#### Curious Squirrel

• 1307
##### Re: The Flat Earth FAQ on Gravity is completely wrong
« Reply #60 on: July 11, 2018, 10:12:13 PM »

Now in FE does the speed of light remain constant?
Does the formula E=mc^2  hold true.

of course
Ah most excellent so the earth has been accelerating at a constant 9.8 m/ss for a number of years.
So what speed are we currently accelerating from and to?
I'll give you a hint. As of where we are at the time of this posting going forward, we are accelerating from 0 towards c. Relativity. Isn't it fun? (I know this is heavily simplified, and perhaps borders on incorrect, but to my knowledge it's close enough. Attempting to argue this point will get you nowhere, they are quite firmly covered by GR and SR.)

#### TomInAustin

• 742
• Round Duh
##### Re: The Flat Earth FAQ on Gravity is completely wrong
« Reply #61 on: July 11, 2018, 10:39:22 PM »
Well, maybe you need to get some that are 110% polarized then. If I understand right, light can be polarized in 2 directions so polarized filters will cut out half the light. But if the light source is bright enough that even half of the light causes lens flare or glare - and it clearly does in the photos you're giving as examples - then that is not enough filtering to demonstrate your point.

Polarized lenses cut out the light that is coming in straight on, so that only light that comes in at an angle is seen. It is those direct light rays that cause the lensing effect in the eye known as "glare."

Wrong, polarised lenses cut light from specific angles and that is why you can rotate them to find the angle of the glare.

#### TomInAustin

• 742
• Round Duh
##### Re: The Flat Earth FAQ on Gravity is completely wrong
« Reply #62 on: July 11, 2018, 10:42:15 PM »
In the UA model, how do you account for falling objects falling at different speeds based on mass and drag?  It seems to me that if the ground was racing up to meet them mass/drag would be irrelevant.

The same reason as described in RET/Gravity.  why wouldnt air/drag affect an object?  both the air, ground and object all have an initial velocity moving upward.  so of course the object coming back down would see the same effects.  if you did the same test in a vacuum then yes, the results will be same, which is obvious in either RET or UA

lets argue about UA as described by FET, not someone's personal opinion about what they think UA describes.

Is the ground pushing the air up or is the air also being pushed by UA?

everything is moving up together as one, similar to RET with the spinning globe and air moving with it.

That is not an answer.  Let me try again.  Is UA pushing the air up or is the ground pushing the air up?  "I don't know" is an acceptable answer.

#### Round Eyes

• 457
##### Re: The Flat Earth FAQ on Gravity is completely wrong
« Reply #63 on: July 12, 2018, 12:25:38 AM »
In the UA model, how do you account for falling objects falling at different speeds based on mass and drag?  It seems to me that if the ground was racing up to meet them mass/drag would be irrelevant.

The same reason as described in RET/Gravity.  why wouldnt air/drag affect an object?  both the air, ground and object all have an initial velocity moving upward.  so of course the object coming back down would see the same effects.  if you did the same test in a vacuum then yes, the results will be same, which is obvious in either RET or UA

lets argue about UA as described by FET, not someone's personal opinion about what they think UA describes.

Is the ground pushing the air up or is the air also being pushed by UA?

everything is moving up together as one, similar to RET with the spinning globe and air moving with it.

That is not an answer.  Let me try again.  Is UA pushing the air up or is the ground pushing the air up?  "I don't know" is an acceptable answer.

The earth and everything we observe is being accellerated upward, not too difficult to understand.  The ground, air, everything moving up at the same. Same mechanics involved wth air moving with a rotating globe.  If you think you have some gotcha question, go ahead and ask
« Last Edit: July 12, 2018, 12:31:16 AM by Round Eyes »
Quote from: SiDawg
Planes fall out of the sky all the time

#### Round Eyes

• 457
##### Re: The Flat Earth FAQ on Gravity is completely wrong
« Reply #64 on: July 12, 2018, 12:26:48 AM »

Now in FE does the speed of light remain constant?
Does the formula E=mc^2  hold true.

of course
Ah most excellent so the earth has been accelerating at a constant 9.8 m/ss for a number of years.
So what speed are we currently accelerating from and to?

