Gravity vs. Universal Acceleration
« on: December 02, 2013, 01:59:15 AM »
Some FE theorists think gravity exists, others think it doesn't. 

If you think it does, explain how it works on the FE model, and whether or not it is exists along with universal acceleration.

If you think it doesn't, then explain why.
I don't even care to find out what you're doing wrong, but I'm sure you're doing something wrong.

*

Offline Excelsior John

  • *
  • Posts: 730
  • Excelsior! Flat Earth FTW!
    • View Profile
    • Excelsior! Flat Earth
Re: Gravity vs. Universal Acceleration
« Reply #1 on: December 02, 2013, 10:54:06 PM »
Some FE theorists think gravity exists, others think it doesn't. 

If you think it does, explain how it works on the FE model, and whether or not it is exists along with universal acceleration.

If you think it doesn't, then explain why.
I beleive gravitey exists. I beleive in two thoerys concerning why this: 1) The earth is infinite/expanding with the universe 2) The earth is finite but is the still the vary base of the universe and ultimate gravitationel dent and is being pulled by the expanding universe keeping it flat

Ether way in my gravitationel hipothesis gravitey causes the sun and moon to revolve (or circle) above the sun. The planets revolve around the sun (and the planets moons revolve around the planets. I also think the Earth causes some gravitationel distortion causing elipticel orbits). I beleive the Solar System to be the Milkey Ways center and the other galxaxys revolve the Milkey Way. Tracing it back to the begining this efectivley makes Earth the center of the universe

As earth is the base of the universe i beleive it to be the ultimate gravitationel dent of the universe as told by generel relativitey causing the sun to circle above it
Viva la FES!
Quote from: Yaakov ben Avraham link=https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=59968.msg1544396#msg1544396
Excelsior:...You are clearly a reasonable and intelligent person.

Adolf Hipster

Re: Gravity vs. Universal Acceleration
« Reply #2 on: December 02, 2013, 11:02:31 PM »
Some FE theorists think gravity exists, others think it doesn't. 

If you think it does, explain how it works on the FE model, and whether or not it is exists along with universal acceleration.

If you think it doesn't, then explain why.
I beleive gravitey exists. I beleive in two thoerys concerning why this: 1) The earth is infinite/expanding with the universe 2) The earth is finite but is the still the vary base of the universe and ultimate gravitationel dent and is being pulled by the expanding universe keeping it flat

Ether way in my gravitationel hipothesis gravitey causes the sun and moon to revolve (or circle) above the sun. The planets revolve around the sun (and the planets moons revolve around the planets. I also think the Earth causes some gravitationel distortion causing elipticel orbits). I beleive the Solar System to be the Milkey Ways center and the other galxaxys revolve the Milkey Way. Tracing it back to the begining this efectivley makes Earth the center of the universe

As earth is the base of the universe i beleive it to be the ultimate gravitationel dent of the universe as told by generel relativitey causing the sun to circle above it
You say that gravity exists, but the earth is flat and is being kept flat by an expanding universe. What about the expansion of the universe is pulling the earth? In RE, the continuous expansion of the universe doesn't make planets and such flat.

*

Offline Excelsior John

  • *
  • Posts: 730
  • Excelsior! Flat Earth FTW!
    • View Profile
    • Excelsior! Flat Earth
Re: Gravity vs. Universal Acceleration
« Reply #3 on: December 02, 2013, 11:17:29 PM »
Some FE theorists think gravity exists, others think it doesn't. 

If you think it does, explain how it works on the FE model, and whether or not it is exists along with universal acceleration.

If you think it doesn't, then explain why.
I beleive gravitey exists. I beleive in two thoerys concerning why this: 1) The earth is infinite/expanding with the universe 2) The earth is finite but is the still the vary base of the universe and ultimate gravitationel dent and is being pulled by the expanding universe keeping it flat

Ether way in my gravitationel hipothesis gravitey causes the sun and moon to revolve (or circle) above the sun. The planets revolve around the sun (and the planets moons revolve around the planets. I also think the Earth causes some gravitationel distortion causing elipticel orbits). I beleive the Solar System to be the Milkey Ways center and the other galxaxys revolve the Milkey Way. Tracing it back to the begining this efectivley makes Earth the center of the universe

