Gravitational waves

[661-Pete]

A photon checks into a hotel. The receptionist asks if he needs any help with his luggage, and he replies "I don't have any, I'm travelling light."

A Higgs boson walks into a church. The priest says, "you can't come in here". The Higgs says, "but without me, you can't have Mass...."

[kwackers]

A Higgs boson walks into a church. The priest says, "you can't come in here". The Higgs says, "but without me, you can't have Mass...."

I object to that joke on the basis that you can't know where the boson is AND what it's doing without breaking the universe.
(Plus it debases science and derails a very serious thread).

[Manc33]

Why does the air get thinner as you get higher?

Denser air sinks to Earth by virtue of its density alone, gravity isn't necessary for this.

What stops it escaping upwards into the vacuum if it isn't gravity?

Its density.

Same reason a steel ball and a plastic ball of equal size do not fall in water at the same rate - the denser steel ball sinks faster - because it has a higher density in the same area and shape as the other object.

So it is actually a lie then that "all objects fall at the same rate" and dropping a steel ball next to a plastic one in water proves that (using water is simply slowing down the surrounding medium).

In air, this difference in acceleration is practically immeasurable so we call it a "constant" - of 9.8m/s²

Also, "gravity" is attributed to this acceleration for no real reason, it isn't necessary, the density alone answers everything once you remove the need to carry on "explaining why we don't fly off". If you have no proof Earth is curved or moves, you don't need to explain how things stick to the surface, if they aren't being centrifugally pushed outwards to begin with - or undergoing the required speed changes at the equator of 0.99 MPH every 22 seconds on average, as already pointed out.

Why is it the middle of the night in Australia when it's the middle of the day here?

Perspective. Same reason a plane "lowers down" from your viewpoint when it is flying away maintaining altitude. The sun does the same thing. As for the sun having to shine over the whole flat plane, nope, not with clouds and mountains it won't. Earth has roughly 67% cloud coverage at any given time and with a horizon at only 3 miles away at ground level, of course you can have a sunset.

No offence but from the questions you're asking I can tell you've not looked for answers before to any of this stuff, why would anyone, thats the whole point. Everything is lies, for example what I said above about objects NOT falling at the same rate, they don't, in water or in air. If they don't in water they don't in air, we just can't measure it. So how come this acceleration is touted as a constant? Maybe it is so close to being a constant it can be applied in the real world as one (lol, as long as the surrounding medium is air, derp) but it actually isn't a constant and we get told that all our lives - that objects fall at the same time... did you know yap yap yap parrot regurgitate... no one checks it, not really, they just parrot it.

Thats all very well but you can physically demonstrate it with a steel ball, a plastic ball and two tanks of water of equal size, with the same amount of water in each tank. This proves the rate of acceleration of falling objects is not a constant.

[kwackers]

Denser air sinks to Earth by virtue of its density alone, gravity isn't necessary for this.

Denser air? Why is it denser?
So the less dense air at the top sinks to the bottom and becomes more dense - but why would it sink to the bottom if it was already less dense - or do you mean the air at the top is denser to start with in which case why is that obviously not true.

What stops it escaping upwards into the vacuum if it isn't gravity?

Same reason a steel ball and a plastic ball of equal size do not fall in water at the same rate - the denser steel ball sinks faster - because it has a higher density in the same area and shape as the other object.

Which answers your vacuum question.
It's less dense out there in space so the stuff naturally sinks to the floor.

So it is actually a lie then that "all objects fall at the same rate" and dropping a steel ball next to a plastic one in water proves that (using water is simply slowing down the surrounding medium).

"all objects fall at the same rate in a vacuum" I think is the correct phrase and it's an easily testable thing. In fact you can find a video on youtube were they drop a feather and a steel ball together in a vacuum chamber and guess what happens...

In air, this difference in acceleration is practically immeasurable so we call it a "constant" - of 9.8m/s²

Yet in a vacuum you can measure it as I pointed out above and it works out at 9.8.

Also, "gravity" is attributed to this acceleration for no real reason, it isn't necessary, the density alone answers everything once you remove the need to carry on "explaining why we don't fly off". If you have no proof Earth is curved or moves, you don't need to explain how things stick to the surface, if they aren't being centrifugally pushed outwards to begin with.

Density is a function of gravity. Stuff doesn't naturally become more dense unless something pulls it down. In fact quite the opposite, it buggers off into the vacuum above.