Do you think an object of mass can reach the speed of light??  Already established UA accepts special relativity.
Quote from: SiDawg
Planes fall out of the sky all the time

#### Mykrox47-9

• 5
##### Re: The Flat Earth FAQ on Gravity is completely wrong
« Reply #65 on: July 12, 2018, 01:18:12 AM »
So, Earth is not stationary? I've seen ststic model represented in other sites. They disown this group and it's premise of UA theory. Not sure which one to believe.

#### Round Eyes

• 457
##### Re: The Flat Earth FAQ on Gravity is completely wrong
« Reply #66 on: July 12, 2018, 02:33:59 PM »
So, Earth is not stationary? I've seen ststic model represented in other sites. They disown this group and it's premise of UA theory. Not sure which one to believe.

the two main ones i have studied are UA and infinite plane.  infinite plane utilizes traditional gravity and stationary earth.  the third i have read about involves density, but that is not really subscribed to on this site.
Quote from: SiDawg
Planes fall out of the sky all the time

#### JRowe

• 396
• Slowly being driven insane by RE nonsense
##### Re: The Flat Earth FAQ on Gravity is completely wrong
« Reply #67 on: July 12, 2018, 02:46:27 PM »
So, Earth is not stationary? I've seen ststic model represented in other sites. They disown this group and it's premise of UA theory. Not sure which one to believe.
I believe static but rotating, not the density model.
Which one you believe is up to you. That's what sets FET above RET: you have the freedom to make up your own mind, not to just follow the leader. Look up flaws, strengths, assumptions, ccomparisons...
My DE model explained here.
Open to questions, but if you're curious start there rather than expecting me to explain it all from scratch every time.

#### TomInAustin

• 742
• Round Duh
##### Re: The Flat Earth FAQ on Gravity is completely wrong
« Reply #68 on: July 12, 2018, 03:44:36 PM »
In the UA model, how do you account for falling objects falling at different speeds based on mass and drag?  It seems to me that if the ground was racing up to meet them mass/drag would be irrelevant.

The same reason as described in RET/Gravity.  why wouldnt air/drag affect an object?  both the air, ground and object all have an initial velocity moving upward.  so of course the object coming back down would see the same effects.  if you did the same test in a vacuum then yes, the results will be same, which is obvious in either RET or UA

lets argue about UA as described by FET, not someone's personal opinion about what they think UA describes.

Is the ground pushing the air up or is the air also being pushed by UA?

everything is moving up together as one, similar to RET with the spinning globe and air moving with it.

That is not an answer.  Let me try again.  Is UA pushing the air up or is the ground pushing the air up?  "I don't know" is an acceptable answer.

The earth and everything we observe is being accellerated upward, not too difficult to understand.  The ground, air, everything moving up at the same. Same mechanics involved wth air moving with a rotating globe.  If you think you have some gotcha question, go ahead and ask

No gotcha questions and no need to be your usual condescending self.  Try to just talk for a change.    Just curious.  Why do things appear to fall if they too are accelerating?  Seems to me they would appear to float not fall.  I can only assume you mean the ground is pushing the air but can't say it for some reason?

#### MCToon

• 148
##### Re: The Flat Earth FAQ on Gravity is completely wrong
« Reply #69 on: July 12, 2018, 03:52:58 PM »
In the UA model, how do you account for falling objects falling at different speeds based on mass and drag?  It seems to me that if the ground was racing up to meet them mass/drag would be irrelevant.

The same reason as described in RET/Gravity.  why wouldnt air/drag affect an object?  both the air, ground and object all have an initial velocity moving upward.  so of course the object coming back down would see the same effects.  if you did the same test in a vacuum then yes, the results will be same, which is obvious in either RET or UA

lets argue about UA as described by FET, not someone's personal opinion about what they think UA describes.

Is the ground pushing the air up or is the air also being pushed by UA?

everything is moving up together as one, similar to RET with the spinning globe and air moving with it.

