Flat Earth Questions
« on: August 22, 2017, 07:39:24 AM »
I want to go into this by saying I'm a researcher working in geosciences and physics but will make an effort not to discuss things I haven't personally observed, I believe that is what I am expected to do, correct? I would like to start a series based on personal questions I have about flat earth theory.

Q1. What causes us to return to Earth when we step off a high bridge? Does gravity exist in flat-earth theory? If so, what causes it? - in physics it is understood gravity is caused by mass which is equivalent to energy and therefore objects are moving from a lower potential (distance) to a higher potential (close) in an energy field. This is based on observations of object behaviour in electric and magnetic fields for example.
« Last Edit: August 22, 2017, 07:41:25 AM by affascinante »

Offline StinkyOne

  • *
  • Posts: 805
    • View Profile
Re: Flat Earth Questions
« Reply #1 on: August 22, 2017, 12:36:11 PM »
I want to go into this by saying I'm a researcher working in geosciences and physics but will make an effort not to discuss things I haven't personally observed, I believe that is what I am expected to do, correct? I would like to start a series based on personal questions I have about flat earth theory.

Q1. What causes us to return to Earth when we step off a high bridge? Does gravity exist in flat-earth theory? If so, what causes it? - in physics it is understood gravity is caused by mass which is equivalent to energy and therefore objects are moving from a lower potential (distance) to a higher potential (close) in an energy field. This is based on observations of object behaviour in electric and magnetic fields for example.

Flat Earthers will tell you the Earth is undergoing steady acceleration. Now, they will also tell you that there is actual gravity that keeps the moon and planets in orbit and affects the tides. They won't, however, tell you how this gravitational attraction doesn't cause the Sun and Moon to collide with Earth.
I saw a video where a pilot was flying above the sun.
-Terry50

*

Offline juner

  • Planar Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 10174
    • View Profile
Re: Flat Earth Questions
« Reply #2 on: August 22, 2017, 02:24:28 PM »
Q1. What causes us to return to Earth when we step off a high bridge? Does gravity exist in flat-earth theory? If so, what causes it? - in physics it is understood gravity is caused by mass which is equivalent to energy and therefore objects are moving from a lower potential (distance) to a higher potential (close) in an energy field. This is based on observations of object behaviour in electric and magnetic fields for example.

http://wiki.tfes.org/Universal_Acceleration


Now, they will also tell you that there is actual gravity that keeps the moon and planets in orbit and affects the tides.
No, flat earth proponents will not tell you there is actual gravity.

Re: Flat Earth Questions
« Reply #3 on: August 22, 2017, 02:48:01 PM »
Now, they will also tell you that there is actual gravity that keeps the moon and planets in orbit and affects the tides.
No, flat earth proponents will not tell you there is actual gravity.
I mean, some will in a roundabout way. http://wiki.tfes.org/Celestial_Gravitation You can say it's not gravity just because it doesn't work on Earth, but it's still the same principal. I would say more accurately "Earth does not produce gravity" as even under UA the wiki says: "The moon and stars have a slight gravitational pull." when asked about tides. Isn't there also a theory that the Earth is an infinite plane and that's what it has the correct amount of gravitational pull? I feel like I recall reading that. Anyone remember this too?

As a small aside, the explanation for terminal velocity could maybe use some verbiage help. I'm not sure about anyone else but this makes it sound like terminal velocity on a FE is when a person is suspended in midair not moving. If the acceleration of Earth equals the acceleration of object, why would the object fall towards the Earth? If nothing else it could perhaps use some directional assistance words, like up and down? The concept doesn't seem to work that well to me, but at the moment I'm suspecting it's due to poor wording.

Offline StinkyOne

  • *
  • Posts: 805
    • View Profile
Re: Flat Earth Questions
« Reply #4 on: August 22, 2017, 03:15:23 PM »
Q1. What causes us to return to Earth when we step off a high bridge? Does gravity exist in flat-earth theory? If so, what causes it? - in physics it is understood gravity is caused by mass which is equivalent to energy and therefore objects are moving from a lower potential (distance) to a higher potential (close) in an energy field. This is based on observations of object behaviour in electric and magnetic fields for example.

http://wiki.tfes.org/Universal_Acceleration


Now, they will also tell you that there is actual gravity that keeps the moon and planets in orbit and affects the tides.
No, flat earth proponents will not tell you there is actual gravity.

