The Flat Earth Society
Flat Earth Discussion Boards => Flat Earth Theory => Topic started by: Conner on September 19, 2017, 01:49:26 PM
-
I have a BURNING question
If gravity doesn't exist, and the sun's mass and distance from Earth is smaller, then what exactly makes is rotate? And on top of that, how does it even know when to come up and down. Another question... How do you explain pictures taken from the ISS and other satellites. Also, why would Earth be the ONLY flat thing in the universe. Why would everything else be round like the Sun, Moon, and the rest of the planets in our solar system. And don't subside this question.
-
I have a BURNING question
If gravity doesn't exist, and the sun's mass and distance from Earth is smaller, then what exactly makes is rotate? And on top of that, how does it even know when to come up and down. Another question... How do you explain pictures taken from the ISS and other satellites. Also, why would Earth be the ONLY flat thing in the universe. Why would everything else be round like the Sun, Moon, and the rest of the planets in our solar system. And don't subside this question.
I can tell you right now what the FE'ers will say next (and for once I agree with them): PLEASE READ THE WIKI BEFORE POSTING HERE!!
Honestly - their explanations (hokey though they are) for all of your questions can be found there.
The arguments that effectively defeat Flat Earthism are quite a bit more subtle than the ones you posted here. You might read some of them.
-
I have a BURNING question
1) If gravity doesn't exist, and the sun's mass and distance from Earth is smaller, then what exactly makes is rotate? 2) And on top of that, how does it even know when to come up and down. 3) Another question... How do you explain pictures taken from the ISS and other satellites. 4) Also, why would Earth be the ONLY flat thing in the universe. Why would everything else be round like the Sun, Moon, and the rest of the planets in our solar system. And don't subside this question.
Briefly:
1) Makes what rotate? Earth doesn't rotate the Sun rolls along a 'track' above it.
2) No one knows.
3) Fake/CGI/falsified
4) Because the Earth is unique. It's not a planet. Why? No one knows.
But all of these are answered in (somewhat) greater detail in the wiki. I also highly suggest starting your journey there.
-
I think everyone's tired of your bogus wiki at this point - it's always been nonsense, and it will remain nonsense until you start doing actual research.
"No one knows" -- umm not quite, it's more accurate to say "everyone knows, but the flatheads missed the memo (the class, the physics book chapter, etc.)".
"I don't know" -- that's the most accurate statement a flattie can make. If you really, actually think about it, you guys don't actually have a single explanation for any phenomenon, just a bunch of "why's" and "i don't understands".
If gravity doesn't exist
They're yet to prove it doesn't exist. They can't of course. But don't just give them that premise.
-
I think everyone's tired of your bogus wiki at this point - it's always been nonsense, and it will remain nonsense until you start doing actual research.
Coming from someone who doesn't seem to have read the wiki, this doesn't mean much. If you claim to have read it, I'd suggest doing it again, because you are lacking in the very basics. If you need help, I would suggest asking.
They're yet to prove it doesn't exist. They can't of course. But don't just give them that premise.
You really do not understand how burden of proof works, do you?
-
I think everyone's tired of your bogus wiki at this point - it's always been nonsense, and it will remain nonsense until you start doing actual research.
Coming from someone who doesn't seem to have read the wiki, this doesn't mean much. If you claim to have read it, I'd suggest doing it again, because you are lacking in the very basics. If you need help, I would suggest asking.
They're yet to prove it doesn't exist. They can't of course. But don't just give them that premise.
You really do not understand how burden of proof works, do you?
Unlike the majority of flerfers, my reading comprehension is just fine, and reading some nonsense once is enough for me.
In regards to the burden of proof: it's been a few hundred years now that the entire scientific community has known gravity to be an observable force, easily proven with countless experiments (as demonstrated on this very forum like a billion times). Your universal acceleration idea is laughable - if it were true, the Earth would be moving many many times faster than light by now, which is obviously impossible. All flerfers can do is inaptly pick at various basic science ideas they don't understand -- there is no actual evidence for your claims, and no experiments to prove them. So, nice try, but the burden of proof is still on you guys.
