The Flat Earth Society
Flat Earth Discussion Boards => Flat Earth Theory => Topic started by: franklinho on June 07, 2017, 12:15:32 AM
-
I also want to talk about the difference of the gravitational force around the world. It is known by scientists that different parts of the world have a greater force pulling on objects, proved by hundreds of scientific experiments by sensors. Now, this is because of the fact that different parts of the crust have different densities and masses, meaning that, for example, continents produce a slightly stronger gravitational force due to denser material, while the ocean is composed of basalt, a less dense rock. This is proven by the theory that all masses have gravity pulling in on them. (Somebody can word that better, but you get my point) This is simply not possible with the FE theory, because in that theory, the Earth is moving upward at 9.8 meters per second, and disregards the fact that all masses produce gravity. However, relating back to aforementioned differences in gravity, this would simply not be possible on a flat earth. This would only be possible if different parts to the Earth was moving faster than other parts, meaning that we would have a world that splits apart, which is simply not the case.
-
American explorer Richard Byrd and three companions make the first flight over the South Pole, flying from their base on the Ross Ice Shelf to the pole and back in 18 hours and 41 minutes. I wanted to add this in to the first post. If somebody is going to refute the round earth theory, please refute literally every concept I've put out there.
-
Speaking about the apparent differences in gravity, we can also note the centrifugal acceleration caused by the rotation of the earth: things seem to be lighter near the equator and heavier near either poles. There is not that much of a difference, about 0,5 %, but it is measureable with a scale accurate enough. (Obviously, the same scale must be used in measurements all over the world.)
I have yet to see a flat earth -consistent explanation to this.
-
Relating back to the South Pole post, that flight was directly across the geographic south pole and the magnetic south pole. (He went from one end of Antartica to the other end). Based on later measurements, and when compared to that of a Flat earth, this is completely inconsistent, because on a Flat Earth, he would've needed to travel halfway across the circumference of the Earth, while on a Round Earth, it requires only a small distance to move from one edge to another.
-
Now this goes into a little bit more logic, and can be backed up by past numbers. The Flat Earth Society has had little to no mathematical proof whatsoever which can show any scientist, when reproducing the experiment, that the Earth is round! For example, an equilateral triangle with 90 degree angles simply cannot be reproduced on a flat earth. However, using lasers, this is possible to conduct. When physics is brought up, FE's just say oh boohoo your taking that stance on the assumption that the Earth is round. Then if this logic is right, then that can be said of the other way around - the only problem is, the FE theory has NO PHYSICS PROOF WHATSOEVER!!! Gravity can be seen in outer space due to light warping around black holes. Seeing that the same materials that are being affected by this force, then we can also logically assume that Earth's materials, (basalt, limestone, etc.), are subjugated to the same forces which govern the bodies of the universe. If anybody has anything to support this thought, please voice it out.
Have you personally witnessed light bending around a black hole?
And even if you have or take the word of people paid handsomely to come up with this you are just 'assuming' the same must be true to some extent on Earth.
Nice try. I give you a 3/10 for effort
This is what somebody stated in refutation to my statement on gravity. If you can't trust others, then what science are you supposed to believe? There is no person on this world who is good at everything, and at some point, you are going to have to trust the experts. Are you saying that there are people who devote their whole life to science, and they do it for money? It has proven time and time again that a lust for money always ends up in corruption, and never has the world seen such devout dedication to a subject just for money.
General relativity accounts for the anomalous perihelion precession of Mercury.[15]
The prediction that time runs slower at lower potentials (gravitational time dilation) has been confirmed by the Pound–Rebka experiment (1959), the Hafele–Keating experiment, and the GPS.
The prediction of the deflection of light was first confirmed by Arthur Stanley Eddington from his observations during the Solar eclipse of 29 May 1919.[16][17] Eddington measured starlight deflections twice those predicted by Newtonian corpuscular theory, in accordance with the predictions of general relativity. However, his interpretation of the results was later disputed.[18] More recent tests using radio interferometric measurements of quasars passing behind the Sun have more accurately and consistently confirmed the deflection of light to the degree predicted by general relativity.[19] See also gravitational lens.
The time delay of light passing close to a massive object was first identified by Irwin I. Shapiro in 1964 in interplanetary spacecraft signals.
Gravitational radiation has been indirectly confirmed through studies of binary pulsars. On 11 February 2016, the LIGO and Virgo collaborations announced the first observation of a gravitational wave.
