1

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Maths

« on: May 31, 2014, 06:23:34 PM »

Ah, but if the heavens do not influence r then why would they influence g? With a spherical earth the explanation is quite straightforward, with the moon and a few other factors causing the sphere to have a 'bulge' so to speak around the equator. This non spherical shape will influence r, with the poles having a reduced r, and at the equator there will be an increased r. Think of it like a pressing down on top of a football. Around the middle there will be a greater radius.

This is quite a simple explanation, of course there are other factors such as changing densities in the earth but for the most part this holds true. If you were to look at a gravitational map, you can see that certain locations have specific differences to the value of g.

Unless of course you say that g = GM/r^2 is not true. But then I would like to see your alternative. You can't simply say something is wrong and not specify exactly what is wrong with it.

2

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Maths

« on: May 31, 2014, 05:47:49 PM »

Okay let's try and stick with one thing please. No orbit is 100% circular with perigee and apogee attributed to orbits.

g= -GM/r^2

The radius of the earth is the one true variable in measurements. G is a constant and M is a constant.
At the north pole we see a greater value of g, indicating a reduced r. At the equator we see a lesser value of g, indicating an increased r. There are numerous explanations for this, including the moon, the oceans, mountains and hills etc. But I have never heard anybody claim the heavens can influence r. I am curious, please explain

3

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Maths

« on: May 31, 2014, 05:39:16 PM »

I'm going to skip any and all pointless snide remarks you've made. Try to avoid them in the future - they don't encourage people to respond.

Well I'm glad you accept the ISS orbits the earth in a circular path, and as it has a centripetal acceleration of about 8.7ms^2, that would point towards a non UA. Now back to another point.

You claim that the variations seen in measured values of g are due to the "heavens". Can you explain where in g=-GM/r^2 the mass of stars, planets, moons, comets and general mass varies depending on the specific location where the measurements are taken?

4

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Maths

« on: May 31, 2014, 05:27:46 PM »

You seem to think that the ISS is not accelerating towards the earth? Yes the value for g is less than 9.8ms^-2 for the ISS. That's precisely because it is orbiting at a height of 370km. g may be slightly lower than that on the surface of earth, but it is still an acceleration towards the centre of the earth.

5

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Maths

« on: May 31, 2014, 05:22:50 PM »

And just to clarify as it seems that centripetal acceleration is poorly understood. The calculated value of g for the ISS using g = -GM/r^2.

r = radius from the centre of the earth to the ISS. The radius of the earth is about 6,371,000 m and the ISS orbits at about 370,000 m hence r = 6,741,000
M = mass of the earth, approx 5.97219 × 10^24 kg
G = 6.67 x 10^-11

Hence g (Of the ISS) = 8.77ms^2 or Nkg^-1

6

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Maths

« on: May 31, 2014, 05:14:17 PM »

Quite simply, everything with mass experiences a gravitational force.

I have in the past asked people to show to me that bananas exert a gravitational force (I even suggested the Cavendish experiment when people started getting confused). Unfortunately, no one even attempted it. It is claimed that all bodies exert a gravitational force, and we quite simply disagree.

g = -GM/r^2
It's really as simple as a single equation. The inverse square law tells us that the gravitational force due to stars are completely negligible. Indeed the objects in the heavens as you describe it, have no impact on the calculated value of g.

It's interesting how you separate FE physics from RE physics. One of the principal rules of physics is that the laws of physics are the same regardless of location, yet on earth there's an exception?

7

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Maths

« on: May 31, 2014, 04:58:18 PM »

Okay Gulliver, I had a look at some of the other threads you post in and.... I feel for you.

Anyway, so not all bodies exert gravity? So an object with mass does not always exert a gravitational force upon another mass. I don't know much about GR or SR but I do understand Newtons laws of gravitation. Quite simply, everything with mass experiences a gravitational force. Is this saying the earth does not have mass, but then the stars with mass still affect the earth?

I think this can be summarised with
1. The earth has zero mass and is hence unaffected by gravity (Which would pull the earth into a sphere). With UA providing the acceleration of free fall.
2. The acceleration of free fall is affected by the gravitational force of stars.

