#### John Doe

• 6
##### A New Idea of Gravity in the Flat Earth. Is It Valid?
« on: February 12, 2015, 02:48:53 AM »
I am new to the Flat Earth theory, and have recently been convinced of it as the true model of the earth. However, I do not believe the Flat Earth Society has the correct idea of how gravity works. I have a new idea of how The Flat Earth and Newton's Gravity can be combined. The standard reason why gravity supposedly doesn't work on the flat earth is because the center of gravity (the center of the flat disc earth) would pull at the edges and cause them to be brought together into a sphere.

My proposal is that there are pillar-like structures directly connected underneath the flat earth, and a foundation under the pillars. The center of gravity on these dense pillars at the edges would cancel out the over-attraction of the center of the earth and cause gravity to act normal across the flat earth.

But since I do not know how to even calculate out gravity, I have no clue if my idea is correct. My question is: is my proposal scientifically possible? Could it work?

#### Gulliver

• 682
##### Re: A New Idea of Gravity in the Flat Earth. Is It Valid?
« Reply #1 on: February 12, 2015, 05:08:48 AM »
I am new to the Flat Earth theory, and have recently been convinced of it as the true model of the earth. However, I do not believe the Flat Earth Society has the correct idea of how gravity works. I have a new idea of how The Flat Earth and Newton's Gravity can be combined. The standard reason why gravity supposedly doesn't work on the flat earth is because the center of gravity (the center of the flat disc earth) would pull at the edges and cause them to be brought together into a sphere.

My proposal is that there are pillar-like structures directly connected underneath the flat earth, and a foundation under the pillars. The center of gravity on these dense pillars at the edges would cancel out the over-attraction of the center of the earth and cause gravity to act normal across the flat earth.

But since I do not know how to even calculate out gravity, I have no clue if my idea is correct. My question is: is my proposal scientifically possible? Could it work?
I don't see how that idea could work.  The pillars would have to go up, not down; otherwise, gravity downward would increase everywhere. Also the pillars would then be visible near the rim.
Don't rely on FEers for history or physics.
[Hampton] never did [go to prison] and was never found guilty of libel.
The ISS doesn't accelerate.

#### John Doe

• 6
##### Re: A New Idea of Gravity in the Flat Earth. Is It Valid?
« Reply #2 on: February 12, 2015, 05:10:20 AM »
I am new to the Flat Earth theory, and have recently been convinced of it as the true model of the earth. However, I do not believe the Flat Earth Society has the correct idea of how gravity works. I have a new idea of how The Flat Earth and Newton's Gravity can be combined. The standard reason why gravity supposedly doesn't work on the flat earth is because the center of gravity (the center of the flat disc earth) would pull at the edges and cause them to be brought together into a sphere.

My proposal is that there are pillar-like structures directly connected underneath the flat earth, and a foundation under the pillars. The center of gravity on these dense pillars at the edges would cancel out the over-attraction of the center of the earth and cause gravity to act normal across the flat earth.

But since I do not know how to even calculate out gravity, I have no clue if my idea is correct. My question is: is my proposal scientifically possible? Could it work?
I don't see how that idea could work.  The pillars would have to go up, not down; otherwise, gravity downward would increase everywhere. Also the pillars would then be visible near the rim.

That's the point. Gravity pulls downwards, not upwards. Unless you mean something else?

#### Gulliver

• 682
##### Re: A New Idea of Gravity in the Flat Earth. Is It Valid?
« Reply #3 on: February 12, 2015, 07:51:18 AM »
I am new to the Flat Earth theory, and have recently been convinced of it as the true model of the earth. However, I do not believe the Flat Earth Society has the correct idea of how gravity works. I have a new idea of how The Flat Earth and Newton's Gravity can be combined. The standard reason why gravity supposedly doesn't work on the flat earth is because the center of gravity (the center of the flat disc earth) would pull at the edges and cause them to be brought together into a sphere.

My proposal is that there are pillar-like structures directly connected underneath the flat earth, and a foundation under the pillars. The center of gravity on these dense pillars at the edges would cancel out the over-attraction of the center of the earth and cause gravity to act normal across the flat earth.

But since I do not know how to even calculate out gravity, I have no clue if my idea is correct. My question is: is my proposal scientifically possible? Could it work?
I don't see how that idea could work.  The pillars would have to go up, not down; otherwise, gravity downward would increase everywhere. Also the pillars would then be visible near the rim.

