[Ofcourseitsnotflat]

If I don't find the jumps, that would contradict the model. Basic science, it would refute it and the model would require either refinement or replacement. However I find that very unlikely.

Why do you find it "very unlikely"?

[JRowe]

If I don't find the jumps, that would contradict the model. Basic science, it would refute it and the model would require either refinement or replacement. However I find that very unlikely.

Why do you find it "very unlikely"?

Just analysis on other areas, when compared as overall models FET is substantially preferrable to the alternatives, specifically the model I hold to which predicts the discontinuity referred to. For an easy, relevant example, the non-linear decrease in gravity with respect to altitude is justified in this case, whereas under RET there's no actual reason for it to even approximate the inverse square law. That law normally applies when some tangible thing is being spread out over a wider area, but the RE model of gravity is not a thing, it's supposed to be a result of the curvature of spacetime and as such has no reason to reduce in that fashion.

[markjo]

...whereas under RET there's no actual reason for it to even approximate the inverse square law. That law normally applies when some tangible thing is being spread out over a wider area, but the RE model of gravity is not a thing, it's supposed to be a result of the curvature of spacetime and as such has no reason to reduce in that fashion.

JRowe, it was Newton who concluded that gravity is a force and observed that it follows the inverse square law long before Einstein thought up curved spacetime.

[JRowe]

...whereas under RET there's no actual reason for it to even approximate the inverse square law. That law normally applies when some tangible thing is being spread out over a wider area, but the RE model of gravity is not a thing, it's supposed to be a result of the curvature of spacetime and as such has no reason to reduce in that fashion.

JRowe, it was Newton who concluded that gravity is a force and observed that it follows the inverse square law long before Einstein thought up curved spacetime.

Newton barely had a theory behind gravity, he just had the observed fact of things falling, and as such no predictions and so nothing that could be called a theory. But if you want to go by Newton's view of gravity:

That gravity should be innate, inherent, and essential to matter, so that one body may act upon another at a distance, through a vacuum, without the mediation of anything else, by and through which their action and force may be conveyed from one to another, is to me so great an absurdity, that I believe no man who has in philosophical matters a competent faculty of thinking, can ever fall into it.

And either way, so what? I don't care about your model as it was a few centuries ago, I care about how it is now, how you have developed it in answer to the challenges presented to it. If you just want to pretend huge chunks of your model don't exist in order to defend it, then you're doing my work for me.

[markjo]

...whereas under RET there's no actual reason for it to even approximate the inverse square law. That law normally applies when some tangible thing is being spread out over a wider area, but the RE model of gravity is not a thing, it's supposed to be a result of the curvature of spacetime and as such has no reason to reduce in that fashion.

JRowe, it was Newton who concluded that gravity is a force and observed that it follows the inverse square law long before Einstein thought up curved spacetime.

Newton barely had a theory behind gravity, he just had the observed fact of things falling, and as such no predictions and so nothing that could be called a theory.

Predictions are made by using Newton's Law of Universal Gravitation.

But if you want to go by Newton's view of gravity:

That gravity should be innate, inherent, and essential to matter, so that one body may act upon another at a distance, through a vacuum, without the mediation of anything else, by and through which their action and force may be conveyed from one to another, is to me so great an absurdity, that I believe no man who has in philosophical matters a competent faculty of thinking, can ever fall into it.

Sure, Newton admitted that he didn't know what caused gravity, but he was able to observed and document its effects.

And either way, so what? I don't care about your model as it was a few centuries ago, I care about how it is now, how you have developed it in answer to the challenges presented to it. If you just want to pretend huge chunks of your model don't exist in order to defend it, then you're doing my work for me.

If you don't want me to bring up Newton's version of gravity (which is still in wide use today), then don't bring up inverse square which Newton's version of gravity uses.  In strong fields where relativistic effects become significant, GR does not use the inverse square law.

[Dr Van Nostrand]

Measuring the gravity field of earth is a scientifically admirable approach but why hasn't anyone mentioned something more basic?

Madman Mike Hughes was on the right track even if his rocket design was so grossly ineffective that it was doomed. Using energy to create steam then using that steam for thrust wastes a lot of energy. Just use your energy for thrust.

Model rockets, weather balloons and personal rockets could be used to get a good pic of the flat earth, assuming it doesn't hit some dome first.

[JRowe]

If you don't want me to bring up Newton's version of gravity (which is still in wide use today), then don't bring up inverse square which Newton's version of gravity uses.  In strong fields where relativistic effects become significant, GR does not use the inverse square law.

What I don't want is for you to act as though Newton had any actual theory of gravity. My problem is that your model cannot explain why gravity follows that law, and that stands whether or not you want to go by the old version or the new; Newton didn't even try to expxlain it.

assuming it doesn't hit some dome first.

