### Show Posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.

### Messages - aaronb

Pages: [1]
1
##### Flat Earth Theory / Re: Gravity is not constant so why is acceleration?
« on: May 12, 2019, 06:40:00 PM »
So we still have no proposed explanation for a simple observation made by most kids in school every day that the force of gravitation differs (yes even at sea level).

Tom Bishop above helpfully offered that pressure differences on his rather round earth model with poles and equator (I am new here but see he regularly like to play devils advocate here) could be a possibility.

However a flat earth model does not have poles and an equator to create this effect and just to rule out even on a round model I showed this effect insignificant to these every day measurements as low-density items would float in air which is clearly not part of everyday observation.

So that leaves me still amazed that there is no possible explanation for this everyday observed effect for the flat-earth model.

2
##### Flat Earth Theory / Re: Gravity is not constant so why is acceleration?
« on: May 10, 2019, 08:20:04 AM »
I too am eager to see where the poles are on the flat-earth map.
Yes, there is a buoyancy effect in the air,  Thank you for that idea. Great. Let's test it right now. We will assume for now this does not break the idea of universal acceleration in itself.

For such a buoyancy effect to be measurably significant assuming a mass of 1 kg used for the measurement over 10 cm (again that calculation is basic and taught in the national curriculum to kids. Nothing advanced here). The buoyancy force would have to be at least 10g for every meter. OK everybody There are many household items that fit the bill so try float them in the air right now.  Did any float? Items far far less than that did not float in my location.

Other extremely simple supporting evidence include the fact that my ears do not pop when I stand up so I actually was able to eliminate that effect immediately actually from everyday observation.

Any other ideas?

3
##### Flat Earth Theory / Re: Gravity is not constant so why is acceleration?
« on: May 10, 2019, 01:45:25 AM »
Despite what appears a lot of activity here seemly there is debate over complex issues or experiments which are outside of regular peoples ability to see directly.

The simple measurement of gravity using a spring scale and it's noting that is not quite the published average, which most of us have done at school at some point, I know I did, and in the UK at least the ability to do this using basic principles is part of the National Curriculum (I suspect this is done in most parts of at least the western world today) apparently cannot be explained?

Does this Flat-Earth community (who claim to have answers regarding relativity) really have no answer for simple observations using basic principles that most school kids perform at some point using basic equipment in schools each day?  I find this astounding to say the least. I really assumed there must be an explanation (even though I could not think of it) of something so basic to warrant belief in a flat earth model.

4
##### Flat Earth Theory / Re: Gravity is not constant so why is acceleration?
« on: May 09, 2019, 05:15:25 AM »
I should also like to point out I have read other threads on this, but the only remote answers I found where either.

1. Regurgitations of round-earth theory I already know: Not really helpful, I want to know how flat-earth theory can explain it (if possible).

2. Denial based on force cannot be measured: Clearly they never heard of a simple spring scale? which I think many of us agree, do exist, have indeed used, and are more than accurate enough to the few percent needed.

3. Another force causes acceleration (and therefore speed) to vary: As none of us see parts of the world flying up and down away from us, that clearly does not match any observation at all.

I really would dearly love to hear the views from those who are not just going to blindly throw established equations like it negates other views, admits existence of a spring scale, and does look out the window to notice that parts of the world are not actually flying up and down all over the place.

5
##### Flat Earth Theory / Re: Gravity is not constant so why is acceleration?
« on: May 09, 2019, 01:51:07 AM »
While I understand very well all the issues in the expansion of my original question.  I feel quoting formulas that already work well does not eliminate the possibility that others that may also do the same.

It is normal when presenting new ideas simplify them before they are expanded to fit all the events we observe. So I would like to keep things simple and just hear something that could explain the basics of what we clearly observe around us, which is of course that the upward force varies depending where we are.

ADDENDUM: I would also suggest that the wording of the oversimplified single acceleration which (while, is useful for estimating values) clearly does not fit our observation, does not help. Surely it would be useful to be open about the fact that this does not match real-world measurements?

6
##### Flat Earth Theory / Gravity is not constant so why is acceleration?
« on: May 08, 2019, 03:37:29 PM »
As every experienced trader through the ages knows weight measurements by force depend on where they are taken. Hence the change of trading in Lbs for Kg for fair trade. Readings for gravity are different depending on where you are. There is an average value used for basic use but the world is not average and so readings range generally between about 9.83 to 9.76. As I am sure many here must know this (especially any experienced traders) and can be measured and verified by anyone freely.

So I am confused how the upward acceleration works that seems to assume an average value? when if you measure the force at any specific location we clearly see it is not average. So surely different parts of the world must be accelerating at different rates and hence the world falling apart alarmingly quickly?  This clearly does not even closely fit observation. Can anyone please explain?

Pages: [1]