[Brian]

Can someone please tell me what is the most famous theory about flat earth gravity?

[BillO]

Can someone please tell me what is the most famous theory about flat earth gravity?

For the most part their theory is that there is no gravity.  Gravity being a mass related force on earth such that an object is drawn toward the center of mass of the earth by a force proportional to the mass of the object.

However, they do suppose gravitation does exist between other masses,  for example between the celestial bodies and objects on earth.

I have asked the question about the nature of gravitation between the mass of the flat earth and objects on its surface but got no reply.  I guess they believe the flat earth's mass is somehow different than all other mass.  In addition, they have no model for their celestial gravitation.  They cannot tell what nature the force has, nor can they predict it's behavior.

It's all in their wiki.  It's a riveting and at the very least a thoroughly entertaining read.  I suggest you got through it.

[TomFoolery]

Can someone please tell me what is the most famous theory about flat earth gravity?

I'd say the most famous theory is that gravity doesn't exist between masses, but that there is some other unknown force that pulls us toward the earth.
Some say that the earth is accelerating upwards at 9.8 meters per second squared, (UA for Universal Acceleration), but others won't accept that because a stationary earth is core to their ideas, and if it's accelerating for a thousand years it's going billions of times the speed of light..

I've been trying to put the gravity claim to the test, using the Cavendish experiment which I recreated in a cardboard box:
https://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=13661.msg183961#msg183961

and unfortunately there seems to be some weak attraction between lead weights which globers would call gravity.

Some among the flat earth community do admit that there is some unknown attraction between the lead weights, but say it's just not gravity.

Others among us say that the different tests of the gravitational force over the years have given results that varied by 0.045% from each other, so it must not be gravity because if it was gravity, all the tests would give the exact same results.

But I've only been involved in flat earth for a couple of months, so perhaps some long time members of the flat earth community can chime in here.

[QED]

Can someone please tell me what is the most famous theory about flat earth gravity?

I've been trying to put the gravity claim to the test, using the Cavendish experiment which I recreated in a cardboard box:
https://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=13661.msg183961#msg183961

and unfortunately there seems to be some weak attraction between lead weights which globers would call gravity.

Others among us say that the different tests of the gravitational force over the years have given results that varied by 0.045% from each other, so it must not be gravity because if it was gravity, all the tests would give the exact same results.

But I've only been involved in flat earth for a couple of months, so perhaps some long time members of the flat earth community can chime in here.

Hi Tom,

I'm a former REer and scientist who, after using confirmation bias to support my views for years (and acting like a real jerk on this website BTW), have come around (pun not intended) to FE claims. There's just too much internal consistency among FE claims for it to be all false, and REers are not investigating these things due to inherent bias.

I'm delighted to see your efforts to build a Cavendish experiment. One idea that might be helpful is to use a laser interferometer to produce precise measurements of the deflections. If that is too $$$, you could just affix a laser and point it at a screen set on the other side of the room. Slap a coordinate system on the screen, and you should be able to mark the movements. If done with care, you should be able to measure an oscillation. Calibration would then enable a measurement of G -- at least that's the RE interpretation.

Anyway, this might help decrease uncertainties to provide robust data for further analysis. If we are to find the error in Newtonian gravitation, a careful study of discrepancies will probably be needed, which will require many sig figs that are tricky to get.

[TomFoolery]

Hi Tom,

I'm a former REer and scientist who, after using confirmation bias to support my views for years (and acting like a real jerk on this website BTW), have come around (pun not intended) to FE claims. There's just too much internal consistency among FE claims for it to be all false, and REers are not investigating these things due to inherent bias.

I'm delighted to see your efforts to build a Cavendish experiment. One idea that might be helpful is to use a laser interferometer to produce precise measurements of the deflections. If that is too $$$, you could just affix a laser and point it at a screen set on the other side of the room. Slap a coordinate system on the screen, and you should be able to mark the movements. If done with care, you should be able to measure an oscillation. Calibration would then enable a measurement of G -- at least that's the RE interpretation.

Anyway, this might help decrease uncertainties to provide robust data for further analysis. If we are to find the error in Newtonian gravitation, a careful study of discrepancies will probably be needed, which will require many sig figs that are tricky to get.

Thanks for the tips!

