[zombiemaster22]

i am a flat earther and i can live with density being responsible for keeping us down. but why in zero g planes does everything pull into a natural sphere, what would cause this phenomenon, clearly density cannot explain the natural pulling of matter into spherical objects?, also when water falls like raindrops they are spherical for a short time, for example      

in conclusion how do you explain spherical shaping of water when falling, and when in zero gravity? thank you.

[Pete Svarrior]

i am a flat earther and i can live with density being responsible for keeping us down.

Practically nobody here subscribes to the view that density is responsible for keeping us down. It's a deeply flawed model with no future.

Please start off by reading the FAQ, and move from there. We can't help you justify the beliefs of those we think are wrong.

[zombiemaster22]

i am a flat earther and i can live with density being responsible for keeping us down.

Practically nobody here subscribes to the view that density is responsible for keeping us down. It's a deeply flawed model with no future.

Please start off by reading the FAQ, and move from there. We can't help you justify the beliefs of those we think are wrong.

I just read the faq and it says the universe is accelerating upwards at a constant rate, but my question still stands, me knowing whether or not the universe is accelerating upwards in your theory doesn't explain at all my question, so i ask again in a different manner, how do you explain how water forms into natural spheres in zero-g environments and when falling down like rain.

[Pete Svarrior]

how do you explain how water forms into natural spheres in zero-g environments and when falling down like rain.

That would be due to gravitation.

[zombiemaster22]

What is the difference between gravity and gravitation if any? how do you measure "gravitation"? is there any experiment that can prove such "gravitation."

[Oami]

i am a flat earther and i can live with density being responsible for keeping us down.

Of course density is an important concept to understand when speaking about gravity and its effects, but density in itself doesn't explain anything. It is just an attribute of a substance: mass relative to volume.

Why do you think more dense things go down and less dense things go up? What is the force that makes them to?

Practically nobody here subscribes to the view that density is responsible for keeping us down. It's a deeply flawed model with no future.

Apparently there is not just one "flat earth" theory, but several ones competing with each other. Honestly, I don't see what would make one better than any other.

[Pete Svarrior]

What is the difference between gravity and gravitation if any?

https://www.quora.com/What-is-the-difference-between-gravity-and-gravitational-force

[3DGeek]

In both RET and FET, raindrops form spheres (well, roughly) because of surface tension - it has nothing to do with gravity.   In RET, the gravity exerted by a raindrop is vastly too weak to have any effect on anything.   Surface tension is a force that's stronger than gravity over very small objects - but vastly weaker over large objects.

Raindrops are spherical when they move slowly - but when they pick up speed in air - they are gradually distorted into other shapes by aerodynamic drag.

So this argument has no bearing on whether FET or RET are true - the answer is exactly the same.

The answer is also the same whether there is true gravity (per Isaac Newton) on an infinitely large flat earth - or whether there is universal acceleration (per the Wiki).

[zombiemaster22]

i thank you all for explaining this to me, moving on from surface tension which requires gravitation,can we not rule out gravitation from flat earth theory by some sort of experiment on earth? if we say gravity is weaker than people are saying can we not do an experiment and see if gravity is what the status qou says it is?

[3DGeek]

i thank you all for explaining this to me, moving on from surface tension which requires gravitation,can we not rule out gravitation from flat earth theory by some sort of experiment on earth? if we say gravity is weaker than people are saying can we not do an experiment and see if gravity is what the status qou says it is?

Einstein's GENERAL theory of relativity says that there is no experiment that can distinguish between uniform acceleration and uniform gravitation.  So if the FE community want to say that there is uniform acceleration - rather than uniform gravitation - that doesn't change the results of any experiments.

The problem for FET is that gravity isn't uniform...things weigh different amounts in different places - and that can't be explained by acceleration without some parts of the Earth accelerating faster than others...with obvious unfortunate consequences.  So universal acceleration alone can't explain all of the facts that are plainly out there.

