Poll

Simple question. Is Earth moving?

No. It is completely stationary.
Yes. It is moving as alleged in the mainstream oblate spheroid model.
Yes. It is rising upwards, constantly.
*

Offline Pete Svarrior

  • e
  • Planar Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 12624
  • (>^_^)> it's propaganda time (◕‿◕✿)
    • View Profile
    • The Flat Earth Society
Re: Is Earth Moving?
« Reply #40 on: February 13, 2021, 07:50:02 PM »
How does UA explain the observed fact that the downward acceleration is different on different parts of the Earth?
The variance in gravity is largely attributed to gravitational forces. Please, familiarise yourself with the basics before posting here. We're not to read out the Wiki out loud to you.

Or is everyone who has measured a different value in on the conspiracy?  ::)
If you want to shitpost, do so in the appropriate board. This is the third (and consequently last) time I will ask you so nicely.
« Last Edit: February 13, 2021, 07:52:42 PM by Pete Svarrior »
Read the FAQ before asking your question - chances are we 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

*

Offline RonJ

  • *
  • Posts: 1398
  • ACTA NON VERBA
    • View Profile
Re: Is Earth Moving?
« Reply #41 on: February 14, 2021, 04:18:19 AM »
From the Wiki:
Celestial Gravitation is a part of some Flat Earth models which involve an attraction of objects of mass on Earth to heavenly bodies.  this is not the same as Gravity, since Celestial Gravitation does not imply an attraction between objects of mass on Earth.  Celestial Gravitation accounts for tides and other gravimetric anomalies across the Earth's plane.

The Wiki explains why the earth could be moving upwards (universal acceleration) but results in lots of other unexplained problems.

The Wiki proclamation says a heavenly body has a special property that can attract an object of mass on the earth that an object of mass on the Earth doesn't exhibit (selective gravitation).  I am speculating that the Flat Earth Theory would imply that the source of this selectivity property of heavenly bodies is unknown.  Since the Sun and Moon could be classified as 'heavenly bodies' they must exhibit the property of gravitational attraction between all the other 'heavenly bodies'.  It has been stated that the Sun & Moon orbit around the center of gravity of the Sun, Moon, and all the other planets.  This wouldn't happen if the traditional equation of gravitational force were applied.  I couldn't find another equation in the Wiki to justify all the Celestial Gravitation properties so it looks like the Wiki needs to be updated.  It would also be nice to have an explanation for the unique properties of mass of the heavenly bodies that can exhibit gravitational forces when a mass on the earth does not.
« Last Edit: February 14, 2021, 04:25:37 AM by RonJ »
For FE no explanation is possible, for RE no explanation is necessary.

*

Offline RazaTD

  • *
  • Posts: 29
  • A rational man
    • View Profile
Re: Is Earth Moving?
« Reply #42 on: February 14, 2021, 01:51:50 PM »
From the Wiki:
Celestial Gravitation is a part of some Flat Earth models which involve an attraction of objects of mass on Earth to heavenly bodies.  this is not the same as Gravity, since Celestial Gravitation does not imply an attraction between objects of mass on Earth.  Celestial Gravitation accounts for tides and other gravimetric anomalies across the Earth's plane.

The Wiki explains why the earth could be moving upwards (universal acceleration) but results in lots of other unexplained problems.

The Wiki proclamation says a heavenly body has a special property that can attract an object of mass on the earth that an object of mass on the Earth doesn't exhibit (selective gravitation).  I am speculating that the Flat Earth Theory would imply that the source of this selectivity property of heavenly bodies is unknown.  Since the Sun and Moon could be classified as 'heavenly bodies' they must exhibit the property of gravitational attraction between all the other 'heavenly bodies'.  It has been stated that the Sun & Moon orbit around the center of gravity of the Sun, Moon, and all the other planets.  This wouldn't happen if the traditional equation of gravitational force were applied.  I couldn't find another equation in the Wiki to justify all the Celestial Gravitation properties so it looks like the Wiki needs to be updated.  It would also be nice to have an explanation for the unique properties of mass of the heavenly bodies that can exhibit gravitational forces when a mass on the earth does not.

