[StinkyOne]

Now that LIGO has detected gravity waves warping space-time on multiple occasions (and once again confirming that Einstein was right), where does that leave UA? In FEH, there is no such thing as gravity, so I'd love to hear a rational explanation for the detected waves.

https://www.nytimes.com/2016/02/12/science/ligo-gravitational-waves-black-holes-einstein.html

[Macarios]

UA was never really alive.
It is just wishful thinking.

The Earth's shape is consistent for over 6000 Biblical years.
If UA was real we would have only two options:

1. UA is uniform and Earth keeps the shape all the time
2. UA is not uniform and Earth gets distorted as different parts accelerate differently

If there's third option that could confirm reality of UA, please let me know.

Anyone can measure acceleration "g" at any point on Earth.
You need long pendulum and stopwatch.
It is easy to find on the Internet the formula and description how to measure.
Accuracy of time measure you increase simply by timing more oscillations of the pendulum.

There are more sofisticated devices, like accelerometers, but not everyone can buy or borrow them.

"g" in Los Angeles is 9.80 m/s², at Equator is 9.78, at poles 9.83, at the top of Mount Everest 9.77.
At altitude of 100 kilometers above 45th parallel "g" is 9.75 and at altitude of 1000 kilometers is 7.33.

Higher acceleration of poles, compared to Equator, by 0.05 m/s² would make speed of poles higher by 4320 m/s after just one day.
After two days poles would be mountains above Equator, higher than Mount Everest.
In that light you don't have to think about 6000 years.
Think of ONE, SINGLE MONTH.
Even just one week would be enough to get the picture.
The Earth is not distorted, AND the acceleration is not uniform, therefore we can dismiss option 2.

Dismissal of the option 1. is much shorter to describe.
The acceleration is NOT UNIFORM.

EDIT: Not to mention local differences of "g" within about 100 mGal, caused by diferent density of the ground.
.

[Ratboy]

UA was never really alive.
It is just wishful thinking.

The Earth's shape is consistent for over 6000 Biblical years.
If UA was real we would have only two options:

1. UA is uniform and Earth keeps the shape all the time
2. UA is not uniform and Earth gets distorted as different parts accelerate differently

If there's third option that could confirm reality of UA, please let me know.

Anyone can measure acceleration "g" at any point on Earth.
You need long pendulum and stopwatch.
It is easy to find on the Internet the formula and description how to measure.
Accuracy of time measure you increase simply by timing more oscillations of the pendulum.

There are more sofisticated devices, like accelerometers, but not everyone can buy or borrow them.

"g" in Los Angeles is 9.80 m/s², at Equator is 9.78, at poles 9.83, at the top of Mount Everest 9.77.
At altitude of 100 kilometers above 45th parallel "g" is 9.75 and at altitude of 1000 kilometers is 7.33.

Higher acceleration of poles, compared to Equator, by 0.05 m/s² would make speed of poles higher by 4320 m/s after just one day.
After two days poles would be mountains above Equator, higher than Mount Everest.
In that light you don't have to think about 6000 years.
Think of ONE, SINGLE MONTH.
Even just one week would be enough to get the picture.
The Earth is not distorted, AND the acceleration is not uniform, therefore we can dismiss option 2.

Dismissal of the option 1. is much shorter to describe.
The acceleration is NOT UNIFORM.

EDIT: Not to mention local differences of "g" within about 100 mGal, caused by diferent density of the ground.
.

Thanks for quantifying that.  My model of the earth on a stack of turtles worked in my mind because if the turtles were growing at different rates, that would explain variations in the acceleration.  I was thinking we have no idea what g was 1000 years ago and maybe those other turtles were growing faster then.  By quantifying the difference and showing that Everest would exist at the poles after 2 days (I am assuming that there is a south pole and not a wall of ice) with measured acceleration rates, my model of growing turtles supporting the earth is not plausible.  Back to the drawing board.

[Macarios]

UA was never really alive.
It is just wishful thinking.

