The Flat Earth Society
Flat Earth Discussion Boards => Flat Earth Theory => Topic started by: Misero on January 28, 2015, 10:21:49 PM
-
So, now that Vauxhall has confirmed gravity does exist, on the other site. I wish to find what the effect of gravity would actually be on a given area, say Mt. Everest's peak. So, do you think that the RE gravity equation? And to make up for your stars, are they the right size? As in, do they fit the RE size for them, or what are they?
I want to see if this works.
-
I'm not the one that confirmed gravity in the FE model.
Read this (http://wiki.tfes.org/Stars). This idea has been around for a while.
If you have any questions about the article, direct them here and one of us will try to answer if we have the time.
-
I'm not the one that confirmed gravity in the FE model.
Read this (http://wiki.tfes.org/Stars). This idea has been around for a while.
If you have any questions about the article, direct them here and one of us will try to answer if we have the time.
Let's first recap the FE position on gravity. We have to deal with three flavors: 1) The FE is an infinite disc with a constant acceleration downward of 'g' at any altitude on or above the surface. 2) The FE is accelerated at 1g constantly by the UA and there is a) no gravity between the stars and the FE or b) there is a slight gravitational attraction between the stars and the FE.
Now let's apply the article to each in turn: 1)The article does not support or consider that the stars experience a constant acceleration downward, so the article does not apply. 2.a) The UA would push the FE into the stars, so the article does not apply. 2.b) Both the UA and a slight gravitational attraction would cause the stars and the FE to meet.
Next let's review angular velocity. The article requires stars in the model to have differing angular velocities, yet FET requires constant angular velocity for all stars. So, again, the article does not apply.
Oh, and do consider before responding that AWT solves all FE's problems with reality that 1) We're still waiting on the equations or even a diagram on AWT's workings and 2) a vortex must have increasing, on average, angular velocity, and a force doing that acceleration, the closer to the center of the vortex that the winds blow.
Just another FET failure.
-
2.b) Both the UA and a slight gravitational attraction would cause the stars and the FE to meet.
Of course, if this were the case, it would equally apply to RET. I'm really glad you were kind enough to show the flaws of your understanding of FET to us once again.
-
2.b) Both the UA and a slight gravitational attraction would cause the stars and the FE to meet.
Of course, if this were the case, it would equally apply to RET. I'm really glad you were kind enough to show the flaws of your understanding of FET to us once again.
So, you'd like to discuss how RET would work if it had the UA. Rather meaningless, wouldn't you say?
-
So, you'd like to discuss how RET would work if it had the UA.
No, but I appreciate your ability to abuse semantics rather than focus on the topic at hand.
That said, while I do appreciate it, it's against the rules, so please stop doing it.