Alexander Friedmann in 1922 found that Einstein equations have non-stationary solutions (even in the presence of the cosmological constant). In 1927 Georges Lemaître showed that static solutions of the Einstein equations, which are possible in the presence of the cosmological constant, are unstable, and therefore the static Universe envisioned by Einstein could not exist. Later, in 1931, Einstein himself agreed with the results of Friedmann and Lemaître. Thus general relativity predicted that the Universe had to be non-static—it had to either expand or contract. The expansion of the Universe discovered by Edwin Hubble in 1929 confirmed this prediction.[20]
The theory's prediction of frame dragging was consistent with the recent Gravity Probe B results.[21]
General relativity predicts that light should lose its energy when traveling away from massive bodies through gravitational redshift. This was verified on earth and in the solar system around 1960.
-
This is what somebody stated in refutation to my statement on gravity. If you can't trust others, then what science are you supposed to believe?
If you want to have any chance of persuading an FE'er that they are wrong...then "appeal to authority" doesn't cut it.
Anything that cannot be directly observed - with at most simple equipment - is simply dismissed as being a part of the grand NASA/UN conspiracy.
So forget that we have photos (taken by NASA) of a clearly spherical earth...forget that we can use telescopes to clearly demonstrate that the sun and moon are not 30 miles across and 3000 miles away...forget everything that cannot EASILY be demonstrated.
Not that these aren't perfectly valid arguments...just that you won't get anywhere in talking to FE'ers about those things.
The argument about gravity is one I've recently explored here - and one problem with discussing it is that there are (at last count) FOUR different FE theories about the Earth's gravity - and a couple more about the gravity of Sun and Moon.
Earth:
1) The disk is infinite and gravity is as it is in RET. (Doesn't work because of variability of gravity at poles and equator).
2) There is no gravity. The Earth is accelerating upwards at 9.8 m/s/s. (Doesn't work because of variablilty of gravity at poles, equator and tall mountains).
3) Air pressure causes the phenomenon of objects falling and having "weight". (I can't begin to explain how insanely broken this one is! Put an object under a bell jar, pump out the air - and ask why it doesn't float around inside the jar!)...kinda/sorta explains why gravity is less on tops of mountains and absent entirely in orbiting spacecraft.
4) Some combination of (1) and (2) or (1) and (3) or (2) and (3)...makes life more complicated - but still doesn't explain pole/equator gravity changes.
Moon:
1) The moon really does have actual gravity - of course because it's small and despite being relatively close - we have to adjust the universal gravitational constant - but this is said to "explain" the tides. (Sadly, it fails because there are TWO high tides and TWO low tides every day...and without centrifugal forces due to moon's rotation around the earth - the FET explanation doesn't work).
2) The moon just attracts water and nothing else...I'm not sure that this is different to (1)...at least for common observations.
3) The moon repels water (which explains the high tide when the moon is not in the sky - but not the one when it is!)
Sun:
...well, I'm not sure how FE'ers feel about solar gravity. Since the tidal effects of the sun in "the real world" are small - but definitely measurable - in FET, it might maybe have much less gravity than the moon - despite being the same exact size and distance. Maybe it's less dense or something.
Where does this leave us?
As far as I can tell, FET is broken - there are just such an incredible number of SIMPLE daily experiences that it cannot explain. Not things that require us to trust scientists or that can be hand-waved away with "NASA-conspiracy!"...things like you standing on a beach on a crystal clear night - and watching the tide roll in at midnight with the moon nowhere in the sky. That one, SIMPLE experiment says that the world is round. It's irrefutable given FET as currently described.
-
Where does this leave us?
I guess it leaves us no other choice but to point out you've gravely and deliberately misrepresented every single scenario you've considered. Why would we waste time discussing matters with someone who's repeatedly showing himself to be uninterested in a fair, honest discussion?
-
Thanks 3DGeek for adding on. Out of curiosity, I want to see if any Flat Earther can refute my contention with not just a no, because god said so refutation. Refute it with actual evidence and logic.
-
I simply don't understand gravity believers. It's so simple.
God simply pushes things down with minor inconsistencies so that some will believe it's actually gravity. Those people do not have faith in God, and will go to hell. Those who do have faith such as myself go to Heaven, where they can live happily forever with those intelligent and faithful enough to realise the truth - that gravity is a hoax.
-
Density
-
Thanks 3DGeek for adding on. Out of curiosity, I want to see if any Flat Earther can refute my contention with not just a no, because god said so refutation.
We are not a religious group.
-
Atmospheric stringency.
