Recent Posts

1
Flat Earth Investigations / Re: 2019 Total Lunar Eclipse
« Last post by Tumeni on Today at 07:31:45 AM »
If you do watch the eclipse, take note of whether it comes from the East or the West on the moon's surface. Sometimes it runs contrary to RET.

The direction in which the shadow moves over the Moon is entirely dictated by observer position/geographical location



Physically, it moves from right to left behind the Earth (if viewed from a point between Earth and Sun), but observers on or close to the equator will see/saw the shadow move from top to bottom or vice versa, whereas those at the poles will see it move from L-R or R-L depending on which pole they are at.
2
Flat Earth Theory / Sun and Moon - Earth, not Pokemon
« Last post by TannerDalen on Today at 07:07:21 AM »
Hello again. My first thread became much more successful than I anticipated. I want to keep that conversation going, but also introduce some new questions that don't quite fit in with the banter going on in my other forum. Anywho, just a quick question:

First, some context.
Quote
Are you saying we can safely assume that UA is not the only source of gravity in the universe, or that we can safely assume that UA is not the only source of gravity in the universe that is affecting the Earth?
Both.
Here, Pete Svarrior says that UA and RET gravity (Newtonian Gravity) both exist, and that UA explains the earth's acceleration. In that case, I am going to assume that the sun and moon do not have UA because they are not earth.

1. How does FET explain the gravitational pull between the Sun and Moon?
2. How does FET explain the gravitational pull between the Sun and Earth?
3. If the Sun/Moonis not accelerating upwards at 9.8m/s^2 constantly with the earth, why doesn't the earth collide with those celestial bodies?
   OR
4. If the Sun/Moon is accelerating upwards at 9.8m/s^2 with the earth, what is causing that upwards acceleration? The substructures beneath the earth's surface (that someone has yet to explain to me please), or something else?
3
Flat Earth Theory / Re: Universal Acceleration - Power Source discussion
« Last post by Stagiri on Today at 04:29:47 AM »
Which is yet another problem for UA. You have to have multiple sources to explain the gravity of other celestial bodies
You say that as if GR only had a single source.
I'm getting a bit lost in all the abbreviations so just to make it clear: does "GR" stand for the RET gravity? If that's the case, I'd like to remind you that in the RET, gravity has only one source - mass.
Does it have something to do with the CG?
It has everything to do with CG. The measurable gravity that affects you is a combination of multiple factors. This is true in either model, but for some reason people always assume that UA should somehow be a one-force-explains-all kinda deal.

(...)

Your assumption is that since you can measure different values of g for different locations on Earth (and above it), then UA itself is different for each of these locations. This is simply not the case. The variations are primarily in CG, resulting from varying distance from other celestial bodies, the density of the matter directly beneath you, etc.
Ok, I see. So, could you, please, remind me of how the CG (or the UA) explains the Eötvös effect? Thank you.
In comparison, your claim sounds to me just about as silly as someone claiming that since gravity is generally weaker on the equator than on the poles, the Round Earth is about to rapidly bulge itself out of its roughly spherical shape. It's a misunderstanding of concepts, but instead of trying to understand the concepts, you just shout far-reaching implications and demand that someone sets you straight. Most people won't have the patience to do that.
Well, the RE does bulge a little (according to the RET) but the bulge stays the same. However, if the UA was the only force in play the difference would increase. For you to get an idea: in not even 15 minutes of accelerating from zero velocity, the elevation difference between Mount Huascaran and the Arctic Ocean, the areas with the most extreme gravitational accelerations, would be greater than between the bottom of the Mariana Trench and Mt Everest (on the RE) and in 29 hours it would be 384 000 km, the same as the mean distance between the Earth and the Moon (in the heliocentric model).
5
Which is yet another problem for UA. You have to have multiple sources to explain the gravity of other celestial bodies
You say that as if GR only had a single source.

while Newtonian gravity or, more precisely, GR, explains gravity very elegantly
And, of course, incorrectly. But you knew that already.

Real space has curves lol.
Keep this sort of trash out of the upper fora. Familiarise yourself with the rules.

Does it have something to do with the CG?
It has everything to do with CG. The measurable gravity that affects you is a combination of multiple factors. This is true in either model, but for some reason people always assume that UA should somehow be a one-force-explains-all kinda deal.

