#### Astronomer

• 12
##### Re: On The Subject of Gravity
« Reply #20 on: July 27, 2019, 07:12:19 PM »
Let us not forget that variations measured in the earth’s gravitational field utterly debunks UA.

Debatable. I have three pages on this:

https://wiki.tfes.org/Variations_in_Gravity
https://wiki.tfes.org/Weight_Variation_by_Latitude
https://wiki.tfes.org/Gravimetry

Borderline Gish Gallop.

First link doesn't relate to the topic at all.

As far as your second link. Are you trying to tell me air pressure affects the weight of a dense substance as much as .5%?
Water has a density of roughly 1000kg/m cubed.
Air has a density roughly, at sea level, of 1.2kg/m cubed.
Using our equations, this means that a human with a density roughly equivalent to water, would weigh around .12% more in a vacuum than in the atmosphere. So for a 200lb person, a difference of 1/4 pound. That's the difference from a vacuum to our atmosphere, NOT the natural variations in atmosphere due to temperature of which your speak.
A complete vacuum.
This difference is even higher when considering a metal weight, take steel (8,000kg/m3) or copper (9,000kg/m3) or even gold (19,000kg/m3). It's more likely when performing this experiment you would use a metal such as this. Easier to remain consistent.
Steel in a vacuum would weigh 1/1000th more than it would in the atmosphere. For a 200lb weight of steel, a difference of .03 lbs. Again, in a VACUUM.

This explanation does NOT account for the known ~.5% variations in weight for a given mass ANYWHERE on the earth. At any altitude, at any latitude.
This is an experiment anyone with the ability to purchase plane tickets or take a long, long drive can do.

#### Tom Bishop

• Zetetic Council Member
• 6458
• Flat Earth Believer
##### Re: On The Subject of Gravity
« Reply #21 on: July 27, 2019, 09:14:22 PM »
What equations? Show, using weight of atmosphere, humidity, air viscosity, temperature, and all other elements in the environment which scale authorities say highly affects scales, that it does not affect a scale by a fraction of one percent.
« Last Edit: July 27, 2019, 09:34:31 PM by Tom Bishop »

#### markjo

• Purgatory
• 3756
• Zetetic Council runner-up
##### Re: On The Subject of Gravity
« Reply #22 on: July 27, 2019, 11:39:11 PM »
What equations? Show, using weight of atmosphere, humidity, air viscosity, temperature, and all other elements in the environment which scale authorities say highly affects scales, that it does not affect a scale by a fraction of one percent.
Since it's your claim that the atmosphere can affect weight, isn't it your responsibility to support that claim with evidence?
Abandon hope all ye who press enter here.

Science is what happens when preconception meets verification.

If you can't demonstrate it, then you shouldn't believe it.

#### Tom Bishop

• Zetetic Council Member
• 6458
• Flat Earth Believer
##### Re: On The Subject of Gravity
« Reply #23 on: July 28, 2019, 12:34:02 AM »
What equations? Show, using weight of atmosphere, humidity, air viscosity, temperature, and all other elements in the environment which scale authorities say highly affects scales, that it does not affect a scale by a fraction of one percent.
Since it's your claim that the atmosphere can affect weight, isn't it your responsibility to support that claim with evidence?

There are several quotes in the link from scale authorities stating that it does highly affect scales.

It's your cited experiment that you guys put forward, which you think "disproves UA". The experiment needs to be controlled against other factors, which it is not. It is your responsibility to present proper experiments.
« Last Edit: July 28, 2019, 05:48:31 AM by Tom Bishop »

#### markjo

• Purgatory
• 3756
• Zetetic Council runner-up
##### Re: On The Subject of Gravity
« Reply #24 on: July 28, 2019, 01:52:52 AM »
There are several quotes in the link from scale authorities stating that it does highly affect scales.
Do any of those quotes quantify the effect on the scales?
Abandon hope all ye who press enter here.

Science is what happens when preconception meets verification.

If you can't demonstrate it, then you shouldn't believe it.

#### Zonk

• 59
##### Re: On The Subject of Gravity
« Reply #25 on: July 28, 2019, 07:40:04 PM »
If you accelerated 5000 yrs at 32.17 ft/sec^2 how close would you be to c?

Not close at all.  You would be over 5000 times faster.