That is not an answer.  Let me try again.  Is UA pushing the air up or is the ground pushing the air up?  "I don't know" is an acceptable answer.

Air, ground, objects would not be directly accelerated by UA.  They would be indirectly accelerated.  Imagine a basin of some sort that the earth sits in, this basin would be pushed upwards and everything on top of it is pushed against it.  If air, ground, objects were directly accelerated they would not fall to the ground when dropped.

This basin would need to be quite deep.  People have drilled more than 4 miles deep without finding any bottom.

There are several problems this model brings up:

* We measure different gravities at different areas of the earth at the same elevation.  If we are going to allow mass derived gravitational attraction we could envision different densities of the underlying ground to cause this.

* We also measure lower gravity as altitude increases.  If we are going to allow mass derived gravitational attraction we could envision that we are not being accelerated upwards at 9.81m/s^2, but at a somewhat lower rate and the difference is made up by the mass of the ground beneath us.  As we increase elevation we get farther from this mass so the force decreases.  I haven't done the math, but, I'm suspicious this would not calculate out.

* What about the other things that are not being accelerated up?  Sun, moon, stars.  They must also be accelerated upwards directly or they would fall to the ground.  This is difficult to resolve.

* Seismic analysis doesn't line up with a flat plane very well.  Since at least the early 1900's people have been analyzing volcanos and earthquakes and measuring seismic waves recorded at different areas of the world.  Using the RE locations of the volcano/earthquake and the RE location of the seismic recording stations people analyze the structure of the earth's core.  The problems these bring up for a flat plane are significant.  Below are a few articles about the RE core analysis.  I can't resolve this information with either UA or infinite plane, maybe someone else has some thoughts.

https://www.e-education.psu.edu/earth520/content/l2_p25.html
https://sciencing.com/gutenberg-discontinuity-8747365.html
https://sciencing.com/do-scientists-structure-earths-interior-8695198.html
http://www.columbia.edu/~vjd1/earth_int.htm
https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/1998/12/981211083655.htm
https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2018/06/180627160232.htm

I love this site, it's a fantastic collection of evidence of a spherical earth:
Flight times
Full moon
Horizon eye level drops
Sinking ship effect

#### TomInAustin

• 742
• Round Duh
##### Re: The Flat Earth FAQ on Gravity is completely wrong
« Reply #70 on: July 12, 2018, 05:14:42 PM »
In the UA model, how do you account for falling objects falling at different speeds based on mass and drag?  It seems to me that if the ground was racing up to meet them mass/drag would be irrelevant.

The same reason as described in RET/Gravity.  why wouldnt air/drag affect an object?  both the air, ground and object all have an initial velocity moving upward.  so of course the object coming back down would see the same effects.  if you did the same test in a vacuum then yes, the results will be same, which is obvious in either RET or UA

lets argue about UA as described by FET, not someone's personal opinion about what they think UA describes.

Is the ground pushing the air up or is the air also being pushed by UA?

everything is moving up together as one, similar to RET with the spinning globe and air moving with it.

That is not an answer.  Let me try again.  Is UA pushing the air up or is the ground pushing the air up?  "I don't know" is an acceptable answer.

Air, ground, objects would not be directly accelerated by UA.  They would be indirectly accelerated.  Imagine a basin of some sort that the earth sits in, this basin would be pushed upwards and everything on top of it is pushed against it.  If air, ground, objects were directly accelerated they would not fall to the ground when dropped.

This basin would need to be quite deep.  People have drilled more than 4 miles deep without finding any bottom.

That is what I was looking for but Round Eyes can't seem to give straight answers.  It was not a hard question.  The next obvious question if the ground is pushing the air up, why does in not flow over the edge.  This can be very easily demonstrated.