Oh yeah, "celestial" gravity. LOL Gravity that works on everything but the Earth. It even attracts water, just not the Earth. Who comes up with this stuff??
I saw a video where a pilot was flying above the sun.
-Terry50

*

Offline TomInAustin

  • *
  • Posts: 1367
  • Round Duh
    • View Profile
Re: Flat Earth Questions
« Reply #5 on: August 23, 2017, 07:54:44 PM »
Q1. What causes us to return to Earth when we step off a high bridge? Does gravity exist in flat-earth theory? If so, what causes it? - in physics it is understood gravity is caused by mass which is equivalent to energy and therefore objects are moving from a lower potential (distance) to a higher potential (close) in an energy field. This is based on observations of object behaviour in electric and magnetic fields for example.

http://wiki.tfes.org/Universal_Acceleration



Now, they will also tell you that there is actual gravity that keeps the moon and planets in orbit and affects the tides.
No, flat earth proponents will not tell you there is actual gravity.


Serious questions Junker.  Do you think this is what earthly gravity is, Universal Acceleration?  And if so, is special relativity a valid theory?   And if so, why that and not other generally accepted science?

Do you have a citation for this sweeping generalisation?

*

Offline J-Man

  • *
  • Posts: 1326
  • "Let's go Brandon ! I agree" >Your President<
    • View Profile
Re: Flat Earth Questions
« Reply #6 on: August 23, 2017, 11:41:06 PM »
Hold up, isn't it true we've (the Russians) only drilled into the earths surface just 7.62 miles?

What's this imaginary gravity you speak of 4,000 miles deep? Pretty funny you can guess what's down there. No it's hysterical actually. Science can't even get 1% down into earth yet they know what the hell is down there.

Here's your sign !
What kind of person would devote endless hours posting scientific facts trying to correct the few retards who believe in the FE? I slay shitty little demons.

Offline 3DGeek

  • *
  • Posts: 1024
  • Path of photon from sun location to eye at sunset?
    • View Profile
    • What path do the photons take from the physical location of the sun to my eye at sunset
Re: Flat Earth Questions
« Reply #7 on: August 24, 2017, 11:08:11 AM »
Hold up, isn't it true we've (the Russians) only drilled into the earths surface just 7.62 miles?

What's this imaginary gravity you speak of 4,000 miles deep? Pretty funny you can guess what's down there. No it's hysterical actually. Science can't even get 1% down into earth yet they know what the hell is down there.

Here's your sign !

We can infer things that we don't see directly.

Let me ask you this:  Do you have a heart beating in your chest?

* You've never seen it.
* Probably, nobody else has ever seen it.

So how are you so certain?  Probably:

1) You know that other people's hearts have been seen.
2) You know that animals have hearts.
3) You can feel (indirectly) your heartbeat.
4) You can feel a pulse.
5) Perhaps you've had an X-ray that shows an image of a heart.

But you've NEVER seen it.

Your certainty lies entirely in inferences and indirect evidence.

All of science uses these same principles to make discoveries.   Gravity can be inferred from the motions of objects here on Earth and by analogy with the way things orbit other planets, stars and even entire galaxies.

We don't need to dig a hole to the center of the Earth to make very, VERY good inferences that gravity exists - just as you don't need to cut open your chest to infer that you have a heart.

Hey Tom:  What path do the photons take from the physical location of the sun to my eye at sunset?

*

Offline Tom Bishop

  • Zetetic Council Member
  • **
  • Posts: 10637
  • Flat Earth Believer
    • View Profile
Re: Flat Earth Questions
« Reply #8 on: August 24, 2017, 12:45:35 PM »
We can infer things that we don't see directly.

Let me ask you this:  Do you have a heart beating in your chest?

* You've never seen it.
* Probably, nobody else has ever seen it.

So how are you so certain?  Probably:

1) You know that other people's hearts have been seen.
2) You know that animals have hearts.
3) You can feel (indirectly) your heartbeat.
4) You can feel a pulse.
5) Perhaps you've had an X-ray that shows an image of a heart.

A more appropriate analogy is that no one has ever seen the heart of another human or animal, and they are assumed to exist as well.

Re: Flat Earth Questions
« Reply #9 on: August 24, 2017, 03:31:51 PM »
Flat Earthers will tell you the Earth is undergoing steady acceleration. Now, they will also tell you that there is actual gravity that keeps the moon and planets in orbit and affects the tides. They won't, however, tell you how this gravitational attraction doesn't cause the Sun and Moon to collide with Earth.