-
I think everyone's tired of your bogus wiki at this point - it's always been nonsense, and it will remain nonsense until you start doing actual research.
Coming from someone who doesn't seem to have read the wiki, this doesn't mean much. If you claim to have read it, I'd suggest doing it again, because you are lacking in the very basics. If you need help, I would suggest asking.
They're yet to prove it doesn't exist. They can't of course. But don't just give them that premise.
You really do not understand how burden of proof works, do you?
No offense, but the Wiki is bad. It is a start, I guess, but if you try to use it in a debate or disprove it, it is "only for example" or "outdated". What is there is generally pretty lacking in detail. How is it that the Earth is continually accelerating? How does celestial gravity work/differ from real gravity?
-
In regards to the burden of proof: it's been a few hundred years now that the entire scientific community has known gravity to be an observable force, easily proven with countless experiments (as demonstrated on this very forum like a billion times). Your universal acceleration idea is laughable - if it were true, the Earth would be moving many many times faster than light by now, which is obviously impossible. All flerfers can do is inaptly pick at various basic science ideas they don't understand -- there is no actual evidence for your claims, and no experiments to prove them. So, nice try, but the burden of proof is still on you guys.
Ah, so not only do you not understand how the burden of proof works, you also don't understand acceleration or Special Relativity. Excellent to know, as it reinforces that you haven't read the wiki or FAQ (hint: we would not be moving faster than the speed of light). I'd suggest you look in the mirror before accusing people of inaptly picking at various basic science ideas they don't understand.
-
While our OP *really* needs to read the Wiki because it does indeed provide explanations for maybe 75% of the FE'ers claims...I would be remiss in pointing out that even by FE standards, it's HORRIBLY out of date.
Many of the discussions here have shown the the "official" position of TFES.org differs substantially from what the Wiki says it is.
-
Alright,
I will admit that I didn't read the Wiki, but I just did, and my questions are still pending. I also don't consider "nobody knows" as an answer. You also have NO proof that all satellites have been "falsified". 1.) If EVERY single satellite that have been "launched" has been fake, then how has no company member leaked that information before? There are hundreds of companies that have satellites orbiting the Earth. I have another question to add to my previous ones as well though. 2.) How do you explain zero gravity flights if there is no such thing as gravity? I personally have been on a zero gravity flight and I can tell you that I FREAKING floated. I'm not saying freaking out of anger, but out of excitement. I mean it was such an amazing experience. Zero gravity planes fly up into the air, then travel at a parabolic trajectory, thus "falling" as fast as you are "moving forward". This is also represented in everything that orbits the Earth, like the ISS. It's falling as fast as it is moving forward, resulting in Expedition 52-53 crew members experiencing zero gravity. There is literally video evidence. 3.) If you say that the video was just taken on Earth, then how did they get that footage? Parabolic flight maybe?
-
Ah, so you figured that if you'd insert a complicated equation on your wiki page and sprinkle it with some blanket statements, that would be proof enough. If that's convincing enough for you, good luck with that! I am willing to bet money that the math there either doesn't work or doesn't apply, but I personally don't know enough about Lorentz transformations to tell. I doubt anyone here knows anything about that either though. The claim is still laughable though, and it requires proof and experimentation on your end... but you'll say no one wants to give you funding... boohoo, poor little flatties...
Nice job boxing yourself into the corner where you have no chance of learning anything new. So pathetic, and so typical of flatheads.
In regards to the burden of proof: it's been a few hundred years now that the entire scientific community has known gravity to be an observable force, easily proven with countless experiments (as demonstrated on this very forum like a billion times). Your universal acceleration idea is laughable - if it were true, the Earth would be moving many many times faster than light by now, which is obviously impossible. All flerfers can do is inaptly pick at various basic science ideas they don't understand -- there is no actual evidence for your claims, and no experiments to prove them. So, nice try, but the burden of proof is still on you guys.
