as well, couldn't find them myself.

Thanks

Check your inbox

[rabinoz]

http://www.if.ufrj.br/~pef/producao_academica/artigos/2014_preprint_tort_1.pdf

I found this paper on Gauss' Law of gravitational pulll on a flat earth very interesting. Although the author doesn't promote the FET, he explains how Gauss' Law would work well on a flat earth.

One little problem (sorry massive problem). That calculation is fine for for the centre of the flat earth (the "north pole"), but as you head towards the "rim" the gravitational field tilts in towards the middle.
Vsauce is a bit scathing towards the flat earth, but he goes into that issue in:

This is why other explanations to explain gravity are sought

• The most common, Universal Acceleration, see "the Wiki".
• John Davis has suggested an "infinite" flat earth, which does have a uniform vertical gravitational field.
• "Aether push" is argued (vehemently) by Sandokhan.
• Some other sort of aether explanation by JRoweSkeptic.
• A number push "denspressure", which to me seems nonsensical.
• Then some simple say that "things simply have a natural propensity th fall down."

Got a six facetted die?

[pbrah]

Okay,
It was my understanding that Gauss' Law is used to find out if large objects like the earth had a different shape (in this case flat). Which would show that spheres and point masses have 1/r^2 behavior, cylinders have 1/r behavior, and flat objects would have a uniform, constant force of gravity.
Which would validate Gauss' Law on the flat earth.

[Boots]

2 Spams in one thread. Why does this thread attract spammers? Is it just random chance or something else?

[rabinoz]

Okay,
It was my understanding that Gauss' Law is used to find out if large objects like the earth had a different shape (in this case flat). Which would show that spheres and point masses have 1/r^2 behavior, cylinders have 1/r behavior, and flat objects would have a uniform, constant force of gravity.
Which would validate Gauss' Law on the flat earth.

The trouble is that calculation of the gravitational field at the centre of a disk or cylinder is relatively easy to do (but, please don't ask me to do it),
but the off-axis calculations are a lot harder and it's hard to find good references.