That's the point. Gravity pulls downwards, not upwards. Unless you mean something else?
Your downward pillars would add downward gravity (and weight) for everything on earth, not just the direction of the original gravity toward the NP.
Don't rely on FEers for history or physics.
[Hampton] never did [go to prison] and was never found guilty of libel.
The ISS doesn't accelerate.

#### John Doe

• 6
##### Re: A New Idea of Gravity in the Flat Earth. Is It Valid?
« Reply #4 on: February 12, 2015, 02:44:36 PM »
I am new to the Flat Earth theory, and have recently been convinced of it as the true model of the earth. However, I do not believe the Flat Earth Society has the correct idea of how gravity works. I have a new idea of how The Flat Earth and Newton's Gravity can be combined. The standard reason why gravity supposedly doesn't work on the flat earth is because the center of gravity (the center of the flat disc earth) would pull at the edges and cause them to be brought together into a sphere.

My proposal is that there are pillar-like structures directly connected underneath the flat earth, and a foundation under the pillars. The center of gravity on these dense pillars at the edges would cancel out the over-attraction of the center of the earth and cause gravity to act normal across the flat earth.

But since I do not know how to even calculate out gravity, I have no clue if my idea is correct. My question is: is my proposal scientifically possible? Could it work?
I don't see how that idea could work.  The pillars would have to go up, not down; otherwise, gravity downward would increase everywhere. Also the pillars would then be visible near the rim.

That's the point. Gravity pulls downwards, not upwards. Unless you mean something else?
Your downward pillars would add downward gravity (and weight) for everything on earth, not just the direction of the original gravity toward the NP.

I still don't get it. There is gravity everywhere, so why would having gravity everywhere be a problem, especially if the pillars attracted the right amount of gravity to balance out with the gravity of the North Pole?

#### Gulliver

• 682
##### Re: A New Idea of Gravity in the Flat Earth. Is It Valid?
« Reply #5 on: February 13, 2015, 03:39:33 AM »
I am new to the Flat Earth theory, and have recently been convinced of it as the true model of the earth. However, I do not believe the Flat Earth Society has the correct idea of how gravity works. I have a new idea of how The Flat Earth and Newton's Gravity can be combined. The standard reason why gravity supposedly doesn't work on the flat earth is because the center of gravity (the center of the flat disc earth) would pull at the edges and cause them to be brought together into a sphere.

My proposal is that there are pillar-like structures directly connected underneath the flat earth, and a foundation under the pillars. The center of gravity on these dense pillars at the edges would cancel out the over-attraction of the center of the earth and cause gravity to act normal across the flat earth.

But since I do not know how to even calculate out gravity, I have no clue if my idea is correct. My question is: is my proposal scientifically possible? Could it work?
I don't see how that idea could work.  The pillars would have to go up, not down; otherwise, gravity downward would increase everywhere. Also the pillars would then be visible near the rim.

That's the point. Gravity pulls downwards, not upwards. Unless you mean something else?
Your downward pillars would add downward gravity (and weight) for everything on earth, not just the direction of the original gravity toward the NP.

I still don't get it. There is gravity everywhere, so why would having gravity everywhere be a problem, especially if the pillars attracted the right amount of gravity to balance out with the gravity of the North Pole?
Well, I guess you forgot to tell us that you intend to move the mass of the FE about, not just add the pillars. So, you're willing to make a new dome-like shape for the earth to solve a flat earth problem with gravity and somehow balance the mass of the new shape so that the resultant gravity is 1 g down everywhere on the near surface of the earth. Good luck with that.
Don't rely on FEers for history or physics.
[Hampton] never did [go to prison] and was never found guilty of libel.
The ISS doesn't accelerate.

#### John Doe

• 6
##### Re: A New Idea of Gravity in the Flat Earth. Is It Valid?
« Reply #6 on: February 13, 2015, 05:33:54 PM »
I am new to the Flat Earth theory, and have recently been convinced of it as the true model of the earth. However, I do not believe the Flat Earth Society has the correct idea of how gravity works. I have a new idea of how The Flat Earth and Newton's Gravity can be combined. The standard reason why gravity supposedly doesn't work on the flat earth is because the center of gravity (the center of the flat disc earth) would pull at the edges and cause them to be brought together into a sphere.

My proposal is that there are pillar-like structures directly connected underneath the flat earth, and a foundation under the pillars. The center of gravity on these dense pillars at the edges would cancel out the over-attraction of the center of the earth and cause gravity to act normal across the flat earth.

But since I do not know how to even calculate out gravity, I have no clue if my idea is correct. My question is: is my proposal scientifically possible? Could it work?
I don't see how that idea could work.  The pillars would have to go up, not down; otherwise, gravity downward would increase everywhere. Also the pillars would then be visible near the rim.

