#### somerled

• 319
##### Re: FE Gravity
« Reply #40 on: November 26, 2019, 04:30:15 PM »
What explanation ? We use equations based on observation and experiment then ascribe these to a force which explains neither the how or the why , and then pretend it's something science understands .
Goes well with the fact that we can never measure the curve or find any rotation of the supposed globe .

Gravity is possibly electromagnetic effect - or UA . Neither needs a magical force .

#### ChrisTP

• 912
##### Re: FE Gravity
« Reply #41 on: November 26, 2019, 05:44:44 PM »
What explanation ? We use equations based on observation and experiment then ascribe these to a force which explains neither the how or the why , and then pretend it's something science understands .
Goes well with the fact that we can never measure the curve or find any rotation of the supposed globe .

Gravity is possibly electromagnetic effect - or UA . Neither needs a magical force .
What exactly is magically forcing the disk to accelerate relatively up forever?
Tom is wrong most of the time. Hardly big news, don't you think?

#### somerled

• 319
##### Re: FE Gravity
« Reply #42 on: November 26, 2019, 09:20:36 PM »
I don't know , personally I prefer the electromagnetic force  but I don't rule UA out because I haven't studied it enough to form an opinion . Density theory also an option.

#### ChrisTP

• 912
##### Re: FE Gravity
« Reply #43 on: November 26, 2019, 11:18:39 PM »
I don't know , personally I prefer the electromagnetic force  but I don't rule UA out because I haven't studied it enough to form an opinion . Density theory also an option.
Right, so it's pretty easy for you to call gravity magic because humans don't fully understand it but you or anyone else don't fully understand literally any alternative to gravity, so I guess you consider any flat earth explanation magic too? Right, I guess maybe someone should add to the FE wiki that UA is driven by a magical force, since no one knows what's doing it. The explanation given for gravity so far is simply descriptions observations and decent attempts to put those observations into equations so that we can manipulate objects and predict other objects movements... So far so good, even if no one knows why, we can still describe its actions.
Tom is wrong most of the time. Hardly big news, don't you think?

#### Tom Bishop

• Zetetic Council Member
• 7181
• Flat Earth Believer
##### Re: FE Gravity
« Reply #44 on: November 26, 2019, 11:42:26 PM »
Yep. The official explanation is that the surface of the earth is accelerating upwards through space-time.
"The biggest problem in astronomy is that when we look at something in the sky, we don’t know how far away it is" — Pauline Barmby, Ph.D., Professor of Astronomy

#### somerled

• 319
##### Re: FE Gravity
« Reply #45 on: November 27, 2019, 10:37:48 AM »
I don't know , personally I prefer the electromagnetic force  but I don't rule UA out because I haven't studied it enough to form an opinion . Density theory also an option.
Right, so it's pretty easy for you to call gravity magic because humans don't fully understand it but you or anyone else don't fully understand literally any alternative to gravity, so I guess you consider any flat earth explanation magic too? Right, I guess maybe someone should add to the FE wiki that UA is driven by a magical force, since no one knows what's doing it. The explanation given for gravity so far is simply descriptions observations and decent attempts to put those observations into equations so that we can manipulate objects and predict other objects movements... So far so good, even if no one knows why, we can still describe its actions.

It's easy to call gravity a magic force because we do not know the first basic thing about it - Stop the pretense that we understand it in any way. We have a set of equations describing motions - that is all , everything else is conjecture .Mainstream science has the big bang and expanding universe - could that not possibly be the force that accelerates earth in the UA theory ?

#### pricelesspearl

• 181
##### Re: FE Gravity
« Reply #46 on: November 27, 2019, 04:13:20 PM »

Quote
Yep. The official explanation is that the surface of the earth is accelerating upwards through space-time.

