[sandokhan]

This is what happens when erroneous information is published in the official faq: the RE have a field day with it.

The faq must be written by someone who does have the experience and know-how in explaining planetary/stellar gravity.

The tides could not possibly be caused by a force of attraction; on the contrary, they are caused BY A FORCE OF PRESSURE APPLIED TO THE WATER.

http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg1486127#msg1486127


Using GTR/STR to defend FET is hilarious: both are MUTUALLY EXCLUSIVE.

If the FET is true, then GTR/STR is an impossibility.

[Copper Knickers]

What physics makes this distinction and how?

GR and SR. By describing gravitation in detail.

I was hoping for more from you. I find myself no clearer on the distinction between gravitation and gravity. I have a description of gravity from you that makes little sense with its reference to an unobservable force. Do GR and SR also describe gravity? If not, how do they make the distinction in question?

[rabinoz]

What physics makes this distinction and how?

GR and SR. By describing gravitation in detail.

I was hoping for more from you. I find myself no clearer on the distinction between gravitation and gravity. I have a description of gravity from you that makes little sense with its reference to an unobservable force. Do GR and SR also describe gravity? If not, how do they make the distinction in question?

I don't know if this helps or hinders. Most is from a post I made in "the other place". I guess you know all this anyway, but here goes.
Firstly though the distinction usually made is that gravitation is the general term:
"Gravity" is that gravitational field (an acceleration in m/s² of maybe better Newtons/kilogram) near the earth's surface, though is often used to describe gravitation near some other body as in the "moon's gravity".

Now to the insistence by some (not you) that we use GR for all out gravitational calculations, I have this comment:

I suppose you would have us use "the Schwarzschild solution of Einstein equations", but it really is way beyond most people's capabilities (including mine!).
But, it seems that in the case of a stationary small object (eg me) on the surface of a massive spherical one (the earth) that general solution reduces to something a bit simpler, a bit like

F = (G x m x M) /d²

and if that small object is moving other parts of the solution look very much like Newton's laws of motion, including the Coriolis effect. Smart bloke that Einstein making his GR reduce to what we already knew!

Newton's laws of motion and gravitation.

Not bad of Newton either coming up with pretty good approximations when he had no idea of a "speed limit" or even that the speed of light was finite.

Yes,  neither "gravity" nor "gravitation" are forces but in a practical sense they can cause forces.

While GR describes the general case, we simply do not need that sophistication! In fact in most cases where relativity is included it is added as a correction to the classical solution.

[CableDawg]

This is what happens when erroneous information is published in the official faq: the RE have a field day with it.

The faq must be written by someone who does have the experience and know-how in explaining planetary/stellar gravity.

The tides could not possibly be caused by a force of attraction; on the contrary, they are caused BY A FORCE OF PRESSURE APPLIED TO THE WATER.

http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg1486127#msg1486127


Using GTR/STR to defend FET is hilarious: both are MUTUALLY EXCLUSIVE.

If the FET is true, then GTR/STR is an impossibility.

So this force of pressure, that moves literally tons of water, is completely unfelt by any living being on the earth, even though those beings consist primarily of water?  Or does this force of pressure only operate over large bodies of water?

[sandokhan]

But it is being felt by each and every being: it is called biohomochirality.

http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg1488624#msg1488624


"Over the oceans, the gravitational pull is greater than over the continents, though according to the theory of gravitation the reverse should be true; the hypothesis of isostasy also is unable to explain this phenomenon. The gravitational pull drops at the coast line of the continents. Furthermore, the distribution of gravitation in the sea often has the peculiarity of being stronger where the water is deeper. “In the whole Gulf and Caribbean region the generalization seems to hold that the deeper the water, the more strongly positive the anomalies.”

As far as observations could establish, the sea tides do not influence the plumb line, which is contrary to what is expected. Observations on reservoirs of water, where the mass of water could be increased and decreased, gave none of the results anticipated on the basis of the theory of gravitation."