How are both true

8

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Maths

« on: May 31, 2014, 04:43:01 PM »

Ah well, university will solve that one. I'm sorry but the explanation for the UA is dark energy? The heavens have a slight and uneven gravitational pull? The answers in your FAQ are... Interesting. The explanation of seasons and day or night are absolutely golden. But sticking with UA, you're saying the "heavens" have a gravitational pull. So you're saying gravity is true. And therefore a flat earth contradicts everything we could know about gravity. What

9

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Maths

« on: May 31, 2014, 04:33:20 PM »

Hi, I've tried to avoid special relativity for now, as that's the next level for me. I do understand how nothing can reach the speed of light however, and so to say that the earth has a constant acceleration has really amused me. The whole UA thing is completely destroyed by different values for the acceleration of free fall, which just so happen to perfectly fit in with the laws of gravitation.

10

Flat Earth Theory / Maths

« on: May 31, 2014, 04:00:33 PM »

Now... I have posted a few things under ask a flat earth theorist anything, and I'm pretty sure I won't get an answer. So I thought I'd just go ahead and post the last 2 under the debate board. I am trying to avoid anything that could be viewed as flaming. Which is quite fun. I am simply doing a bit of maths, and looking at what it tells me.

So... The answer I got was the earth is accelerating at 9.8ms^-2, producing the same effect as gravity.
*Facepalm.
This is quite an interesting point however, as this implies certain things.
1. There is no gravitational force holding the moon in place.... So what, spooky force? Okay great explanation
2. Every single thing that does not orbit the earth is... A lie? Binary star systems? You know... The ones you can look at? The moons of every other planet?
Okay A*
3. So the earth accelerates at 9.8ms^2 and there is no gravity. The earth is approximately 4.54 billion years old (Following radioactive decay dating). I know you think the earth is something like 4000 years old though... So I'll go with that. Yeah this is.... I mean feel free to check my calculations but..... If the age of the earth is 4000 years old, that is about 1.2623 x 10^11 seconds. Now, you say the earth is accelerating at 9.8ms^-2. That means, following v = u + at, with a being 9.8ms^-2, t being 1.2623 x 10^11 and assuming u = 0 (Start at zero velocity), that the earth has a velocity of approximately 1.23705 x 10^12 ms^-1. The speed of light is about 2.998 x 10^8ms^-1.

Simplified
Following what this society "teaches" with the earth accelerating at 9.8ms^-2 and the age of the earth being 4000 years.
The earth is travelling at a velocity of at least 1,237,050,000,000 metres every second. (2,767,202,040,085.9 mph).
A little comparison, the speed of light is about 299,800,000 metres every second. (670,633,500.4 mph).

So this society is claiming all experimental evidence of the speed of light is incorrect. One of the cornerstones of modern physics is completely and utterly wrong. It's easy to claim certain things that the average person could accept, but the predictions based on that hypothesis need to be validated by experimental evidence. And quite simply.... This simple calculation based on what you're telling me is just mind boggling. The idea that the earth is travelling at that velocity is just.... How, how can nobody have realised what no gravity means? When you were thinking of a way to argue against gravity did it ever occur to you that acceleration means a change in velocity? And then this change in velocity adds up to a greater than speed of light value, utterly ridiculing the whole idea. If not... Then you are claiming that everybody else is wrong. Good luck with that

2:

Oh and another point, because I just remembered it.

On a flat earth accelerating at 9.8ms^-2, the acceleration is constant across the whole world. Which just so happens to be incorrect, the acceleration of free fall varies substantially from the equator to the poles, completely contradicting your hypothesis. The acceleration due to free fall can go from 9.76 to 9.83 ms^-2.

And because I was so amazed by my previous calculation, I decided to find the age of the earth, according to what you tell me (excluding the age you state).
So, with the earth travelling at a tenth of the speed of light, 29,980,000ms^-1, a reasonable velocity that should have little relativistic effects. Again, using v= u + at, where v = 29,980,000, a = 9.8 and u is zero, t would equal 3059183.7 seconds. In years, that is 0.09694 years. Now, I don't know how old you might be, but I'm pretty sure I've lived for longer than 35.4 days. However according to your fairly conflicting ideas, the earth is 35.4 days old. Thanks for the information, this is news worthy indeed.