As earth is the base of the universe i beleive it to be the ultimate gravitationel dent of the universe as told by generel relativitey causing the sun to circle above it
You say that gravity exists, but the earth is flat and is being kept flat by an expanding universe. What about the expansion of the universe is pulling the earth? In RE, the continuous expansion of the universe doesn't make planets and such flat.
I cant exacley explain why the universe does this but i beleive some earley cosmic universe event caused this as matter got cooler after the Big Bang and that the earth was at the center from which the Bang ocured. Think about how the galaxys get farther away from each other as the universe expands: Earth was formed at the center of all of this and is the literel vary base of the universe. The universe continues expanding and the earth is being pulled and stays flat

Also dont forget i look at the infinite/expanding earth as a fesible hipothesis as well :)
Viva la FES!
Quote from: Yaakov ben Avraham link=https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=59968.msg1544396#msg1544396
Excelsior:...You are clearly a reasonable and intelligent person.

Re: Gravity vs. Universal Acceleration
« Reply #4 on: December 02, 2013, 11:19:22 PM »
Some FE theorists think gravity exists, others think it doesn't. 

If you think it does, explain how it works on the FE model, and whether or not it is exists along with universal acceleration.

If you think it doesn't, then explain why.
I beleive gravitey exists. I beleive in two thoerys concerning why this: 1) The earth is infinite/expanding with the universe 2) The earth is finite but is the still the vary base of the universe and ultimate gravitationel dent and is being pulled by the expanding universe keeping it flat

Ether way in my gravitationel hipothesis gravitey causes the sun and moon to revolve (or circle) above the sun. The planets revolve around the sun (and the planets moons revolve around the planets. I also think the Earth causes some gravitationel distortion causing elipticel orbits). I beleive the Solar System to be the Milkey Ways center and the other galxaxys revolve the Milkey Way. Tracing it back to the begining this efectivley makes Earth the center of the universe

As earth is the base of the universe i beleive it to be the ultimate gravitationel dent of the universe as told by generel relativitey causing the sun to circle above it

How can you believe Earth is both finite and infinite?  They're literally the opposite of each other.
I don't even care to find out what you're doing wrong, but I'm sure you're doing something wrong.

*

Offline Excelsior John

  • *
  • Posts: 730
  • Excelsior! Flat Earth FTW!
    • View Profile
    • Excelsior! Flat Earth
Re: Gravity vs. Universal Acceleration
« Reply #5 on: December 02, 2013, 11:23:39 PM »
Some FE theorists think gravity exists, others think it doesn't. 

If you think it does, explain how it works on the FE model, and whether or not it is exists along with universal acceleration.

If you think it doesn't, then explain why.
I beleive gravitey exists. I beleive in two thoerys concerning why this: 1) The earth is infinite/expanding with the universe 2) The earth is finite but is the still the vary base of the universe and ultimate gravitationel dent and is being pulled by the expanding universe keeping it flat

Ether way in my gravitationel hipothesis gravitey causes the sun and moon to revolve (or circle) above the sun. The planets revolve around the sun (and the planets moons revolve around the planets. I also think the Earth causes some gravitationel distortion causing elipticel orbits). I beleive the Solar System to be the Milkey Ways center and the other galxaxys revolve the Milkey Way. Tracing it back to the begining this efectivley makes Earth the center of the universe

As earth is the base of the universe i beleive it to be the ultimate gravitationel dent of the universe as told by generel relativitey causing the sun to circle above it

How can you believe Earth is both finite and infinite?  They're literally the opposite of each other.
I wasnt saying I beleive that. I was saying that I am open to both thoerys and I beleive ether one could be corect. However if the earth was infinite/expanding I would beleive that only the known earth is habitable and the rest of the infinite/expanding earth is ocean as the earth is the only above water land on the earthley plane
Viva la FES!
Quote from: Yaakov ben Avraham link=https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=59968.msg1544396#msg1544396
Excelsior:...You are clearly a reasonable and intelligent person.

Re: Gravity vs. Universal Acceleration
« Reply #6 on: December 08, 2013, 07:57:41 PM »
Some FE theorists think gravity exists, others think it doesn't. 

If you think it does, explain how it works on the FE model, and whether or not it is exists along with universal acceleration.

If you think it doesn't, then explain why.
Universal Acceleration exists. Gravitation probably exists. I don't know if the Earth exhibits gravitation, but the other planets appear to.
You don't think I'm going to post here sober, do you?  ???

I have embraced my Benny Franko side. I'm sleazy.