#### Pete Svarrior

• e
• Planar Moderator
• 9679
• (>^_^)> it's propaganda time (◕‿◕✿)
##### Re: On The Subject of Gravity
« Reply #26 on: July 28, 2019, 09:21:49 PM »
Not close at all.  You would be over 5000 times faster.
That's some nice classical mechanics you've got going here. You may want to do some reading on why that's not how anything works.

*mic stays stationary and earth accelerates upwards towards it*

#### Zonk

• 59
##### Re: On The Subject of Gravity
« Reply #27 on: July 28, 2019, 10:11:42 PM »
Not close at all.  You would be over 5000 times faster.
That's some nice classical mechanics you've got going here. You may want to do some reading on why that's not how anything works.

I understand it's not possible to exceed the speed of light.  That's why it's not possible to accelerate forever.  As v approaches c, mass approaches infinity, and thus it takes an infinite amount of energy to continue accelerating.  Thus, it's impossible for the disc earth to accelerate at g for 1 year, let alone billions.

#### Pete Svarrior

• e
• Planar Moderator
• 9679
• (>^_^)> it's propaganda time (◕‿◕✿)
##### Re: On The Subject of Gravity
« Reply #28 on: July 28, 2019, 10:37:28 PM »
As v approaches c
In what frame of reference do you believe v would approach c?

*mic stays stationary and earth accelerates upwards towards it*

#### Zonk

• 59
##### Re: On The Subject of Gravity
« Reply #29 on: July 28, 2019, 10:47:52 PM »
As v approaches c
In what frame of reference do you believe v would approach c?

The frame of reference of the energy source that is propelling the ever accelerating earth

#### Zonk

• 59
##### Re: On The Subject of Gravity
« Reply #30 on: July 28, 2019, 11:32:48 PM »
Let's set relativity aside for a moment.  There's nothing in relativity preventing an object from traveling at .9c.  So let's say the earth accelerated to .9c in October of year one of creation, and has been accelerating ever since, but somehow not surpassing .9c.  When I was a kid in the early 70's, I was a bit into astronomy.  I had a basic telescope, and I knew the names and locations of the common stars.  Back then, the brightest star was Sirius A. Still is.  Back then Sirius A was about 9 light years away.  Still is.  If earth were hurtling through the cosmos at .9c, Sirius could not be the same distance and brightness it was 45 years ago.  It should be well in our rear view mirror by now.  Depending on whether we were heading directly towards it, directly away, or somewhere in-between, it should be anywhere between 30 and 50 LY away, and considerably dimmer today.  Yet it is not.

Most of the stars, including Sirius were known to the ancients.  The ancient Egyptians knew about Orion, and provide us with plenty of drawings of the constellation from 4,000 years ago.  It is roughly the same size and shape then as it is today.  Which is clearly impossible on an earth traveling at .9c, or even .5c.  The brightest star in Orion is Betelgeuse.  It is 640 LY away today.  Meaning that 4,000 years ago, it had to be 4240 LY away, and likely not visible to the naked eye.

#### markjo

• Purgatory
• 3756
• Zetetic Council runner-up
##### Re: On The Subject of Gravity
« Reply #31 on: July 29, 2019, 01:08:09 AM »
As v approaches c
In what frame of reference do you believe v would approach c?
In what frame of reference is the FE accelerating?
Abandon hope all ye who press enter here.

Science is what happens when preconception meets verification.

If you can't demonstrate it, then you shouldn't believe it.

#### abdelhakim

• 1
##### Re: On The Subject of Gravity
« Reply #32 on: July 29, 2019, 05:26:55 AM »
this topic is important for flat earther ..because the globe hoax is build upon the gravity hoax if we can destroy the gravity hoax then its over ... and i have question for people who think its globe : why gravity can pull a plume a paper and dust ..but cannot pull a clouds full of heavy water ? dont say coz its vapor etc ...what about a ballon full of passenger ?    ...here you can think garvity is a hoax .......and when things acceleratat the same speed doesnt mean there is gravity ..maybe there is another explanation better in flat earth .......earth is flat

#### Zonk

• 59
##### Re: On The Subject of Gravity
« Reply #33 on: July 29, 2019, 01:07:58 PM »
Quote
why gravity can pull a plume a paper and dust ..but cannot pull a clouds full of heavy water ?