Ah, so not only do you not understand how the burden of proof works, you also don't understand acceleration or Special Relativity. Excellent to know, as it reinforces that you haven't read the wiki or FAQ (hint: we would not be moving faster than the speed of light). I'd suggest you look in the mirror before accusing people of inaptly picking at various basic science ideas they don't understand.
-
Oh, and I would like a "Flat Earther" to answer this question thoroughly without changing the subject in any way, shape, or form.
Alright,
I will admit that I didn't read the Wiki, but I just did, and my questions are still pending. I also don't consider "nobody knows" as an answer. You also have NO proof that all satellites have been "falsified". 1.) If EVERY single satellite that have been "launched" has been fake, then how has no company member leaked that information before? There are hundreds of companies that have satellites orbiting the Earth. I have another question to add to my previous ones as well though. 2.) How do you explain zero gravity flights if there is no such thing as gravity? I personally have been on a zero gravity flight and I can tell you that I FREAKING floated. I'm not saying freaking out of anger, but out of excitement. I mean it was such an amazing experience. Zero gravity planes fly up into the air, then travel at a parabolic trajectory, thus "falling" as fast as you are "moving forward". This is also represented in everything that orbits the Earth, like the ISS. It's falling as fast as it is moving forward, resulting in Expedition 52-53 crew members experiencing zero gravity. There is literally video evidence. 3.) If you say that the video was just taken on Earth, then how did they get that footage? Parabolic flight maybe?
-
In regards to the burden of proof: it's been a few hundred years now that the entire scientific community has known gravity to be an observable force, easily proven with countless experiments (as demonstrated on this very forum like a billion times). Your universal acceleration idea is laughable - if it were true, the Earth would be moving many many times faster than light by now, which is obviously impossible. All flerfers can do is inaptly pick at various basic science ideas they don't understand -- there is no actual evidence for your claims, and no experiments to prove them. So, nice try, but the burden of proof is still on you guys.
Ah, so not only do you not understand how the burden of proof works, you also don't understand acceleration or Special Relativity. Excellent to know, as it reinforces that you haven't read the wiki or FAQ (hint: we would not be moving faster than the speed of light). I'd suggest you look in the mirror before accusing people of inaptly picking at various basic science ideas they don't understand.
For once, I have to agree with the FE'ers here.
Einsteins' general relativity says that there is NO DIFFERENCE between a uniform acceleration and a uniform gravitational field. No possible experiment can distinguish between them.
Since the gravitational field of the Round Earth is basically uniform (at least for day-to-day experiences) - it could indeed be replaced by a uniform acceleration - and you would not be able to tell the difference.
The issue of the Earth speeding up until it's going faster than lightspeed is also not a problem. Einstein's special relativity tells us that you can't meaningfully measure speed except as speed RELATIVE to something else. Since the FE'ers claim that the Earth, the sun, moon, stars, planets...EVERYTHING is accelerating at the same rate - there is nothing left in the universe to measure the Earth's speed relative to. So even asking what it's speed is would be a meaningless question.
So - those two SIMPLE problems don't debunk the Flat Earths' "Universal acceleration" claim.
But - as usual with FEism, you can look a little deeper and find the flaws in it.
SO: I said before that Earth's gravitational field is only approximately uniform. But gravity varies with altitude (less at mountain tops, more in deep valleys) - it varies at the poles (more) and equator (less) - and it even varies a tiny bit according to the types of rocks under your feet.
Universal Acceleration can only simulate a uniform gravitational field. So if things worked the way they say, we wouldn't get all of these variations in gravity - it would have the same, exact value everywhere.
They try to 'fix' this problem (I'd prefer the word "botch") by claiming various things - such as that the sun and moon (and perhaps also the stars) do indeed have true, 'for real' gravity. This is needed (for example) to explain how there can be tides caused by the Moon's gravity.
But why there would be changes in gravity at the poles and the equator is not well described.