When your plan ends with 'assuming it works,' it ain't a good plan.

High altitude travel is impossible. Things ascending or descending through the increased discontinuities get torn apart.

[Dr Van Nostrand]

If Mike Hughes achieved the altitude he was hoping for and crashed into a dome or was torn apart by gravimetric distortions, it would have been a tragedy. However, it would have also been a huge victory for flat earth. Imagine what we would have seen in the final moments of his GoPro recording.

[AirDisk]

I think it is easy to prove if the Earth is flat. Just fly in a plane to the edge of the world. Take a video. Why has no one done this yet? Its much less expensive than flying a rocket into space.

The spherical version of the Earth is easy to prove because it means if you keep flying in one direction you will come back to your starting point. It would be very easy to prove this wrong. For example fly from the US to Japan by going East. And then try by going West. One way would fail if the Earth was flat and both ways would succeed if the Earth was round. If the Earth is flat it means that airlines are lying to us and charging us too much for certain journeys!

[markjo]

If you don't want me to bring up Newton's version of gravity (which is still in wide use today), then don't bring up inverse square which Newton's version of gravity uses.  In strong fields where relativistic effects become significant, GR does not use the inverse square law.

What I don't want is for you to act as though Newton had any actual theory of gravity. My problem is that your model cannot explain why gravity follows that law, and that stands whether or not you want to go by the old version or the new; Newton didn't even try to expxlain it.

Newton's Universal Law of Gravitation is a theory that describes the effects of gravity (in non-relativistic conditions).  The fact that he couldn't describe the mechanism of gravity does not make it any less of a theory of take away from the validity of his description of its effects.

[JRowe]

If you don't want me to bring up Newton's version of gravity (which is still in wide use today), then don't bring up inverse square which Newton's version of gravity uses.  In strong fields where relativistic effects become significant, GR does not use the inverse square law.

What I don't want is for you to act as though Newton had any actual theory of gravity. My problem is that your model cannot explain why gravity follows that law, and that stands whether or not you want to go by the old version or the new; Newton didn't even try to expxlain it.

Newton's Universal Law of Gravitation is a theory that describes the effects of gravity (in non-relativistic conditions).  The fact that he couldn't describe the mechanism of gravity does not make it any less of a theory of take away from the validity of his description of its effects.

But it does make it meaningless as far as this discussion goes. Describing effects is trivial. Describing why and how those effects arise is science.

[markjo]

If you don't want me to bring up Newton's version of gravity (which is still in wide use today), then don't bring up inverse square which Newton's version of gravity uses.  In strong fields where relativistic effects become significant, GR does not use the inverse square law.

What I don't want is for you to act as though Newton had any actual theory of gravity. My problem is that your model cannot explain why gravity follows that law, and that stands whether or not you want to go by the old version or the new; Newton didn't even try to expxlain it.

Newton's Universal Law of Gravitation is a theory that describes the effects of gravity (in non-relativistic conditions).  The fact that he couldn't describe the mechanism of gravity does not make it any less of a theory of take away from the validity of his description of its effects.

But it does make it meaningless as far as this discussion goes. Describing effects is trivial. Describing why and how those effects arise is science.

Believe it or not, accurately describing the effects of an unknown force is still a quite useful science.  After all, you need to understand what something is doing before you can figure out how it does it, don't you think?

[JRowe]

If you don't want me to bring up Newton's version of gravity (which is still in wide use today), then don't bring up inverse square which Newton's version of gravity uses.  In strong fields where relativistic effects become significant, GR does not use the inverse square law.

What I don't want is for you to act as though Newton had any actual theory of gravity. My problem is that your model cannot explain why gravity follows that law, and that stands whether or not you want to go by the old version or the new; Newton didn't even try to expxlain it.

Newton's Universal Law of Gravitation is a theory that describes the effects of gravity (in non-relativistic conditions).  The fact that he couldn't describe the mechanism of gravity does not make it any less of a theory of take away from the validity of his description of its effects.

But it does make it meaningless as far as this discussion goes. Describing effects is trivial. Describing why and how those effects arise is science.

Believe it or not, accurately describing the effects of an unknown force is still a quite useful science.  After all, you need to understand what something is doing before you can figure out how it does it, don't you think?

And it is still irrelevant when my objection is the explanation of the why. Bypassing that question entirely doesn't help. Why are you still debating this?

[markjo]

If you don't want me to bring up Newton's version of gravity (which is still in wide use today), then don't bring up inverse square which Newton's version of gravity uses.  In strong fields where relativistic effects become significant, GR does not use the inverse square law.

