*

Offline RonJ

  • *
  • Posts: 357
  • ACTA NON VERBA
    • View Profile
Re: Flat Earth Theory Unification Project - The Universal Accelerator
« Reply #160 on: December 02, 2018, 06:50:28 PM »
My quandary was the aspect of selective gravitation.  A heavenly body can have a gravitational effect on the earth's oceans, but does that also mean that the earth's oceans have the same attraction to the heavenly bodies?  Then if the earth's oceans have a gravitational effect on a heavenly body why doesn't it have a similar effect on the earth itself?  Then why doesn't the earth itself have a gravitational effect on everything else?  The FET model has one mass attracting another mass selectively.  What is the differences in those masses?  What is the property of the mass of the ocean's water that allows it to be attracted to the heavenly bodies but not to anything else? 
For FE no explanation is possible, for RE no explanation is necessary.

*

Online markjo

  • *
  • Posts: 3038
  • Zetetic Council runner-up
    • View Profile
Re: Flat Earth Theory Unification Project - The Universal Accelerator
« Reply #161 on: December 02, 2018, 10:57:52 PM »
My quandary was the aspect of selective gravitation.  A heavenly body can have a gravitational effect on the earth's oceans, but does that also mean that the earth's oceans have the same attraction to the heavenly bodies?
I've always wondered why the heavenly bodies don't have a gravitational effect on each other.  If the sun an moon can affect the tides on earth, then why don't they affect the stars which are ostensibly much closer?  Tom likes to trot out 3 body simulations with bodies dancing around each other.  Why don't we see that sort of interaction between the sun and moon every month as they approach each other during the new moon?
Abandon hope all ye who press enter here.

*

Offline RonJ

  • *
  • Posts: 357
  • ACTA NON VERBA
    • View Profile
Re: Flat Earth Theory Unification Project - The Universal Accelerator
« Reply #162 on: December 03, 2018, 04:39:17 AM »
It looks like there's only one kind of mass in the universe.  There is an equivalence between inertial mass and the gravitational influence that's inherent in any mass.  Since water has inertial mass then it also has a gravitational influence (gravitational mass)  that's even acknowledged by this web site in the wiki since the tides are the gravitational influence between the water and the heavenly bodies.  It has been said on the wiki that there is a gravitational force on the earth but in a greatly diminished form.  I've not seen any equations for that 'greatly diminished' force.  That must mean that the force is really just unknown.  There also has been no explanation for how the heavenly bodies can 'selectively' exert a gravitational force on the earth's water and not on anything else.  It sure looks to me that the whole thing is just made up.  There's no good descriptions of how things work and no equations of force that describes the selectivity of the gravitational force.   
For FE no explanation is possible, for RE no explanation is necessary.

*

Offline RonJ

  • *
  • Posts: 357
  • ACTA NON VERBA
    • View Profile
Re: Flat Earth Theory Unification Project - The Universal Accelerator
« Reply #163 on: December 05, 2018, 05:19:42 AM »
This is a quote from the Wiki:
Think about it: If, through the laws of inertia, a heavier mass has greater resistance to being moved, why should gravity accelerate both an elephant and a book at the same rate towards the earth?

Take a look a the following video:
Basically what this is saying is that since there is an inertial mass and gravitational mass equivalence the book and elephant will always fall at the same rate.  The equations are easy to see and I don't like to 'reinvent the wheel' so I just gave a link to the video.  The bottom line is:  Acceleration is independent of the mass according to the equations so it doesn't matter what the mass happens to be, it will always fall at the same rate.

Another quote from the Wiki:
To the rationalist the above experiments might appear to be futile, but to the empiricist, the fact that one mechanism is observed and not others is grave. While the proposed mechanisms of "graviton puller particles" and "bending space" versions of gravity in Quantum Mechanics and General Relativity, which Scientific American describes as 'whooping coincidence', provide equivalent, if absurd, explanations to the results of the above experiments, those things are completely undiscovered and unobserved, and so, are decidedly less empirical

There is no doubt that some of the proofs of gravity are hard to measure and are subtle.  That alone does not make them less valid.  Imagine yourself alone in a swimming pool.  Focus your attention very, very intently on the level of the pool.  Now empty your bladder into the pool.  You know for an absolute fact that the level of the pool has just risen.  Can you measure it?  You would need very sensitive instruments to get a good reading.  There would be plenty of noise.  But if you did the experiment 1000 times and got a average reading wouldn't it give you a pretty good idea of the volume of your bladder? 

That's the problem faced by many scientists trying to measure gravity under certain conditions.  The theory matches the experimental evidence so the experiments are done many, many times.  You eventually end up with an average of the readings and you use that as a good indication that your theory is correct.  Why should that be a problem?
For FE no explanation is possible, for RE no explanation is necessary.