The Flat Earth Society

Flat Earth Discussion Boards => Flat Earth Investigations => Topic started by: SMC on August 16, 2019, 04:39:42 PM

Title: The Gravity Conundrum...
Post by: SMC on August 16, 2019, 04:39:42 PM
It just passed my mind...

We are always told that 'gravity' is why we stick to the 'round' earth and that not matter where we are on the earth... it appears flat... but it isn't. If there were no gravity, we would 'fly off'. It's also why people on the side of the earth don't fall over, or feel that they are upside down etc etc etc.

So... the Moon. No gravity to speak of... yet it has the same characteristics as earth (if we are to believe the moon landings and footage). You could walk to the bottom of the moon and your blood would not rush to your head... and you wouldn't have the feeling of being upside down.

My question is... why?
Title: Re: The Gravity Conundrum...
Post by: AllAroundTheWorld on August 16, 2019, 05:40:07 PM
What do you mean “no gravity to speak of”?
The gravity on the moon is about one sixth of that on earth. That means you’d weigh about a sixth of what you do here, as would everything else.
So apart from you being able to lift more and jump higher and throw things higher (check out Alan Shepherd playing golf on the moon), and you’d fall more slowly, everything would work exactly the same as it does here.

Edit: some clips of things being thrown on the moon.

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=isVO9AAAhxM
Title: Re: The Gravity Conundrum...
Post by: Nefarious on August 17, 2019, 01:25:30 PM
'Up' and 'Down' are not absolute terms, they're relative. 'Down' in this case is 'towards the center of gravity' while 'up' is 'away from the center of gravity'. People stationed at McMurdo in Antarctica experience the same 'down' that you do, the force pulling them towards the earth.
Title: Re: The Gravity Conundrum...
Post by: Tim Alphabeaver on August 17, 2019, 11:24:48 PM
So... the Moon. No gravity to speak of...
Hehehe  ;)
Title: Re: The Gravity Conundrum...
Post by: J-Man on August 26, 2019, 11:19:16 PM
Slow motion photography which is what KubricK used on fake landing, was invented in very early 1900's by Priest August Musger
Title: Re: The Gravity Conundrum...
Post by: Nefarious on August 27, 2019, 02:21:42 AM
Slow motion photography which is what KubricK used on fake landing, was invented in very early 1900's by Priest August Musger

What does this have to do with OP's question?
Title: Re: The Gravity Conundrum...
Post by: Adrenoch on September 04, 2019, 01:38:35 PM
It just passed my mind...

We are always told that 'gravity' is why we stick to the 'round' earth and that not matter where we are on the earth... it appears flat... but it isn't. If there were no gravity, we would 'fly off'. It's also why people on the side of the earth don't fall over, or feel that they are upside down etc etc etc.

So... the Moon. No gravity to speak of... yet it has the same characteristics as earth (if we are to believe the moon landings and footage). You could walk to the bottom of the moon and your blood would not rush to your head... and you wouldn't have the feeling of being upside down.

My question is... why?

Maybe it might help you to question why you're thinking of north as "up" and south as "down."

Space has no up or down. People don't stick to the south side of a globe despite some "down" force trying to pull them off.

Ask yourself why you think someone on the southern side of the moon would have blood rushing to their heads. What force is pulling their blood to their heads? Why is it pulling in that direction and not some other?
Title: Re: The Gravity Conundrum...
Post by: Hanneman Bower on January 07, 2020, 09:26:44 AM
Gravity