What I don't want is for you to act as though Newton had any actual theory of gravity. My problem is that your model cannot explain why gravity follows that law, and that stands whether or not you want to go by the old version or the new; Newton didn't even try to expxlain it.

Newton's Universal Law of Gravitation is a theory that describes the effects of gravity (in non-relativistic conditions).  The fact that he couldn't describe the mechanism of gravity does not make it any less of a theory of take away from the validity of his description of its effects.

But it does make it meaningless as far as this discussion goes. Describing effects is trivial. Describing why and how those effects arise is science.

Believe it or not, accurately describing the effects of an unknown force is still a quite useful science.  After all, you need to understand what something is doing before you can figure out how it does it, don't you think?

And it is still irrelevant when my objection is the explanation of the why. Bypassing that question entirely doesn't help. Why are you still debating this?

Is the why of your DET equivalent of gravity explained any better than Newton's gravity or GR?  And by better, I mean with a firm mathematical foundation.

[Rickthebrick]

What would you do, experimentally, to establish whether or not the Earth is flat, round, oblate spheroid, or whatever?

Assume you have an unlimited budget, and access to any technology currently available, anywhere in the world (no time-travel, teleportation, or other Star Trek variants allowed).

What would you want to do, in order to satisfy yourself?

Easiest thing to do, and you do not need all the money in the world or any technology, take a spaceship to the space station. Or take a shuttle around the earth in earths orbit. Couple million would do.

[markjo]

What would you do, experimentally, to establish whether or not the Earth is flat, round, oblate spheroid, or whatever?

Assume you have an unlimited budget, and access to any technology currently available, anywhere in the world (no time-travel, teleportation, or other Star Trek variants allowed).

What would you want to do, in order to satisfy yourself?

Easiest thing to do, and you do not need all the money in the world or any technology, take a spaceship to the space station. Or take a shuttle around the earth in earths orbit. Couple million would do.

Sure, that would be really easy.  Assuming that you have a few million (actually probably closer to about $50-60 million) burning a hole in your pocket and the space tourism industry is currently sending tourists to space (it isn't).

[JRowe]

If you don't want me to bring up Newton's version of gravity (which is still in wide use today), then don't bring up inverse square which Newton's version of gravity uses.  In strong fields where relativistic effects become significant, GR does not use the inverse square law.

What I don't want is for you to act as though Newton had any actual theory of gravity. My problem is that your model cannot explain why gravity follows that law, and that stands whether or not you want to go by the old version or the new; Newton didn't even try to expxlain it.

Newton's Universal Law of Gravitation is a theory that describes the effects of gravity (in non-relativistic conditions).  The fact that he couldn't describe the mechanism of gravity does not make it any less of a theory of take away from the validity of his description of its effects.

But it does make it meaningless as far as this discussion goes. Describing effects is trivial. Describing why and how those effects arise is science.

Believe it or not, accurately describing the effects of an unknown force is still a quite useful science.  After all, you need to understand what something is doing before you can figure out how it does it, don't you think?

And it is still irrelevant when my objection is the explanation of the why. Bypassing that question entirely doesn't help. Why are you still debating this?

Is the why of your DET equivalent of gravity explained any better than Newton's gravity or GR?  And by better, I mean with a firm mathematical foundation.

So you are just completely incapable of actually acknowledging a word I say.
Math tells you the what. My problem is with the how. You don't get to move the goalposts to just completely ignore my statements.

[markjo]

So you are just completely incapable of actually acknowledging a word I say.
Math tells you the what. My problem is with the how. You don't get to move the goalposts to just completely ignore my statements.

Math is the language of science.  If you don't have the math, then you don't have a theory.  Newton and Einstein had plenty of math to support their theories.  Where's your math?

[Tom Bishop]

So you are just completely incapable of actually acknowledging a word I say.
Math tells you the what. My problem is with the how. You don't get to move the goalposts to just completely ignore my statements.

Math is the language of science.  If you don't have the math, then you don't have a theory.  Newton and Einstein had plenty of math to support their theories.  Where's your math?

Newton provided the math, not the mechanism. His math is attributable to any theory of gravity.

[AATW]

So you are just completely incapable of actually acknowledging a word I say.
Math tells you the what. My problem is with the how. You don't get to move the goalposts to just completely ignore my statements.

Math is the language of science.  If you don't have the math, then you don't have a theory.  Newton and Einstein had plenty of math to support their theories.  Where's your math?

Newton provided the math, not the mechanism. His math is attributable to any theory of gravity.

FE doesn't provide either the math or the mechanism for many of its ideas of course...

And while we're here, Newton's math isn't correct. In most normal cases it's close enough but Einstein provided a more complete explanation of gravity with different math - Einstein's equations reduce to Newton's for most practical purposes.