Ether will behave as a solid to a fluid, and as a fluid to a solid

Nikola Tesla


The icosahedral structure of the water molecule and ether waves:

http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg1722739#msg1722739


To prove that terrestrial gravity is a force of PRESSURE, we have at our disposal the celebrated experiments of Lamoreaux, DePalma, Biefeld-Brown, Kozyrev.

[CableDawg]

But it is being felt by each and every being: it is called biohomochirality.

http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg1488624#msg1488624


"Over the oceans, the gravitational pull is greater than over the continents, though according to the theory of gravitation the reverse should be true; the hypothesis of isostasy also is unable to explain this phenomenon. The gravitational pull drops at the coast line of the continents. Furthermore, the distribution of gravitation in the sea often has the peculiarity of being stronger where the water is deeper. “In the whole Gulf and Caribbean region the generalization seems to hold that the deeper the water, the more strongly positive the anomalies.”

As far as observations could establish, the sea tides do not influence the plumb line, which is contrary to what is expected. Observations on reservoirs of water, where the mass of water could be increased and decreased, gave none of the results anticipated on the basis of the theory of gravitation."


Ether will behave as a solid to a fluid, and as a fluid to a solid

Nikola Tesla


The icosahedral structure of the water molecule and ether waves:

http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg1722739#msg1722739


To prove that terrestrial gravity is a force of PRESSURE, we have at our disposal the celebrated experiments of Lamoreaux, DePalma, Biefeld-Brown, Kozyrev.

How far into the twilight zone did you reach for that?

Chirality - A geometric property of some molecules and ions.  A chiral molecule/ion is non-superimposable on it mirror image.

Homochirality - A geometric property of some materials that are composed of chiral units. Chiral refers to non-superimposable 3D forms that are mirror images of one another, as are left and right hands. A substance is said to be homochiral if all the constituent units are molecules of the same chiral form.

As you can see, neither of these have anything to do with the felt force of gravity, regardless of how you choose to describe gravity and there is no designation of biochirality or biohomochirality.

If you lead into your argument with a false, wholly manufactured, premise why should anything you say after that point be taken seriously?

[sandokhan]

To borrow a line from a Beatles song: Slow Down.

Biohomochirality and Terrestrial Gravity


Some molecules come in left– and right-handed forms that are mirror images of each other (i.e.: they are related like our left and right hands. Hence this property is called chirality, from the Greek word for hand. The two forms are called enantiomers (from the Greek word for opposite) or optical isomers, because they rotate plane-polarised light either to the right or to the left.).  All biological proteins are composed of only left-handed amino acids.  How this could have come about in a primordial soup has long been a puzzle to origin-of-life researchers, since both L (levo, left-handed) and D (dextro, right-handed) forms react indiscriminately.

Francis Crick, codiscoverer of the DNA structure, describes this strange characteristic of the molecules of living organisms:

    It has been well known for many years that for any particular molecule only one hand occurs in nature.  For example the amino acids one finds in proteins are always what are called the L or levo amino acids, and never the D or dextro amino acids.  Only one of the two mirror possibilities occurs in proteins.


Linus Pauling, Nobel laureate in chemistry:

        This is a very puzzling fact . . . . All the proteins that have been investigated, obtained from animals and from plants, from higher organisms and from very simple organisms bacteria, molds, even viruses are found to have been made of L-amino acids.


http://we.vub.ac.be/~dglg/Web/Teaching/Les/Orlifequestions/Cronin-Reisse.pdf (origins of biohomochirality, an unsolved problem)

http://creation.com/origin-of-life-the-chirality-problem (the best work on the problem of biohomochirality: read this work carefully)

http://crev.info/2004/06/mystery_of_the_lefthanded_proteins_solved (biohomochirality still unsolved)

http://guava.physics.uiuc.edu/~nigel/courses/569/Essays_Fall2006/files/Rajan.pdf


The latest attempt to try to solve the biohomochirality problem (salt induced peptides formation and the more recent work on potassium ions http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23536046 ) has many unresolved major problems:

http://books.google.ro/books?id=5ZGUD49fMcAC&pg=PA165&lpg=PA165&dq=origin+of+salt+in+ocean+water+peptides+primordial+soup&source=bl&ots=FcdmUK6LXN&sig=oCgbOFYcBHsJp2SQ24xQJVxOozY&hl=ro&sa=X&ei=TFWCUcOrAoXatAaGjoGADA&ved=0CGwQ6AEwBzgK#v=onepage&q=origin%20of%20salt%20in%20ocean%20water%20peptides%20primordial%20soup&f=false

http://www.uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/evolutionary-theory-just-add-water/