Are you saying we can safely assume that UA is not the only source of gravity in the universe, or that we can safely assume that UA is not the only source of gravity in the universe that is affecting the Earth?
Both.

It looks like he's using the word "gravity" as a standin  for the unbalanced resultant force from UA
Yes, I maintain a distinction between gravity and gravitation. But you don't need anything to "keep the Earth together". It accelerates upwards at a constant rate, throughout.

Your assumption is that since you can measure different values of g for different locations on Earth (and above it), then UA itself is different for each of these locations. This is simply not the case. The variations are primarily in CG, resulting from varying distance from other celestial bodies, the density of the matter directly beneath you, etc.

In comparison, your claim sounds to me just about as silly as someone claiming that since gravity is generally weaker on the equator than on the poles, the Round Earth is about to rapidly bulge itself out of its roughly spherical shape. It's a misunderstanding of concepts, but instead of trying to understand the concepts, you just shout far-reaching implications and demand that someone sets you straight. Most people won't have the patience to do that.
6
Arts & Entertainment / Re: Just Watched
« Last post by junker on Today at 12:59:10 AM »
This, on the other hand, was both an absolute visual feast as well as an actual great piece of cinema. The comic-book-brought-to-life animation style worried me at first, but by the end I couldn't imagine it working so well any other way. This movie felt like it was made by die-hard Spider-Man fans, and is absolutely chock-full of easter eggs and references, but none of them in your face or blatant. I was worried the gimmick of multiple Spider-Folk would quickly wear thin, but they let the premise last exactly as long as it needs to and just as far as it's amusing. I'd probably, at least as I feel right now, rank this as my second-favourite Spider-Man movie, right behind the fantabulous Spider-Man 2.
I finally did a full listen of the soundtrack yesterday. It slaps.


In other news, I watched Aquaman a week or so ago. It wasn't very good.
7
Flat Earth Theory / Re: Universal Acceleration - Power Source discussion
« Last post by shootingstar on January 21, 2019, 10:02:59 PM »
1. That would be my understanding as well. Since we know the value of G (6.67 x 10^-11) and we know the masses and radii of all the planets we can calculate the value of the local gravitational acceleration (g) for all of them., And not surprisingly as the mass increases so does the value of g.

2. That's a FE idea so no idea about that.  I can only assume that FE theory has its own laws of physics that explain all that.
8
Flat Earth Community / Flat Earth Documentary in Toronto
« Last post by malikadocumentary on January 21, 2019, 09:43:52 PM »
I am filming a short flat earth documentary stationed in Toronto along with a film crew. We are interested in broadcasting your views and theory to the general public. If there is anybody interested in being the subject of our documentary, then feel free to email us at arsalanmalik2000@gmail.com. Once again we are stationed in Toronto, so anybody around that general area would suffice.
9
Flat Earth Theory / Re: Universal Acceleration - Power Source discussion
« Last post by TannerDalen on January 21, 2019, 09:42:03 PM »
This is where my confusion on the subject lies.

1. My claim is that there is one type of gravity, meaning that I can use specific equations with distinct variables to measure the gravitational force objects have on one another. That equation should not change or be discarded when talking about a specific body of mass. Why should the equation that can tell me the gravitational pull of Jupiter, Mars, or Pluto be any different than the equation we use for Earth? If Jupiter is a sphere, and GM/R^2 refers to the acceleration towards the center of Jupiter, why would it be any for us on earth. If you keep units, geometry, and variables the same in the equation, you can change all the numbers to fit Earth instead of Jupiter.

2. Still, my first problem was never addressed. If the substructures are pushing upwards with 9.8m/s^2 worth of acceleration, then the ground is also pushing on the substructures with equal force (not equal acceleration). This scenario would require objects, or substructures, to fall in the opposite direction of the UA in order to even HAVE a UA. It's that, or have a negative/infinite mass.
10
Flat Earth Theory / Re: Universal Acceleration - Power Source discussion
« Last post by shootingstar on January 21, 2019, 08:36:56 PM »
Well I will wait in anticipation to find out what those sources of acceleration are.  Clearly they must be objects with mass so should be detectable.  Acceleration is a function of mass and distance.  Gravitational force is in theory infinite in range since we can continue to increase distance and the magnitude of the force will continue to decrease without ever getting to zero.