[thedude]

I'd first like to start by stating that I am currently a Globe believer and I initially looked into Flat Earth Theory because it seemed so ridiculous. Once I got into it I realized that there are actually valid arguments for a flat earth. This really did shock me. I realize that there are a lot of valid explanations to the questions raised by FE'ers and some things that I don't see how could even be explained except for on a Globe. This got me thinking, though... Science has had the past 500 years to get their explanations in order. You can build pretty tight theories when you have all sorts of eyes on a problem and you're continually adjusting and forcing to get the outcome you want. I mean it took 100 years for the Theory of Relativity to be "proven". Science still can't explain or prove gravity. They "prove" it by dropping a mic, a la Neil DeGrasse Tyson, and saying "GRAVITY!". If I were to say God exists and you asked me how can I prove it and I pointed to everything around me and said "BOOM!", you would say that is not proof and they are not connected. I could say the same for gravity. The laws of gravity are never consistent, can't be messured and they can't actually explain how it works, only that it has to do with mass? (An over-simplification, I know).

My point is, this wave of FE'ers is new and given enough time I think they could backwards engineer some very compelling arguments. Some of things that people point to as proof we are on a globe work the same on a flat earth.

I don't know, just some thoughts I've been having.

[Flatout]

We measure the effects of gravity all the time.  We have even generated instruments to do it.  We have also generated predictive formulas based on what we know about gravity that give measurable results.

[Tom Bishop]

We measure the effects of gravity all the time.  We have even generated instruments to do it.  We have also generated predictive formulas based on what we know about gravity that give measurable results.

Which instrument shows that space-time is bending or that gravity is caused by graviton messenger particles?

[Pete Svarrior]

We have also generated predictive formulas based on what we know about gravity that give measurable results.

And that's how we know it doesn't work. It gives us measurably incorrect results when you start looking past the sort of stuff that's explainable within classical mechanics.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravity#Anomalies_and_discrepancies

[Flatout]

We have also generated predictive formulas based on what we know about gravity that give measurable results.

And that's how we know it doesn't work. It gives us measurably incorrect results when you start looking past the sort of stuff that's explainable within classical mechanics.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravity#Anomalies_and_discrepancies

And UA explains all that?

[Pete Svarrior]

And UA explains all that?

I didn't come here to discuss UA. You made false claims about the round Earth model and its predictive capabilities, I set you straight. If you want to discuss a different subject, start a new thread and someone might take you up on it.

[Clyde Frog]

And UA explains all that?

I didn't come here to discuss UA. You made false claims about the round Earth model and its predictive capabilities, I set you straight. If you want to discuss a different subject, start a new thread and someone might take you up on it.

You pointed out some anomalies on Wikipedia. Don't pat yourself on the back too hard. Plus, relativity does a lot of explaining beyond classical mechanics. Why would you claim it doesn't? Does the theory need to be perfect on intergalactic scales before you accept it on planetary scales? And if so, does FE present a viable alternative in your estimation?

[Pete Svarrior]

You pointed out some anomalies on Wikipedia.

No, I pointed out some anomalies in GR.

Plus, relativity does a lot of explaining beyond classical mechanics. Why would you claim it doesn't?

I made no such claim. All I said is it breaks down once you start looking past classical mechanics. It makes some accurate predictions and some extremely inaccurate predictions.

Does the theory need to be perfect on intergalactic scales before you accept it on planetary scales?

No, but we already know it's inaccurate on planetary scales, so your questions is a bit of a waste of time.

And if so, does FE present a viable alternative in your estimation?

Reading comprehension, gentlemen, please!

I didn't come here to discuss UA. You made false claims about the round Earth model and its predictive capabilities, I set you straight. If you want to discuss a different subject, start a new thread and someone might take you up on it.

[Clyde Frog]

You pointed out some anomalies on Wikipedia.

No, I pointed out some anomalies in GR.

Plus, relativity does a lot of explaining beyond classical mechanics. Why would you claim it doesn't?

I made no such claim. All I said is it breaks down once you start looking past classical mechanics. It makes some accurate predictions and some extremely inaccurate predictions.

Does the theory need to be perfect on intergalactic scales before you accept it on planetary scales?

No, but we already know it's inaccurate on planetary scales, so your questions is a bit of a waste of time.

And if so, does FE present a viable alternative in your estimation?

Reading comprehension, gentlemen, please!

I didn't come here to discuss UA. You made false claims about the round Earth model and its predictive capabilities, I set you straight. If you want to discuss a different subject, start a new thread and someone might take you up on it.