The best proofs from molecular biology and genetics which prove the theory of evolution to be just a myth:

http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php/topic,55960.msg1398306.html#msg1398306

http://lettherebelight-77.blogspot.ro/2012/02/what-evidence-is-found-for-first-life.html (the best work on the proofs from molecular biology and genetics which demolish evolutionism)

http://www.uncommondescent.com/science-education/oldies-but-baddies-af-repeats-ncses-eight-challenges-to-id-from-ten-years-ago/#comment-453060 (R. Shapiro debunks the Miller experiment and the RNA world)


The origin of biohomochirality is to be found in the physics of the subquark:



Dr.T. Henry Moray:

Further I realized that the energy was not coming out of the earth, but instead was coming to the earth from some outside source. These electrical oscillations in the form of waves were not simple oscillations, but were surgings --- like the waves of the sea --- coming to the earth continually, more in the daytime than at night, but always coming in vibrations from the reservoir of colossal energy out there in space.


Living tissue (with the exception of some bacteria) contains only L-amino acids (laevorotatory-left handed); dead tissue only D-amino acids (dextrorotatory-right handed).


Terrestrial gravity is represented by the dextrorotatory strings of receptive subquarks; antigravity comes into play once we can activate the laevorotatory strings of emissive subquarks (by torsion, sound, applying high electrical tension).

The physics of the subquark:

http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php/topic,30499.msg1401101.html#msg1401101

[CableDawg]

This still doesn't explain how biohomochirality becomes a force of pressure.

Maybe it's magic?

Better yet....It's dark matter.  You'd better call NASA and all the physicists in the world and let them know you've discovered what dark matter is.

[sandokhan]

There is no such thing as dark matter/dark energy:

http://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=4417.msg86532#msg86532


To convince yourself that terrestrial gravity is indeed a force due to the pressure exerted by telluric currents/subquark strings:

http://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=3418.msg79189#msg79189


These subquarks strings are at the origin of not only terrestrial gravity (dextrorotatory subq.), but also are the cause of the biohomochirality phenomenon (laevorotatory subq. or left-handed subq.); at the present time, biohomochirality cannot be explained at all, except if we bring the power of ether physics to solve this most important matter.

[TheTruthIsOnHere]

  I'm really glad we have people here who can comprehend these complex concepts. I'm not particularly one of those people.

In layman's terms can you explain to me what constitutes "up" and "down"? I don't believe in Newtonian gravity, and I feel there is adequate cause to believe density and pressure are enough to explain the phenomenon. But I'm still at a loss to explain why down is perpendicular to the plane.

[rabinoz]

I'm really glad we have people here who can comprehend these complex concepts. I'm not particularly one of those people.

In layman's terms can you explain to me what constitutes "up" and "down"? I don't believe in Newtonian gravity, and I feel there is adequate cause to believe density and pressure are enough to explain the phenomenon. But I'm still at a loss to explain why down is perpendicular to the plane.

You claim "there is adequate cause to believe density and pressure are enough to explain the phenomenon". This is simply not true, it does not begin to explain "the phenomenon". Pressure acts all around an object, not just on top, so cannot cause a "downward" force. Also measure the weight of objects under a very low pressure in a "vacuum chamber" and the weight increases, yet we take an object to a high altitude where the pressure is also much much lower and the weight decreases!

As well as this, attractive forces can be measured between masses on the earth's surface. The force is very small, because gravitation causes only a very slight attraction. The earth has a mass of almost 6×10²⁴ kg (or 6,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 kg) and it attracts a 1 kg mass with a force of only 9.81 N (or 1 kg weight). Hence test masses of a few 100 kg still cause of minute forces.

