#### SteelyBob

• 775
##### Re: Experiment to prove or disprove certain fact of FE theory
« Reply #120 on: November 28, 2021, 06:00:46 PM »

No, I prefer a bi-polar model and don't think the sunlight necessarily takes those shapes. That type of behavior is the general argument for the Monopole model though.

Tom - I’d be really grateful if you explain how the sun illuminates the various parts of your preferred ‘map’, and how that works with your previous explanation of EA

#### drand48

• 50
##### Re: Experiment to prove or disprove certain fact of FE theory
« Reply #121 on: December 20, 2021, 08:40:04 PM »
The answer to that query is that those are not the angles the observers would see since that diagram is an overhead two dimensional scene which inherently assumes that the stars and the observers are at the same altitude. Two points above an observer do not maintain their apparent angular displacement no matter how far they are above the observer.

If we imagine that the image you provided was a three dimensional scene starting with those stars at the same altitude as the observer, and if we then increase the altitude of the stars over the observer nearest the North Pole, the angle the observer sees between the top and bottom stars would become less and less as the stars get further and further from the observer.

If, instead, we imagine that the previous image I provided is three dimensionally sliced through the center with a copy of itself on other axis like a + when viewed from overhead, creating a symmetrical three dimensional scene with four stars instead of two, we can see that the consistent angles would also work on the other axis.
OK, then, do the math for us and show that two observers would observe the same angle between two stars, based on your theory.

No math = no theory.  Not even a hypothesis.  Just a concept.  Concepts are important, but they aren't very convincing when we have theories where the math holds up and has incredible predictive value. Math people have been using for over 2000 years for certain cases, and for several hundreds of years for navigation.

#### Gemini Saga

• 7
##### Re: Experiment to prove or disprove certain fact of FE theory
« Reply #122 on: December 28, 2021, 07:34:03 AM »
Hi All,

Like many others, I've seen the video of Eric Dubai debunking the gravity, and answering Dave difficult questions (at least this is what seems to be for new Flat Earthers). I thought of sharing with you an experimental way to prove that Gravity doesn’t exist, I am not sure if it will count or not, However, I feel its worth discussion with you all here.

As we know, following the scientific methodology we cannot give a label to a theory that its 100% correct, because if we do so we are actually going to destroy the foundation of the scientific methodology as this methodology is built on continuous learning, meaning there would always be a tiny percentage of doubt regardless of the evidences provided for things which we cannot observe or assumptions we've developed in our minds. I know the subject might seems to taking this a bit far or stretching but anyway let's give it a try. If we use Newton's formula, F= GMM/r^2 where Force equals the constant of gravity is multiplied by the mass of Object 1 and mass of Object 2 divided by the distance between the two masses raised to the second power. If we take this into account, this would mean that the mass of the Earth is so great that the balloon would have no choice but to be attracted to the Earth. Why is that? because we have Object 1 mass pulling on Object 2 mass and vice versa where Object mass 2 pulling on Object mass 1 which we then have to conclude that F1 = F2 and this we all know is wrong, and why its wrong? because the pulling force of both not equal. I mean that the force of the balloon that pulls the Earth is not equal to the force that the Earth pulls on the balloon! Given that, the balloon shouldn’t rise whatsoever but the reality is showing something else, something which Eric mentioned before makes more sense, that Objects follows its density equilibrium

What do you think of the above?

and would also like to pounder on the question, is there a force required! we know that the scientific community considers gravity a force, do we need a force to explain what we observe in the first matter? and if we need, can we 100% say that gravity force consists of pulling factor?

#### AllAroundTheWorld

• 6092
##### Re: Experiment to prove or disprove certain fact of FE theory
« Reply #123 on: December 28, 2021, 12:27:12 PM »
I mean that the force of the balloon that pulls the Earth is not equal to the force that the Earth pulls on the balloon!
Yes it is.
But also F = ma. So a = F/m.
So that same force has much less effect on the earth, which is massive, than the balloon which is not.

Also, with a balloon one must consider other forces. The wind exerts a force. Not a large force but, again, a = F/m.
So a small mass - like a balloon - can be affected by a small force. Which is why feathers and balloons are blown about by the wind and cannonballs are not.

Quote
What do you think of the above?

I think it shows a misunderstanding of science, which is what I see in a lot of FE people (and a lot of RE people, to be fair, but they’re generally not the ones thinking they know better than scientists)
Tom: "Claiming incredulity is a pretty bad argument. Calling it "insane" or "ridiculous" is not a good argument at all."

TFES Wiki Occam's Razor page, by Tom: "What's the simplest explanation; that NASA has successfully designed and invented never before seen rocket technologies from scratch which can accelerate 100 tons of matter to an escape velocity of 7 miles per second"

#### Gemini Saga

• 7
##### Re: Experiment to prove or disprove certain fact of FE theory
« Reply #124 on: December 28, 2021, 02:24:30 PM »
I mean that the force of the balloon that pulls the Earth is not equal to the force that the Earth pulls on the balloon!
Yes it is.
But also F = ma. So a = F/m.
So that same force has much less effect on the earth, which is massive, than the balloon which is not.

Also, with a balloon one must consider other forces. The wind exerts a force. Not a large force but, again, a = F/m.
So a small mass - like a balloon - can be affected by a small force. Which is why feathers and balloons are blown about by the wind and cannonballs are not.