-
Thanks 3DGeek for adding on. Out of curiosity, I want to see if any Flat Earther can refute my contention with not just a no, because god said so refutation.
We are not a religious group.
You and your team friends are false flag. We are usually high believers.
-
So, no flat Earther can give me hard, scientific evidence, or reasonable logic, ASIDE FROM RELIGION, which can refute the fact of differences in gravity around the world. Again, I do not want some unique answer saying god pushes down on objects with different force. So, the fact that no flat earther can disprove this simply puts into proposition that the Earth is round, as of now.
-
I simply don't understand gravity believers. It's so simple.
God simply pushes things down with minor inconsistencies so that some will believe it's actually gravity. Those people do not have faith in God, and will go to hell. Those who do have faith such as myself go to Heaven, where they can live happily forever with those intelligent and faithful enough to realise the truth - that gravity is a hoax.
If I was a FEer, then this quote would make me believe in gravity and a round earth
-
You and your team friends are false flag.
You need to stop with the personal attacks and low-content posting in the upper fora. This is the only warning you will get. The next one is a month-long ban.
The final step after that is a permanent ban. If you can't follow the rules, then don't post.
-
Where does this leave us?
I guess it leaves us no other choice but to point out you've gravely and deliberately misrepresented every single scenario you've considered. Why would we waste time discussing matters with someone who's repeatedly showing himself to be uninterested in a fair, honest discussion?
This is honestly a very obvious cop out response. There is nothing that is misrepresented in his comments. He points out well known flat earth theories and explains why they don't work. What is a fair and honest discussion to you? If he is wrong, discuss why. If something is misrepresented, explain how. This always seems to be the method taken by flat earth believers when they are presented with facts they don't have an explanation for. A rational person would at least consider the facts.
The bottom line is that there are plenty of very simple observable facts that dismantle flat earth theory.
-
Everyone believes that gravity is a force. NO. That is wrong!!! A force only exists when there is a mass. Otherwise gravity is just acceleration...
BTW, I'm a round-earth person...
-
If the earth were flat and was traveling upward at a constant velocity of 9.8 meters per second, then the acceleration due to gravity would be 9.8 meters per second squared.
-
If the earth were flat and was traveling upward at a constant velocity of 9.8 meters per second, then the acceleration due to gravity would be 9.8 meters per second squared.
In FET, it is accelerating at ~9.8m/s2. It is not moving at a constant velocity.
-
Just curious, are you a flat farther or a round farther
-
Just curious, are you a flat farther or a round farther
Yes. I am not sure how that is relevant to the discussion, however.
-
Should check out this link.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1Xu514u1HJw
-
You're right, not so relevant.
-
Should check out this link.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1Xu514u1HJw
He seems like quite a neat kid but I think he's a little misinformed.
-
That kid's me
-
Cool.
Well, I think UA theory is that the earth is accelerating at 9.8m/s2. According to Einstein's equivalence principle, the gravitational "force" as experienced locally while standing on a massive body (such as the Earth) is the same as the pseudo-force experienced by an observer in a non-inertial (accelerated) frame of reference.
Also, I believe the celestial bodies are also accelerating at the same rate under UAT.
-
The earth can't accelerate at different rates for each ball though. Velocity equals the initial velocity plus the square root of two times height times acceleration due to gravity. For the ten meter ball, initial velocity is zero, and will fall at:
t=0, h=10, v=0;
h=10, v=7;
h=9, v=20.28;
h=8, ....
..............
................
Same process repeated with the two balls.
The rate of change in velocity between two points in time between t=0 and t=ball2onthefloor is different for both of the balls. Such a task would require an accelerating disk where every atom of it increased or decreased velocity based on the acceleration of the ball in order to acheive such a simulation of gravity. in other words, this idea of the earth being a huge disk and that it needs to accelerate upwards for "gravity" is a silly and complex idea as to how a flat world would achieve "artificial gravity". You could simply say that the "flat earth" was spinning on its axis to produce a gravitational field.
-
The flat earth means that each part of the disk would be accelerating at different rates. it would mean moving every single atom of the world at a different velocity. But then that would also mean cutting the earth into tiny pieces.
-
Well, I think that the entire earth would be accelerating at the same rate of 9.8m/s2. The ball at ten feet and the ball at twenty feet are going to accelerate at almost exactly the same rate. You might have a point if you're referring to gravitational differences due to elevation. Under UA this is explained by slight gravitational pull from other celestial bodies.
Check this link (http://wiki.tfes.org/Universal_Acceleration) out for a little more information.