#### Round Eyes

• 457
##### Re: The Flat Earth FAQ on Gravity is completely wrong
« Reply #71 on: July 13, 2018, 12:20:29 PM »
That is what I was looking for but Round Eyes can't seem to give straight answers.  It was not a hard question.  The next obvious question if the ground is pushing the air up, why does in not flow over the edge.  This can be very easily demonstrated.

you are asking a question that is already common knowledge with UA.  Its pretty clear that it states there is a force being applied to the earth to push it upward.  how do you apply a force to air as well?  sorry i didnt understand your question, i really didnt think you were asking if the force is applied to the air.  of course its applied to the solid structure of earth and everything goes up with.  why on earth would air be pushed up and over an edge?

easily demonstrated?? how?
Quote from: SiDawg
Planes fall out of the sky all the time

#### AllAroundTheWorld

• 1838
##### Re: The Flat Earth FAQ on Gravity is completely wrong
« Reply #72 on: July 13, 2018, 12:24:19 PM »
That is what I was looking for but Round Eyes can't seem to give straight answers.  It was not a hard question.  The next obvious question if the ground is pushing the air up, why does in not flow over the edge.  This can be very easily demonstrated.

you are asking a question that is already common knowledge with UA.  Its pretty clear that it states there is a force being applied to the earth to push it upward.  how do you apply a force to air as well?  sorry i didnt understand your question, i really didnt think you were asking if the force is applied to the air.  of course its applied to the solid structure of earth and everything goes up with.  why on earth would air be pushed up and over an edge?

easily demonstrated?? how?

Nothing needs to be pushing the earth upwards for the atmosphere to leak over the edge. Gas naturally flows from high pressure to low.
If you want a flat earth to have an atmosphere then you're going to need a dome to keep it in, which I know some FE models have.
If you are making your claim without evidence then we can discard it without evidence.

#### TomInAustin

• 742
• Round Duh
##### Re: The Flat Earth FAQ on Gravity is completely wrong
« Reply #73 on: July 13, 2018, 02:35:56 PM »
That is what I was looking for but Round Eyes can't seem to give straight answers.  It was not a hard question.  The next obvious question if the ground is pushing the air up, why does in not flow over the edge.  This can be very easily demonstrated.

you are asking a question that is already common knowledge with UA.  Its pretty clear that it states there is a force being applied to the earth to push it upward.  how do you apply a force to air as well?

Its handled quite well in RE with gravity, it's why lighter gases rise and heavier gases sink.  Buy some dry ice and you can witness this for yourself.   How to apply force to air.  How about a fan, or a plane (not an airplane) moving through it?  Get a cutting board and move it through the air.   Hang it out the window of a moving car.  Force applied to air.  Simple stuff.

Quote
sorry i didnt understand your question, i really didnt think you were asking if the force is applied to the air.  of course its applied to the solid structure of earth and everything goes up with.  why on earth would air be pushed up and over an edge?

Why does everything go up with it?  Maybe a force is being applied to air?

Quote
easily demonstrated?? how?

It's called fluid dynamics.    Again, try the dry ice, take the cutting board you already have out, put a cup of water and dry ice on it, move the board up and see what happens to the vapor that is an analog for air.   Does it move straight up or does it roll over the edge?  You can see this and it fits the model of observable results.

On that note, please explain why lighter gases rise and heavier ones sink under UA?  What mechanism allows helium to outrun the acceleration while CO2 is pulled down?  Gravity explains that quite well.
« Last Edit: July 13, 2018, 03:51:01 PM by TomInAustin »

#### Round Eyes

• 457
##### Re: The Flat Earth FAQ on Gravity is completely wrong
« Reply #74 on: July 13, 2018, 04:27:46 PM »

It's called fluid dynamics.    Again, try the dry ice, take the cutting board you already have out, put a cup of water and dry ice on it, move the board up and see what happens to the vapor that is an analog for air.   Does it move straight up or does it roll over the edge?  You can see this and it fits the model of observable results.

thats a pretty horrible way to think about things.  based on the way you think, then i should just post the funny youtube video of the guys pouring water on a bowling ball.  "look all the water flys off the ball!  globe earth is fake!"  geez, come on

now take a similar comparison, one more comprable.  the air inside of an airplane moving 350 mph.  is all the air compressed to the back of the plane?  is the jet engine directly applying force to the air?  no.  its all moving the same speed as the plane itself, the object in contact with air is applying a force/pressure on the air and its acting accoringly.