That's the point. Gravity pulls downwards, not upwards. Unless you mean something else?
Your downward pillars would add downward gravity (and weight) for everything on earth, not just the direction of the original gravity toward the NP.

I still don't get it. There is gravity everywhere, so why would having gravity everywhere be a problem, especially if the pillars attracted the right amount of gravity to balance out with the gravity of the North Pole?
Well, I guess you forgot to tell us that you intend to move the mass of the FE about, not just add the pillars. So, you're willing to make a new dome-like shape for the earth to solve a flat earth problem with gravity and somehow balance the mass of the new shape so that the resultant gravity is 1 g down everywhere on the near surface of the earth. Good luck with that.

I never claimed a dome shaped earth. I just don't see how pillars pulling everything down would be a problem, because that's what we experience - everything gets pulled down.

#### Gulliver

• 682
##### Re: A New Idea of Gravity in the Flat Earth. Is It Valid?
« Reply #7 on: February 13, 2015, 07:17:48 PM »
Well, I guess you forgot to tell us that you intend to move the mass of the FE about, not just add the pillars. So, you're willing to make a new dome-like shape for the earth to solve a flat earth problem with gravity and somehow balance the mass of the new shape so that the resultant gravity is 1 g down everywhere on the near surface of the earth. Good luck with that.

I never claimed a dome shaped earth. I just don't see how pillars pulling everything down would be a problem, because that's what we experience - everything gets pulled down.
Tell us how adding "downward" pillars doesn't make the earth dome-like. Draw a picture for us please.

Then please do use GR (or for simplicity's sake Newton's ULoG) to calculate g at the NP, equator, 80o S. We'll review your math and get back to you. (Do please be careful not to make the simplifying assumption that you can represent the earth as a point mass, as that assumption doesn't apply to your modified earth.) Thanks.

[edited by pizaa to fix quote tag damage]
« Last Edit: February 13, 2015, 09:11:43 PM by pizaaplanet »
Don't rely on FEers for history or physics.
[Hampton] never did [go to prison] and was never found guilty of libel.
The ISS doesn't accelerate.

#### John Doe

• 6
##### Re: A New Idea of Gravity in the Flat Earth. Is It Valid?
« Reply #8 on: February 13, 2015, 08:16:52 PM »
Well, I guess you forgot to tell us that you intend to move the mass of the FE about, not just add the pillars. So, you're willing to make a new dome-like shape for the earth to solve a flat earth problem with gravity and somehow balance the mass of the new shape so that the resultant gravity is 1 g down everywhere on the near surface of the earth. Good luck with that.

I never claimed a dome shaped earth. I just don't see how pillars pulling everything down would be a problem, because that's what we experience - everything gets pulled down.
Tell us how adding "downward" pillars doesn't make the earth dome-like. Draw a picture for us please.

Then please do use GR (or for simplicity's sake Newton's ULoG) to calculate g at the NP, equator, 80o S. We'll review your math and get back to you. (Do please be careful not to make the simplifying assumption that you can represent the earth as a point mass, as that assumption doesn't apply to your modified earth.) Thanks.

It would look something like this:
http://www.cathedralofhope.com/NetCommunity/view.image?Id=4158

I don't know how to do the physical math. That's why I'm asking if this is possible.

[edited by pizaa to fix quote tag damage]
« Last Edit: February 13, 2015, 09:11:58 PM by pizaaplanet »

#### Gulliver

• 682
##### Re: A New Idea of Gravity in the Flat Earth. Is It Valid?
« Reply #9 on: February 13, 2015, 08:39:47 PM »
Well, I guess you forgot to tell us that you intend to move the mass of the FE about, not just add the pillars. So, you're willing to make a new dome-like shape for the earth to solve a flat earth problem with gravity and somehow balance the mass of the new shape so that the resultant gravity is 1 g down everywhere on the near surface of the earth. Good luck with that.

I never claimed a dome shaped earth. I just don't see how pillars pulling everything down would be a problem, because that's what we experience - everything gets pulled down.
Tell us how adding "downward" pillars doesn't make the earth dome-like. Draw a picture for us please.

Then please do use GR (or for simplicity's sake Newton's ULoG) to calculate g at the NP, equator, 80o S. We'll review your math and get back to you. (Do please be careful not to make the simplifying assumption that you can represent the earth as a point mass, as that assumption doesn't apply to your modified earth.) Thanks.