-
One other thing, gravity is not a hoax, here are a few examples:
The moon (and all other satellites), orbits the earth every ~27 days. If gravity didn't exist, then the moon would shoot away from the earth at an approximate right angle due to the centrifugal force acting outwards with no gravity to pull it back in. Also, if the "flat earth" were actually accelerating upwards, then the earth should crash into the moon.
The Great Pyramid of Geeza (or however you spell it), since it takes the mass (not actually mass) of 3,600,000 tons, has been proven to SLOW DOWN TIME by a tiny bit. Due to gravitational time dilation, there can (almost) only be one explanation for this phenomena, which is that the incredible mass allows for a decent gravitational field to be created (technically 'created' wouldn't be the best choice of wording'). This is proof that gravity exists and is not a hoax.
PS. The reason why I mentioned the Pyramid instead of in space or near a black hole is because it is something that can be proven while still on earth. Why go to space to test this theory when by the time we are in space, we can just see how round the earth really is...
-
The closer you are to or the stronger the source of gravitation will cause this difference in time.
-
This is what somebody stated in refutation to my statement on gravity. If you can't trust others, then what science are you supposed to believe?
If you want to have any chance of persuading an FE'er that they are wrong...then "appeal to authority" doesn't cut it.
Anything that cannot be directly observed - with at most simple equipment - is simply dismissed as being a part of the grand NASA/UN conspiracy.
So forget that we have photos (taken by NASA) of a clearly spherical earth...forget that we can use telescopes to clearly demonstrate that the sun and moon are not 30 miles across and 3000 miles away...forget everything that cannot EASILY be demonstrated.
Not that these aren't perfectly valid arguments...just that you won't get anywhere in talking to FE'ers about those things.
The argument about gravity is one I've recently explored here - and one problem with discussing it is that there are (at last count) FOUR different FE theories about the Earth's gravity - and a couple more about the gravity of Sun and Moon.
Earth:
1) The disk is infinite and gravity is as it is in RET. (Doesn't work because of variability of gravity at poles and equator).
2) There is no gravity. The Earth is accelerating upwards at 9.8 m/s/s. (Doesn't work because of variablilty of gravity at poles, equator and tall mountains).
3) Air pressure causes the phenomenon of objects falling and having "weight". (I can't begin to explain how insanely broken this one is! Put an object under a bell jar, pump out the air - and ask why it doesn't float around inside the jar!)...kinda/sorta explains why gravity is less on tops of mountains and absent entirely in orbiting spacecraft.
4) Some combination of (1) and (2) or (1) and (3) or (2) and (3)...makes life more complicated - but still doesn't explain pole/equator gravity changes.
Moon:
1) The moon really does have actual gravity - of course because it's small and despite being relatively close - we have to adjust the universal gravitational constant - but this is said to "explain" the tides. (Sadly, it fails because there are TWO high tides and TWO low tides every day...and without centrifugal forces due to moon's rotation around the earth - the FET explanation doesn't work).
2) The moon just attracts water and nothing else...I'm not sure that this is different to (1)...at least for common observations.
3) The moon repels water (which explains the high tide when the moon is not in the sky - but not the one when it is!)
Sun:
...well, I'm not sure how FE'ers feel about solar gravity. Since the tidal effects of the sun in "the real world" are small - but definitely measurable - in FET, it might maybe have much less gravity than the moon - despite being the same exact size and distance. Maybe it's less dense or something.
Where does this leave us?
As far as I can tell, FET is broken - there are just such an incredible number of SIMPLE daily experiences that it cannot explain. Not things that require us to trust scientists or that can be hand-waved away with "NASA-conspiracy!"...things like you standing on a beach on a crystal clear night - and watching the tide roll in at midnight with the moon nowhere in the sky. That one, SIMPLE experiment says that the world is round. It's irrefutable given FET as currently described.
You can be traveling at 9.8m/s/s, it's simply impossible. You can't travel at acceleration. You can travel at a velocity that changes at a rate of 9.8m/s/s.
-
How can the moon be a source of gravity but not the earth? They are both made out of the same stuff. Atoms, Protons neutrons electrons, Hadrons, quarks gluons.
-
You are an exceptionally intelligent kid (assuming the kid in the video is in fact you). Hat's off to you and I hope you grow to use this talent for good.
-
Is that a compliment
-
Continue debate in topic 'Gravity (2.0) '. This page is too cluttered.
-
Continue debate in topic 'Gravity (2.0) '. This page is too cluttered.
...says the person responsible for 14 of the 36 posts...