Nevertheless the experiment has been performed hundreds of times since the "Cavendish Experiment" (1797–98).
Once an experiment is performed getting a certain result other scientists will repeat the experiment. If the experiment is not repeatable it is rejected as either a fluke of based on a wrong premise.

Cavendish was the first to perform the experiment (using a torsion balance apparatus constructed by geologist John Michell[1])
which lead to a determination of the Universal Gravitational Constant G.

Many other experimenters performed similar experiments numerous times[2] to verify this and improve the accuracy.
Modern results of these experiments differ from the results from Cavendish's experiment by less than 1%, and agree among themselves by better than 0.03%. It is a difficult experiment and there are still some unanswered questions, but Cavendish has certainly been vindicated!

No-one will pretend that all questions regarding gravity have been answered. Einstein took it a step further further with his General Relativity explaining it as a distortion of space-time by the presence of mass and energy. This explained a number of anomalies that had been noted earlier (eg in the anomalous rate of precession of the perihelion of Mercury's orbit), but so far there is no link between Einstein's GR and Quantum theory.

But, on the mundane level of gravity on earth experiments such as Cavendish's have surely demonstrated that massive objects do attract with a force given by Newton's law of gravitation[3].


[1]  John Michell died before he could perform the experiment himself.

[2]  One reason for the numerous repetitions is that, partly because of the forces to be measured, high accuracy is difficult to achieve.

[3]  There is a proviso in this. The objects cannot be too massive (like a huge sun!) or move at too high a velocity (compared to the velocity of light). If these are not satisfied we get into the realm of General Relativity.

[TheTruthIsOnHere]

If gravity exists by virtue of mass then why do we revolve around the sun instead of careen into it? Why does the moon not fall to earth? Also by pressure and density I meant as to why something like a helium filled would go towards the part of the atmosphere with less pressure. That makes sense to me. But a force that can't totally be proven in its accepted form having hundreds of years of math piled on top seems like a huge error in human scientific history

[rabinoz]

If gravity exists by virtue of mass then why do we revolve around the sun instead of careen into it? Why does the moon not fall to earth? Also by pressure and density I meant as to why something like a helium filled would go towards the part of the atmosphere with less pressure. That makes sense to me. But a force that can't totally be proven in its accepted form having hundreds of years of math piled on top seems like a huge error in human scientific history

You ask: "If gravity exists by virtue of mass then why do we revolve around the sun instead of careen into it? Why does the moon not fall to earth?"

Simply because the centripetal acceleration needed to keep the earth and moon in orbit is provided by gravitation!

You claim "a force that can't totally be proven". Now, I won't claim proven, but I do claim that is massive evidence that gravitation exists. Surely experimental evidence is much better than a mathematical "proof".

Newton did not simply have an apple land on his head, and out popped the universal gravitational equation. Newton and Hooke did a large amount of experiments work. Also Newton had the paths of the planets that Kepler had found fitted elliptical orbits fairly closely.
So, Newton's result was the result of many observations and experiments.

What you say about helium balloons etc is readily explained by "Newton's" gravity and "Archimedes'" bouyancy "laws". All the effects of changing air pressure and altitude also come out easily as well.

When I get time I will try to list the numerous assumptions made in the flat earth theory without proof or evidence!

[CableDawg]

There is no such thing as dark matter/dark energy:

http://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=4417.msg86532#msg86532


To convince yourself that terrestrial gravity is indeed a force due to the pressure exerted by telluric currents/subquark strings:

http://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=3418.msg79189#msg79189


These subquarks strings are at the origin of not only terrestrial gravity (dextrorotatory subq.), but also are the cause of the biohomochirality phenomenon (laevorotatory subq. or left-handed subq.); at the present time, biohomochirality cannot be explained at all, except if we bring the power of ether physics to solve this most important matter.

Please allow me to point out the irony that you, by far the most vociferous FE supporter on this forum, are defending a theory that is based upon personal perception by calling in subatomic particles.

Have you actually seen these subatomic particles or do you trust the scientists in what they say?