The Earth's shape is consistent for over 6000 Biblical years.
If UA was real we would have only two options:

1. UA is uniform and Earth keeps the shape all the time
2. UA is not uniform and Earth gets distorted as different parts accelerate differently

If there's third option that could confirm reality of UA, please let me know.

Anyone can measure acceleration "g" at any point on Earth.
You need long pendulum and stopwatch.
It is easy to find on the Internet the formula and description how to measure.
Accuracy of time measure you increase simply by timing more oscillations of the pendulum.

There are more sofisticated devices, like accelerometers, but not everyone can buy or borrow them.

"g" in Los Angeles is 9.80 m/s², at Equator is 9.78, at poles 9.83, at the top of Mount Everest 9.77.
At altitude of 100 kilometers above 45th parallel "g" is 9.75 and at altitude of 1000 kilometers is 7.33.

Higher acceleration of poles, compared to Equator, by 0.05 m/s² would make speed of poles higher by 4320 m/s after just one day.
After two days poles would be mountains above Equator, higher than Mount Everest.
In that light you don't have to think about 6000 years.
Think of ONE, SINGLE MONTH.
Even just one week would be enough to get the picture.
The Earth is not distorted, AND the acceleration is not uniform, therefore we can dismiss option 2.

Dismissal of the option 1. is much shorter to describe.
The acceleration is NOT UNIFORM.

EDIT: Not to mention local differences of "g" within about 100 mGal, caused by diferent density of the ground.
.

Thanks for quantifying that.  My model of the earth on a stack of turtles worked in my mind because if the turtles were growing at different rates, that would explain variations in the acceleration.  I was thinking we have no idea what g was 1000 years ago and maybe those other turtles were growing faster then.  By quantifying the difference and showing that Everest would exist at the poles after 2 days (I am assuming that there is a south pole and not a wall of ice) with measured acceleration rates, my model of growing turtles supporting the earth is not plausible.  Back to the drawing board.

Actually, I didn't quantify it well.

At the end of the first day, in ONE SECOND  poles would travel 4320 meters MORE THAN Equator.
In ONE MORE SECOND we would have traveled distance different for another 4320 meters.
(Speed DIFFERENCE would in next SECOND be 4320.05 METERS PER SECOND.)

We don't need one more day.

[ShowmetheProof]

The thing is, what does TFES even think powers the accerlaration(Other than nonsense talk about Dark Energy or exotic matter).

[StinkyOne]

The thing is, what does TFES even think powers the accerlaration(Other than nonsense talk about Dark Energy or exotic matter).

Beyond the claim of "dark energy", I think many hold the position that the power source is unknown.

[Rounder]

Now that LIGO has detected gravity waves warping space-time on multiple occasions (and once again confirming that Einstein was right), where does that leave UA?

I don’t think the LIGO results will have any impact on a flat earther.  A big government project “proves” gravity in a way that we can only take their word for it, unverifiable and unrepeatable by anybody who doesn’t also have billions of dollars to spend?  This leaves UA exactly where it has been.

[Pickel B Gravel]

Now that LIGO has detected gravity waves warping space-time on multiple occasions (and once again confirming that Einstein was right), where does that leave UA? In FEH, there is no such thing as gravity, so I'd love to hear a rational explanation for the detected waves.

https://www.nytimes.com/2016/02/12/science/ligo-gravitational-waves-black-holes-einstein.html

This wouldn't be the first time proponents of gravitational waves made a mistake and mistook a more mundane explanation for the alleged detection of gravitational waves. Also, not everyone accepted the results. For example, scientists such as James Creswell, Sebastian von Hausegger, Andrew D. Jackson, Hao Liu and Pavel Naselsky were skeptical when the results were made public.

https://arxiv.org/abs/1706.04191

http://osnetdaily.com/2016/02/7567/

[JohnAdams1145]

LIGO cannot discredit the FE belief that gravity doesn't exist because:
1. FE can dismiss it as another form of observed "gravitation" as they have done for variations of weight on the Earth, the precession of Foucault pendulums, and the various orbits of planets and stars ("celestial gravitation"). This brings their total to at least 3 different forms of "gravitation" which are not gravity.
2. The science that LIGO is based on has already been disavowed by FE theorists (for little reason, but that means that your argument doesn't address their misgivings)
3. Gravitational waves involve extremely complicated physics that most of us (including me) cannot even begin to understand. We can't have a debate about it because that would just end badly.
4. Building the arms of LIGO involved accounting for the curvature of the Earth using high-precision GPS, both of which the FE theorists deny the existence of.