-
Ah, so you figured that if you'd insert a complicated equation on your wiki page and sprinkle it with some blanket statements, that would be proof enough. If that's convincing enough for you, good luck with that! I am willing to bet money that the math there either doesn't work or doesn't apply, but I personally don't know enough about Lorentz transformations to tell. I doubt anyone here knows anything about that either though. The claim is still laughable though, and it requires proof and experimentation on your end... but you'll say no one wants to give you funding... boohoo, poor little flatties...
Nice job boxing yourself into the corner where you have no chance of learning anything new. So pathetic, and so typical of flatheads.
In regards to the burden of proof: it's been a few hundred years now that the entire scientific community has known gravity to be an observable force, easily proven with countless experiments (as demonstrated on this very forum like a billion times). Your universal acceleration idea is laughable - if it were true, the Earth would be moving many many times faster than light by now, which is obviously impossible. All flerfers can do is inaptly pick at various basic science ideas they don't understand -- there is no actual evidence for your claims, and no experiments to prove them. So, nice try, but the burden of proof is still on you guys.
Ah, so not only do you not understand how the burden of proof works, you also don't understand acceleration or Special Relativity. Excellent to know, as it reinforces that you haven't read the wiki or FAQ (hint: we would not be moving faster than the speed of light). I'd suggest you look in the mirror before accusing people of inaptly picking at various basic science ideas they don't understand.
Maybe try to work on some humility. Instead of getting triggered and lashing out, try asking about the things you don't understand. You seem rather emotionally immature, which won't get you far if your goal is to have actual discussions. Again, if you just want to whine and complain, we have fora for that, too.
-
it's been a few hundred years now that the entire scientific community has known gravity to be an observable force, easily proven with countless experiments (as demonstrated on this very forum like a billion times).
Gravity is not a force.
Your universal acceleration idea is laughable - if it were true, the Earth would be moving many many times faster than light by now, which is obviously impossible.
To someone with even a basic grasp of relativity this notion is utter nonsense.
Forget about the basics of FET, if you don't even understand the basics of your own side's theories you will be completely lost here. Move along son and let the adults talk.
-
it's been a few hundred years now that the entire scientific community has known gravity to be an observable force, easily proven with countless experiments (as demonstrated on this very forum like a billion times).
Gravity is not a force.
Argh...please stop making me agree with the FE'ers!
Yes, gravity is a force.
In RET:
F = m1 x m2 x G / (dxd)
The FORCE of gravity is equal to the product of the two masses (m1=the mass of some object, m2=the mass of some other object...such as the Earth) multiplied by 'G' (big-G) the 'universal gravitational constant' (basically a factor introduced because we want 'd' in meters and m1/m2 in kg) divided by the square of the distance between the two object. We don't often use this force in common math because it's annoyingly dependent on the mass of the object (m1).
So we do talk about 'g' - which is "the acceleration due to gravity"...or to spell it out more carefully "the acceleration that is caused by the force of gravity".
However, since:
F = m a
a = F / m (or... g = F / m1 )
...and m is 'm1' and 'F' is the FORCE of gravity on that object...'a' is the acceleration of that object - which is "the acceleration due to gravity" or 'g' (if m2 is the earth). Substituting for F:
g = ( m1 x m2 x G / (dxd) ) / m1
...the m1's cancel out:
g = m2 x G / (dxd)
...which is why all objects accelerate towards Earth at the same rate, no matter their mass (cue apocryphal story about Leonardo Da Vinci dropping cannon balls and stuff off of the Tower of Piza to prove it - or actual video of Astronaut dropping hammer and eagle feather on the moon...er...which "didn't happen" according to the FE'ers).
In FET (with universal acceleration) the mysterious upward acceleration of the earth causes a force to be applied to an object according to:
F = m a
...where 'm' is the mass of the object 'a' is it's acceleration (which is 'g' in this case) and F is the resulting force.
So hell yes - gravity is a force...both in RET and FET.
-
Well, if flatties admit that gravity exists, then they're basically done - gravity would've collapsed the flat earth into a ball a long time ago.
-
Well, if flatties admit that gravity exists, then they're basically done - gravity would've collapsed the flat earth into a ball a long time ago.
