[SiDawg]

Pi assumes that it is possible for a perfect circle to exist, and that has never been demonstrated

Huh?? This is like saying "it's never been demonstrated that perspective lines meet at infinity". You're kind of just questioning maths in general...

Parallel lines never meet. A plot of points an equal distance around a central point forms a circle.

You can debate the language I've used, but the concepts they describe are beyond debate. They just ARE. They don't require demonstration. Interestingly enough, they're both examples of "converging infinite series". Neither of them can be demonstrated: how can you demonstrate infinity?? Argh.

[rabinoz]

Euclid's Elements
Book I
Definition 23

Parallel straight lines are straight lines which, being in the same plane and being produced indefinitely in both directions, do not meet one another in either direction.

Euclid's Elements, Book I, Definition 23

[Tom Bishop]

Euclid's Elements
Book I
Definition 23

Parallel straight lines are straight lines which, being in the same plane and being produced indefinitely in both directions, do not meet one another in either direction.

Euclid's Elements, Book I, Definition 23

The Ancient Greeks
Animal Reproduction 101

Flies spontaneously generate from rotting meat.

[rabinoz]

Euclid's Elements
Book I
Definition 23

Parallel straight lines are straight lines which, being in the same plane and being produced indefinitely in both directions, do not meet one another in either direction.

Euclid's Elements, Book I, Definition 23

The Ancient Greeks
Animal Reproduction 101

Flies spontaneously generate from rotting meat.

That is an incorrect deduction from the observation of flies seeming to "spontaneously generate from rotting meat".
And before you criticise Aristotle too much, just consider that the idea of the spontaneous generation of flies, fleas, etc was not seriously challenged till 1668 and not finally disproved until 1859 by Louis Pasteur.

But you make the incorrect deduction that the "Earth is not a Globe" from the observation that "the earth looks locally flat".
I see little difference, but Euclid's "Definition 23" was not a deduction based on an observation but was  Euclid's definition of "Parallel straight lines".

Hence your post seems totally irrelevant.

[Tom Bishop]

The Ancient Greeks didn't say "seem to." They said that creatures such as flies spontaneously generated from the unliving.

Now there is one property that animals are found to have in common with plants. For some plants are generated from the seed of plants, whilst other plants are self-generated through the formation of some elemental principle similar to a seed; and of these latter plants some derive their nutriment from the ground, whilst others grow inside other plants ... So with animals, some spring from parent animals according to their kind, whilst others grow spontaneously and not from kindred stock; and of these instances of spontaneous generation some come from putrefying earth or vegetable matter, as is the case with a number of insects, while others are spontaneously generated in the inside of animals out of the secretions of their several organs.

The point is entirely relevant. The Ancient Greeks made a lot of assumptions about the world to a criminal level, without the necessity of evidence of fact.

[rabinoz]

The point is entirely relevant.

Not at all relevant. Euclid's Elements Book I Definition 23 is his definition of "parallel straight lines", so is making no "assumptions about the world".
You might dispute his definition but that's quite a different matter.

The Ancient Greeks made a lot of assumptions about the world to a criminal level, without the necessity of evidence of fact.

That's your opinion but where their "assumptions about the world" have not been supported by later evidence those "assumptions" have been discarded.

But many things that you claim are "assumptions about the world . . . . . . without the necessity of evidence of fact" often did have evidence, though they could have mis-interpreted some of that evidence.

But this seems way off the topic "Q. Universal Acceleration versus Newton's Law of gravitation:"
All I did was quote Euclid's definition of "parallel straight lines". 
That hardly seems justification for your diving into "spontaneous generation" and "Greek assumptions". A definition can never be classified as an assumption.

Now what about the question of "Universal Acceleration versus Newton's Law of gravitation?" Forget Miles Mathis, he's got nothing to do with any modern experiments.

[Round Eyes]

Now what about the question of "Universal Acceleration versus Newton's Law of gravitation?"

what specifically are you asking? 

you have to remember that all laws/math that you are using to try and prove a round earth were all developed based on the same earth that we are claiming to be flat.  a lot of the math would be the same, but the fact the math was done based on an assumed "round" earth is where some errors can occur.

[Jon56]

Now what about the question of "Universal Acceleration versus Newton's Law of gravitation?"

what specifically are you asking? 

you have to remember that all laws/math that you are using to try and prove a round earth were all developed based on the same earth that we are claiming to be flat.  a lot of the math would be the same, but the fact the math was done based on an assumed "round" earth is where some errors can occur.