You provided a link to a webpage. One where other people who are not you listed a few anomalies. Then those people linked to other outside webpages from primary and secondary sources that actually point out, in detail, the anomalies.

*slow clap*

The thread is about inconsistencies in FE theory. Reading comprehension, indeed.

You keep saying claasical mechanics like you know what it means, but your words betray you. Relativity does pretty well with physics beyond classical.

So are you ready to discuss the topic of the thread?

[Pete Svarrior]

The thread is about inconsistencies in FE theory.

There is a reason most people (notably not you) do not quote an entire post before replying. The purpose of that is to indicate which part of the post they're specifically addressing.

If you could highlight an inconsistency that the OP brings up that you'd like to discuss, please do. Otherwise, we're going to focus on the main subject of the OP.

You keep saying claasical mechanics like you know what it means

Yes.

Relativity does pretty well with physics beyond classical.

For an unorthodox definition of "well", perhaps, but I already clarified my meaning after you first objected to it.

So are you ready to discuss the topic of the thread?

Certainly. We're currently addressing the OP's discussion of gravity. Do you have anything to add to the subject or are you going to just keep stating that GR exists and that you don't like Wikipedia?

[Clyde Frog]

Quoting from a mobile is a bit of a challenge to break out as well as you have done. If you are on a mobile, I commend you. But to imply you are not here to discuss the topic of the thread because you are interested in picking apart a later post, while standing behind your skillful quoting abilities is... well... notable.

I don't feel my definition of "well" is unorthodox. Given the success of explaininging Mercury's orbit and predicting black holes, plus that whole gravitational lensing phenomenon, to say GR has performed well seems to be more of an observation than an opinion.

Do the new generation of FEers have a game plan to put those linked-to anomalies into a coherent theory to challenge mainstream science? Is such a challenge already formulated and publicly viewable? If so, I'm interested to see it.

[Pete Svarrior]

Quoting from a mobile is a bit of a challenge to break out as well as you have done. If you are on a mobile, I commend you.

It's hard the first couple of times, then you get used to it.

But to imply you are not here to discuss the topic of the thread because you are interested in picking apart a later post, while standing behind your skillful quoting abilities is... well... notable.

Reading the OP, it doesn't directly discuss any inconsistencies in FE (that's why I asked you to highlight one - I was hoping you'd notice that this is an impossible request). It talks about gravity and it's imperfections for the majority of the text body. I suspect that's why literally everyone other than you has used this thread to discuss gravity. Well, at least until Flatout ran out of ways to defend it.

I agree that the title of the thread is a bit disjointed from the OP, but hey ho.

I don't feel my definition of "well" is unorthodox. Given the success of explaininging Mercury's orbit and predicting black holes, plus that whole gravitational lensing phenomenon, to say GR has performed well seems to be more of an observation than an opinion.

A scientific theory which consistently produces incorrect results under certain conditions warrants re-thinking. That much should be obvious to anyone.

[disputeone]

In physics, classical mechanics is one of two major sub-fields of mechanics. The other sub-field is quantum mechanics. Classical mechanics is concerned with the set of physical laws describing the motion of bodies under the influence of a system of forces. The study of the motion of bodies is an ancient one, making classical mechanics one of the oldest and largest subjects in science, engineering and technology. It is also known as Newtonian mechanics,[1][2][3] though textbook authors often consider Newtonian mechanics, along with Lagrangian mechanics and Hamiltonian mechanics, as the three main formalisms of classical mechanics.

The current understanding of gravity is based on Albert Einstein's general theory of relativity, which is formulated within the framework of classical physics.

I have to agree with SexWarrior boydster. Gravity doesn't work in a quantum sense, it's a pretty big problem and beyond our current understanding. Plus the theories we are putting out to explain QG are pretty far fetched to say the least.

[Flatout]

I'll agree that there are things that we don't understand about our vast universe.  Yet, we can use our present understanding of gravity to calculate and predict the nature of falling objects, buoyancy, mass calibration, trajectories, satellite orbits, etc.

SexWarrior, if you are going to dismiss the theory if gravity based on unknown mass variables in the universe than you would have to dismiss the flat earth idea based on unknowns in your model.   

[Pete Svarrior]

SexWarrior, if you are going to dismiss the theory if gravity based on unknown mass variables in the universe

They are not unknowns, as much as you want to pawn them off as ones. They are explicit predictions which are proven to be false.