So there's that.

[Rama Set]

It’s all good though because 1st year physics students the world over recreate the Cavendish experiment annually.

[Tom Bishop]

LIGO cannot discredit the FE belief that gravity doesn't exist because:
1. FE can dismiss it as another form of observed "gravitation" as they have done for variations of weight on the Earth, the precession of Foucault pendulums, and the various orbits of planets and stars.
2. The science that LIGO is based on has already been disavowed by FE theorists (for little reason, but that means that your argument doesn't address their misgivings)
3. Gravitational waves involve extremely complicated physics that most of us (including me) cannot even begin to understand. We can't have a debate about it because that would just end badly.
4. Building the arms of LIGO involved accounting for the curvature of the Earth using high-precision GPS, both of which the FE theorists deny the existence of.

So there's that.

Also, we have stated that we believe in the concept of Celestial Gravitation on our Wiki for years and years now, but everyone seems to forget that.

[Macarios]

LIGO cannot discredit the FE belief that gravity doesn't exist because:
1. FE can dismiss it as another form of observed "gravitation" as they have done for variations of weight on the Earth, the precession of Foucault pendulums, and the various orbits of planets and stars.
2. The science that LIGO is based on has already been disavowed by FE theorists (for little reason, but that means that your argument doesn't address their misgivings)
3. Gravitational waves involve extremely complicated physics that most of us (including me) cannot even begin to understand. We can't have a debate about it because that would just end badly.
4. Building the arms of LIGO involved accounting for the curvature of the Earth using high-precision GPS, both of which the FE theorists deny the existence of.

So there's that.

Also, we have stated that we believe in the concept of Celestial Gravitation on our Wiki for years and years now, but everyone seems to forget that.

Is the celestial gravitation proportional to mass?

[rabinoz]

Also, we have stated that we believe in the concept of Celestial Gravitation on our Wiki for years and years now, but everyone seems to forget that.

No, everyone does not forget that.
I have posted a number of times on Celestial Gravitation:

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Celestial Gravitation
Celestial Gravitation is a part of some Flat Earth models which involve an attraction by all objects of mass on earth to the 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.

There there seem numerous reasons to question this. Not the least is the illogicality of the tiny celestial objects having a gravitational effect on the objects on earth, yet the almost infinitely more massive earth  has no effect  .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

and

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
So how does UA explain the observed variation in "g" with altitude and latitude?
Also slight variations in gravitation are observed near massive ore bodies and this assists in mineral prospecting. How does UA explain this?

Celestial Gravitation
Celestial Gravitation is a part of some Flat Earth models which involve an attraction by all objects of mass on earth to the 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.

If this is accepted, however do the rotating celestial bodies explain the above non-time variable gravity variations (not anomalies!)?
Also what is the explanation of of these (tiny) celestial objects having gravitational effects on bodies on the earth, yet the tremendously more massive earth has no effect?
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

And many more. No all have not forgotten Celestial Gravitation.

[StinkyOne]

This wouldn't be the first time proponents of gravitational waves made a mistake and mistook a more mundane explanation for the alleged detection of gravitational waves. Also, not everyone accepted the results. For example, scientists such as James Creswell, Sebastian von Hausegger, Andrew D. Jackson, Hao Liu and Pavel Naselsky were skeptical when the results were made public.

https://arxiv.org/abs/1706.04191

http://osnetdaily.com/2016/02/7567/

From the article: "the noise correlations seen by the Danish team are related to an error in how they analysed the data and that the noise correlations reported by Creswell and colleagues do not exist."