It would look something like this:
http://www.cathedralofhope.com/NetCommunity/view.image?Id=4158

I don't know how to do the physical math. That's why I'm asking if this is possible.
And you have my answer. No, it would not be possible to balance out the GR gravity of a finite FE by adding four or so pillars to the bottom of the FE's edge. The details are in the math, requiring integral calculus.

[edited by pizaa to fix quote tag damage]
« Last Edit: February 13, 2015, 09:12:09 PM by pizaaplanet »
Don't rely on FEers for history or physics.
[Hampton] never did [go to prison] and was never found guilty of libel.
The ISS doesn't accelerate.

#### John Doe

• 6
##### Re: A New Idea of Gravity in the Flat Earth. Is It Valid?
« Reply #10 on: February 13, 2015, 09:33:49 PM »
Well, I guess you forgot to tell us that you intend to move the mass of the FE about, not just add the pillars. So, you're willing to make a new dome-like shape for the earth to solve a flat earth problem with gravity and somehow balance the mass of the new shape so that the resultant gravity is 1 g down everywhere on the near surface of the earth. Good luck with that.

I never claimed a dome shaped earth. I just don't see how pillars pulling everything down would be a problem, because that's what we experience - everything gets pulled down.
Tell us how adding "downward" pillars doesn't make the earth dome-like. Draw a picture for us please.

Then please do use GR (or for simplicity's sake Newton's ULoG) to calculate g at the NP, equator, 80o S. We'll review your math and get back to you. (Do please be careful not to make the simplifying assumption that you can represent the earth as a point mass, as that assumption doesn't apply to your modified earth.) Thanks.

It would look something like this:
http://www.cathedralofhope.com/NetCommunity/view.image?Id=4158

I don't know how to do the physical math. That's why I'm asking if this is possible.
And you have my answer. No, it would not be possible to balance out the GR gravity of a finite FE by adding four or so pillars to the bottom of the FE's edge. The details are in the math, requiring integral calculus.

[edited by pizaa to fix quote tag damage]

Let me make something clear. I don't think there are just 4 pillars, but many more. Also, could you please explain in detail how gravity with pillars wouldn't work. I don't have the knowledge to do the calculations myself.

#### Gulliver

• 682
##### Re: A New Idea of Gravity in the Flat Earth. Is It Valid?
« Reply #11 on: February 13, 2015, 10:07:51 PM »
Let me make something clear. I don't think there are just 4 pillars, but many more. Also, could you please explain in detail how gravity with pillars wouldn't work. I don't have the knowledge to do the calculations myself.
So why would you provide a drawing of an FE with just 4 pillars?

You might try learning the requisite knowledge to be able to understand your proposed model's gravity. I have no interest in doing your work for you.
Don't rely on FEers for history or physics.
[Hampton] never did [go to prison] and was never found guilty of libel.
The ISS doesn't accelerate.

#### Jeliwan

• 9
##### Re: A New Idea of Gravity in the Flat Earth. Is It Valid?
« Reply #12 on: March 13, 2015, 11:45:23 AM »
Joshua, it should be clear: If gravity exists, something of the mass of earth would be round, for everything that deviates from this shape would behave like an oversized mountain: it would collapse to the direction of the center. So Gravity and FET cannot work together.

#### Pongo

• Most Educated Flat-Earther
• Planar Moderator
• 749
##### Re: A New Idea of Gravity in the Flat Earth. Is It Valid?
« Reply #13 on: March 18, 2015, 01:19:29 PM »
Joshua, it should be clear: If gravity exists, something of the mass of earth would be round, for everything that deviates from this shape would behave like an oversized mountain: it would collapse to the direction of the center. So Gravity and FET cannot work together.

How do you presume to know the mass of the earth?

#### Jeliwan

• 9
##### Re: A New Idea of Gravity in the Flat Earth. Is It Valid?
« Reply #14 on: March 18, 2015, 01:27:46 PM »
Joshua, it should be clear: If gravity exists, something of the mass of earth would be round, for everything that deviates from this shape would behave like an oversized mountain: it would collapse to the direction of the center. So Gravity and FET cannot work together.

How do you presume to know the mass of the earth?

Well, she is huge and consists of heavy material. Don't know it's mass, but she's certainly heavy enough to require being round in case there is gravity in the sense of modern physics. Isn't that obvious?

#### Pongo

• Most Educated Flat-Earther
• Planar Moderator
• 749
##### Re: A New Idea of Gravity in the Flat Earth. Is It Valid?
« Reply #15 on: March 18, 2015, 05:29:06 PM »
Joshua, it should be clear: If gravity exists, something of the mass of earth would be round, for everything that deviates from this shape would behave like an oversized mountain: it would collapse to the direction of the center. So Gravity and FET cannot work together.