Gravity only exists with the infinite plane idea, which can't really collapse into a ball for obvious reasons. Universal Acceleration doesn't have 'gravity' at least from the Earth.
-
Well, if flatties admit that gravity exists, then they're basically done - gravity would've collapsed the flat earth into a ball a long time ago.
No...sadly, if they have an infinite plane of finite (but large) thickness - then the math says that all of the horizontal components of the gravitational attractions would cancel out and you'd be left with a single, vertical gravitational pull that would be acting downwards and perpendicular to the surface.
It's not even hard to prove - think about where it would collapse TOWARDS. The "center"? Well if the plane is infinite, then it has no center - all points on the plane are equivalent. The only 'special' direction is up and down because the Earth isn't infinite in the vertical direction...there's sky and there's rocks. So gravity can pull DOWNWARDS - but not sideways.
However, a FINITE flat earth with gravity would indeed collapse into a ball in a very short span of time (minutes - but not hours).
I *suspect* that the "Universal Accelerator" idea came from a time before the infinite flat earth became popular. But these days, with an infinite flat earth, I don't know why the FE'ers still need UA.
-
Well, if flatties admit that gravity exists, then they're basically done - gravity would've collapsed the flat earth into a ball a long time ago.
No...sadly, if they have an infinite plane of finite (but large) thickness - then the math says that all of the horizontal components of the gravitational attractions would cancel out and you'd be left with a single, vertical gravitational pull that would be acting downwards and perpendicular to the surface.
It's not even hard to prove - think about where it would collapse TOWARDS. The "center"? Well if the plane is infinite, then it has no center - all points on the plane are equivalent. The only 'special' direction is up and down because the Earth isn't infinite in the vertical direction...there's sky and there's rocks. So gravity can pull DOWNWARDS - but not sideways.
However, a FINITE flat earth with gravity would indeed collapse into a ball in a very short span of time (minutes - but not hours).
I *suspect* that the "Universal Accelerator" idea came from a time before the infinite flat earth became popular. But these days, with an infinite flat earth, I don't know why the FE'ers still need UA.
A fair idea of the origin of UA. I would suspect it's still in use by parts of the FE community simply because they like it better (crazy that). FYI Obviously, there's about as many 'flavors' of FE as there are flerfers. Just about every single person has their own idea of how everything all works. My two favorites on the other site include Jon Davis (sort of their Tom Bishop) who believes it's space that's curved rather than the infinite plane Earth, and not sure where this one came from but the idea 'gravity' is actually due to our displacement of the air. I'm still at a loss on just how the hell this one works (so is he from what I've seen) but it's an interesting hypothetical.
-
I *suspect* that the "Universal Accelerator" idea came from a time before the infinite flat earth became popular. But these days, with an infinite flat earth, I don't know why the FE'ers still need UA.
They need UA because:- Not all FE are "infinite plane" FE
- No good reason for Sun and Moon and stars to stay above an infinite flat earth, if that FE has gravity
-
it's been a few hundred years now that the entire scientific community has known gravity to be an observable force, easily proven with countless experiments (as demonstrated on this very forum like a billion times).
Gravity is not a force.
Argh...please stop making me agree with the FE'ers!
Yes, gravity is a force.
In RET:
F = m1 x m2 x G / (dxd)
The FORCE of gravity is equal to the product of the two masses (m1=the mass of some object, m2=the mass of some other object...such as the Earth) multiplied by 'G' (big-G) the 'universal gravitational constant' (basically a factor introduced because we want 'd' in meters and m1/m2 in kg) divided by the square of the distance between the two object. We don't often use this force in common math because it's annoyingly dependent on the mass of the object (m1).
So we do talk about 'g' - which is "the acceleration due to gravity"...or to spell it out more carefully "the acceleration that is caused by the force of gravity".