[TheTruthIsOnHere]

I still don't understand how gravitation makes a planet spin and hold an orbit around an object when the equation itself says there is an attraction between two "products of mass." Doesn't sound like a simple extension to say that explains why an object would do every freaking thing possible to avoid another, ie: rotate around it instead, perpetually to infinity, never getting closer but holding just the right distance-- in Earths case, coincidentally by some kind of comical cosmic accident, the picture perfect distance for life to exist to be exact. I'm just concerned humanity bet on the wrong horse, metaphorically, and has been compounding the problem ever since. We went from being the center of our known universe to a lucky insignigant speck in the cosmos. My personal belief is we lie somewhere in between.

[CableDawg]

We went from being the center of our known universe to a lucky insignigant speck in the cosmos. My personal belief is we lie somewhere in between.

Accordingly the FE theory of "the force known as gravity", the FE is flying through space, at a constant speed, in a linear fashion and somehow carrying the sun (the prime move of all life forms) with us.

This would make the FE both the center of the universe as well as being an incredibly luck, insignificant speck in the cosmos as we carry all that we need for life but are leaving everything else behind rather quickly.

What lies in between?

[rabinoz]

We went from being the center of our known universe to a lucky insignigant speck in the cosmos. My personal belief is we lie somewhere in between.

Accordingly the FE theory of "the force known as gravity", the FE is flying through space, at a constant speed, in a linear fashion and somehow carrying the sun (the prime move of all life forms) with us.
This would make the FE both the center of the universe as well as being an incredibly luck, insignificant speck in the cosmos as we carry all that we need for life but are leaving everything else behind rather quickly.
What lies in between?

What seems laughable to me is that they ridicule Globe Earth supporters for thinking that the earth

is actually a massive moving ball spinning through space at over 1,000 miles per hour, wobbling and tilted 23.5 degrees on its vertical axis, while orbiting the sun at a blinding 67,000 miles per hour, in concert with the entire solar system spiraling 500,000 miles per hour around the Milky Way and careening across the expanding universe away from the “Big Bang” at an incredible 670,000,000 miles per hour, but that you feel and experience none of it!

from: http://www.atlanteanconspiracy.com/2014/11/the-globe-earth-lie.html [1]

When they claim that the earth and the whole material universe is going up[2] through "something" at 1,079,252,793 km/hr! Yes, i used relativistic acceleration since 4,004 BC (of course!).

Just who is joking here!

[1]  To be fair to the FES this is from Eric Dubay's Atlantean Conspiracy and Eric Dubay is certainly not "flavour of the month" in many Flat earth circles. But, the same sentiments are often expressed in these forims.

[2]  TFES Wiki states: It is constantly accelerating upwards being pushed by a universal accelerator (UA) known as dark energy or aetheric wind.

I must make an immense apology! I used the time an outside observer would see, and not someone on the accelerating earth!
The calculator I am using simply cannot calculate  large enough numbers for the "earth years" to reach 6,020 (years since Usher's creation date of 4,004 BC). The longest "earth time" my calculator will handle is only about 687 years in which time the earth will have travelled 10¹⁵⁴ light years. I'll let you relativity experts carry on from here!

How big is space again?

Calculated using: http://convertalot.com/relativistic_star_ship_calculator.html

[TheTruthIsOnHere]

Yeah, I think the upward acceleration thing is bunk. It really is superlative to the concept. With that aside, I do find it hard to pass the common sense test that we somehow are drawn by a magical property of mass to the ground, but that same force is to explain why we orbit around a star 93 million miles away.

[Rama Set]

Gravity is an unobservable force powered by an undetectable particle.

This statement is inaccurate.  The standard model's description of gravity has never been tested and is not required for GR to hold true, nor is it held to be a strong theory.

[andruszkow]

If gravity exists by virtue of mass then why do we revolve around the sun instead of careen into it? Why does the moon not fall to earth? Also by pressure and density I meant as to why something like a helium filled would go towards the part of the atmosphere with less pressure. That makes sense to me. But a force that can't totally be proven in its accepted form having hundreds of years of math piled on top seems like a huge error in human scientific history

Because of our orbital path around the sun. We actually do fall towards it but keep "missing" because of the earth's speed relative to the sun.

Same with the moon around earth, and all other human made satellites