I actually have been able to build a laser interferometer for another approach, but I found that the thing is so extremely sensitive that the vibration level never settles from like the weather or moving in the house.
See my videos here: https://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=13892.0

I need to do it again on concrete floor which will have to wait a month or two. I may have to actually do it on a granite slab or other heavy block up on rubber mounts just to eliminate the vibration of the ground.

With Cavendish experiment, the biggest problem I was unable to solve was the torsional properties of the fishline. It seemed to drastically change twist bias when the room temperature changed.

Right now I have a little weight hanging in vacuum jar on two fishline strings, I may build a micro controller to measure the period of the swing using a laser diode and photo detector, and average the swing period over a few minutes.

If I can measure the exact period of the swing then measure it again with 23 pounds of lead right beneath, maybe I'll be able to get the difference swing frequency, and then calculate the force.

[juner]

Christ QED is this really your alt? There's no reason for it, you're not banned. And you're very much no FE supporter. Can you just be normal so we don't have to ban everything that smells like you?

Just don't be a jerk in the upper fora and you can exist here just like everyone else. You're able to stir up decent discussions with what you know. Maybe just do that instead.

[QED]

Christ QED is this really your alt? There's no reason for it, you're not banned. And you're very much no FE supporter. Can you just be normal so we don't have to ban everything that smells like you?

Just don't be a jerk in the upper fora and you can exist here just like everyone else. You're able to stir up decent discussions with what you know. Maybe just do that instead.

Hi Junker! No, Tom is not an (alt)er ego of mine. I wouldn't call myself a FEer, I'm really a scientist -- hence skeptic. After pursuing my own investigations, I have come to the conclusion that there appears to be internal consistency within FE theories, which RE science apparently refuses to acknowledge. "Behind the Curve" was kind of a breaking point for me: watching their non-scientific address of FE theories was ridiculous.

I seek the truth, and do not care what conclusion I find. I only want it to be accurate. Hence, presently I am investigating FE theories. I believe I can contribute to their development, given my expertise. Whether they are correct or otherwise, we will not know unless we explore it.

It is rather odd the change of scientific address when REers discuss FE theory. This should not happen, and I cannot in all honesty ignore it.

Hope that makes sense; I am still on cup of coffee #2 

[Brian]

Thanks for the feedback

[TomFoolery]

There's just too much internal consistency among FE claims for it to be all false, and REers are not investigating these things due to inherent bias.

Hey QED, just curious, what would you say were the two most strongly co-consistent FE claims among this sea of internal consistency?
I've been totally disappointed so far, and nobody can say I didn't give it a fair shake.

In other news, my pendulum gravity meter has been running for a number of hours.
Unfortunately it has a 50ppm disturbance tendencies from people walking around in the house.
But when everyone goes to bed it gets more stable -- usually reading within 1ppm between successive readings.
The swing rate is about 1.5hz.
It looks like there's a sinewave increase in gravity of roughly 40ppm over night?? I wonder if that's because the sun is under the world instead of above the world?
I need to get this in a stable place so it's not upset by house vibrations or temperature.
Fortunately the pendulum is inside a vacuum chamber so not affected by atmospheric pressure changes.

What do you think of that sine-wave like increase in gravity over night?

[ChrisTP]

This may be of some use to you;

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tidal_force

[SeaCritique]

Can someone please tell me what is the most famous theory about flat earth gravity?

The Flat Earth Society's Wiki page about "Universal Acceleration" is worth a read.

[TomFoolery]

This may be of some use to you;

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tidal_force

Fascinating! The half-wave tide height in Hawaii today was about 62ppm!
Am I actually measuring the same force that causes the tides?

[TomFoolery]

The Flat Earth Society's Wiki page about "Universal Acceleration" is worth a read.

However it should be noted that upward acceleration is not universally accepted because a major point for many flat earthers is that the earth is stationary and in fact many flat earthers totally ridicule globers for claiming that "The earth is hurtling through space at a thousand miles an hour..."

UA of course requires that the earth is now going trillions and trillions of times faster than the speed of light.

I'm still struggling with this because it sort of requires light to have mass and well I'm not sure how to explain it.
But let's say you  are shining a flashlight horizontally across a room.
That's what, 15 feet? Well how far did the light travel?
During the time it took it to travel that 15 feet horizontally, it also traveled 15 trillion trillion feet up, or whatever. So theoretically it would take a lot longer to get across the room.