Well don't forget that we have a zero dimensional mass * a 2 dimensional vector and that =/ 3 dimensional field. Which means the main axiom of gravity fails the commutative test this is because in gravity math we have there is a concept called Zero Point Mass. This is a mass without a volume. Which I think you are aware of is not found in the universe. The main problem here is the reduction of 3 dimensional densities to 0 dimensional masses. Once a density is reduces to a mass, the mass cannot be returned to the original shape of the density. So we cannot cube a zero and get anything but another zero. This breaks the commutative properties of addition and thus the formula used above should actually be used to disprove gravity > F = GMM/r^2 : Force = The constant of Gravity * (The zero dimensional mass 1 * The zero dimensional mass 2)/ The 3 dimensional length between them squared. So every object pulls every other object. The dimensional problem occurs again.

#### Pete Svarrior

• e
• Planar Moderator
• 15537
• (◕˽ ◕ ✿)
##### Re: Experiment to prove or disprove certain fact of FE theory
« Reply #125 on: December 28, 2021, 02:40:17 PM »
Well don't forget that we have a zero dimensional mass * a 2 dimensional vector
Sorry, what makes you think the vector is 2-dimensional?

P.S.  All of us illiterate folks understood this the first time.

#### Gemini Saga

• 7
##### Re: Experiment to prove or disprove certain fact of FE theory
« Reply #126 on: December 28, 2021, 07:27:28 PM »
Well don't forget that we have a zero dimensional mass * a 2 dimensional vector
Sorry, what makes you think the vector is 2-dimensional?

Because in reality mass does not exist in the natural observable world. To sum it up, any object cannot have mass and not have volume. For example I weight 85kg. Am I overweight or normal for people living in the north? you would come to know that mass tells us nothing of my size so that's why mass should be discarded because it has no dimensions. If we however, replace it with density then we can get an appropriate picture of the natural object in 3 dimensions. Peace

#### Pete Svarrior

• e
• Planar Moderator
• 15537
• (◕˽ ◕ ✿)
##### Re: Experiment to prove or disprove certain fact of FE theory
« Reply #127 on: December 28, 2021, 07:35:49 PM »
Because in reality mass does not exist in the natural observable world.
Ignoring the fact that this is complete nonsense for a second, mass isn't a vector at all. It's a scalar. So, coming back to your asserion - why do you think the vector is 2-dimensional?

You said it yourself: a zero-dimensional mass times a 2-dimensional vector. It's pretty clear nobody is asking about the mass (yet).
« Last Edit: December 28, 2021, 07:47:11 PM by Pete Svarrior »

P.S.  All of us illiterate folks understood this the first time.

#### Gemini Saga

• 7
##### Re: Experiment to prove or disprove certain fact of FE theory
« Reply #128 on: December 29, 2021, 06:43:21 AM »
Well because dimensionless mass cannot create a 3 dimensional shape...

#### Pete Svarrior

• e
• Planar Moderator
• 15537
• (◕˽ ◕ ✿)
##### Re: Experiment to prove or disprove certain fact of FE theory
« Reply #129 on: December 29, 2021, 09:30:14 PM »
Once again - mass isn't a vector at all. A "shape" is not a vector, either.

You said that "we have a zero dimensional mass * a 2 dimensional vector".

I'm not asking about "a zero dimensional mass". It's nonsense, but I'm ignoring it for now. I am asking about the "2 dimensional vector".

What makes you think this vector is 2-dimensional?

P.S.  All of us illiterate folks understood this the first time.

#### Kangaroony

• 85
##### Re: Experiment to prove or disprove certain fact of FE theory
« Reply #130 on: January 02, 2022, 05:39:17 PM »
...Because in reality mass does not exist in the natural observable world. To sum it up, any object cannot have mass and not have volume. For example I weight 85kg. Am I overweight or normal for people living in the north? you would come to know that mass tells us nothing of my size so that's why mass should be discarded because it has no dimensions. If we however, replace it with density then we can get an appropriate picture of the natural object in 3 dimensions. Peace

Yes; mass does exist in the natural observable world.  If the mass of your body wasn't
observable, then I wouldn't see you as you walked past me on the street.  You have a body
mass of 85kg.  To not see you would require that you had a body mass of 0kg, which is of course
absurd—because you simply wouldn't exist.

Mass is a measure of the amount of matter in an object, and measures the quantity of matter
regardless of both its location in the universe and the gravitational force applied to it. An object's
mass is constant in all circumstances—contrast this with its weight, a force that depends on gravity.

And you're also wrong about me not being able to comprehend your "size" as a human being.  And
BTW, size is not technically a defining scientific term;  you and I have massive sizes in comparison
to an ant for example, but the Earth is of a tiny size in comparison with the sun.  Size, per se, is only
an abstract, relative term.

If you take your argument any further then, you're simply straying into a game of semantics.

#### ichoosereality

• 216
##### Re: Experiment to prove or disprove certain fact of FE theory
« Reply #131 on: March 12, 2022, 05:31:57 PM »
... in gravity math we have there is a concept called Zero Point Mass. This is a mass without a volume. Which I think you are aware of is not found in the universe.
You said it correctly but then failed to pay attention to your own words.  The idea of a zero point mass (ignoring black holes for now) is in "gravity math", not the physical universe. If you are computing the gravitational force between two objects t and integrate the force calculation over the volume of the objects you will find that a) that is a difficult calculation and b)  that the answer is the same as if you considered each mass to a be a "point mass" at the center of mass of each object.  It's just an extremely useful calculation simplification and not a description of the actual objects.  Usually in such calculations its the trajectory of the center of mass the you are interested in so things like torque created by uneven mass is not typically of interest.
« Last Edit: March 13, 2022, 06:16:24 AM by ichoosereality »
If "bendy light" were real the spot shape and power output of large solid-state lasers would vary depending on their orientation relative to the surface of the earth, but this is not observed thus bendy light is not real.