[AMann]

I was reading the Flat-Earth wiki and was a little surprised that gravity was removed from the model of the flat-Earth in order to make it work. So... what we are calling gravity is really the acceleration of the Earth in a direction opposite of what we would consider 'down'?
Ok... trying to wrap my head around that. Are there any experiments done that can be shared to confirm? Any evidence of this claim? Or is it simply a proposed mechanism in order to get the Flat-Earth idea around the need for gravity?
I am all for new cool thoughts, but this would require replicable evidence to start believing...

[jroa]

Einstein came to the conclusion that the effect that most people think of as gravity is exactly the same as acceleration.  I think he was a pretty smart guy, don't you? 

[Rama Set]

Einstein came to the conclusion that the effect that most people think of as gravity is exactly the same as acceleration.  I think he was a pretty smart guy, don't you? 

but how does the equivalence principle account for variations in gravitational fields and gravitational radiation?  Are you sure you are not over-simplifying what he said?

[Thork]

Einstein came to the conclusion that the effect that most people think of as gravity is exactly the same as acceleration.  I think he was a pretty smart guy, don't you? 

but how does the equivalence principle account for variations in gravitational fields and gravitational radiation?  Are you sure you are not over-simplifying what he said?

There are no variations. This is a myth. This is demonstrably true when you consider gold brokering. I can buy a gold oz bullion bar in the uk. It costs exactly the same as a gold oz bullion bar in india. The spot price for gold right now is about £800 an oz.

Gold is sold by the Troy ounce. Troy is a measure of weight, not mass.

troy weight, traditional system of weight in the British Isles based on the grain, pennyweight (24 grains), ounce (20 pennyweights), and pound (12 ounces). The troy grain, pennyweight, and ounce have been used since the Middle Ages to weigh gold, silver, and other precious metals and stones.

link

So if your suggestion that there are variations in gravity 0.7% the globularists will have you believe, I can buy an oz of gold in Mexico City (allegedly low gravity) and sell it for a 0.7% premium in Finland.
So if I bought a ton of gold I would make a profit of £346,200 (over half a US million dollars) just by shipping it.

Come on, use your brains. Gravity doesn't vary. The world would be a very different place if it did.

[markjo]

Gold is sold by the Troy ounce. Troy is a measure of weight, not mass.

That depends on who you ask:

Troy weight is a system of units of mass customarily used for precious metals and gemstones.

[Rama Set]

Also from http://www.nist.gov/pml/wmd/pubs/upload/AppC-12-hb44-final.pdf

Troy Units of Mass
[The “grain” is the same in avoirdupois, troy, and apothecaries units of mass.]
24 grains (gr)
20 pennyweights 12 ounces troy
= 1 pennyweight (dwt)
= 1 ounce troy (oz t) = 480 grains = 1 pound troy (lb t)
= 240 pennyweights = 5760 grains

Seems more likely that Brittanica has a malapropism in its entry. An extremely common malapropism.

[Thork]

Gold is sold by the Troy ounce. Troy is a measure of weight, not mass.

That depends on who you ask:

Troy weight is a system of units of mass customarily used for precious metals and gemstones.

I asked the encyclopaedia Britannica, collated "by about 100 full-time editors and more than 4,000 contributors, including 110 Nobel Prize winners and five American presidents."

Contributors

The 2007 print version of the Britannica has 4,411 contributors, many eminent in their fields, such as Nobel laureate economist Milton Friedman, astronomer Carl Sagan, and surgeon Michael DeBakey.[42] Roughly a quarter of the contributors are deceased, some as long ago as 1947 (Alfred North Whitehead), while another quarter are retired or emeritus. Most (approximately 98%) contribute to only a single article; however, 64 contributed to three articles, 23 contributed to four articles, 10 contributed to five articles, and 8 contributed to more than five articles. An exceptionally prolific contributor is Christine Sutton of the University of Oxford, who contributed 24 articles on particle physics.

Britannica's authors have included writers such as Albert Einstein, Marie Curie, and Leon Trotsky, as well as notable independent encyclopaedists such as Isaac Asimov

You asked Wikipedia, collated by any old Tom, Dick, Harry or bored teenager that creates an account.

[Rama Set]

Gold is sold by the Troy ounce. Troy is a measure of weight, not mass.

That depends on who you ask:

Troy weight is a system of units of mass customarily used for precious metals and gemstones.

I asked the encyclopaedia Britannica, collated "by about 100 full-time editors and more than 4,000 contributors, including 110 Nobel Prize winners and five American presidents."