P.S
In the likely eventuality that they run out of arguments and ban me, just remember that if you look into what they're actually saying, you can find some interesting statements, such as the age of the earth being little over a month 

-Alex

11

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Ask a Flat Earth Theorist Anything

« on: May 28, 2014, 09:38:40 PM »

As a student of physics and maths, I found this website and was just wondering how you could ignore the vast weight of scientific evidence? This is kind of like the MMR and autism link.... Which has been subsequently destroyed by a vast number of trials. But lets talk "real".

So as a "Flat earther". You must surely claim that physics and maths are wrong (Planetary motion, Keplers laws, Newtons laws, to name a few). And then you must also believe that all man made satellites... are fake. All satellite based technology is a fraud? Also all observations from high altitudes are somehow flawed. Okay, so going along those lines, I thought how could I look outside and see if this society is onto something. Another fraud would be round the world travel I suppose, no flying or sailing around the world. Gravity is also a myth in your view, as a flat earth would not have a correct gravitational field. I think the explanation of gravity is that the flat earth moves upwards at 9.8ms^-1 or something along those lines. (Which makes no sense as velocity is not the same as acceleration- which is caused by a force- yep gravity)

Right, well I'll start with the moon, a fairly common sight in the night sky. You can get a stopwatch and figure out how long it takes for the moon to orbit the earth quite easily. In fact, it's 27.32 days, a month. This is the period of the moon (T). Handy that. The distance (Or radius r) of the moon to the earth is about 3.84x10^8 metres. The ancient greeks had calculated this and so can you (http://io9.com/5688939/how-to-measure-the-distance-from-the-earth-to-the-moon) or (http://galileoandeinstein.physics.virginia.edu/lectures/gkastr1.html). That is an experiment that you yourself can do, so no trickery here. Using this data, you can calculate the speed (v) of the moon in its orbit where v=2 x pi x r divided by T. Now centripetal acceleration comes into play, as for the moon to orbit the earth it must have a constant acceleration towards the earth. If there was no centripetal acceleration, say goodbye to the moon as it's just going to fly off in a straight line. But... what causes that acceleration? A force. Newtons laws of motion remain one of the greatest mathematical works in history. They have been proven time and time again, so lets not argue over that. The force between the earth and moon can be calculated quite simply with some light maths. So how can you then claim there is no such thing as gravitational attraction? One of the four fundamental forces in our universe yet you claim it is a lie. I understand why you have to say this, because if gravity is real, your idea of the sun orbiting the earth will look quite silly. A mass that is ridiculously larger than the earth orbiting us? No, that is not how it works, the large mass has smaller masses orbiting it. Wait... That almost sounds like the moon orbiting the earth.

Now. I am trying to avoid being rude with this post, as then you won't take this as seriously. But the thing is... You can do the maths yourself! Just look up at the stars and planets in the night sky. Buy yourself a telescope and watch how Jupiter and its many moons travels in the night sky. Take notes on where it is every night and calculate the distance of Jupiter from the sun if you really need the confirmation. Oh that's a good point, Jupiter has moons orbiting it, but the earth is the centre of the universe for flat earthers. Just try and claim that Isaac Newton was wrong, because there is so much evidence that you would drown in the numbers. And then explain some other points, fusion for one. How is the sun still burning if fusion is not a thing. Do you think the atomic structure is wrong? Explain how nuclear reactors use fission if the sun is 300 miles or something away.

Final note, the flat earth society claims these bold ideas and uses maps to "prove" they are right. Okay, so use your hypothesis (And yes, it is a hypothesis) to answer some fairly simple questions. 1. Why is redshift/atomic spectra wrong (From looking at other galaxies and stars etc). 2 Gravity (The whole force). 3 Star formation....Without gravity. 4 Fairly simple things like a boat disappearing from view. 5 What the heck is that ice wall you talk about, the one nobody has ever seen

-Alex