Gravity does exert a force on water in clouds.  They are held aloft, when they are aloft (remember, that water frequently falls to the ground.  That is called rain.) by rising air currents which is caused by heat reflection off of the earth's surface.  If the rising air current balance the force of gravity, the cloud remains level.  Just like a fan will blow dust into the air.  That doesn't mean gravity is not there.  Just that the force of the fan is greater.

#### Pete Svarrior

• e
• Planar Moderator
• 9679
• (>^_^)> it's propaganda time (◕‿◕✿)
##### Re: On The Subject of Gravity
« Reply #34 on: July 29, 2019, 01:35:50 PM »
In what frame of reference is the FE accelerating?
It is accelerating relative to an observer positioned a small distance above the Earth, and thus unaffected by Dark Energy.

*mic stays stationary and earth accelerates upwards towards it*

#### markjo

• Purgatory
• 3756
• Zetetic Council runner-up
##### Re: On The Subject of Gravity
« Reply #35 on: July 29, 2019, 01:52:03 PM »
In what frame of reference is the FE accelerating?
It is accelerating relative to an observer positioned a small distance above the Earth, and thus unaffected by Dark Energy.
Okay, then please use that frame of reference to calculate how fast the flat earth would be traveling after 5000 years of accelerating upwards at a rate of 9.8m/s2.
Abandon hope all ye who press enter here.

Science is what happens when preconception meets verification.

If you can't demonstrate it, then you shouldn't believe it.

#### Zonk

• 59
##### Re: On The Subject of Gravity
« Reply #36 on: July 29, 2019, 01:55:57 PM »
In what frame of reference is the FE accelerating?
It is accelerating relative to an observer positioned a small distance above the Earth, and thus unaffected by Dark Energy.
Okay, then please use that frame of reference to calculate how fast the flat earth would be traveling after 5000 years of accelerating upwards at a rate of 9.8m/s2.

Why only 5,000?  Are flat earthers also Young Earth Creationists?

#### markjo

• Purgatory
• 3756
• Zetetic Council runner-up
##### Re: On The Subject of Gravity
« Reply #37 on: July 29, 2019, 02:07:45 PM »
In what frame of reference is the FE accelerating?
It is accelerating relative to an observer positioned a small distance above the Earth, and thus unaffected by Dark Energy.
Okay, then please use that frame of reference to calculate how fast the flat earth would be traveling after 5000 years of accelerating upwards at a rate of 9.8m/s2.

Why only 5,000?  Are flat earthers also Young Earth Creationists?
Why not 5000?  Pretty much any arbitrary time span greater than about 10 years of acceleration at 1g should produce a value pretty close to c.  Since a lot of RE'ers don't understand the finer points of acceleration and frames of reference under special relativity, I'm just trying to get Pete (or anyone else willing) to teach us how to pick an appropriate frame of reference for the calculation and (hopefully) move the discussion along.
Abandon hope all ye who press enter here.

Science is what happens when preconception meets verification.

If you can't demonstrate it, then you shouldn't believe it.

#### Zonk

• 59
##### Re: On The Subject of Gravity
« Reply #38 on: July 29, 2019, 02:17:16 PM »
Quote
Pretty much any arbitrary time span greater than about 10 years of acceleration at 1g should produce a value pretty close to c.

More like 10 months.

• 26
##### Re: On The Subject of Gravity
« Reply #39 on: July 29, 2019, 04:44:05 PM »
Not close at all.  You would be over 5000 times faster.
That's some nice classical mechanics you've got going here. You may want to do some reading on why that's not how anything works.

I understand it's not possible to exceed the speed of light.  That's why it's not possible to accelerate forever.  As v approaches c, mass approaches infinity, and thus it takes an infinite amount of energy to continue accelerating.  Thus, it's impossible for the disc earth to accelerate at g for 1 year, let alone billions.

It's distressing that I'm going to defend this one aspect of FE, but it's absolutely possible to accelerate forever. To an outside frame of reference, you'll never reach C, and to you comparing your speed with those outside of your frame of reference, they'll never receded at C; but within your own frame of reference, you can continuously accelerate and you'll feel the acceleration. But you'll also experience time dilation (which you won't notice), which is why it'll still feel like you're accelerating just like you ever were.

But an accelerating flat Earth is ruled out by all the other observations such as lower gravity on mountains and poles.