Hi I hope you can help as you seem to be well versed in FE gravity. I’m new to this whole thing and studied Newtonian physics for a while for working out trajectories and various other things.
Newton came up with his theory’s to explain the movement of the observable planets in a simple way that could be tested by experimenting and observations. It all works rather well in a local environment i.e short range.
Eisenstein and his theory of relativity and later Stephen Hawkings works on a unified theory of gravity and the distortion of space time now works for the larger part of the universe we still have issues with quantum gravity but hey ho! At least we can work understand the workings of the bigger picture.
Now I studied this stuff and would like to study the FE models of UA and CG could you either point me to some stuff to read up on or explain it in a way I can make some kind of sense out of it all.
I’ve tried to follow this thread but to be honest there seems to be a whole lot of missing information.
Cheers.

[rabinoz]

Now what about the question of "Universal Acceleration versus Newton's Law of gravitation?"

what specifically are you asking? 

you have to remember that all laws/math that you are using to try and prove a round earth were all developed based on the same earth that we are claiming to be flat.  a lot of the math would be the same, but the fact the math was done based on an assumed "round" earth is where some errors can occur.

I don't know what math could change.
At the time when Galilee Galileo did his experiments with ramps and later when Isaac Newton, Robert Hooke and others did numerous experiments with rsmps and pendulums etc, there was no thought of the earth being flat.
But I fail to see how that could affect the results of those experiments.
The earth being flat may changed Newton's deductions from the variation of g with altitude and may have left the poor fellow mystified as to why g varied the way it does with latitude.

And the earth's being flat may have affect his deductions from the, possibly apocryphal, apple and the moon. In Newton's day it had been accepted for some 1500 year that the moon orbited the Earth and even the distance was known with quite reasonable accuracy.
Newton realised that the same force kept the moon from flying away as caused the apple to fall to earth.
And I might point out that Newton's "Laws of Motion" alone prevent the moon from circling the way flat-earthers seem to assume.
So a flat earth would have changed the deductions from these observations but there was no significant belief in the flat earth then anyway, so why would it be considered?

But then we get to Henry Cavendish in 1787/88, again before your flat earth was "invented".
He measured the forces between known masses a known distance apart, an experiment that has been carried out probably a hundred times since with similar results.
How would the earth's being flat or spherical have affected the raw results of all these experiments and essentially they say that mass attracts mass.
Some try to ridicule Cavendish's experimental technique but he was highly respected in his day for his experimental technique and had done many electrical experiments involving very small forces before that time.

So, I think it is fair to say that the results of these early experiments stand even if you wish to interpret them differently.

Some results might seem very hard to explain with a flat earth and UA.
How, for example would you explain:

• The variation of measured g with latitude?
• The variation of measured g with altitude? "Celestial Gravitation" has been suggested, but that raises the question as to why "celestial mass" should attract  "terrestrial mass" but "terrestrial mass" not attract "terrestrial mass".
• The results of the numerous "Cavendish type" experiments which certainly seem to indicate that "terrestrial mass" attracts "terrestrial mass".

Of course, many flat earthers simply dismiss as "fabricated evidence" any results disagreeing with the flat earth - a highly dishonest practice in my opinion.

[lookatmooninUKthenAUS]

Just to reiterate a basic point I have been screaming from the rooftops in umpteen posts.

Even if Celestial gravitation were assumed to sufficiently explain the steady reduction of g with altitude, it does not explain how there can be different values of g at equal altitudes.

Can I also say, it ought to be a rule of engaging in any discussion that the data and the theory that stems from it be laid out in a coherent fashion before it is even considered. To entertain flat Earther's on this thread with tit for tat arguments about whether gravity exists when Celestial gravity exists ONLY AS A STATEMENT is ludicrous. The measurement of g has a history stretching back centuries with countless methods being employed, nearly all in agreement to within very small error margins. There is zero explanation of the difference between celestial gravitation and normal gravitation and no data exists AT ALL.

As Rabinoz pointed out......

The variation of measured g with altitude? "Celestial Gravitation" has been suggested, but that raises the question as to why "celestial mass" should attract  "terrestrial mass" but "terrestrial mass" not attract "terrestrial mass".

[BillO]

celestial gravition is a force acting upon earth from the heavenly bodies, similar to what RE would call gravity.  its is a very small force, that increases as you increase elevation on earth (closer to celestial bodies).  it has a negative affect against the forces of UA.  this is why an objects weight would be less at the top of mount everest than at sea level.

Sorry to resurrect an older thread.

If what you say is true, then as you descend a mine shaft in the UA/CG model your weight should rise as you are still under the acceleration, but the force due to CG decreases.

However, Newton's law of universal gravitation and shell theory predict that you weight will decrease as you descend.  The math:



Experiment shows this prediction to be precisely correct.  Weight decreases as one descends into the earth.  https://www.cbc.ca/news/technology/travelling-gnome-experiment-visits-world-s-deepest-lab-1.1294979