The wiki sub section on terminal velocity seems rather odd to me. It gets all confused, forgetting that terminal velocity is related to the resistance of the medium (i.e. air/water) through which the weight is falling.
It would be exactly the same with gravity or UA.

[Tom Bishop]

Velocities do not add like that. See the UA page that SeaCritique posted above about Special Relativity.

[TomFoolery]

Velocities do not add like that. See the UA page that SeaCritique posted above about Special Relativity.

How did you zetetically  determine that Velocities of light do not add like that?

I will admit that I haven't determined a way to measure how light travel time adds up when there is a massive cross-beam velocity.

However, I zetetically know that when a bumblebee is buzzing around swimming in a puddle, the waves still travel at a constant rate unaffected by the speed of the bumblebee. (As long as he's going slower than the speed of the wave.)
Sure, there's blue shift in front of him and red shift behind him, but the speed of the waves on the water are constant.

so I'll admit that my zetetic abilities are not giving me an absolute solid knowledge of how light behaves differently than all the kinds of waves we can zetetically observe with our own senses.

So I guess the only way this is solved is if the ether is moving with the earth, and that light and radio waves are strictly propagated in the ether, and thus have a short path length.

And what is ether? we pump out all the air from a vacuum jar, and it's still full of ether? We can then accelerate particles to extreme speeds inside that vacuum, and they don't hit the ether?

How do you zetetically know that the ether exists, though?

[SeaCritique]

How did you zetetically  determine that Velocities of light do not add like that?

I will admit that I haven't determined a way to measure how light travel time adds up when there is a massive cross-beam velocity.

However, I zetetically know that when a bumblebee is buzzing around swimming in a puddle, the waves still travel at a constant rate unaffected by the speed of the bumblebee. (As long as he's going slower than the speed of the wave.)
Sure, there's blue shift in front of him and red shift behind him, but the speed of the waves on the water are constant.

so I'll admit that my zetetic abilities are not giving me an absolute solid knowledge of how light behaves differently than all the kinds of waves we can zetetically observe with our own senses.

So I guess the only way this is solved is if the ether is moving with the earth, and that light and radio waves are strictly propagated in the ether, and thus have a short path length.

And what is ether? we pump out all the air from a vacuum jar, and it's still full of ether? We can then accelerate particles to extreme speeds inside that vacuum, and they don't hit the ether?

How do you zetetically know that the ether exists, though?

Your acknowledgement of zeteticism is inaccurate. The strength of zeteticism lies in basing one's conclusions on experimentation and observation rather than on an initial theory. Zeteticism removes preconceived notions and biases from the equation.

[TomFoolery]

Your acknowledgement of zeteticism is inaccurate.

Interesting. Wiki page you linked to says Samuel Rowbotham used this method, measuring the water convexity, and from that concluded on a shape.
I wonder if he really had no initial theory.

The strength of zeteticism lies in basing one's conclusions on experimentation and observation rather than on an initial theory. Zeteticism removes preconceived notions and biases from the equation.

What does that even really mean?
I mean think about it. We always start with some theory which prompts us to do a specific experiment or observation. That doesn't  rule out the validity of the results of the experiment or the observation.
So I'm really not sure even what you're trying to claim.

But either way, for Mr. Bishop to cite a theory made by a glober as a source to state that "Velocities of light do not add like that" does not sound very zetetic on his part.
Remember? If *you* can't demonstrate it using first principles, *you* shouldn't believe it.

And neither should Mr. Bishop.

But it is very interesting that you say that zeteticism lies in basing one's conclusions on experimentation and observation rather than on an initial theory.
I have seen so much where flat earthers are digging like wolves to try and contort observed reality into their initial theory.

So here's the catch: While Einstein may have been zetetic and measured light and found that it's velocities does not add up that way, Mr. Bishop hasn't.
He didn't read Einstein's book and suddenly realize that light doesn't add up that way, he had a theory that required light to not add up that way, and went and found some possible experiments -- or at least someone else's musings -- which allegedly confirmed the prior theory.

And I'm not even sure Einstein even measured whether the velocities of light add up like that.
And if Albert didn't measure, and Bishop didn't measure -- no experiments done -- then I'm having a hard time seeing it as zetetic for Dr. Bishop to zetetically state that light velocities don't add up that way.