However, since:
F = m a
a = F / m (or... g = F / m1 )
...and m is 'm1' and 'F' is the FORCE of gravity on that object...'a' is the acceleration of that object - which is "the acceleration due to gravity" or 'g' (if m2 is the earth). Substituting for F:
g = ( m1 x m2 x G / (dxd) ) / m1
...the m1's cancel out:
g = m2 x G / (dxd)
...which is why all objects accelerate towards Earth at the same rate, no matter their mass (cue apocryphal story about Leonardo Da Vinci dropping cannon balls and stuff off of the Tower of Piza to prove it - or actual video of Astronaut dropping hammer and eagle feather on the moon...er...which "didn't happen" according to the FE'ers).
In FET (with universal acceleration) the mysterious upward acceleration of the earth causes a force to be applied to an object according to:
F = m a
...where 'm' is the mass of the object 'a' is it's acceleration (which is 'g' in this case) and F is the resulting force.
So hell yes - gravity is a force...both in RET and FET.
No gravity is not a force. It is a consequence of the curvature of spacetime. It's not a force in either FET or RET. It's one of the things Einstein showed Newton's theories were wrong about.
Again I invite you to actually learn something instead of insisting you are right when you aren't; frankly I think you're making REers look bad with your closed-minded attitude. Here's some reading in case you are willing to learn. Past experience doesn't give me much hope, but maybe some of your colleagues would be interested in learning the facts about one of the biggest errors laymen regularly make about modern physics.
https://www.universetoday.com/108740/how-we-know-gravity-is-not-just-a-force/
http://curious.astro.cornell.edu/physics/140-physics/the-theory-of-relativity/general-relativity/1059-if-gravity-isn-t-a-force-how-does-it-accelerate-objects-advanced
https://futurism.com/gravity-isnt-a-force-so-how-does-it-move-objects/
Now I know you're not here to learn, you're here to teach. But don't you think your agenda would be better served by teaching the truth about your theory rather than attempting to justify your own erroneous opinions about it?
-
Now I know you're not here to learn, you're here to teach. But don't you think your agenda would be better served by teaching the truth about your theory rather than attempting to justify your own erroneous opinions about it?
Oh good grief...just read what Einstein wrote and don't put words into his mouth.
The force of gravity is an emergent property of the curvature of space-time - which is in turn caused by mass. Same deal as the coriolis force which is an emergent property of the shape and curvature of the earth...or centrifugal force which is an emergent property of rotating systems...or the force exerted by a gas in a closed container which is an emergent property of pressure which is an emergent property of the motion of atoms.
It's perfectly valid to talk about forces - even when you know the underlying causes of them.
-
Now I know you're not here to learn, you're here to teach. But don't you think your agenda would be better served by teaching the truth about your theory rather than attempting to justify your own erroneous opinions about it?
Oh good grief...just read what Einstein wrote and don't put words into his mouth.
The force of gravity is an emergent property of the curvature of space-time - which is in turn caused by mass. Same deal as the coriolis force which is an emergent property of the shape and curvature of the earth...or centrifugal force which is an emergent property of rotating systems...or the force exerted by a gas in a closed container which is an emergent property of pressure which is an emergent property of the motion of atoms.
It's perfectly valid to talk about forces - even when you know the underlying causes of them.
Please, try to learn something new. I know it's hard to admit when you're wrong but it's good to know the facts so you should always be open to the possibility that you're wrong.
What Einstein showed was that gravity is not a force, it only creates the appearance of a force. There are situations where gravity explicitly does not behave like a force, because it is not technically a force (the correct term is actually pseudoforce or fictitious force).
Here's another link. Please note the url, I would hate for you to think I'm linking to some random crackpots to support my argument. He explains exactly why gravity is not a force, why it looks like a force, and specifically when it behaves contrary to the way a force behaves. Please read it.
http://curious.astro.cornell.edu/140-physics/the-theory-of-relativity/general-relativity/1059-if-gravity-isn-t-a-force-how-does-it-accelerate-objects-advanced
Edit actually I did already post this one but it does a good job explaining things.