That is such an ad hoc explanation for the local variances. At one hand FEers deny gravity because we don’t yet understand exactly what it is and on the other hand they use it in more extraordinary ways. Why do only celestial bodies exert gravity? Why is this gravity fine but the normal gravity rejected?

Let’s grant that this special gravity exists. Why then do we observe consistently higher gravity acceleration values near mountains? Why is the Earth gravity acceleration map so complex if UA causes same acceleration and only spherical disturbances are caused by the two celestial bodies?

By the way, if you want to reject the gravity acceleration data, you need to provide strong evidence that something is wrong with it otherwise you can’t disagree that you need a grand conspiracy.
A rational man

*

Online Iceman

  • *
  • Posts: 678
  • where there's smoke there's wires
    • View Profile
Re: Is Earth Moving?
« Reply #43 on: February 14, 2021, 02:47:47 PM »


Let’s grant that this special gravity exists. Why then do we observe consistently higher gravity acceleration values near mountains?

This isn't strictly correct. The largest gravity anomalies are in areas where there are accumulations of dense (oceanic) crust: the highs align with mid-oceanic ridges, hot spots (Hawaii and Iceland) and the flanks of trenches. Technically, these kind of count as mountains too...

Continental mountain ranges themselves often (but not always, depending on the nature of the orogenic event) have lower comparative gravity signal in large areas because the rocks comprising the peaks are  commonly made of less dense, lithified former sea floor sediments. These mountain rocks then sit above the denser underlying crustal rocks making their effect on felt gravitational pull less.

Online SteelyBob

  • *
  • Posts: 185
    • View Profile
Re: Is Earth Moving?
« Reply #44 on: February 14, 2021, 03:25:18 PM »
How does UA explain the observed fact that the downward acceleration is different on different parts of the Earth?
The variance in gravity is largely attributed to gravitational forces. Please, familiarise yourself with the basics before posting here. We're not to read out the Wiki out loud to you.

Pete - the Wiki simultaneously declares that variations in gravity are caused by celestial bodies exerting some kind of gravitational force on the earth and also that variations in gravity do not in fact exist because gravity doesn't exist and it is ridiculous to assert that it does. Before trashing people for not understanding the wiki, it would be helpful if you could collectively agree on a stance to take. Either measured gravity does vary in different locations on the planet, in which case let's talk about why it does, or you think it doesn't, in which case let's talk about why you think all the measurements supporting that are wrong.

As an aside, the wiki interpretation of various famous experiments, such as Eötvös, is just plain embarrassing. Eötvös was an experimental proof of the equivalence of inertial mass and gravitational mass, meaning that the 'M' in both was indeed the same thing. The 'no difference' found in the experiment did not mean 'no gravity found', as the wiki implies. Likewise, the 'no deviation from the inverse square' mentioned later on the wiki does not mean 'no gravity' or 'no local variations in gravity', but rather adds to the many proofs supporting the fact the force between two masses depends on their 'M' and the inverse of the square of the distance between them.

*

Offline RazaTD

  • *
  • Posts: 29
  • A rational man
    • View Profile
Re: Is Earth Moving?
« Reply #45 on: February 14, 2021, 03:37:55 PM »


Let’s grant that this special gravity exists. Why then do we observe consistently higher gravity acceleration values near mountains?

This isn't strictly correct. The largest gravity anomalies are in areas where there are accumulations of dense (oceanic) crust: the highs align with mid-oceanic ridges, hot spots (Hawaii and Iceland) and the flanks of trenches. Technically, these kind of count as mountains too...

Continental mountain ranges themselves often (but not always, depending on the nature of the orogenic event) have lower comparative gravity signal in large areas because the rocks comprising the peaks are  commonly made of less dense, lithified former sea floor sediments. These mountain rocks then sit above the denser underlying crustal rocks making their effect on felt gravitational pull less.