But picture this:
There's two race cars going 50 meters a second. They are 300,000,000 meters apart, but going parallel. On a big flat earth.
One of them shoots a pulsed laser cannon at the other. Right at him.
The only problem is that the light takes a second to get there. And by the time it gets there, the target has moved ahead 50 meters.

But it's a laser so he's not out of bullets yet, he stars aiming further and further forward.
He finds that he has to aim over 50 meters ahead of where his target is, in order for the light to intersect the target.
Now, this distance is actually longer than 300,000,000 meters because it's traversing the long side of a right triangle that is 50 by 300,000,000 meters.

Does the path length of light really not add up like that?

[WellRoundedIndividual]

I stand with Tomfoolery's assessment of zeteticism. Scientists did not just say, "oh a flat earth is absurd, I propose a round earth theory. Let's go around making experiments that prove the earth is round." Literally, quite the opposite. Lots of ancient cultures and even biblical truthers believed the earth was flat well before anyone first proposed that the earth was round. Greek literature specifically supports the fact that they used direct observation of positions of the stars and lunar phases and eclipses to propose the spherical earth theory. So is that not zeteticism?

[TomFoolery]

Here's two rocketships racing eachother.
One fires a laser cannon at the other.
Does he have to aim straight at him to hit him, or does he need to fire to where the target will be after the time it takes the light to arrive?

The reason I'm asking is because I think it's indisputable that he has to lead on the target.
And that increases the light path length.
And this means if the earth is racing upwards at 15 trillion trillion times the speed of light, and you shine a flashlight across the room, the light would have a much longer path, and would in fact take a very long time to reach the other side of the room, because the other side of the room would be in a drastically different place in the galaxy by the time the light arrived.

In conclusion, I'm having serious difficulties with UA.

[QED]

Your acknowledgement of zeteticism is inaccurate.

Interesting. Wiki page you linked to says Samuel Rowbotham used this method, measuring the water convexity, and from that concluded on a shape.
I wonder if he really had no initial theory.

The strength of zeteticism lies in basing one's conclusions on experimentation and observation rather than on an initial theory. Zeteticism removes preconceived notions and biases from the equation.

What does that even really mean?
I mean think about it. We always start with some theory which prompts us to do a specific experiment or observation. That doesn't  rule out the validity of the results of the experiment or the observation.
So I'm really not sure even what you're trying to claim.

But either way, for Mr. Bishop to cite a theory made by a glober as a source to state that "Velocities of light do not add like that" does not sound very zetetic on his part.
Remember? If *you* can't demonstrate it using first principles, *you* shouldn't believe it.

And neither should Mr. Bishop.

But it is very interesting that you say that zeteticism lies in basing one's conclusions on experimentation and observation rather than on an initial theory.
I have seen so much where flat earthers are digging like wolves to try and contort observed reality into their initial theory.

So here's the catch: While Einstein may have been zetetic and measured light and found that it's velocities does not add up that way, Mr. Bishop hasn't.
He didn't read Einstein's book and suddenly realize that light doesn't add up that way, he had a theory that required light to not add up that way, and went and found some possible experiments -- or at least someone else's musings -- which allegedly confirmed the prior theory.

And I'm not even sure Einstein even measured whether the velocities of light add up like that.
And if Albert didn't measure, and Bishop didn't measure -- no experiments done -- then I'm having a hard time seeing it as zetetic for Dr. Bishop to zetetically state that light velocities don't add up that way.

But picture this:
There's two race cars going 50 meters a second. They are 300,000,000 meters apart, but going parallel. On a big flat earth.
One of them shoots a pulsed laser cannon at the other. Right at him.
The only problem is that the light takes a second to get there. And by the time it gets there, the target has moved ahead 50 meters.

But it's a laser so he's not out of bullets yet, he stars aiming further and further forward.
He finds that he has to aim over 50 meters ahead of where his target is, in order for the light to intersect the target.
Now, this distance is actually longer than 300,000,000 meters because it's traversing the long side of a right triangle that is 50 by 300,000,000 meters.

Does the path length of light really not add up like that?

I would enjoy seeing the equations and solutions for this situation, using conventional special relativity.

BTW, it is very easy to demonstrate that things can move faster than the speed of light.