  • Ok, so the earth is accelerating, that agrees with Physics. In Physics the Earth is constantly accelerating (constant speed but changing direction and therefore velocity hence accelerating). This is not quite the same as what I'm sure you meant though!... so moving on.
  • I understand the equivalence principle postulated by Einstein, i.e. with no visual clues you could be moving at a constant speed or stationary equally (zero acceleration) and hence in conventional physics Earth can be rotating at a constant speed and yet we feel like we are stationary. This also applies to non-zero acceleration where with no visual clues, if you dropped an Apple (I♡Newton) 1) on ground in a gravitational field (Conventional Physics), or 2) whilst standing on ground, itself accelerating upward.... the force of 9.81 m/s2 or 9.81 N/kg would be the same on that apple and therefore have the same effect. It would "fall" to the ground. In case 1) it is "pulled" to the ground while in case 2) the ground moves up to meet the apple.
  • Therefore I can accept that this is theoretically possible.

StinkyOne: You also seem to be correct that Celestial Gravitation says gravity is pulling Earth and all other objects with mass towards the stars(?).
Quote
StinkyOne: They won't, however, tell you how this gravitational attraction doesn't cause the Sun and Moon to collide with Earth.
I believe this is explain by my assumption that the Sun and Moon are effectively joined to the Earth and so they are also accelerating with it(?). Also
Quote
StinkyOne: Oh yeah, "celestial" gravity. LOL Gravity that works on everything but the Earth. It even attracts water, just not the Earth. Who comes up with this stuff??
I believe I also explained this one, their mass appears to be irrelevant, a = F/m doesn't seem to apply, as in regardless of mass their acceleration is the same so they accelerate WITH the Earth.

Q2) What about the planets?
Q3) Is this acceleration infinite? i.e. is the speed at which Earth is travelling infinite and therefore we just keep getting fater infinitely?
Q4) If so, a) are we going to hit the stars, or b) are they moving away from us, being pulled towards something else...? I can see no other option than those two.
Q5) why does the proven equation F=ma not apply to the stars pull on Earthly objects? Why don't heavier objects accelerate faster than lighter ones on a flat Earth?

I'm not sure about anyone else but this makes it sound like terminal velocity on a FE is when a person is suspended in midair not moving.
  • From the explanation above, would an apple carried on a platform rising WITH the Earth (i.e. not increasing of decreasing in altitude)
    not also be travelling at the same speed as the Earth AND being an object with mass and lower than the Sun/Moon therefore have the SAME initial acceleration as the Earth? Therefore once let go, without conventional gravity and accelerating upward due to the pull of the stars, the apple will simply continue to move upward with the Earth, thereby not losing nor gaining altitude. In order to "fall" to Earth in this situation the apple's acceleration would need to decrease in order for Earth's surface to catch it up, not only that but it's acceleration must decrease more and more with time as the apple has been shown to increase it's velocity towards Earth's surface. It's acceleration then needs to remain constant so the Earth can catch up with it at a constant speed, i.e. terminal velocity.

Q6) My logic in that argument seems correct (if not let me know) so 5a) what would cause the apple to accelerate less than everything around it? 5b) what would cause its acceleration to decrease at a steady rate if the stars pull it at a constant rate and Earth is accelerating towards it at a constant rate? 5c) what then causes its acceleration to stop decreasing and not continue decreasing to the point where it's "fall" actually begins to slows down (to eventually reach equilibrium acceleration and velocity with the Earth and then even start moving upward)?

Quote
TomInAustin: is special relativity a valid theory? And if so, why that and not other generally accepted science?
Relativity IS accepted science. There is nothing that contradicts it, Newton's Laws are also supported by it but this extends them. Therefore there is no other science to switch to.

Hold up, isn't it true we've (the Russians) only drilled into the earths surface just 7.62 miles? What's this imaginary gravity you speak of 4,000 miles deep? Pretty funny you can guess what's down there. No it's hysterical actually. Science can't even get 1% down into earth yet they know what the hell is down there.
We don't need to dig a hole to the center of the Earth to make very, VERY good inferences that gravity exists - just as you don't need to cut open your chest to infer that you have a heart.
A more appropriate analogy is that no one has ever seen the heart of another human or animal, and they are assumed to exist as well.