Flat-earthers seem to have a lot of problems with the idea of gravity, and this is not surprising, because science has a lot of problems with it too. To understand why this is so, it is helpful to look at the history.
The idea of gravity as a force acting between bodies at some distance from each other goes back to Robert Hooke (1635-1703), the leading English scientific researcher of his time. The story starts with the Danish astronomer Tycho Brahe (1546-1601), who like his near-contemporary Galileo is known to posterity by his forename rather than his surname. Tycho spent many years observing the positions of the planets in relation to the starry background before the invention of the telescope. His data was analysed by the German mathematician Johannes Kepler (1571-1630), who spent a lifetime making sense of the data until he was able to derive his three laws of planetary motion. He did not attempt to provide a reason for the existence of his laws.
This came to some degree from Hooke’s researches, who concluded that each planet was maintained in its orbit by some unexplained force “acting at a distance” between it and the Sun, inversely proportional to the square of the distance between them. He discussed this idea with the mathematician Isaac Newton (1643-1727), who had already established his laws of rectilinear motion, and Newton used it, without acknowledgment of Hooke, mathematically to underpin Kepler’s laws on the elliptical motions of the planets. His theory, known as Newtonian mechanics, worked perfectly to predict future events in the solar system, and until Albert Einstein (1879-1955) started to consider events in which bodies moved at an appreciable fraction of the speed of light, continued to do so. Since nothing we can currently make and no massive body naturally occurring in the solar system moves at any such speed, Newtonian mechanics works for rocket scientists too. There is no need to invoke the rather difficult Einsteinian ideas in day-to-day calculations of gravitational effects: Newton’s theory gives the right answers, and that is all anyone can ask.
Newton, who as he said himself was basing his theory on the ideas of other people, wrote that he had been able to explain the motions of the planets by ascribing them to “the power of gravity” which was his name for the force proposed by Hooke. But he then said that he had not been able to discover the causes of that power, and when pressed he came up with his famous remark “hypotheses non fingo,” which means “I don’t know and I’m not going to guess.” This phrase has been used by commentators to mean that Newton never produced any hypotheses, which is just not right; it is important to restrict it, as Newton did, to an enquiry into the causes of gravity itself.
The idea of action at a distance is philosophically unsatisfactory, and repeated efforts were made to clarify the causes of gravity. We must distinguish the effects of gravity, which at the speeds encountered in ordinary motions are defined by Newtonian mechanics and so are well understood, from the causes of gravity, the essence or reality of it. These remained hidden until Einstein developed his general theory of relativity, which essentially asserted that action at a distance, including gravity as generally understood, was a fiction and was not required in a description of the motions of the world. Gravity in this theory was an effect of the curvature of spacetime; Newtonian mechanics was an approximation applicable only at lower speeds. Flat-earthers have fastened on this concept, and, finding the ideas and mathematics of relativity too hard to understand, have happily denied the existence of gravity without coherently advancing anything to take its place. They are therefore unable to explain the motions of the planets in space, but since they don’t believe in space either, they don’t see this as a problem. No flat-earther has ever suggested that Tycho’s data is all faked, but then again this is probably because they’ve never heard of Tycho.
Title: Re: The Gravity Conundrum...
Post by: somerled on January 07, 2020, 03:43:52 PM
I'd say no FEr has ever said Brahe's data is faked because all his astronomical data was studiously observed . His model based on his own observations was geocentric - earth at the centre of the universe. Like FE models . He had already accounted for all planetary motions . Nor  did the model require the stars to be at stupid distances .
 After Brahe's death Kepler ,his unwanted assistant , stole his records and plucked his planetary laws out of his backside - the globe model being in danger with no new data ever introduced to back it's acceptance .

Tycho Brahe - great observational geocentric scientist - probably why we don't hear a lot about him .
Title: Re: The Gravity Conundrum...
Post by: Tim Alphabeaver on January 24, 2020, 10:19:31 PM
I'd say no FEr has ever said Brahe's data is faked because all his astronomical data was studiously observed . His model based on his own observations was geocentric - earth at the centre of the universe. Like FE models . He had already accounted for all planetary motions . Nor  did the model require the stars to be at stupid distances .
 After Brahe's death Kepler ,his unwanted assistant , stole his records and plucked his planetary laws out of his backside - the globe model being in danger with no new data ever introduced to back it's acceptance .

Tycho Brahe - great observational geocentric scientist - probably why we don't hear a lot about him .
And now Kepler's laws have been experimentally verified and Brahe's system has been experimentally disproven, which is why Kepler's laws are taught in school and the Tychonic system is not.
Title: Re: The Gravity Conundrum...
Post by: EngineerMan on February 26, 2020, 11:35:18 PM
I wish the earth were flat and there were no gravity.  It would simplify my job tremendously.