Contributors[edit]

The 2007 print version of the Britannica has 4,411 contributors, many eminent in their fields, such as Nobel laureate economist Milton Friedman, astronomer Carl Sagan, and surgeon Michael DeBakey.[42] Roughly a quarter of the contributors are deceased, some as long ago as 1947 (Alfred North Whitehead), while another quarter are retired or emeritus. Most (approximately 98%) contribute to only a single article; however, 64 contributed to three articles, 23 contributed to four articles, 10 contributed to five articles, and 8 contributed to more than five articles. An exceptionally prolific contributor is Christine Sutton of the University of Oxford, who contributed 24 articles on particle physics.

So then you agree with Brittanica when it says the Earth is round?


Also:

Articles for traditional encyclopedias such as Encyclopædia Britannica are carefully and deliberately written by experts, lending such encyclopedias a reputation for accuracy. Conversely, Wikipedia is often cited for factual inaccuracies and misrepresentations. However, a peer review in 2005 of forty-two scientific entries on both Wikipedia and Encyclopædia Britannica by the science journal Nature found few differences in accuracy, and concluded that "the average science entry in Wikipedia contained around four inaccuracies; Britannica, about three."[164]

[Thork]

So then you agree with Brittanica when it says the Earth is round?

Well, its interesting you say that ...

It was only after the dawn of the space age, however, when photographs from rockets and orbiting spacecraft first captured the dramatic curvature of Earth’s horizon, that the conception of Earth as a roughly spherical planet rather than as a flat entity was verified by direct human observation.

... because the very pictures used for "direct observation" were hoaxed.

You'll enjoy that little film, especially the end few minutes. 

[Gulliver]

So then you agree with Brittanica when it says the Earth is round?

Well, its interesting you say that ...

It was only after the dawn of the space age, however, when photographs from rockets and orbiting spacecraft first captured the dramatic curvature of Earth’s horizon, that the conception of Earth as a roughly spherical planet rather than as a flat entity was verified by direct human observation.

... because the very pictures used for "direct observation" were hoaxed.

You'll enjoy that little film, especially the end few minutes. 

So do you agree with EB that orbiting spacecraft directly observed that the Earth was a sphere, or are you going to cherry-pick what you take from EB, choosing only what supports you like some foil-hat-wearing crackpot might?

[Rama Set]

So then you agree with Brittanica when it says the Earth is round?

Well, its interesting you say that ...

It was only after the dawn of the space age, however, when photographs from rockets and orbiting spacecraft first captured the dramatic curvature of Earth’s horizon, that the conception of Earth as a roughly spherical planet rather than as a flat entity was verified by direct human observation.

... because the very picture used for "direct observation" was hoaxed.
[clipped video]
You'll enjoy that little film, especially the end few minutes. 

Why are you assuming that that photo is what is being cited as direct observation?  I would think they were referring to the observations directly made by the Apollo astronauts and all subsequent astronauts who did Tom Bishop's work and looked out their window.

Are you going to ignore the excerpt from the National Institute for Standards and Technology's document explicitly listing the Troy Units as mass units?

[Thork]

So then you agree with Brittanica when it says the Earth is round?

Well, its interesting you say that ...

It was only after the dawn of the space age, however, when photographs from rockets and orbiting spacecraft first captured the dramatic curvature of Earth’s horizon, that the conception of Earth as a roughly spherical planet rather than as a flat entity was verified by direct human observation.

... because the very pictures used for "direct observation" were hoaxed.

You'll enjoy that little film, especially the end few minutes. 

So do you agree with EB that orbiting spacecraft directly observed that the Earth was a sphere, or are you going to cherry-pick what you take from EB, choosing only what supports you like some foil-hat-wearing crackpot might?

It doesn't look like a sphere when they turn the lights on and remove the cut outs. It could easily be a blue plain.

Here is another longer version with better resolution. Check at about 32 mins.

[garygreen]

This entire video can be summed up with, "but that's not how I'd have thought it should look."  That's not actually an argument.  It's just a lack of imagination.  And a fallacy.

She should also probably take at least one photography class.

It's a shame you aren't as skeptical of Youtube videos as you are of Wikipedia.  As it turns out, anyone can upload a Youtube video saying whatever they want.  There's no review process.  So it's sort of weird how you just gobble up everything this idiot says.

[Ghost of V]

Einstein came to the conclusion that the effect that most people think of as gravity is exactly the same as acceleration.  I think he was a pretty smart guy, don't you? 

but how does the equivalence principle account for variations in gravitational fields and gravitational radiation?  Are you sure you are not over-simplifying what he said?

This is explained by the stars above the Earth disc. They exert their own small gravitational pull that accounts for these discrepancies. Contrary to popular FE belief, there is gravity acting on Earth... just not very much.