Why is it the middle of the night in Australia when it's the middle of the day here?

Perspective. Same reason a plane "lowers down" from your viewpoint when it is flying away maintaining altitude. The sun does the same thing.

Hmmm, some fag paper maths for you.
Work out how high the sun must be if you measure the change in angle between two points a few miles apart. According to me with a flat earth it's about 3000 miles.
So even 12,000 miles away in Australia the sun is 3000 miles above the land, some simple trigonometry (well, simple for me) says the earth would be 14 degrees above the horizon. i.e. it'll still be day - probably more like evening but most definitely not night.

As an extra question, when the sun is underneath the flat earth why is it not night for both of us?

Keep them coming, you're a funny guy.

[Manc33]

The sun is just a light in the sky to us, it could be a pinch point in the sky. You're only assuming in the heliocentric model it is 93M miles away and we orbit it as an object, while in the flat model people only assume it is an object flying around the sky - what if both are wrong?

I think it is more of a point in the sky being affected by Earth's magnetism. For all we know the magnetism could be whats making the sun react, which actually answers a lot of things in the flat Earth model. This would mean the sun only glows where the sun is passing over, weaker magnetism over the other side of the Earth can't "drag" the suns heat and light to where it is, only the stronger magnetism where the sun is, can. It makes sense to me.

So in that case, the light can't reach you (clouds, mountains, plus the light just doesn't have the "throw" on it) and the horizon can obscure it. Do you realize even waves alone on the ocean can end up obscuring the entire sun once the angle gets diminished enough?

People forget there's clouds and mountains all over Earth and they just parrot the law of perspective - that doesn't factor in Earth's irregularities, it is based on an absolutely flat plane lol, so of course light can shine across that, these are imbecilic arguments.

You can't measure the difference in acceleration of objects falling in a vacuum so you call it a constant - but how do you know it is a constant? You don't, it just gets called that. It is an assumption that helps to bolster the notion that gravity is there, so it is officially promoted. Basically gravity is there because people need it to be, there's no proof.

[kwackers]

The sun is just a light in the sky to us, it could be a pinch point in the sky. You're only assuming in the heliocentric model it is 93M miles away and we orbit it as an object, while in the flat model people only assume it is an object flying around the sky - what if both are wrong?

Not assuming anything. If the model is heliocentric then the sun IS 93million miles away.
OTOH it seems like you're suggesting your model doesn't work.

I think it is more of a point in the sky being affected by Earth's magnetism. For all we know the magnetism could be whats making the sun react, which actually answers a lot of things in the flat Earth model. This would mean the sun only glows where the sun is passing over, weaker magnetism over the other side of the Earth can't "drag" the suns heat and light to where it is, only the stronger magnetism where the sun is, can.

So if I have a magnet I get a better sun tan? Makes sense.

It makes sense to me.

Really!?

So in that case, the light can't reach you (clouds, mountains, plus the light just doesn't have the "throw" on it) and the horizon can obscure it. Do you realize even waves alone on the ocean can end up obscuring the entire sun once the angle gets diminished enough?

Sure I do, but not at 14 degrees it doesn't.
Anyway why when the sun is around the back isn't it night in both places?

People forget there's clouds and mountains all over Earth and they just parrot the law of perspective - that doesn't factor in Earth's irregularities, it is based on an absolutely flat plane lol, so of course light can shine across that, these are imbecilic arguments.

Again, not at 14 degrees. You'd need mountains miles high to hide the sun, in fact in Australia you can watch the sun dip below a flat horizon - i.e. close to zero degrees. No mountains and at the same time someone in the U.K can watch it coming up on a flat plain, i.e. at close to zero degrees.
That can only mean the sun drops into the ocean between us both, why doesn't it go out and is that where clouds come from? Must give off lots of steam...

You can't measure the difference in acceleration of objects falling in a vacuum so you call it a constant - but how do you know it is a constant? You don't, it just gets called that.

It's a constant because it doesn't change. Seriously what else would you call it? Can't call something that doesn't change a variable because it isn't.
You do realise "constant" is a fairly well defined English word with no room for ambiguity right???

This is great stuff. Keep it coming!

[661-Pete]

This is great stuff. Keep it coming!

Indeed! Might I suggest we all decamp and continue this discussion in a more appropriate place? I already have a login over there (under a different name). I haven't figured out what Manc's ID is on that forum - "Manc33" isn't on the member list, but I'm still looking.....

