Gravity through reason
« on: July 27, 2018, 02:30:18 AM »
Hello,

(Warning: I did not come to the final point with this post, and I need a break for now, but it is far enough to start some discussion. most of this first post is an explanation of what this topic is about and how I would like to have the format of discussion. If you don't want to think hard, this topic is not for you.)


with this topic I want to outline a very clear reasoning, which will, either proof, or at least give a very strong indication that the earth must be spherical (i.e. close to sphere-shaped, not a perfect sphere, as noone would try to reason, but to be precise).
To clarify, with reasoning I mean using nothing but logic / simple math and easily doable experiments that anyone can do with very small effort preferably in their room without buying any tools. Maybe simple things like a stopwatch, a meter scale, a weight scale, some arbitrary small objects, a glass, some water, ... will be required.

To get more specific, this topic is about gravity, or whatever a gravity-doesnt-exist believer wants to call the "circumstance" that makes things go "towards the floor". As, at least as far as I know, everyone knows that flat earth cannot work without gravity (which however, will be another thing to discuss, if we ever get to conclude that gravity works as science says in this topic..)

This topic requires being very precise with every argument.

Don't waste time and/or spam by citing sources (a time waste, since they are always cherry-picked) or invoking "common sense".
Why no common sense? Because clearly "common sense" of either flat-earthers, or globe-earthers is fundamentally wrong, so no use refering to it.
Also, please don't mention a million points at once, this will just blow up the thread if we want to be precise.

A good state of mind before posting might be, think of the one you are trying to explain something to, as not a human, but a machine, which can't do anything if you don't explain every little detail step by step. If we manage to do that, anyone smarter than a machine (which hopefully is everyone) should be able to follow.



Not relevant disclaimer on why I'm doing this topic
If you haven't figured it out by the above, I'm a physicist (hence, recognize the earth is pretty spherical). However, with the format of this topic as I outlined above, this should have no impact on anything we discuss. If it does, then we're not being precise enough. Anyway, being a scientist, I find it highly disturbing how silly believes can get and flat-earth has to be one of the top-runners. I don't particularly care if anyone believes in flat earth or not. But I do care when people are stubbornly convinced by nonsense, it is the worst thing you can possibly do. It only leads to misery and disaster, if you pick the wrong thing to be convinced by (luckily, flat-earth is harmless in that regard).
Anyway, that's my reason for this topic. No more details, as it's a completely different topic.




If something is too hard to experimentally verify, discard it's discussion. One can always say "but go check it yourself", but let's be honest for the sake of forum-discussion, noone ever does if it's not super-simple to do so (hence the format of the topic). Not because of spite, but because people have limited time and resources which can make it simply impossible (that's why science exists to do the job..).
Note I said experimentally, if something is just logically too hard to follow, it should not be discarded (that's the reason discussions like this never go anywhere..), and kept on the discussion table indefinitely. In this regard, I am very stubborn, I might or might not ignore any other arguments if there's even one that's not understood.
Also please recognize we are humans and make mistakes, don't be a child and make accusations for mistakes, while not even trying to understand the arguments, or corrections, if mistakes have been made. If you don't want to think hard and understand, then this thread is not for you, you can leave now.




Finally, on the actual topic.
I'll try to list elementary points as clearly as possible.

1.
As I understand, every flat-earther needs to do away with gravity,
as gravity is what makes sufficiently huge amounts of "stuff" attract and deform each other into spherical shapes. This point should be the last-dicussed one and the end-goal, as it is hard or even impossible to do with pure reasoning. So I would not discuss it right away, but please mention if you are flat-earther and do recognize gravity as a true thing, and how that works.

2.
I think we can agree that stuff tends to move "towards the floor",
so let's call this phenomenon "fallforce" (if you say there is no force.. forgive my naming creativity, just use it as a name to refer to whatever you believe). I.e. for me the fallforce would be gravity. For flat-earthers, I guess it would be buoyancy. (Physic note: yes, actual gravity as in GR is not a force, but Newton gravity is precise enough to conclude a globe earth, and not unreasonable to verify with very limited tools)

I underlined the arguments for discussion, the rest of the text is only to give an explanation. Like I said, I would prefer to leave 1. for now, and just stick to 2.
For now I can see two discussions 'branches' that could come up:

Branch 1:
Give a detailed explanation of how the fallforce works. Specifically, why is down.. "down", as in towards the floor, however you define floor if not by saying "where stuff moves towards". I have never seen flat-earther even try to explain this. And sadly, I have never seen debate mention this point.

Branch 2:
You don't have an explanation for your version of the "fallforce". That's o.k.. It will get more complicated as I will have to give a full outline first on how 1. leads to 2. and leads to spherical earth. Then you just have to find 1 flaw with it.