One thing at a time, I'm still on space! I'll deal with Earth and it's interior later. Also be aware that as a geophysicist I have seen the evidence used to interpret Earth's interior. However... I assume you would not accept my word as evidence, as with other scientists, so I will do my best to work with that knowledge.

I hope the conversation is proving interesting!



*

Offline TomInAustin

  • *
  • Posts: 1367
  • Round Duh
    • View Profile
Re: Flat Earth Questions
« Reply #10 on: August 24, 2017, 06:28:56 PM »
Q1. What causes us to return to Earth when we step off a high bridge? Does gravity exist in flat-earth theory? If so, what causes it? - in physics it is understood gravity is caused by mass which is equivalent to energy and therefore objects are moving from a lower potential (distance) to a higher potential (close) in an energy field. This is based on observations of object behaviour in electric and magnetic fields for example.

http://wiki.tfes.org/Universal_Acceleration


Now, they will also tell you that there is actual gravity that keeps the moon and planets in orbit and affects the tides.
No, flat earth proponents will not tell you there is actual gravity.

Sounds like some do!

Quote
However, not all Flat Earth models dismiss the theory of gravity. The Davis Model proposes that the earth is an infinite plane exerting a finite gravitational pull (g), which is consistent with Gauss's Law.

Quote
The Davis model, suggested by John Davis, states that gravity does indeed exist. In this model, the Earth is an infinite disk with finite gravity. This was mathematically proven with the following:






Do you have a citation for this sweeping generalisation?

*

Offline juner

  • Planar Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 10174
    • View Profile
Re: Flat Earth Questions
« Reply #11 on: August 24, 2017, 07:26:39 PM »
Sounds like some do!
False.


Quote
The Davis model, suggested by John Davis, states that gravity does indeed exist. In this model, the Earth is an infinite disk with finite gravity. This was mathematically proven with the following:

lol the 'davis' model. Good luck with that.

*

Offline TomInAustin

  • *
  • Posts: 1367
  • Round Duh
    • View Profile
Re: Flat Earth Questions
« Reply #12 on: August 24, 2017, 09:10:25 PM »
Sounds like some do!
False.


Quote
The Davis model, suggested by John Davis, states that gravity does indeed exist. In this model, the Earth is an infinite disk with finite gravity. This was mathematically proven with the following:

lol the 'davis' model. Good luck with that.

2 things to that response. 

1, Hey it's your wiki
2. It must really be really silly if you say that.

Do you have a citation for this sweeping generalisation?

Re: Flat Earth Questions
« Reply #13 on: August 24, 2017, 09:27:43 PM »
Flat Earthers will tell you the Earth is undergoing steady acceleration. Now, they will also tell you that there is actual gravity that keeps the moon and planets in orbit and affects the tides. They won't, however, tell you how this gravitational attraction doesn't cause the Sun and Moon to collide with Earth.

  • Ok, so the earth is accelerating, that agrees with Physics. In Physics the Earth is constantly accelerating (constant speed but changing direction and therefore velocity hence accelerating). This is not quite the same as what I'm sure you meant though!... so moving on.
  • I understand the equivalence principle postulated by Einstein, i.e. with no visual clues you could be moving at a constant speed or stationary equally (zero acceleration) and hence in conventional physics Earth can be rotating at a constant speed and yet we feel like we are stationary. This also applies to non-zero acceleration where with no visual clues, if you dropped an Apple (I♡Newton) 1) on ground in a gravitational field (Conventional Physics), or 2) whilst standing on ground, itself accelerating upward.... the force of 9.81 m/s2 or 9.81 N/kg would be the same on that apple and therefore have the same effect. It would "fall" to the ground. In case 1) it is "pulled" to the ground while in case 2) the ground moves up to meet the apple.
  • Therefore I can accept that this is theoretically possible.

StinkyOne: You also seem to be correct that Celestial Gravitation says gravity is pulling Earth and all other objects with mass towards the stars(?).
Quote
StinkyOne: They won't, however, tell you how this gravitational attraction doesn't cause the Sun and Moon to collide with Earth.
I believe this is explain by my assumption that the Sun and Moon are effectively joined to the Earth and so they are also accelerating with it(?). Also
Quote
StinkyOne: Oh yeah, "celestial" gravity. LOL Gravity that works on everything but the Earth. It even attracts water, just not the Earth. Who comes up with this stuff??
I believe I also explained this one, their mass appears to be irrelevant, a = F/m doesn't seem to apply, as in regardless of mass their acceleration is the same so they accelerate WITH the Earth.

