[sakura]

I have been thinking about the FE's version of gravity - acceleration.

In flat earth theory the earth is a plane in a dome and constantly accelerating upwards, which causes "gravity" as we know it.

However how does this theory explain sattelites and the sun and the moon just floating above our head?
If the plane is accelerating upwards shouldnt we crash into those objects? shouldn't they appear to be falling from our viewpoint?

what keeps (for example) the ISS in oribt in globe theory is angular momentum, but this is not an option in FET, since it would be moving in a circle parralel to earth.

Also the existence of the ISS is not up for debate, anyone can view it with a telescope:
http://www.popastro.com/help/help.php?title_pag=Viewing+the+ISS+%28and+other+satellites%29

so if the earth is flat, what keeps the ISS in space?

[Pongo]

Many believe that the aether that pushes the earth upwards creates a whirlpool above us.  The moon and sun and other celestial bodies are "floating" in this whirlpool.

[sakura]

And the forces of this whirlpool also perfectly match the calculations of why the iSS stays in space on the globe model?

[Pongo]

And the forces of this whirlpool also perfectly match the calculations of why the iSS stays in space on the globe model?

Apparently.

[sakura]

And the forces of this whirlpool also perfectly match the calculations of why the iSS stays in space on the globe model?

Apparently.

so classic globe earth theory has equations ( like actual, reusable, mathematical euquations ) that perfectly match everything we observe on earth and beyond,
and FE theory has this whirlpool idea backed by nothing.

Then what does this tell you?

[Pongo]

And the forces of this whirlpool also perfectly match the calculations of why the iSS stays in space on the globe model?

Apparently.

so classic globe earth theory has equations ( like actual, reusable, mathematical euquations ) that perfectly match everything we observe on earth and beyond,
and FE theory has this whirlpool idea backed by nothing.

Then what does this tell you?

That they made equations to match their mental picture of how the "solar-system" works.

[markjo]

And the forces of this whirlpool also perfectly match the calculations of why the iSS stays in space on the globe model?

Apparently.

so classic globe earth theory has equations ( like actual, reusable, mathematical euquations ) that perfectly match everything we observe on earth and beyond,
and FE theory has this whirlpool idea backed by nothing.

Then what does this tell you?

That they made equations to match their mental picture of how the "solar-system" works.

Interesting.  I thought that they made the equations to match observations of the "solar system".

[sakura]

The same equations to describe gravity applies to planets and apples and everything else on earth.
The same equations to describe angular momentum applies to satelites and planets and your bicycle.

It is not like someone just made this shit up to invent a globe-earth-universe.

[frisbee]

Can flat earthers describe this whirlpool with any math? And also explain why there is a preferred direction of rotation for the celestial objects? And why there is a preferred direction in space in which we are being accelerated? And why it is that as we get closer and closer and closer to the speed of light that the relative energy of asteroids or anything else in our path that strike us aren't energetic enough to destroy the earth?

[mister bickles]

The same equations to describe gravity applies to planets and apples and everything else on earth.
The same equations to describe angular momentum applies to satelites and planets and your bicycle.

It is not like someone just made this shit up to invent a globe-earth-universe.

they "describe" those phenomenon when the pre-existing assumptions and gigantic, special pleading axioms involved are accepted as true, per se;

they could equally well be used to describe a FE model;

outside the pages of Scripture, there is no such thing as absolute truth;

many of the mathematical theories them-selves can't be proved, conclusively.....as per Gödel's incompleteness theorems;
(which even discomfited such an avowed materialistic atheist as Bertrand Russell)

why aren't scientists speaking out abt the FE?

simple!
they're either too gutless or too greedy! 
they've either been intimidated by T[jew]PTB or they don't want to lose their precious grants/tenure...... 

[sakura]

why aren't scientists speaking out abt the FE?

because flat earthers did not yet produce anything scientific.

[frisbee]

they could equally well be used to describe a FE model;

Then do it please, or if it has been done please give a link, thanks.

[mister bickles]

why aren't scientists speaking out abt the FE?

because flat earthers did not yet produce anything scientific.

not quite!
its because of the reasons i listed and, also, because the anti-God atheistic materialists ("science falsely so called!") have re-defined "science" to some-thing called methodological naturalism

[Orbisect-64]

I agree with the aether explanation. Look up aether on YouTube, there's a really good three part series on it. Even in aviation they understand how particle density works, and pilots apply the principle every single day. Before Einstein came along, Aether is what textbooks and schools taught.