I'd like to keep both branches separate for discussion, if anyone even belongs to branch 2, I don't know. However I already spend hours writing this now, so I'll get back to it later, feel free to take branch 1 for now. Be reminded to please use clear step-by-step logic or maths to assist your reasoning (if you don't think maths works.. uh.... we can discuss why, but it's going to be hard to discuss anything)




I want to not forget this thread, but I also just did this on impulse, so I can't guarantee I'll actually keep posting.. if not, maybe at least this first post will incite some others to discuss in this format. Or it could be too much text wall and noone wants to bother.. but hey at least I tried.

Re: Gravity through reason
« Reply #1 on: July 27, 2018, 03:56:42 AM »
Welcome to the board. Great stuff BTW.

Before you go any further, please be advised that the prominent belief among the FEs here is "Universal Acceleration" or UA for short. This means the Earth is accelerating upwards at 9.8 m/s^2. Most of your garden variety gravity experiments and discussions will be unable to distinguish between Newton's gravity and UA. Teasing out the differences between them will lead you down a rabbit hole that has seen more traffic than a Los Angeles freeway.

Many people come here seeking follow-up discussions to something they saw on youtube. (I certainly did.) The beliefs expressed here are varied, but the most common ones are quite different from the common youtube answers. So before you go too deep, better learn the audience here a bit. It's different than the youtube audience.

*

Offline BigGuyWhoKills

  • *
  • Posts: 47
  • Not flat, not stationary
    • View Profile
Re: Gravity through reason
« Reply #2 on: July 27, 2018, 03:22:53 PM »
Branch 1:
Give a detailed explanation of how the fallforce works. Specifically, why is down.. "down", as in towards the floor, however you define floor if not by saying "where stuff moves towards". I have never seen flat-earther even try to explain this. And sadly, I have never seen debate mention this point.

You must be new here.  Did you read the wiki at all (https://wiki.tfes.org/General_Physics)?  If you don't do any research, I will almost guarantee that none of the FE'ers will respond to you (except to tell you to read the wiki).
I am not here to convert you.  I want to know enough to be able to defend the RE model.

Re: Gravity through reason
« Reply #3 on: July 27, 2018, 05:21:45 PM »
Hello,

(Warning: I did not come to the final point with this post, and I need a break for now, but it is far enough to start some discussion.

how about read the wiki first.
Quote from: SiDawg
Planes fall out of the sky all the time

Re: Gravity through reason
« Reply #4 on: August 05, 2018, 02:19:58 PM »
Or perhaps just "gravity", since FEs don't have a better model. ::)

"This means the Earth is accelerating upwards at 9.8 m/s^2" You've just proved that you've never been to a physics class. If it was accelerating at 9.8 m/s^2, that means it's velocity would be increasing by 9.8 m/s. So one second, it would be travelling at 9.8 m/s, then after another second it would be travelling at 19.6 m/s, and so forth. If we go with the creationist figure of the Earth being 6,000 years old, by now it would be travelling at a whopping 1,855,548,777,600 m/s, or 1.8 billion km/s, which is approximately 6,189 times the speed of light. If we go with the figure of 4.6 billion years, by now the Earth would be travelling at 1,422,587,396,160,000,000 m/s, or 1.4 quadrillion km/s, which is approximately 4.7 billion times faster than the speed of light. Can you see why it can't be accelerating at this speed?
Back to the point at hand, the correct sentence would be 'travelling upwards at 9.8 m/s'. Anybody who's been to a physics class and bothered to listen knows that. In future, don't talk about things you know nothing about.

Besides that, what evidence do you have that this is happening? What force is acting upon Earth to make it travel at this speed?

*

Offline juner

  • Planar Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 10178
    • View Profile
Re: Gravity through reason
« Reply #5 on: August 05, 2018, 03:30:15 PM »
If we go with the figure of 4.6 billion years, by now the Earth would be travelling at 1,422,587,396,160,000,000 m/s, or 1.4 quadrillion km/s, which is approximately 4.7 billion times faster than the speed of light. Can you see why it can't be accelerating at this speed?
I would suggest maybe brushing up on your Special Relativity before trying again.


In future, don't talk about things you know nothing about.
I would suggest you take your own advice.

Re: Gravity through reason
« Reply #6 on: August 05, 2018, 03:34:15 PM »
If we go with the figure of 4.6 billion years, by now the Earth would be travelling at 1,422,587,396,160,000,000 m/s, or 1.4 quadrillion km/s, which is approximately 4.7 billion times faster than the speed of light. Can you see why it can't be accelerating at this speed?
I would suggest maybe brushing up on your Special Relativity before trying again.


In future, don't talk about things you know nothing about.
I would suggest you take your own advice.
Can you tell me how it's possible for the Earth to be accelerating at 9.8 m/s2 and yet keep travelling at 9.8 m/s then? If it's travelling at 9.8 m/s then it can't be accelerating. Make your mind up.