I agree with you that is true. I should have done proper research before making that claim. However, I believe the point still stands. Why does the density of landmass dictate the local variances in the downward pull if in fact it is the celestial bodies that are causing the variances according to FEers.
A rational man

*

Offline RonJ

  • *
  • Posts: 1398
  • ACTA NON VERBA
    • View Profile
Re: Is Earth Moving?
« Reply #46 on: February 14, 2021, 05:59:45 PM »
From the Wiki:
Celestial Gravitation is a part of some Flat Earth models which involve an attraction of objects of mass on Earth to heavenly bodies.  this is not the same as Gravity, since Celestial Gravitation does not imply an attraction between objects of mass on Earth.  Celestial Gravitation accounts for tides and other gravimetric anomalies across the Earth's plane.

The Wiki quote is a bit sneaky.  It does use the term Celestial Gravitation to justify things like tides and other anomalies but does, technically, leave the door open for attraction between objects of mass on the Earth.  The quote only says that Celestial Gravitation does not IMPLY the attraction between objects of mass on the Earth, but does not rule them out either.  You have to read between the lines of the wiki some more because there are gravimetric anomalies across the 'Earth's plane' that are due to Celestial Gravitation, but those anomalies are in the minority.  Gravimetric studies are not conducted to see what's in the heavens, but to locate mass differentials in the Earth that can lead to the location of oil, gas, or other sought after minerals. In many cases after a gravimetric study has been conducted, a core drilling program is carried out, and if everything goes well the results lead to the oil or minerals sought.  This proves that objects of mass on the surface of the earth can be gravitationally attracted by an other mass below the Earth's surface.

All the nice gravimetric maps wouldn't be possible if universal acceleration was valid.  The effects of the Sun & Moon are eliminated as much as possible because the gravitational attraction information they provide isn't desired.  The information desired is the gravimetric anomalies produced by the changes of mass density below the surface of the earth.     
« Last Edit: February 15, 2021, 03:38:55 AM by RonJ »
For FE no explanation is possible, for RE no explanation is necessary.

*

Offline Pete Svarrior

  • e
  • Planar Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 12624
  • (>^_^)> it's propaganda time (◕‿◕✿)
    • View Profile
    • The Flat Earth Society
Re: Is Earth Moving?
« Reply #47 on: February 15, 2021, 12:34:22 PM »
Before trashing people for not understanding the wiki, it would be helpful if you could collectively agree on a stance to take.
Why would we do that? Multiple competing models exist, and the Wiki's job is to document the past and present of the Flat Earth Theory. If you don't understand the purpose of the resource you're reading, you're going to have a bad time.

Some, like Tom, question the measurability of these effects as a whole. Others, like myself, propose an explanation, without necessarily disagreeing with Tom. If you have measured a variation in gravity, and if UA is true, then it is rather obvious that the variation you have measured did not come from UA, but rather gravitation. It's not a "problem with UA" as RE sycophants will gleefully claim, it's just an additional, external factor. This isn't complicated.

You will also note RonJ's immediate attempt at reframing the discussion - he moved away from "gravitational forces" to "the Sun and Moon", specifically, and others like Raza immediately fell for it. Anything to keep the fantasy going, I guess.
« Last Edit: February 15, 2021, 12:40:15 PM by Pete Svarrior »
Read the FAQ before asking your question - chances are we 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

Online SteelyBob

  • *
  • Posts: 185
    • View Profile
Re: Is Earth Moving?
« Reply #48 on: February 15, 2021, 03:24:42 PM »
Before trashing people for not understanding the wiki, it would be helpful if you could collectively agree on a stance to take.
Why would we do that? Multiple competing models exist, and the Wiki's job is to document the past and present of the Flat Earth Theory. If you don't understand the purpose of the resource you're reading, you're going to have a bad time.

Some, like Tom, question the measurability of these effects as a whole. Others, like myself, propose an explanation, without necessarily disagreeing with Tom. If you have measured a variation in gravity, and if UA is true, then it is rather obvious that the variation you have measured did not come from UA, but rather gravitation. It's not a "problem with UA" as RE sycophants will gleefully claim, it's just an additional, external factor. This isn't complicated.

You will also note RonJ's immediate attempt at reframing the discussion - he moved away from "gravitational forces" to "the Sun and Moon", specifically, and others like Raza immediately fell for it. Anything to keep the fantasy going, I guess.