How do you presume to know the mass of the earth?

Well, she is huge and consists of heavy material. Don't know it's mass, but she's certainly heavy enough to require being round in case there is gravity in the sense of modern physics. Isn't that obvious?

Is it?  Why would it be obvious?

#### Jeliwan

• 9
##### Re: A New Idea of Gravity in the Flat Earth. Is It Valid?
« Reply #16 on: March 19, 2015, 05:47:36 AM »
Joshua, it should be clear: If gravity exists, something of the mass of earth would be round, for everything that deviates from this shape would behave like an oversized mountain: it would collapse to the direction of the center. So Gravity and FET cannot work together.

How do you presume to know the mass of the earth?

Well, she is huge and consists of heavy material. Don't know it's mass, but she's certainly heavy enough to require being round in case there is gravity in the sense of modern physics. Isn't that obvious?

Is it?  Why would it be obvious?

I think it's enough. Have fun!

#### Pongo

• Most Educated Flat-Earther
• Planar Moderator
• 749
##### Re: A New Idea of Gravity in the Flat Earth. Is It Valid?
« Reply #17 on: March 19, 2015, 02:36:21 PM »
So, just because you think that the earth is massive enough to pull itself into a sphere, it should be obviously true to everyone else despite any evidence whatsoever?

#### Theorist

• 29
• Prove FE Wrong!
##### Re: A New Idea of Gravity in the Flat Earth. Is It Valid?
« Reply #18 on: March 31, 2015, 12:53:20 AM »
Maybe gravity is just a vital 1D component of the whole 3D world, after all it has only one "line" to it really. No depth, no length, only height.

It might be mysterious but let's cut to the chase, its only about one thing, what we call "down".

If anything I think we are "falling upwards". This makes it possible for the dimension to both exist and be infinite. The going upwards motion stops it falling too far, the falling stops it going upwards too far. Sounds like perpetual motion, right?

Thats because it is.

If gravity is a dimension, the dimension makes different object densities make them go "down" harder or softer, we just put a label to that and call it the "weight" of things.

Language has been abused to make it hard to understand things.

Now add another dimension to that and you have 2D aka the flat earth/plane of existence. I think the 3rd dimension isn't what we think it is, I dunno man, its like the dimension that makes volume possible, right? Well you've had to take 1D (downwards) and add another (a flat plane) to give 2D and then all volume/life is contained in the next dimension up, but the kicker is 3D needs 2D and 1D, 2D needs 1D and 1D needs nothing and exists infinitely everywhere and can't ever go away.

God damn it just gimme the Nobel Prize right now.

If 1D were removed from 2D, the 2D plane would vanish. If 1D were removed from 3D, volume and the flat plane would vanish. If 2D were removed from 3D, only 1D would be left. You can't remove 1D aka gravity.

"Gravity always wins" - Thom Yorke

« Last Edit: March 31, 2015, 01:06:41 AM by Theorist »

#### SpaceYeti

• 2
##### Re: A New Idea of Gravity in the Flat Earth. Is It Valid?
« Reply #19 on: March 31, 2015, 03:23:54 PM »
Well, I guess you forgot to tell us that you intend to move the mass of the FE about, not just add the pillars. So, you're willing to make a new dome-like shape for the earth to solve a flat earth problem with gravity and somehow balance the mass of the new shape so that the resultant gravity is 1 g down everywhere on the near surface of the earth. Good luck with that.

I never claimed a dome shaped earth. I just don't see how pillars pulling everything down would be a problem, because that's what we experience - everything gets pulled down.
Tell us how adding "downward" pillars doesn't make the earth dome-like. Draw a picture for us please.

Then please do use GR (or for simplicity's sake Newton's ULoG) to calculate g at the NP, equator, 80o S. We'll review your math and get back to you. (Do please be careful not to make the simplifying assumption that you can represent the earth as a point mass, as that assumption doesn't apply to your modified earth.) Thanks.

It would look something like this:
http://www.cathedralofhope.com/NetCommunity/view.image?Id=4158

I don't know how to do the physical math. That's why I'm asking if this is possible.
And you have my answer. No, it would not be possible to balance out the GR gravity of a finite FE by adding four or so pillars to the bottom of the FE's edge. The details are in the math, requiring integral calculus.

[edited by pizaa to fix quote tag damage]

You're joking, right? I actually just did the math, and it actually works out better than the standard, no-pillar model if (this is an important if) we do not presume acceleration.