-
Apparently in the flat earth diagram the sun acts like a spot light lighting up a area. This denies logic for if the earth is flat you would able able to see it from anywhere in the world
-
Apparently in the flat earth diagram the sun acts like a spot light lighting up a area. This denies logic for if the earth is flat you would able able to see it from anywhere in the world
The bigger problem for the FE'ers is that their "flashlight" sun also has to light up the moon - even when it's FAR away from the sun and at the same approximate height.
-
Gravity is a "force" exactly the same way that centrifugal force is a "force". If you think that a "force" that arises from coordinate system transformations is a "fictional force" or some other expression of "not a force", that's fine. It's just word meanings. There's no reason to get upset about someone having a different concept of the word force.
As long as everybody agrees that if you were to transform to a different coordinate system the force would disappear everybody is agreeing on the important bits. Who cares if you say something is or is not a force if you understand the underlying equations?
-
Gravity is a "force" exactly the same way that centrifugal force is a "force". If you think that a "force" that arises from coordinate system transformations is a "fictional force" or some other expression of "not a force", that's fine. It's just word meanings. There's no reason to get upset about someone having a different concept of the word force.
As long as everybody agrees that if you were to transform to a different coordinate system the force would disappear everybody is agreeing on the important bits. Who cares if you say something is or is not a force if you understand the underlying equations?
No one got upset. As I believe the linked article pointed out, the centrifugal force is not a force either. It's about a little more than word meanings. If something doesn't fit the physical definition of force it should not be characterized as a physical force. That's all.
To use a relevant analogy, a lot is made by REers about whether Flat Earth Theory deserves to be called a theory, since it doesn't fit the scientific definition of the word. They may or may not have a point (certainly FET is rarely characterized as a scientific theory even by believers, as it is considered zetetic in nature), but certainly there are less technical definitions of the word that do fit FET. Is that alone good enough to characterize it as a theory, or should we be more stringent with the definition?
I feel that for something like this if you are not using the technical definition you should make that explicit, otherwise it risks being misleading. And it is misleading to characterize gravity as a force, unless you are clear that you aren't using the technical physical definition of the word. The problem? Most people who characterize it as a force believe that they are technically right! I see no reason not to use it as an opportunity to give them a little bit of education.
-
Gravity is a "force" exactly the same way that centrifugal force is a "force". If you think that a "force" that arises from coordinate system transformations is a "fictional force" or some other expression of "not a force", that's fine. It's just word meanings. There's no reason to get upset about someone having a different concept of the word force.
As long as everybody agrees that if you were to transform to a different coordinate system the force would disappear everybody is agreeing on the important bits. Who cares if you say something is or is not a force if you understand the underlying equations?
No one got upset. As I believe the linked article pointed out, the centrifugal force is not a force either. It's about a little more than word meanings. If something doesn't fit the physical definition of force it should not be characterized as a physical force. That's all.
(https://imgs.xkcd.com/comics/centrifugal_force.png)
-
I have a BURNING question
1) If gravity doesn't exist, and the sun's mass and distance from Earth is smaller, then what exactly makes is rotate? 2) And on top of that, how does it even know when to come up and down. 3) Another question... How do you explain pictures taken from the ISS and other satellites. 4) Also, why would Earth be the ONLY flat thing in the universe. Why would everything else be round like the Sun, Moon, and the rest of the planets in our solar system. And don't subside this question.
Briefly:
1) Makes what rotate? Earth doesn't rotate the Sun rolls along a 'track' above it.
2) No one knows.
3) Fake/CGI/falsified
4) Because the Earth is unique. It's not a planet. Why? No one knows.
But all of these are answered in (somewhat) greater detail in the wiki. I also highly suggest starting your journey there.
1) Eclipses, if the sun were that hot and that close, it would melt your imaginary 'ice wall'
2) ITS MAGIC JUST LIKE EVERYTHING ELSE THAT DISPROVES YOUR THEORY
3) How are all the fakes identical? Also, you can see it for yourself with a good telescope.
4) If earth were flat, unless 'curvature of spacetime and passage of time' does not exist, it would collapse, under its own spacial indentation, into a ball.
You guys got one thing right. Gravity isn't real. Its time travel. ???