[Pete Svarrior]

The problem for FET is that gravity isn't uniform...things weigh different amounts in different places - and that can't be explained by acceleration without some parts of the Earth accelerating faster than others...with obvious unfortunate consequences.  So universal acceleration alone can't explain all of the facts that are plainly out there.

Which is precisely how we know gravitation is present on FET. Why are you insistent on attacking strawmen?

[Nuke(like the weapon)]

In both RET and FET, raindrops form spheres (well, roughly) because of surface tension - it has nothing to do with gravity.   In RET, the gravity exerted by a raindrop is vastly too weak to have any effect on anything.   Surface tension is a force that's stronger than gravity over very small objects - but vastly weaker over large objects.

Raindrops are spherical when they move slowly - but when they pick up speed in air - they are gradually distorted into other shapes by aerodynamic drag.

So this argument has no bearing on whether FET or RET are true - the answer is exactly the same.

The answer is also the same whether there is true gravity (per Isaac Newton) on an infinitely large flat earth - or whether there is universal acceleration (per the Wiki).

Just to make his point perfectly clear. Hydrogen bonding will, in fact, make a semi-sphere of water even when it is resting on a nonporous substance. AKA HPL laminate on most counter tops. That sphere shape of water is caused by the surface tension which is the result of all those hydrogen bonds present in water.

[3DGeek]

In both RET and FET, raindrops form spheres (well, roughly) because of surface tension - it has nothing to do with gravity.   In RET, the gravity exerted by a raindrop is vastly too weak to have any effect on anything.   Surface tension is a force that's stronger than gravity over very small objects - but vastly weaker over large objects.

Raindrops are spherical when they move slowly - but when they pick up speed in air - they are gradually distorted into other shapes by aerodynamic drag.

So this argument has no bearing on whether FET or RET are true - the answer is exactly the same.

The answer is also the same whether there is true gravity (per Isaac Newton) on an infinitely large flat earth - or whether there is universal acceleration (per the Wiki).

Just to make his point perfectly clear. Hydrogen bonding will, in fact, make a semi-sphere of water even when it is resting on a nonporous substance. AKA HPL laminate on most counter tops. That sphere shape of water is caused by the surface tension which is the result of all those hydrogen bonds present in water.

Yep - exactly.  It's even more obvious with materials like mercury which forms beautiful little almost-spheres on almost any surface.  But for 100% sure it's not gravity - that's not remotely strong enough to do that - and if it was, it would attract other small objects to attach to the droplet from some distance away - and it doesn't.

[TheTruthIsOnHere]

There is absolutely no reason what so ever to explain why mass should be inherently attracted to all other mass in the universe.

[Oami]

There is absolutely no reason what so ever to explain why mass should be inherently attracted to all other mass in the universe.

Sure there is. Of course the most obvious thing is the mass of ourselves and anything around us seemingly being attracted to the mass of the earth.

Also, the apparent movement of the sun, moon and other planets, and, in recent times, satellites.

[3DGeek]

There is absolutely no reason what so ever to explain why mass should be inherently attracted to all other mass in the universe.

Sure there is. Of course the most obvious thing is the mass of ourselves and anything around us seemingly being attracted to the mass of the earth.

Also, the apparent movement of the sun, moon and other planets, and, in recent times, satellites.

The problem that TheTruthIsThere is asking is WHY mass attracts other mass...it's true that RE physics doesn't know the reason for it - but that's not a reason to reject that theory.

After all - FE physics can't explain WHY the earth is accelerating upwards - or WHY the planets, sun, moon and "shadow object" do the complicated dance that they are claimed to do.   FET is no better at answering these "WHY?" questions than RET is able to explain why two masses attract each other.

The difference is that in RET, one single theory of gravity explains HOW the motion of all of the stars, moon, planets, meteors and comets happens - as well as explaining the shapes of those things, how they formed in the first place - and why there are eclipses and why there are a phases of the moon.  ALL of those things can be explained by one single, simple equation:    F=G x m1 x m2 / ( r x r ).   All of those complicated explanations in FET (or non-explanations)...are all neatly solved with one very simple equation and one very simple (albeit unexplained) fact.

