*

Offline kmack

  • *
  • Posts: 6
  • beliefs are meant to be challenged, not protected
    • View Profile
TL;DR: the "Stars" wiki page and the "Universal Acceleration" wiki page seem to contradict eachother on the presence/absence of gravity. If gravity does affect the things "orbiting" earth, why does the earth itself (supposedly much larger than any other objects in the flat earth model) not succumb to gravity and collapse into a sphere? If the earth is not affected by gravity and there is, in fact, no such thing, why do other, (supposedly) smaller things orbit around each other?

I am not a flat-earther, but I was interested in how believers in the flat earth model explained constellations and how they vary hemispherically (yes, I did find the wiki page on "shifting constellations"; this is not a question about how constellations work). I know how wildly the details of flat earth theory can differ depending on who you ask, so I figured that if I wanted a theory accepted by at least more than one person, I'd find a source that came from the aggregated contributions of multiple people. I knew that tfes.org is relatively active, so I visited the wiki and checked out the page on stars: https://web.archive.org/web/20190506203543/https://wiki.tfes.org/Stars (link preserved via wayback machine because wikis can be edited).

The page itself is well thought-out, I will give whoever wrote it that, but it is based entirely on the assumption that gravity exists and affects objects on a large scale.
Quote
Each star in a cluster is attracted to one another through gravitational vectors. Formation is created through gravitational capture - at least three objects are actually required, as conservation of energy rules out a single gravitating body capturing another.
Emphasis mine.

After reading, I wondered if the "Stars" page was not the multi-contributor theory I had been curious about, and perhaps was instead just the fleshed out theory of one individual, because the commonly accepted flat earth model rejects the existence of gravity (at least as it pertains to Earth), as shown by the wiki page on universal acceleration: https://web.archive.org/web/20190506210026/https://wiki.tfes.org/Universal_Acceleration
Quote
Universal Acceleration (UA) is a theory of gravity in the Flat Earth Model. UA asserts that the Earth is accelerating 'upward' at a constant rate of 9.8m/s^2.

This produces the effect commonly referred to as "gravity".

The traditional theory of gravitation (e.g. Newton's Law of Universal Gravitation, General Theory of Relativity, etc) is incompatible with the Flat Earth Model because it requires a large, spherical mass pulling objects uniformly toward its center.
Emphasis mine.

Although, I noticed that the definition of gravity refuted here does not specifically mention gravity as it relates to non-Earth objects (perhaps because there is no widely accepted theory about the wider "universe" of flat earth theory?). A quick google gave a convenient definition of gravity that does include how it pertains to things that are not Earth:
Quote
grav·i·ty
/ˈɡravədē/
noun
1. the force that attracts a body toward the center of the earth, or toward any other physical body having mass.

So, my questions are:
Why would gravity apply to objects like the stars orbiting the earth, but not the earth itself? Why does the earth have any sort of special exception from a force that governs the behaviour of many other things orbiting around it? Unless the Earth is "special" or "different" in some way, would it not experience the same attraction towards a center of gravity (which would eventually lead to collapse into a sphere) that the stars do towards the supposed central point above earth they orbit?

I don't expect answers using high-level physics to mathematically prove the flat earth model--I unfortunately would probably not be able to understand them even if someone did choose to do such a thing, because I have not yet finished high school and have a limited understanding of mathematical processes that fall outside of algebra. Also, any answers including explanations that rely on the claim that god(s) exist(s) will likely fail at convincing me, as I have yet to encounter proof of god(s) and thus do not believe in them.

Thanks in advance.

*

Offline Tom Bishop

  • Zetetic Council Member
  • **
  • Posts: 6305
  • Flat Earth Believer
    • View Profile
At some point we are probably going to delete that stars page and replace it with something better. Feel free to make any suggestions.