this is a pretty poor attempt to disprove UA..and you think its a "gotcha question" which i knew you were getting too and for some reason you said you werent.  lets not lie about our intentions here, its fine to question FET and fight against it, just dont say you're not

there are some other major flaws in UA theory that you havent even hit on.  I dont prescribe to UA i am just trying to answer questions on it.
Quote from: SiDawg
Planes fall out of the sky all the time

#### MCToon

• 148
##### Re: The Flat Earth FAQ on Gravity is completely wrong
« Reply #75 on: July 13, 2018, 05:00:23 PM »

It's called fluid dynamics.    Again, try the dry ice, take the cutting board you already have out, put a cup of water and dry ice on it, move the board up and see what happens to the vapor that is an analog for air.   Does it move straight up or does it roll over the edge?  You can see this and it fits the model of observable results.

thats a pretty horrible way to think about things.  based on the way you think, then i should just post the funny youtube video of the guys pouring water on a bowling ball.  "look all the water flys off the ball!  globe earth is fake!"  geez, come on

now take a similar comparison, one more comprable.  the air inside of an airplane moving 350 mph.  is all the air compressed to the back of the plane?  is the jet engine directly applying force to the air?  no.  its all moving the same speed as the plane itself, the object in contact with air is applying a force/pressure on the air and its acting accoringly.

this is a pretty poor attempt to disprove UA..and you think its a "gotcha question" which i knew you were getting too and for some reason you said you werent.  lets not lie about our intentions here, its fine to question FET and fight against it, just dont say you're not

there are some other major flaws in UA theory that you havent even hit on.  I dont prescribe to UA i am just trying to answer questions on it.

TomInAustin, FE often includes either a wall or dome to hold in the air.  Acceleration is indistinguishable from gravity so air is held down and the wall or dome would hold it in.

Round Eyes, good analogy about air in an airplane.  This works well when the plane is traveling at a mostly constant speed.  Denser gasses rise and less dense gasses sink.  When the plane is taking off, however, it's accelerating so denser gasses get pushed back and less dense gasses get pushed forward.  If you've been in a car with a helium balloon you get to experience the strange phenomenon where the balloon rushed to the front when you accelerate.

I agree, this line of questioning doesn't seem to have a fruitful end to poke a hole in UA.  TomInAustin, could you help us out and skip forward a bit?  Do you have something in mind at the end of this questioning?

Note: I don't ascribe to UA either.  I see the earth being a large mass attracting things to it, I call this gravity.  This is an interesting thought experiment, though.
I love this site, it's a fantastic collection of evidence of a spherical earth:
Flight times
Full moon
Horizon eye level drops
Sinking ship effect

#### TomInAustin

• 742
• Round Duh
##### Re: The Flat Earth FAQ on Gravity is completely wrong
« Reply #76 on: July 13, 2018, 05:18:02 PM »

It's called fluid dynamics.    Again, try the dry ice, take the cutting board you already have out, put a cup of water and dry ice on it, move the board up and see what happens to the vapor that is an analog for air.   Does it move straight up or does it roll over the edge?  You can see this and it fits the model of observable results.

thats a pretty horrible way to think about things.  based on the way you think, then i should just post the funny youtube video of the guys pouring water on a bowling ball.  "look all the water flys off the ball!  globe earth is fake!"  geez, come on

now take a similar comparison, one more comprable.  the air inside of an airplane moving 350 mph.  is all the air compressed to the back of the plane?  is the jet engine directly applying force to the air?  no.  its all moving the same speed as the plane itself, the object in contact with air is applying a force/pressure on the air and its acting accoringly.

this is a pretty poor attempt to disprove UA..and you think its a "gotcha question" which i knew you were getting too and for some reason you said you werent.  lets not lie about our intentions here, its fine to question FET and fight against it, just dont say you're not

there are some other major flaws in UA theory that you havent even hit on.  I dont prescribe to UA i am just trying to answer questions on it.