Whoever came up with the "earth is constantly rising" theory apparently had no clue about aether. That earth rising theory seriously needs to stricken from the books and forgotten as a bad idea - one that's giving FE a bad name. Sadly, people keep repeating it—and I think some who repeat it know better now; but they're either stuck in a rut, or working for the opposition.

—

[frisbee]

not quite!
its because of the reasons i listed and, also, because the anti-God atheistic materialists ("science falsely so called!") have re-defined "science" to some-thing called methodological naturalism

Of course science employs more: it also employs the deliverances of reason, logic and mathematics--where, once more, there is little disagreement.

Then provide some mathematics please.

And of course there are whole vast stretches of our cognitive economy where these world-view considerations do indeed seem to be wholly irrelevant. Anyone with decent eyesight will see that the pointer points to 7; metaphysical or theological differences have nothing to do with it. The same will hold, presumably, for a measurement of the distance from Earth to Jupiter.

So what's your excuse??

Theology must take account of all that humanity comes to know about the world,

You are failing here.

and science must equally take account of all that we come to know about God.

It does, since we know zip about god(s).

[frisbee]

I agree with the aether explanation. Look up aether on YouTube,

You get Minecraft videos.

Are you refering to anything mentioned in this wiki?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mechanical_explanations_of_gravitation

[mister bickles]

Then provide some mathematics please

better yet, provide practical and experimental demonstrations....that's what science is all abt!

(there's also that mine experiment conducted in the late nineteenth century, i think.....with the two plumb-bobs down a mine-shaft......instead of veering slightly towards each other as would be expected by conventional Newtonian gravitational theory, they actually veered away from each other...as you would expect if 'gravity' was some-thing pressing down from above rather than [pulling towards] from underneath/centre of the Earth....sorry!...i forget the actual name of the experiment....but....i will look it up [if i remember].....unless some-one else knows & can post it.....ta!)

☞ edit ☜
couldn't be bothered with another 'post' so....am appending this.....
http://www.waykiwayki.com/2015/07/flat-earth-gravity-is-hoax.html ;

[frisbee]

better yet, provide practical and experimental demonstrations....that's what science is all abt!

Without the math you lose the precision that makes the physics useful in making predictions about the real world. If I want to design a boat I need to know something more than the idea that it will float on the water. I have to calculate the weight of the boat itself and the intended load to know where the water line will end up, etc. Without math this would become a messy process of trial and error while with the math and the principles of physics I can do it right the first time.

You seem to be adopting the ideas presented on the other Flat Earth site that says this one is run by globalists intent on discrediting FE that are really shills of the illuminati. So no 9.8 m/s^2 for you. Let me ask you, why you are so averse to the idea that matter can attract other matter? You accept attraction due to electric charge I presume. Why should an attractive force of mass for other mass be so incredible?

I am providing you with "practical and experimental demonstrations":
https://www.fourmilab.ch/gravitation/foobar/


Don't trust the video? Then do the experiment yourself. Isn't that in keeping with the Zetetic way of thinking?


Your video is filled with many blatant errors not least of which is the fact that density would not make a bit of difference in where things are located relative to one another without the existence of a gravitational pull. Without gravity, buoyant force is dead in the water, no pun intended.

The statement was made that buoyant force is the opposite of density. Density is measured in kg/m^3 while force is measured in Newtons or equivalently kg-m/sec^2.

The statement was made that density causes objects to fall, not gravity. Gravity is measured in m/sec^2 while density again is measured in kg/m^3.

The statement was made that we can do so much more than we can imagine. (while showing a dung beetle engaged with some excrement)
Might not this include the use of proper definitions of units and some math?

And finally the statement was made that everything is connected through life energy

Right on man! Don't bogart that joint.

(there's also that mine experiment conducted in the late nineteenth century, i think.....with the two plumb-bobs down a mine-shaft......instead of veering slightly towards each other as would be expected by conventional Newtonian gravitational theory, they actually veered away from each other...as you would expect if 'gravity' was some-thing pressing down from above rather than [pulling towards] from underneath/centre of the Earth....sorry!...i forget the actual name of the experiment....but....i will look it up [if i remember].....unless some-one else knows & can post it.....ta!)

I've come across this already. If this is proof that RE is wrong, it is also proof that FE is wrong. Please remain consistent. So you accept this as proof that FE is wrong then?

[frisbee]

gravity is density.

Could you tell me what the formula for the period of a pendulum is with your explanation of gravity?
And maybe through an experiment illustrate the variation in the period of a pendulum with density.
Thanks.

[Charming Anarchist]

Can somebody explain why a "theory of gravity" even matters? 

What difference does it make?  Who needs it??