My point is that you told somebody to 'familiarise themselves with the wiki', but yet the part of the wiki you referred to earlier doesn't address the point - it covers UA, but doesn't mention variations in local g measurements. Furthermore, different parts of the wiki contradict each other on this subject - some bits say there are variations, others say there aren't. The reason people ridicule the wiki is because it is ridiculous - if you want to say it's a summary of competing theories and models, then fine - but in that case don't have each page written as if it is the 'truth'. If you want it to be a proposal for a coherent set of arguments, then the internal contradictions need to be removed. 

[edited for a typo]
« Last Edit: February 15, 2021, 04:20:44 PM by SteelyBob »

Re: Is Earth Moving?
« Reply #49 on: February 15, 2021, 04:14:16 PM »
If you have measured a variation in gravity, and if UA is true, then it is rather obvious that the variation you have measured did not come from UA, but rather gravitation.
Well, it comes from something. I'd suggest the starting point is that the something is unknown.

You may suggest Celestial Gravitation as the something. OK. But that's a hypothesis. That should be just the start. In order to find out whether that hypothesis has any weight you need to make the hypothesis a bit more useful than the single paragraph on the Wiki which basically just says "some people think this is a thing".

If "Celestial Gravitation accounts for tides" (quote from the Wiki) then that's a good start. The tides can be directly measured. So does that correlate with the movements of any known celestial bodies in a way that you can make predictions with it? Right now all you've got is that you think this is a thing. But it's a strange thing because if the claim is that the celestial bodies pull on things like oceans then why don't the celestial bodies pull on each other? If they did then surely they'd attract and hit each other. Unless this is part of a stable orbit of course like the earth-moon system in RE? And why don't the things, like oceans, pull back on the celestial bodies (if they did then surely they'd fall on us).

This is what makes it feels like an ad-hoc invention rather than a well rounded (pun not intended, but I'll take it now I've realised) theory

In RE gravity isn't just some vague hypothesis. It has a mathematical framework which is able to make predictions. Neptune was discovered because Uranus wasn't behaving as it should from the calculations. That indicated that another body beyond it was acting on it, and so it proved. And gravity has more practical applications on earth:

Quote
Like magnetic surveys, gravity surveys use precise instruments to measure the strength of gravity at various places. This allows geologists to create maps of the density of the crust below our feet. This method is particularly effective at accurately spotting oil deposits. However, they also have applications in mining.

Gravity surveys have been used, with great success, to locate diamonds. Diamonds typically are found in characteristic kimberlite pipes that are dense compared to nearby rocks, leading to a spike in the local gravity.

http://www.gemsys.ca/all/magnetometers/magnets-gravity-used-mineral-exploration/

This is where the RE model wins. It has practical applications and can make predictions which validate the model.
In FE it seems like when observations don't match the model then either an ad-hoc explanation is invented or the observation is simply denied.
"On a very clear and chilly day it is possible to see Lighthouse Beach from Lovers Point and vice versa...Upon looking into the telescope I can see children running in and out of the water, splashing and playing. I can see people sun bathing at the shore
- An excerpt from the account of the Bishop Experiment. My emphasis

Offline Action80

  • *
  • Posts: 114
    • View Profile
Re: Is Earth Moving?
« Reply #50 on: February 15, 2021, 04:41:18 PM »
Why should determining the shape of the earth require blind faith in anything?  Are you saying we can't know the shape of the earth with certainty without blindly trusting data/sources we can't verify independently?

Good point.  I've driven and flown to enough places on the planet to verify that the distances reported are indeed accurate, by personal observation.  These distances are comparable with a round Earth, but don't fit any of the Flat Earth maps.

This entire statement is objectively false.

Any map you have used is flat.

« Last Edit: February 15, 2021, 04:42:57 PM by Action80 »

Re: Is Earth Moving?
« Reply #51 on: February 15, 2021, 05:07:59 PM »
This entire statement is objectively false.