Don't flatter yourself.  These are not gotcha questions. And your aircraft analogy does not work as the closed system contains the air just as gravity creates a closed system around the globe.   What closes the system in FE.  A dome, a wall, what?   If you put air in over a moving surface you will be applying force and yes, compressing the air.  Basic science.

My intentions are the same as they have always been.  Like Curious Squirrel said, this is nothing more than a thought experiment.    I just like to see what makes people believe what they do and what sort of proof they have.

I noticed you dodged all the rest.   Why do lighter gases outrun the UA by rising?

#### TomInAustin

• 742
• Round Duh
##### Re: The Flat Earth FAQ on Gravity is completely wrong
« Reply #77 on: July 13, 2018, 05:24:13 PM »

TomInAustin, FE often includes either a wall or dome to hold in the air.  Acceleration is indistinguishable from gravity so air is held down and the wall or dome would hold it in.

Yes I am familiar with the concepts.    Dome, wall, etc.

Quote
Round Eyes, good analogy about air in an airplane.  This works well when the plane is traveling at a mostly constant speed.  Denser gasses rise and less dense gasses sink.  When the plane is taking off, however, it's accelerating so denser gasses get pushed back and less dense gasses get pushed forward.  If you've been in a car with a helium balloon you get to experience the strange phenomenon where the balloon rushed to the front when you accelerate.

Good point but only if the gas is also accelerating.  Again it's in a closed system.

Quote
I agree, this line of questioning doesn't seem to have a fruitful end to poke a hole in UA.  TomInAustin, could you help us out and skip forward a bit?  Do you have something in mind at the end of this questioning?

What would you consider fruitful questions?  Sunrise, spotlight sun, ice wall, distance from New York to Paris?  These have been beaten to death but I have not seen these questions asked.  Certainly not is the air being pushed by UA?  Or why does a light gas rise in UA?  That makes zero sense unless there is a dome.

#### Round Eyes

• 457
##### Re: The Flat Earth FAQ on Gravity is completely wrong
« Reply #78 on: July 13, 2018, 08:16:58 PM »
Hello, complete crazy people!  So, I was just wondering how on (round) Earth anyone can believe what you do.

great post, thanks for contributing
Quote from: SiDawg
Planes fall out of the sky all the time

#### Round Eyes

• 457
##### Re: The Flat Earth FAQ on Gravity is completely wrong
« Reply #79 on: July 13, 2018, 08:18:42 PM »

TomInAustin, FE often includes either a wall or dome to hold in the air.  Acceleration is indistinguishable from gravity so air is held down and the wall or dome would hold it in.

Yes I am familiar with the concepts.    Dome, wall, etc.

Quote
Round Eyes, good analogy about air in an airplane.  This works well when the plane is traveling at a mostly constant speed.  Denser gasses rise and less dense gasses sink.  When the plane is taking off, however, it's accelerating so denser gasses get pushed back and less dense gasses get pushed forward.  If you've been in a car with a helium balloon you get to experience the strange phenomenon where the balloon rushed to the front when you accelerate.

Good point but only if the gas is also accelerating.  Again it's in a closed system.

Quote
I agree, this line of questioning doesn't seem to have a fruitful end to poke a hole in UA.  TomInAustin, could you help us out and skip forward a bit?  Do you have something in mind at the end of this questioning?

What would you consider fruitful questions?  Sunrise, spotlight sun, ice wall, distance from New York to Paris?  These have been beaten to death but I have not seen these questions asked.  Certainly not is the air being pushed by UA?  Or why does a light gas rise in UA?  That makes zero sense unless there is a dome.

all over the place here.  why wouldnt earth be a closed system?  we are not talking about a sudden acceleration that just started.  that would cause air to "swoosh" for lack of a better term.  but we are talking about an acceleration over a very long period of time.  why wouldnt the air equalize?
Quote from: SiDawg
Planes fall out of the sky all the time