Re: Gravity through reason
« Reply #7 on: August 05, 2018, 04:21:02 PM »
And if you're going to use Special Relativity as an excuse, that means the Earth is travelling at 99.999999999etc.% the speed of light. How is it then also travelling at 9.8 m/s upward? That also makes no sense. By the logic of this hypothesis, you'd fall to the Earth at 99.recurring 9% the speed of light and ultimately be torn into atoms if you so much as fall over. That doesn't happen. All of this can be resolved by taking the widely-accepted alternative of gravity, but you can't do that since gravity itself would disprove Flat Earth.

Besides, why are you even disputing this, it can be avoided by admitting that the sentence 'the Earth is accelerating upwards at 9.8 m/s2' is wrong and should be 'the Earth is travelling upwards at 9.8 m/s'. It's still wrong but it at least makes sense.
« Last Edit: August 05, 2018, 04:27:06 PM by Jack the Hedgechidna »

Re: Gravity through reason
« Reply #8 on: August 05, 2018, 04:24:20 PM »
And if you're going to use Special Relativity as an excuse, that means the Earth is travelling at 99.999999999etc.% the speed of light. How is it then also travelling at 9.8 m/s upward? That also makes no sense. By the logic of this hypothesis, you'd fall to the Earth at 99.recurring 9% the speed of light and ultimately be torn into atoms if you so much as fall over. That doesn't happen.
If anyone said Earth is "travelling at 9.8 m/s upward" (other than yourself), it was obviously a typo. I'm not here to defend FE. I'm just here to combat the nonsense.

*

Offline Pete Svarrior

  • e
  • Planar Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 16082
  • (◕˽ ◕ ✿)
    • View Profile
Re: Gravity through reason
« Reply #9 on: August 05, 2018, 04:25:05 PM »
Back to the point at hand, the correct sentence would be 'travelling upwards at 9.8 m/s'.
No, it wouldn't be. It's the acceleration that matters here, not speed.
Read the FAQ before asking your question - chances are we already addressed it.
Follow the Flat Earth Society on Twitter and Facebook!

If we are not speculating then we must assume

*

Offline juner

  • Planar Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 10178
    • View Profile
Re: Gravity through reason
« Reply #10 on: August 05, 2018, 04:26:36 PM »
Can you tell me how it's possible for the Earth to be accelerating at 9.8 m/s2 and yet keep travelling at 9.8 m/s then? If it's travelling at 9.8 m/s then it can't be accelerating. Make your mind up.

In the universal acceleration model, earth is accelerating at ~9.2m/s2.

No one is claiming it has a velocity of 9.8m/s. I really am not sure where you got this idea but it seems like you made it up yourself and want other people to defend it. I would suggest reading the wiki and FAQ since you clearly lack an understanding of the basics.

*

Offline BigGuyWhoKills

  • *
  • Posts: 47
  • Not flat, not stationary
    • View Profile
Re: Gravity through reason
« Reply #11 on: August 06, 2018, 04:02:34 PM »
This means the Earth is accelerating upwards at 9.8 m/s^2" You've just proved that you've never been to a physics class. If it was accelerating at 9.8 m/s^2, that means it's velocity would be increasing by 9.8 m/s. So one second, it would be travelling at 9.8 m/s, then after another second it would be travelling at 19.6 m/s, and so forth. If we go with the creationist figure of the Earth being 6,000 years old, by now it would be travelling at a whopping 1,855,548,777,600 m/s, or 1.8 billion km/s, which is approximately 6,189 times the speed of light. If we go with the figure of 4.6 billion years, by now the Earth would be travelling at 1,422,587,396,160,000,000 m/s, or 1.4 quadrillion km/s, which is approximately 4.7 billion times faster than the speed of light. Can you see why it can't be accelerating at this speed?

As one round Earther to another: Gravity is correct, but you are not.

Special relativity for the layman could be described as an asymptote: as you approach the speed of light, it takes more acceleration energy to experience the same speed gain.  The closer you get, the more it takes.  So at standstill, you would gain 9.8 m/s for the first second, but slightly less the next second, and so on.  As you get near the speed of light, accelerating at 9.8 m/s^2 may only add a femtometer per millenia to your current speed (I don't claim know the actual figure).

So, from a RE perspective, special relativity DOES allow for constant acceleration without ever reaching the speed of light.  However, there are ALL SORTS of other problems with this claim (redshift measurements would be a mess, everything else would have to be accelerating in the same direction as the FE).  But it CAN be used as a stand-in for gravity in one direction.
I am not here to convert you.  I want to know enough to be able to defend the RE model.

Re: Gravity through reason
« Reply #12 on: August 06, 2018, 05:01:04 PM »
admitting that the sentence 'the Earth is accelerating upwards at 9.8 m/s2' is wrong and should be 'the Earth is travelling upwards at 9.8 m/s'. It's still wrong but it at least makes sense.

might want to check to see if you make any sense before posting in the upper.  you are completely wrong here, and every flat and round earther will agree.  learn some science
Quote from: SiDawg
Planes fall out of the sky all the time