[Gulliver]

This is explained by the stars above the Earth disc. They exert their own small gravitational pull that accounts for these discrepancies. Contrary to popular FE belief, there is gravity acting on Earth... just not very much.

Please do show us the experimental data that supports your conclusion here.

In FET, the stars move with the day and the season. Does your data support that move? Do the discrepancies move too?

What types of discrepancies does this explanation account? All of them? That objects weigh more on the equator than at middle latitudes? That object weigh less with just an increase in altitude? That Foucault pendulums rotate in the opposite direction in the NH than the SH? That discrepancies near oil fields allow the accurate drilling of those fields?

So then you agree with Brittanica when it says the Earth is round?

Well, its interesting you say that ...

It was only after the dawn of the space age, however, when photographs from rockets and orbiting spacecraft first captured the dramatic curvature of Earth’s horizon, that the conception of Earth as a roughly spherical planet rather than as a flat entity was verified by direct human observation.

So do you agree with EB that orbiting spacecraft directly observed that the Earth was a sphere, or are you going to cherry-pick what you take from EB, choosing only what supports you like some foil-hat-wearing crackpot might?

It doesn't look like a sphere when they turn the lights on and remove the cut outs. It could easily be a blue plain.

You avoid the question. When is EB a good enough source for you? When is Wikipedia? When is a un-sourced youtube video?

[Ghost of V]

Please do show us the experimental data that supports your conclusion here.

In FET, the stars move with the day and the season. Does your data support that move? Do the discrepancies move too?

What types of discrepancies does this explanation account? All of them? That objects weigh more on the equator than at middle latitudes? That object weigh less with just an increase in altitude? That Foucault pendulums rotate in the opposite direction in the NH than the SH? That discrepancies near oil fields allow the accurate drilling of those fields?

This isn't about Foucault pendulums. If you want to discuss that hoax then you should make a new thread.

And yes, the gravitational pull of the stars explains everything you've mentioned here. The fact that there are discrepancies to begin with suggests that the stars have a gravitational pull, as that is the only logical explanation with what we already know about the Earth disc and it adds up mathematically.

[Rama Set]

............ it adds up mathematically.

Would you mind showing the math?

[Gulliver]

Please do show us the experimental data that supports your conclusion here.

In FET, the stars move with the day and the season. Does your data support that move? Do the discrepancies move too?

What types of discrepancies does this explanation account? All of them? That objects weigh more on the equator than at middle latitudes? That object weigh less with just an increase in altitude? That Foucault pendulums rotate in the opposite direction in the NH than the SH? That discrepancies near oil fields allow the accurate drilling of those fields?

This isn't about Foucault pendulums. If you want to discuss that hoax then you should make a new thread.

And yes, the gravitational pull of the stars explains everything you've mentioned here. The fact that there are discrepancies to begin with suggests that the stars have a gravitational pull, as that is the only logical explanation with what we already know about the Earth disc and it adds up mathematically.

Wow! That's amazing wrong. Let me be lazy and just point out the larger mistakes.

1) Discrepancies by altitude alone is not explained by stars' gravity. The EP (and GR time dilation) explains all very well. Please learn to GR.
2) Discrepancies between the equator and the middle latitude is not explained by the stars' gravity as the stars move seasonally but the discrepancies do not.
3) FPs are not a hoax and have action to due with gravity.
4) You, again, fail to provide data to support your conclusions. How many times to we have to point out that failure?
5) Since the oil-field related discrepancies don't move, stars' gravity does not explain those either.

............ it adds up mathematically.

Would you mind showing the math?

I'm sure Vx could win big money if he published that data.

[Tintagel]

4) You, again, fail to provide data to support your conclusions. How many times to we have to point out that failure?

Hello, pot, this is kettle. 

I've never seen any data from you, just obtuse nay-saying and handwaving references to "accepted" physics.  Just because you follow Neil Tyson on twitter and skimmed A Brief History of Time doesn't make you an expert on relativity and gravity.

[Gulliver]

4) You, again, fail to provide data to support your conclusions. How many times to we have to point out that failure?

Hello, pot, this is kettle. 

I've never seen any data from you, just obtuse nay-saying and handwaving references to "accepted" physics.  Just because you follow Neil Tyson on twitter and skimmed A Brief History of Time doesn't make you an expert on relativity and gravity.

You must be confused. I regularly post links to published scientific articles replete with data. I point to USGS gravity readings. Heck, Tom Bishop claimed this month the the KSU article on modeling gravity discrepancies had data but no hypothesis.

I'm happy to debate relativity and gravity with you without expecting your being an expert on the