I sometimes wonder if and FEer even understands what GR is and what it means.  First of all, it postulates, and is dependent upon the Newtonian concept of gravity that matter “attracts” matter being correct.  It is just a proposed theory has to how/why that happens. In Einstein’s field calculations, G is the gravitational constant from Newton's law of gravitation, Guv is the metric tensor, which describes spacetime and gravitational potential and Tuv is the stress-energy tensor, which is the source of the gravitational field.  So if you want to try and use GR to support UA, you can’t do so without also accepting the Newtonian concept of gravity that matter “attracts” matter.  If GR is true, then it is also true that matter “attracts” matter.  It is, after all, a theory of gravitation.

The how or why shouldn’t be relevant to FE because no matter how or why it happens, ultimately, the fact that it does ends with a sphere earth.

#### Tom Bishop

• Zetetic Council Member
• 7181
• Flat Earth Believer
##### Re: FE Gravity
« Reply #47 on: November 27, 2019, 06:16:41 PM »

Quote
Yep. The official explanation is that the surface of the earth is accelerating upwards through space-time.

I sometimes wonder if and FEer even understands what GR is and what it means.  First of all, it postulates, and is dependent upon the Newtonian concept of gravity that matter “attracts” matter being correct.  It is just a proposed theory has to how/why that happens. In Einstein’s field calculations, G is the gravitational constant from Newton's law of gravitation, Guv is the metric tensor, which describes spacetime and gravitational potential and Tuv is the stress-energy tensor, which is the source of the gravitational field.  So if you want to try and use GR to support UA, you can’t do so without also accepting the Newtonian concept of gravity that matter “attracts” matter.  If GR is true, then it is also true that matter “attracts” matter.  It is, after all, a theory of gravitation.

The how or why shouldn’t be relevant to FE because no matter how or why it happens, ultimately, the fact that it does ends with a sphere earth.

We have some pages on the topic of the universal gravitation of mass here: https://wiki.tfes.org/General_Physics

Feel free to address them.
"The biggest problem in astronomy is that when we look at something in the sky, we don’t know how far away it is" — Pauline Barmby, Ph.D., Professor of Astronomy

#### pricelesspearl

• 181
##### Re: FE Gravity
« Reply #48 on: November 27, 2019, 10:56:30 PM »

Quote
We have some pages on the topic of the universal gravitation of mass here: https://wiki.tfes.org/General_Physics

Feel free to address them.

I don’t see anything that addresses universal gravitation of matter, just universal acceleration

#### somerled

• 319
##### Re: FE Gravity
« Reply #49 on: November 28, 2019, 10:49:40 AM »
Quote
The how or why shouldn’t be relevant to FE because no matter how or why it happens, ultimately, the fact that it does ends with a sphere earth.

It isn't relevant to flat earth which is based on experiment , experience and observation .

Imaginary scenarios are only relevant to imaginary theories and nice of you show us how imaginary GR supports imaginary Newtonian gravity . Mainstream science , fantastic.

#### pricelesspearl

• 181
##### Re: FE Gravity
« Reply #50 on: November 28, 2019, 04:18:32 PM »
Quote
The how or why shouldn’t be relevant to FE because no matter how or why it happens, ultimately, the fact that it does ends with a sphere earth.

It isn't relevant to flat earth which is based on experiment , experience and observation .

Imaginary scenarios are only relevant to imaginary theories and nice of you show us how imaginary GR supports imaginary Newtonian gravity . Mainstream science , fantastic.

I was responding to Tom who apparently thinks GR supports UA and FET (because of the Equivalence Principle as far as I can tell).

If you don’t think it does, then take it up with Tom because I don’t think it does either.

#### Pete Svarrior

• e
• Planar Moderator
• 11304
• (>^_^)> it's propaganda time (◕‿◕✿)
##### Re: FE Gravity
« Reply #51 on: November 28, 2019, 06:35:30 PM »
I was responding to Tom who apparently thinks GR supports UA and FET (because of the Equivalence Principle as far as I can tell).
For the avoidance of doubt: you're massively misrepresenting (or misunderstanding) what's been said, and you'd benefit greatly from asking more questions and making fewer assumptions.
Read the FAQ before asking your question - chances are we've already addressed it.
Follow the Flat Earth Society on Twitter and Facebook!