*

Offline Roundy

  • Abdicator of the Zetetic Council
  • *
  • Posts: 1720
    • View Profile
Re: Gravity vs. Universal Acceleration
« Reply #7 on: December 09, 2013, 03:44:11 AM »
I'm not sure if universal acceleration exists.  All I know for sure is that from my perspective, things fall.  We can measure the rate at which these things fall.  It seems like idle speculation that leads to the conclusion that this is because we are accelerating upwards.  As for what it is, you can call it gravity if you like, but I'm not at all convinced that it's necessarily the same force that is responsible for the movement of the celestial bodies above us.  Believing that requires a leap of faith that I'm not prepared to take.
Electro-Theologist, Poet, Philosopher, Musician, Etymologist, Egyptologist, Astro-Theologist, Geocentrist, Flat Earther, and Collector of Rare Books.

Re: Gravity vs. Universal Acceleration
« Reply #8 on: December 15, 2013, 05:14:02 PM »
I'm not sure if universal acceleration exists.  All I know for sure is that from my perspective, things fall.  We can measure the rate at which these things fall.  It seems like idle speculation that leads to the conclusion that this is because we are accelerating upwards.  As for what it is, you can call it gravity if you like, but I'm not at all convinced that it's necessarily the same force that is responsible for the movement of the celestial bodies above us.  Believing that requires a leap of faith that I'm not prepared to take.

While gravity is attributed to the movement of celestial bodies in modern education, the main driver of the apparent motion of them is simply the Earth's spin. I know that you know that but I decided to waste my time responding anyway.

*

Offline Excelsior John

  • *
  • Posts: 730
  • Excelsior! Flat Earth FTW!
    • View Profile
    • Excelsior! Flat Earth
Re: Gravity vs. Universal Acceleration
« Reply #9 on: December 15, 2013, 08:14:31 PM »
Some FE theorists think gravity exists, others think it doesn't. 

If you think it does, explain how it works on the FE model, and whether or not it is exists along with universal acceleration.

If you think it doesn't, then explain why.
Universal Acceleration exists. Gravitation probably exists. I don't know if the Earth exhibits gravitation, but the other planets appear to.
What is your proof of UA? And that wouldnt make sense for other planets to have gravitation while earth doesnt. Afterall the universe does circle above the earth
Viva la FES!
Quote from: Yaakov ben Avraham link=https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=59968.msg1544396#msg1544396
Excelsior:...You are clearly a reasonable and intelligent person.

Re: Gravity vs. Universal Acceleration
« Reply #10 on: December 15, 2013, 08:31:32 PM »
What is your proof of UA?
Go stand on a chair, and then jump off of it.

And that wouldnt make sense for other planets to have gravitation while earth doesnt.
And that wouldn't make sense for only Earth to have life on it, but all the evidence thus far indicates it is.
You don't think I'm going to post here sober, do you?  ???

I have embraced my Benny Franko side. I'm sleazy.

*

Offline Scientific Method

  • *
  • Posts: 16
  • Rowbotham, Voliva etc proved the earth to be round
    • View Profile
Re: Gravity vs. Universal Acceleration
« Reply #11 on: December 15, 2013, 10:23:38 PM »
What is your proof of UA?
Go stand on a chair, and then jump off of it.

This only proves relative acceleration between you and the earth. It's far from conclusive. Do this with your eyes closed. What do you feel? (this isn't conclusive either, it's just a variation on that tired old 'experiment')

Also (and I hate to bring this up yet again), what about the variations in measured weight of a given mass at different locations around the world? Check out this site for some data: http://www.gnomeexperiment.com/

Or you could also have a look at a gravity map, here's one overlaid on a Mercator projection:
Look out your window. Better yet, get up and go outside for a while.

*

Offline Tom Bishop

  • Zetetic Council Member
  • **
  • Posts: 6458
  • Flat Earth Believer
    • View Profile
Re: Gravity vs. Universal Acceleration
« Reply #12 on: December 16, 2013, 05:22:11 PM »
The gnome experiment is not a controlled trial. It is not being conducted in a lab, but being sent from person to person via post mail.

Gravity measuring experiment are incredibly sensitive and outside factors weigh in. For example, how are they ruling out that the varying magnetic field of the earth is not affecting the metal weights in the weighing machine?

Different areas on earth have different atmospheric pressures, if only slight, and thus things fall faster/slower via buoyancy. How are they ruling out that either the gnome or the balance are not affected by the pressure?