The ability to predict things is the most beautiful thing about RET physics.   We see from the theory of gravitation that there ought to be black holes - we can calculate what happens if two black holes might collide and how insanely powerful the gravitational wave would be - and how long it would take to reach Earth.  We can build a an actual machine that detects gravitational waves...and the results it produces are a perfect and beautiful match for what we predicted...then we can build a second one and figure out where these black holes are.

All of that comes from that one single equation...it's a thing of beauty.

[Smokified]

There is absolutely no reason what so ever to explain why mass should be inherently attracted to all other mass in the universe.

Sure there is. Of course the most obvious thing is the mass of ourselves and anything around us seemingly being attracted to the mass of the earth.

Also, the apparent movement of the sun, moon and other planets, and, in recent times, satellites.

The problem that TheTruthIsThere is asking is WHY mass attracts other mass...it's true that RE physics doesn't know the reason for it - but that's not a reason to reject that theory.

After all - FE physics can't explain WHY the earth is accelerating upwards - or WHY the planets, sun, moon and "shadow object" do the complicated dance that they are claimed to do.   FET is no better at answering these "WHY?" questions than RET is able to explain why two masses attract each other.

The difference is that in RET, one single theory of gravity explains HOW the motion of all of the stars, moon, planets, meteors and comets happens - as well as explaining the shapes of those things, how they formed in the first place - and why there are eclipses and why there are a phases of the moon.  ALL of those things can be explained by one single, simple equation:    F=G x m1 x m2 / ( r x r ).   All of those complicated explanations in FET (or non-explanations)...are all neatly solved with one very simple equation and one very simple (albeit unexplained) fact.

The ability to predict things is the most beautiful thing about RET physics.   We see from the theory of gravitation that there ought to be black holes - we can calculate what happens if two black holes might collide and how insanely powerful the gravitational wave would be - and how long it would take to reach Earth.  We can build a an actual machine that detects gravitational waves...and the results it produces are a perfect and beautiful match for what we predicted...then we can build a second one and figure out where these black holes are.

All of that comes from that one single equation...it's a thing of beauty.

Incorrect.  Science does have an explanation for how and why gravity works the way it does.  See: bending of space time.

[Tom Bishop]

Incorrect.  Science does have an explanation for how and why gravity works the way it does.  See: bending of space time.

"Magical fairies did it" is also an explanation. Science doesn't know how gravity works. There is a competing theory in quantum mechanics that the mechanism for gravity is a  sub-atomic puller particle called the "graviton".

[Smokified]

Incorrect.  Science does have an explanation for how and why gravity works the way it does.  See: bending of space time.

"Magical fairies did it" is also an explanation. Science doesn't know how gravity works. There is a competing theory in quantum mechanics that the mechanism for gravity is a  sub-atomic puller particle called the "graviton".

"Science" is a method, not an organization or belief.  Science is the method of experimenting and obtaining data in order to try and draw a conclusion.  Any organization or belief culture can do science regardless of their belief structure.  It is not something that is controlled or regulated in most cases (see: ethics).

"Gravity" is the word we use to reference the force that causes things to fall to the surface and be pulled towards the center of the globe.  Whether we fully understand how it works or not is irrelevant.  Whether you call it something different or not is also irrelevant.  We can easily observe that it exists, and the effects it has.  Gravity is a THEORY that is supported by FACTS.  Gravitons are a hypothetical particle in which we have very little, if any evidence to support its existence (at this time).  Even so, nothing about the hypothesis of gravitons supports the theory of a flat earth.  You can go anywhere on the globe and measure the effects of gravity yourself.

Simply saying "magical fairies" is an invalid comparison.  You can simply just say that, but it is not backed by any kind of real tangible, or reproducible evidence, nor is it any kind of explanation.  If you could explain how they did it, you may have a point, but that can't be done since it is untrue.  Much like the idea of a flat earth.  There is no real valid explanation that justifies the conclusion.

[Tom Bishop]

We either know the mechanism for gravity or we do not. We currently do not know the mechanism for gravity. We do not know how it works.