<Parsifal> I like looking at Chinese Wikipedia with Noto installed
<Parsifal> I don't understand any of it but the symbols look nice

#### Tom Bishop

• Zetetic Council Member
• 7181
• Flat Earth Believer
##### Re: FE Gravity
« Reply #52 on: November 29, 2019, 09:10:17 PM »
It's pretty crazy that the official explanation for gravity is that the surface of the earth is accelerating upwards through space-time. That alone shows everything else to be questionable.
"The biggest problem in astronomy is that when we look at something in the sky, we don’t know how far away it is" — Pauline Barmby, Ph.D., Professor of Astronomy

#### pricelesspearl

• 181
##### Re: FE Gravity
« Reply #53 on: November 30, 2019, 02:32:37 AM »
It's pretty crazy that the official explanation for gravity is that the surface of the earth is accelerating upwards through space-time. That alone shows everything else to be questionable.

Not to those who understand that in GR “accelerating upwards” means traveling through a geodesic and towards objects of greater mass

“Einstein calls it spacetime curvature; Newton calls it tidal gravity. But there is just one agent acting. Therefore, spacetime curvature and tidal gravity must be precisely the same thing, expressed in different languages.

Black Holes and Time Warps: Einstein's Outrageous Legacy by Kip S. Thorne (Author), Stephen Hawking (Foreword)

#### BillO

• 583
• Huh?
##### Re: FE Gravity
« Reply #54 on: November 30, 2019, 09:36:34 PM »
No, it doesn't make sense at all. Gravity also affects photons, which have zero mass.

This is not a correct statement.  Photons have zero rest mass.  However, photons are never at rest and always have some energy.  Their susceptibility to gravity is given by the mass equivalent to their energy using Einstein's famous mass/energy equivalency theory.  Or you could use GR, but that would be like using a sledgehammer to set a thumb tack.
Here a quack, there a quack, everywhere a quack quack.

#### Tim Alphabeaver

• 214
• That's no beaver
##### Re: FE Gravity
« Reply #55 on: December 02, 2019, 07:58:56 PM »
No, it doesn't make sense at all. Gravity also affects photons, which have zero mass.
I know that you understand Relativity quite well, so why do you make statements like this just to bait people when you clearly know the answer?
**I move away from the infinite flat plane to breathe in

#### BillO

• 583
• Huh?
##### Re: FE Gravity
« Reply #56 on: December 02, 2019, 10:02:57 PM »
Yep. The official explanation is that the surface of the earth is accelerating upwards through space-time.
Do you have a link to some recognized or suitably qualified physicist stating this (preferably not a link to the FE wiki)?  I'd be seriously interested in seeing how they come to that conclusion.  Or are you trying to apply Einstein's equivalency theory?
Here a quack, there a quack, everywhere a quack quack.

#### Tom Bishop

• Zetetic Council Member
• 7181
• Flat Earth Believer
##### Re: FE Gravity
« Reply #57 on: December 03, 2019, 05:40:43 AM »
Yep. The official explanation is that the surface of the earth is accelerating upwards through space-time.
Do you have a link to some recognized or suitably qualified physicist stating this (preferably not a link to the FE wiki)?  I'd be seriously interested in seeing how they come to that conclusion.  Or are you trying to apply Einstein's equivalency theory?

Right here:

Relativity and Accelerating Upwards:

Quote
Consider a skydiver jumping out of an airplane. The skydiver falls freely, up to the effects of air resistance. According to Einstein, the skydiver's path is the straightest line possible through the curved space-time around the Earth. From the skydiver's perspective this seems quite natural. Except for the air rushing past her, the skydiver feels no perturbing forces at all. In fact, if it weren't for the air resistance, she would experience weightlessness in the same way that an astronaut does in orbit. The only reason we think the skydiver is accelerating is because we are used to using the surface of the Earth as our frame of reference. If we free ourselves from this convention, then we have no reason to think the skydiver is accelerating at all.