The static force is said to be orders of magnitude stronger than the gravitational force. How do these experiments account for the static force from the floor, walls, and ceiling of the room the experiment is conducted in?

See: http://milesmathis.com/caven.html

Per the Mercator gravity map, my comment is that it comes from a space mission and is automatically invalidated on grounds that sustained space travel is not possible. These alleged gravity space missions were not controlled, either.
« Last Edit: December 16, 2013, 05:34:30 PM by Tom Bishop »

*

Offline Rama Set

  • *
  • Posts: 5598
  • Round and round...
    • View Profile
Re: Gravity vs. Universal Acceleration
« Reply #13 on: December 16, 2013, 06:38:08 PM »
The gnome experiment is not a controlled trial. It is not being conducted in a lab, but being sent from person to person via post mail.

Gravity measuring experiment are incredibly sensitive and outside factors weigh in. For example, how are they ruling out that the varying magnetic field of the earth is not affecting the metal weights in the weighing machine?

Different areas on earth have different atmospheric pressures, if only slight, and thus things fall faster/slower via buoyancy. How are they ruling out that either the gnome or the balance are not affected by the pressure?

The static force is said to be orders of magnitude stronger than the gravitational force. How do these experiments account for the static force from the floor, walls, and ceiling of the room the experiment is conducted in?

See: http://milesmathis.com/caven.html

Per the Mercator gravity map, my comment is that it comes from a space mission and is automatically invalidated on grounds that sustained space travel is not possible. These alleged gravity space missions were not controlled, either.

Atmospheric pressure would not be an issue on a balance unless the pressure varies greatly over the span of a square foot, which is highly unlikely.  Signifigant digits would rule out the Earth's magnetic field in the Gnome experiment since the Earth's magnetic field is measured in millionths of a Tesla, too weak to account for the tenth of a gram variations you can see in the gnome experiment.  It also would not account for the gnome weighing less underground, since magnetic fields get stronger as you reduce the distance between the attracting masses.  See below for the results of the gnome experiment at a laboratory 2kms underground:

http://www.cbc.ca/news/technology/travelling-gnome-experiment-visits-world-s-deepest-lab-1.1294979

As to your assertion that space travel is not possible, the evidence is clearly against you, and you have never conclusively shown that space travel is not possible whereas there is a lot of evidence that it is.
You don't get races of anything ... accept people.

*

Online markjo

  • Purgatory
  • *
  • Posts: 3758
  • Zetetic Council runner-up
    • View Profile
Re: Gravity vs. Universal Acceleration
« Reply #14 on: December 16, 2013, 08:51:08 PM »
These alleged gravity space missions were not controlled, either.
Please elaborate.  What do you mean by "not controlled"?
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.

*

Offline Scientific Method

  • *
  • Posts: 16
  • Rowbotham, Voliva etc proved the earth to be round
    • View Profile
Re: Gravity vs. Universal Acceleration
« Reply #15 on: December 16, 2013, 09:33:11 PM »
The gnome experiment is not a controlled trial. It is not being conducted in a lab, but being sent from person to person via post mail.

Gravity measuring experiment are incredibly sensitive and outside factors weigh in. For example, how are they ruling out that the varying magnetic field of the earth is not affecting the metal weights in the weighing machine?

Different areas on earth have different atmospheric pressures, if only slight, and thus things fall faster/slower via buoyancy. How are they ruling out that either the gnome or the balance are not affected by the pressure?

The static force is said to be orders of magnitude stronger than the gravitational force. How do these experiments account for the static force from the floor, walls, and ceiling of the room the experiment is conducted in?

See: http://milesmathis.com/caven.html

Per the Mercator gravity map, my comment is that it comes from a space mission and is automatically invalidated on grounds that sustained space travel is not possible. These alleged gravity space missions were not controlled, either.

...says he who considers looking out your window, or stepping off a chair, as evidence.

No, the gnome experiment is not a controlled trial, it doesn't need to be. Sit down and run some numbers and you will see that the variations are too large to be caused by any of the factors you mentioned, even if they were combined. Buoyancy on the gnome would be in the order of 1.3x10-3g (assuming it displaces 1L of air, which it probably doesn't, it probably displaces less). Electrostatic charge? It's ceramic, so I'm not sure (I've never seen ceramic hold a charge, let alone be influenced by one, but that's not to say it's not possible). Magnetic field of the earth? Not going to affect the gnome, because it's ceramic.