Q2) What about the planets?
Q3) Is this acceleration infinite? i.e. is the speed at which Earth is travelling infinite and therefore we just keep getting fater infinitely?
Q4) If so, a) are we going to hit the stars, or b) are they moving away from us, being pulled towards something else...? I can see no other option than those two.
Q5) why does the proven equation F=ma not apply to the stars pull on Earthly objects? Why don't heavier objects accelerate faster than lighter ones on a flat Earth?

I'm not sure about anyone else but this makes it sound like terminal velocity on a FE is when a person is suspended in midair not moving.
  • From the explanation above, would an apple carried on a platform rising WITH the Earth (i.e. not increasing of decreasing in altitude)
    not also be travelling at the same speed as the Earth AND being an object with mass and lower than the Sun/Moon therefore have the SAME initial acceleration as the Earth? Therefore once let go, without conventional gravity and accelerating upward due to the pull of the stars, the apple will simply continue to move upward with the Earth, thereby not losing nor gaining altitude. In order to "fall" to Earth in this situation the apple's acceleration would need to decrease in order for Earth's surface to catch it up, not only that but it's acceleration must decrease more and more with time as the apple has been shown to increase it's velocity towards Earth's surface. It's acceleration then needs to remain constant so the Earth can catch up with it at a constant speed, i.e. terminal velocity.

Q6) My logic in that argument seems correct (if not let me know) so 5a) what would cause the apple to accelerate less than everything around it? 5b) what would cause its acceleration to decrease at a steady rate if the stars pull it at a constant rate and Earth is accelerating towards it at a constant rate? 5c) what then causes its acceleration to stop decreasing and not continue decreasing to the point where it's "fall" actually begins to slows down (to eventually reach equilibrium acceleration and velocity with the Earth and then even start moving upward)?

Quote
TomInAustin: is special relativity a valid theory? And if so, why that and not other generally accepted science?
Relativity IS accepted science. There is nothing that contradicts it, Newton's Laws are also supported by it but this extends them. Therefore there is no other science to switch to.

Hold up, isn't it true we've (the Russians) only drilled into the earths surface just 7.62 miles? What's this imaginary gravity you speak of 4,000 miles deep? Pretty funny you can guess what's down there. No it's hysterical actually. Science can't even get 1% down into earth yet they know what the hell is down there.
We don't need to dig a hole to the center of the Earth to make very, VERY good inferences that gravity exists - just as you don't need to cut open your chest to infer that you have a heart.
A more appropriate analogy is that no one has ever seen the heart of another human or animal, and they are assumed to exist as well.

One thing at a time, I'm still on space! I'll deal with Earth and it's interior later. Also be aware that as a geophysicist I have seen the evidence used to interpret Earth's interior. However... I assume you would not accept my word as evidence, as with other scientists, so I will do my best to work with that knowledge.

I hope the conversation is proving interesting!
Lemme see what I can do here.
Q1. Umm, where did Q1 go?
Q2. Depending on who you ask, the planets: a) Don't actually exist. b) Do provide some of the pull (celestial gravitation) c) Aren't significant.
Q3. The earth is indeed accelerating and has been forever. According to the FE hypothesis it will continue to do so for an unknowable length of time going forward. We will never reach the speed of light due to a combination of limit theory and relativity.
Q4. Universal acceleration is truly universal. How? No idea, haven't seen it explained, but the prevailing theory to my knowledge is because the sky is a dome over Earth.
Q5. No idea on the first part here, which means the second part is fine. Remember gravity is basically impossible to tell apart from acceleration with Relativity.
Q6. I'll be honest: ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ I haven't a gorram clue. Their explanation for this has me completely kerfuzzled.

*

Offline juner

  • Planar Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 10174
    • View Profile
Re: Flat Earth Questions
« Reply #14 on: August 24, 2017, 10:05:17 PM »
Sounds like some do!
False.


Quote
The Davis model, suggested by John Davis, states that gravity does indeed exist. In this model, the Earth is an infinite disk with finite gravity. This was mathematically proven with the following:

lol the 'davis' model. Good luck with that.

2 things to that response. 

1, Hey it's your wiki
2. It must really be really silly if you say that.

It is well-known that John Davis is going crazy and senile in his old age.