Now consider yourself on the ground, looking up at the falling daredevil. Normally, your intuitive description of your own motion would be that you are stationary. But again this is only because of our slavish regard to the Earth as the arbiter of what is at rest and what is moving. Free yourself from this prison, and you realize that you are, in fact, accelerating. You feel a force on the soles of your feet that pushes you upwards, in the same way that you would if you were in a lift that accelerated upwards very quickly. In Einstein's picture there is no difference between your experience sanding on Earth and your experience in the lift. In both situations you are accelerating upwards. In the latter situation it is the lift that is responsible for your acceleration. In the former, it is the fact that the Earth is solid that pushes you upwards through space-time, knocking you off your free-fall trajectory. That the surface of the Earth can accelerate upwards at every point on its surface, and remain as a solid object, is because it exists in a curved space-time and not in a flat space.

With this change in perspective the true nature of gravity becomes apparent. The free falling skydiver is brought to Earth because the space-time through which she falls is curved. It is not an external force that tugs her downwards, but her own natural motion through a curved space. On the other hand, as a person standing on the ground, the pressure you feel on the soles of your feet is due to the rigidity of the Earth pushing you upwards. Again, there is no external force pulling you to Earth. It is only the electrostatic forces in the rocks below your feet that keep the ground rigid, and that prevents you from taking what would be your natural motion (which would also be free fall).

So, if we free ourselves from defining our motion with respect to the surface of the Earth we realize that the skydiver is not accelerating, while the person who stands on the surface of the Earth is accelerating. Just the opposite of what we usually think. Going back to Galileo's experiment on the leaning tower of Pisa, we can now see why he observed all of his cannonballs to fall at the same rate. It wasn't really the cannonballs that were accelerating away from Galileo at all, it was Galileo that was accelerating away from the cannonballs!

Author info:

https://global.oup.com/academic/product/gravity-a-very-short-introduction-9780198729143?cc=us&lang=en&#

Quote
Dr Timothy Clifton studied under John Barrow in Cambridge and is now a lecturer at Queen Mary, University of London. He is a specialist in gravitational physics. He has published many research papers on the subject, as well as co-authoring a cover story on gravity in Scientific American.
"The biggest problem in astronomy is that when we look at something in the sky, we don’t know how far away it is" — Pauline Barmby, Ph.D., Professor of Astronomy

#### AllAroundTheWorld

• 3329
##### Re: FE Gravity
« Reply #58 on: December 03, 2019, 07:43:53 AM »
Tom, why did you bold the parts you did and not this part:

Quote
The free falling skydiver is brought to Earth because the space-time through which she falls is curved. It is not an external force that tugs her downwards, but her own natural motion through a curved space

Which makes it very clear that it is the sky diver moving, not the earth?
You really need to do some introspection and think about your confirmation bias rather than scanning large sections of text for words or phrases which confirm your world view rather than trying to understand them in context.
If you are making your claim without evidence then we can discard it without evidence.

Nearly all flat earthers agree the earth is not a globe.

#### Tom Bishop

• Zetetic Council Member
• 7181
• Flat Earth Believer
##### Re: FE Gravity
« Reply #59 on: December 03, 2019, 01:24:27 PM »
It clearly says that gravity occurs in GR because the earth is accelerating upwards through space-time.

Quote
Going back to Galileo's experiment on the leaning tower of Pisa, we can now see why he observed all of his cannonballs to fall at the same rate. It wasn't really the cannonballs that were accelerating away from Galileo at all, it was Galileo that was accelerating away from the cannonballs!

Quote from: AllAroundTheWorld
Which makes it very clear that it is the sky diver moving, not the earth?

Did you read the content? It says the opposite:

Quote
we realize that the skydiver is not accelerating, while the person who stands on the surface of the Earth is accelerating. Just the opposite of what we usually think.
« Last Edit: December 03, 2019, 02:31:29 PM by Tom Bishop »
"The biggest problem in astronomy is that when we look at something in the sky, we don’t know how far away it is" — Pauline Barmby, Ph.D., Professor of Astronomy