Yes, gravity measuring equipment is very sensitive, it also has ways to account for all of the factors you mentioned (oh, and balances are not used to measure gravity, they don't work for that).
Look out your window. Better yet, get up and go outside for a while.

*

Offline Tom Bishop

  • Zetetic Council Member
  • **
  • Posts: 6458
  • Flat Earth Believer
    • View Profile
Re: Gravity vs. Universal Acceleration
« Reply #16 on: December 16, 2013, 10:24:36 PM »
Atmospheric pressure would not be an issue on a balance unless the pressure varies greatly over the span of a square foot, which is highly unlikely.  Signifigant digits would rule out the Earth's magnetic field in the Gnome experiment since the Earth's magnetic field is measured in millionths of a Tesla, too weak to account for the tenth of a gram variations you can see in the gnome experiment.  It also would not account for the gnome weighing less underground, since magnetic fields get stronger as you reduce the distance between the attracting masses.  See below for the results of the gnome experiment at a laboratory 2kms underground:

http://www.cbc.ca/news/technology/travelling-gnome-experiment-visits-world-s-deepest-lab-1.1294979

Your assessment that pressure is the same everywhere on earth and would not vary is false. The atmospheric pressure is different between locations. If you are in Death Valley, the air pressure is different than if you were at a beach in Florida or the top of Mt. Everest.

Your assessment that the magnetic field is far too weak for affect is also plainly false. It is certainly strong enough to keep a compass needle pointed at the poles, let alone affect the small parts in a digital scale.
« Last Edit: December 16, 2013, 10:26:07 PM by Tom Bishop »

*

Offline Tom Bishop

  • Zetetic Council Member
  • **
  • Posts: 6458
  • Flat Earth Believer
    • View Profile
Re: Gravity vs. Universal Acceleration
« Reply #17 on: December 16, 2013, 10:26:28 PM »
These alleged gravity space missions were not controlled, either.
Please elaborate.  What do you mean by "not controlled"?

Do you know what a controlled experiment is?

*

Offline Rama Set

  • *
  • Posts: 5598
  • Round and round...
    • View Profile
Re: Gravity vs. Universal Acceleration
« Reply #18 on: December 16, 2013, 11:59:08 PM »
Atmospheric pressure would not be an issue on a balance unless the pressure varies greatly over the span of a square foot, which is highly unlikely.  Signifigant digits would rule out the Earth's magnetic field in the Gnome experiment since the Earth's magnetic field is measured in millionths of a Tesla, too weak to account for the tenth of a gram variations you can see in the gnome experiment.  It also would not account for the gnome weighing less underground, since magnetic fields get stronger as you reduce the distance between the attracting masses.  See below for the results of the gnome experiment at a laboratory 2kms underground:

http://www.cbc.ca/news/technology/travelling-gnome-experiment-visits-world-s-deepest-lab-1.1294979

Your assessment that pressure is the same everywhere on earth and would not vary is false. The atmospheric pressure is different between locations. If you are in Death Valley, the air pressure is different than if you were at a beach in Florida or the top of Mt. Everest.

Your assessment that the magnetic field is far too weak for affect is also plainly false. It is certainly strong enough to keep a compass needle pointed at the poles, let alone affect the small parts in a digital scale.

I did not say pressure was the same anywhere. That is a gross misreading. Atmospheric pressure is controlled in the gnome experiment by zeroing the balance. So unless the pressure suddenly changes on one side of the balance it does not affect the weight measurement.

The Earths magnetic field is approximately 1/4 the strength of a fridge magnet, so I doubt it has a significant effect on a ceramic gnome or a lead weight, but the burden of proof is yours to show it does, so go to!

Could you explain why a gnome might be lighter underground when the Earth's magnetic field should be stronger there? As shown in the link I provided?
You don't get races of anything ... accept people.

*

Online markjo

  • Purgatory
  • *
  • Posts: 3758
  • Zetetic Council runner-up
    • View Profile
Re: Gravity vs. Universal Acceleration
« Reply #19 on: December 17, 2013, 12:31:54 AM »
These alleged gravity space missions were not controlled, either.
Please elaborate.  What do you mean by "not controlled"?

Do you know what a controlled experiment is?
The gravity space missions aren't experiments, they're measurements.  Do you know what a measurement is?
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.