You may want to read the following article concerning the Danish team's paper.
For the lazy:
"I reached out to Salvatore Vitale at MIT who works at LIGO as well to see if the new paper holds any water. “No,” he said, “they screwed up basic things,” listing some specifics of their analysis."
https://gizmodo.com/controversial-new-gravitational-waves-paper-shows-scien-1796343357

However, this raises a great point about the power of the scientific method. FEers love to claim that scientists just follow blindly. This is not the case. 

[Tommy]

Now that LIGO has detected gravity waves warping space-time on multiple occasions (and once again confirming that Einstein was right), where does that leave UA? In FEH, there is no such thing as gravity, so I'd love to hear a rational explanation for the detected waves.

https://www.nytimes.com/2016/02/12/science/ligo-gravitational-waves-black-holes-einstein.html

Yes that is very true.
If the Earth is flat the gravity would be unstable and stuff cannot really orbit the FE well

I'm on your side buddy

[Pete Svarrior]

In FEH, there is no such thing as gravity

Congratulations, you based an entire thread on the fact that you failed to read the FAQ. Ignoring your "FEH" meme, you may want to notice that FET does include gravitation.

[StinkyOne]

In FEH, there is no such thing as gravity

Congratulations, you based an entire thread on the fact that you failed to read the FAQ. Ignoring your "FEH" meme, you may want to notice that FET does include gravitation.

Called it what it is. You have no solid evidence, therefore it is a best described as a hypothesis. Second, as you guys love to scream, gravity != gravitation. I'm familiar with so-called "celestial gravitation." When I've asked about it, no one can tell me anything. It supposedly exists, but no one can say anything beyond that. Sorry, that doesn't cut it.

[Pete Svarrior]

Called it what it is. You have no solid evidence, therefore it is a best described as a hypothesis.

Your personal dislike of the evidence available is your own problem. If you'd like to start a personal blog about it, I wholeheartedly recommend WordPress. Meanwhile, please keep it out of the upper fora.

Second, as you guys love to scream, gravity != gravitation.

Well, yes, gravity is just the idea that stuff tends to stay on the Earth rather than casually float out into space (regardless of underlying cause). I assumed that we both agree gravity does exist, and carried on assuming that you simply meant to say "gravitation".

[Macarios]

"The main difference between gravity and gravitation is that gravitation describes the attractive force between any two masses
while gravity specifically describes the resultant force with which an object is attracted towards the Earth."
(from: https://www.quora.com/What-is-the-difference-between-gravity-and-gravitational-force.)

"Gravity, or gravitation, is a natural phenomenon by which all things with mass are brought toward (or gravitate toward) one another,
including objects ranging from atoms and photons, to planets and stars. Since energy and mass are equivalent, all forms of energy
(including light) cause gravitation and are under the influence of it. On Earth, gravity gives weight to physical objects, and the Moon's
gravity causes the ocean tides. The gravitational attraction of the original gaseous matter present in the Universe caused it to begin
coalescing, forming stars – and for the stars to group together into galaxies – so gravity is responsible for many of the large scale
structures in the Universe. Gravity has an infinite range, although its effects become increasingly weaker on farther objects."
(from: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravity.)

[StinkyOne]

Your personal dislike of the evidence available is your own problem. If you'd like to start a personal blog about it, I wholeheartedly recommend WordPress. Meanwhile, please keep it out of the upper fora.

It isn't a personal dislike of the evidence. It is an understanding that your evidence is not conclusive at best and downright laughable at worst. I will say what I want as long as it follows forum rules.

Well, yes, gravity is just the idea that stuff tends to stay on the Earth rather than casually float out into space (regardless of underlying cause). I assumed that we both agree gravity does exist, and carried on assuming that you simply meant to say "gravitation".

We both know that is not what I'm talking about. I'm referring to Einstein's view of gravity as a warping of spacetime caused by massive objects. And, just to be 100% clear, I am definitely NOT talking about celestial gravitation with its completely undefined properties. I view CG as a kludge to cover up flaws arising from a lack of Gravity.