Any map you have used is flat.
Indeed. And therefore every map of the entire earth, or even large parts of it, is inaccurate.
Because there is no way of perfectly mapping a sphere onto a flat plane. Something has to give.
Were the earth flat of course then that wouldn't be a problem, you'd be able to make a map of the entire earth which accurately depicts shapes and distances.
"On a very clear and chilly day it is possible to see Lighthouse Beach from Lovers Point and vice versa...Upon looking into the telescope I can see children running in and out of the water, splashing and playing. I can see people sun bathing at the shore
- An excerpt from the account of the Bishop Experiment. My emphasis

Online SteelyBob

  • *
  • Posts: 185
    • View Profile
Re: Is Earth Moving?
« Reply #52 on: February 15, 2021, 05:30:41 PM »
Why should determining the shape of the earth require blind faith in anything?  Are you saying we can't know the shape of the earth with certainty without blindly trusting data/sources we can't verify independently?

Good point.  I've driven and flown to enough places on the planet to verify that the distances reported are indeed accurate, by personal observation.  These distances are comparable with a round Earth, but don't fit any of the Flat Earth maps.

This entire statement is objectively false.

Any map you have used is flat.

It is not 'objectively false'. Nobody is saying that you can't have flat maps. Let go of the straw man. He has thrown in the towel. Well done.

What we are saying is that flat maps of a round earth have limitations, depending on the projection used. You might be able to measure headings accurately, for example, or not. You might be able to measure distances accurately, as long as they aren't too large, or not. Or maybe they have lat/long markings on them, in which case you (or a computer) can calculate great circle distances with great precision, and maybe get a list of suitable headings to follow for that great circle (great circle headings aren't usually constant).

The point is that these dimensions and headings work perfectly. They correlate perfectly with celestial observations, with magnetic bearings, and with speed/distance/time calculations. Nobody has ever navigated correctly with a recent round earth map and found a massive error - flights and ships get where they are going just fine. And yet the FE maps shown in the wiki, and elsewhere, all require massive distortions of the known world, which would put even simple car journeys at odds with the observed reality. 

*

Offline Pete Svarrior

  • e
  • Planar Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 12624
  • (>^_^)> it's propaganda time (◕‿◕✿)
    • View Profile
    • The Flat Earth Society
Re: Is Earth Moving?
« Reply #53 on: February 17, 2021, 02:22:59 AM »
My point is that you told somebody to 'familiarise themselves with the wiki'
That wasn't quite my request, was it? Can we at the very least agree on the words that I wrote? Surely this isn't asking for much.

You may suggest Celestial Gravitation as the something.
I may not - that would crumble under even the most basic scrutiny, and, well, that's just not how I roll. It was RonJ who suggested that. You can make an educated guess as to how much time I want to spend on RonJ's delusions.

In RE gravity isn't just some vague hypothesis. It has a mathematical framework which is able to make predictions.
Predictions which we know to be false. By your logic, this rules out gravitation (please don't use it interchangeably with gravity - the distinction is crucial in this debate) as currently defined as the potential cause. Does that mean the Earth is flat? No. But it does mean we should probably stop acting as if gravitation was in any way a superior model. 
« Last Edit: February 17, 2021, 02:30:47 AM by Pete Svarrior »
Read the FAQ before asking your question - chances are we 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

*

Offline RonJ

  • *
  • Posts: 1398
  • ACTA NON VERBA
    • View Profile
Re: Is Earth Moving?
« Reply #54 on: February 17, 2021, 04:06:18 AM »
The flat earth theory pontificates that the heavenly bodies have a property of attractive force on all objects of mass located the Earth and this property has been assigned the term Celestial Gravitation.  Effectively, the term Gravity has been relegated to a property of mass that doesn't exist under the flat earth theory because the proclamation has been made that there is no attractive properties of mass when that mass is located on the Earth.  The former term Gravity meant that ANY object of mass would exhibit an attractive force between any other object of mass regardless of it's location in the universe. The Wiki does doesn't claim one way or the other that a heavenly body contains any material that has mass.  So Celestial Gravitation could be a completely new (and/or fictional) selective property of mass that has attractive properties depending upon where that mass is located. 