The original idea behind this subject is that there is a difference between gravity and gravitation. Gravity is the universal attraction of mass and "gravitation" merely means apparent attraction. It is an action word. Two lovers "gravitate" towards each other. Every Wednesday evening Sam the mailman "gravitates" towards the Asian buffet. Gravitation can be caused by electromagnetic causes, or something entirely unknown. It is merely describing action.

It has been thought that some form of gravitation may exist in the heavens, but that it is not "Gravity," the universal attraction of mass.
« Last Edit: May 07, 2019, 12:01:09 AM by Tom Bishop »

*

Offline kmack

  • *
  • Posts: 6
  • beliefs are meant to be challenged, not protected
    • View Profile
Quote
The original idea behind this subject is that there is a difference between gravity and gravitation. Gravity is the universal attraction of mass and "gravitation" merely means apparent attraction. It is an action word. Two lovers "gravitate" towards each other. Every Wednesday evening Sam the mailman "gravitates" towards the Asian buffet. Gravitation can be caused by electromagnetic causes, or something entirely unknown. It is merely describing action.
Oh, I see. I did not make that distinction. I do not have any suggestions aside from perhaps making the distinction between "gravity" and "gravitation" more apparent, perhaps giving that discussion its own place on the FAQ if it is not there already.

I think we need to let aside personal euforia and go a little bit more academic and scientific on this:

Ending in "-tion" is used to form nouns meaning "the action of (a verb)" or "the result of (a verb)". Words ending in this suffix are almost always derived from a similar Latin word.   So, "gravitation", is the action of "gravity" upon any mass.

https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/-tion

Merrian-Webster explains that "gravitate" is to move under the influence of "gravitation".
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/gravitate

There is no definition anywhere about gravitation being "apparent attraction by gravity", also nothing defined anywhere that it is related to electromagnetic causes.

Even, there is a lot to study and learn to do about gravity, it is an effect of a mass sliding to a less dense space, means "space deformation" and CAN be caused by any mass, as far as we know, doesn't mean the space deformation cannot be caused otherwise.

Also, Merrian-Webster definition of "gravitation"
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/gravitation

Oxford-dictionary, gravitation:
https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/gravitation


*

Offline kmack

  • *
  • Posts: 6
  • beliefs are meant to be challenged, not protected
    • View Profile
Quote
Ending in "-tion" is used to form nouns meaning "the action of (a verb)" or "the result of (a verb)". Words ending in this suffix are almost always derived from a similar Latin word.   So, "gravitation", is the action of "gravity" upon any mass.
This is definitely the definition I agree with, hence my confusion, but arguing over semantics isn't going to convince anybody that they're wrong and I'm right. If they wish to explain how and why the stars "move" across the sky and other such things, flat-earthers will need to have their own word that is separate from gravity--because gravity doesn't exist, of course.

So, if the flat earth model needs to involve forces that attract mass to mass, there will be a word created for that force. I just wish there was more effort put into demonstrating a distinct difference between the FE definition of gravity vs whatever other word they choose ("gravitation", in this case), so as to avoid confusion. Hence the suggestion of giving that discussion its own place on the FAQ.

Personally, I do not see the difference in how this "gravitation" works differently from gravity, aside from the fact that Earth has some sort of special exemption from its effects, but now at least I understand that the FE community sees a difference.

I believe that everyone is entitled to their own opinion not matter how ridiculous it sounds. There is no actual proof the the world is flat, round, or square. We will never really know until one of us goes into space to truly see weather or not the earth is any of the things I listed. Opinions are personal to anyone and I don't believe in judging unless there is concrete evidence stating otherwise.
KiwiQueen

I believe that everyone is entitled to their own opinion not matter how ridiculous it sounds. There is no actual proof the the world is flat, round, or square. We will never really know until one of us goes into space to truly see weather or not the earth is any of the things I listed. Opinions are personal to anyone and I don't believe in judging unless there is concrete evidence stating otherwise.
Maps, path of the sun, satellite operation, WGS84 model, measured distances all seem to prove the shape of the earth. Who is 'us'?
« Last Edit: May 12, 2019, 02:38:42 AM by inquisitive »