It's fine that the flat earth theory could make such an outrageous postulation but it's completely unsupportable by any gravimetric study made and these studies are probably made somewhere on the earth every day.  If the flat earth supporters what to support the zetetic mantra then they have to believe that the earth is round.  QED       
For FE no explanation is possible, for RE no explanation is necessary.

Online SteelyBob

  • *
  • Posts: 185
    • View Profile
Re: Is Earth Moving?
« Reply #55 on: February 17, 2021, 08:42:44 AM »
My point is that you told somebody to 'familiarise themselves with the wiki'
That wasn't quite my request, was it? Can we at the very least agree on the words that I wrote? Surely this isn't asking for much.

True enough - I paraphrased you in a way I thought was representative of the general thrust of your comment:

Quote
The variance in gravity is largely attributed to gravitational forces. Please, familiarise yourself with the basics before posting here. We're not to read out the Wiki out loud to you.

Apologies if you think that was unfair. I'd say my broader point still stands - you made an assertion about UA and gravitational forces and then referred him to the wiki. But which bit of the wiki would you 'read out loud' to somebody who wanted to know about UA but was too lazy to read it themselves? Because the UA section doesn't say what you said in that comment, and other sections directly contradict the bit that does.


*

Offline Pete Svarrior

  • e
  • Planar Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 12624
  • (>^_^)> it's propaganda time (◕‿◕✿)
    • View Profile
    • The Flat Earth Society
Re: Is Earth Moving?
« Reply #56 on: February 18, 2021, 09:35:00 AM »
I'd say my broader point still stands
Your broader point is an abuse of my brevity. I haven't referred anyone to the Wiki - I told them to familiarise themselves with the basics. "I won't read the Wiki for you" could easily be substituted with "I won't do your homework for you" (Oh, but Pete, there is no homework section on this website! How could someone possibly do homework that doesn't exist? This is a very serious contradiction, and I will demand to discuss it now!), for example.

And, for people like RazaTD (who simply come down here and post a deluge of nonsensical questions they think are "gotchas"), the Wiki would be a good starting point. Sure, it's not perfect, and some branching out to old threads and other FE resources will be necessary, but gosh darn it if I waste any more time on your insincere defence of permanoobs permanoobing.
Read the FAQ before asking your question - chances are we 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

Online SteelyBob

  • *
  • Posts: 185
    • View Profile
Re: Is Earth Moving?
« Reply #57 on: February 18, 2021, 12:44:28 PM »
And, for people like RazaTD (who simply come down here and post a deluge of nonsensical questions they think are "gotchas"), the Wiki would be a good starting point. Sure, it's not perfect, and some branching out to old threads and other FE resources will be necessary, but gosh darn it if I waste any more time on your insincere defence of permanoobs permanoobing.

I think it's more fundamental than that. If its authors wish to be taken seriously, then the wiki needs to be either one of two things. It can either be effectively an 'opinion piece', making a single coherent argument for a particular FE model, or it can be a collection of discourse summarising the various competing arguments. The reason it is getting ripped to shreds so much is that it is trying to be both - you have pages that make a singular argument for a particular thing, such as UA, other pages that make contradictory statements, but yet nowhere that pulls these arguments together. So it's not a case of 'it needs tidying up a bit', but rather a fundamental issue with the entire way it is constructed.

*

Offline Pete Svarrior

  • e
  • Planar Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 12624
  • (>^_^)> it's propaganda time (◕‿◕✿)
    • View Profile
    • The Flat Earth Society
Re: Is Earth Moving?
« Reply #58 on: February 18, 2021, 01:29:33 PM »
The reason it is getting ripped to shreds so much
It's not getting "ripped to shreds". A few betabunkers are upset with it because they never bothered to try to understand how it works. Your self-importance is clouding your judgement.

it is trying to be both
Well, it isn't. If you're trying to read it that way, I'm not surprised you're unhappy. Luckily, that's a problem you created for yourself, and thus you can fix it quite easily.

Perhaps unsurprisingly, satisfying you isn't our priority - our target audience is not sycophants who come here to tell us how round they think the Earth is, and we likely won't waste much time on them.
Read the FAQ before asking your question - chances are we 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