[gaz]

.

[reohn2]

I have a new theory on inertia but it doesn’t seem to be gaining momentum.

IGMC

It's because your rims are to heavy

[gaz]

.

[ncutler]

Ok, it's flat. As a cyclist what I want to know is: what happens when I get to the edge ?

[reohn2]

Sputnik orbiting the Sun(tour)

That's very down to earth or even global IMHO .

[661-Pete]

The FES forum doesn't have global Moderators btw. It has planar Moderators. They're not about to be caught out!

[Manc33]

Sorry, double post...

[Manc33]

The Flat Earth Society is the last place anyone should be discussing this stuff since it is a known parody website setup to come up with the most stupid theories possible about the flat Earth to make people laugh about it, its a clever setup if you think about it but one that can be pointed out - for example they claim Earth has to be accelerating upwards at 1G to "explain gravity" when what they should be telling you is that gravity has no proof to it so why carry on trying to factor it in - density already explains it.

Like I said, very clever, that exact thing drove me away from the "FES" years ago but people have since come out with far better explanations to these things.

The only people left now thinking the Flat Earth Society is where any serious discussion goes on regarding the flat Earth are all the people that never looked into any of it. Even Wikipedia tells you it is a "parody website".

Not assuming anything. If the model is heliocentric then the sun IS 93million miles away.
OTOH it seems like you're suggesting your model doesn't work.

No, I am suggesting that I don't know - and you don't either.

Its just that you'll say you do know and give me some official answer that can be questioned.

The heliocentric model doesn't work because we can still see some of the same stars from the equator in 6 months time and also, the speed of the land needs to change by 2,000 MPH over 12 hours - none of this is the case.

So even if I can't explain how the sun passes over, the heliocentric "answer" has been ruled out, regardless, with the lack of speed changes and seeing some of the same stars in 6 months at the equator.

Your model provably doesn't work then. Not "sounds like it doesn't" - it doesn't and provably so due to the above two points.

So if I have a magnet I get a better sun tan? Makes sense.

If you have got a portable magnetic mountain the size of the one at the North pole, sure, but I'm not sure how you're going to transport that to the beach.

Sure I do, but not at 14 degrees it doesn't.

Yes it can, because you're not even taking perspective into account in any way at all!

Put a camera on the floor on a flat plane, where is the horizon?

Several meters away - I rest my case.

Clouds and mountains indeed will and do block the sun and you just haven't thought about perspective, or think you understand it when you don't.

Before you answer, read what I just said about putting a camera on the floor and where its "horizon" is. How is everything in the world "not there" to that camera? Because it is practically on the floor, just like we are as humans on the Earth.

But you're also assuming the sun is 3,000 miles up when no one knows how high up the sun is in the flat Earth model, or what it is made from. This is also not known in the heliocentric model and scientists just fob us off with so-called answers because it fits the model, not because there's proof, because it fits a model, which is almost childish.

I mean these guys cannot bear the thought of their "scientific" mind not knowing the answer to something so they simply make up the best sounding answer.

Thats all very well but it isn't science, it is "scientism".

Anyway why when the sun is around the back isn't it night in both places?

Put a camera on the floor on a flat surface.

Where is its horizon? Only meters away, not three miles away like from a 6ft elevation.

I wonder why that is.

Because the camera cannot see over the land, just as a human standing on the Earth can't see over all that land.

Again, not at 14 degrees. You'd need mountains miles high to hide the sun

Thats why I also said clouds, but you're cherry picking out mountains. You're editing your argument and ignoring my points. I suppose its a debating "tactic".

...in fact in Australia you can watch the sun dip below a flat horizon - i.e. close to zero degrees.

Dip below?

It goes behind the horizon, not "under" it.

No mountains and at the same time someone in the U.K can watch it coming up on a flat plain, i.e. at close to zero degrees.

Right and there's no clouds either I suppose?

Like I said you're editing your argument and ignoring certain points.

Put a camera on the floor. Where is its horizon?

It isn't three miles away.

That can only mean the sun drops...

No it doesn't mean that, you're totally ignoring that perspective exists in order to fashion that conclusion.

It's a constant because it doesn't change.

I have already said the difference is immeasurable and denser objects do fall faster as proven by dropping them in water.

So you're just taking something that we as humans cannot detect the speed difference of and calling it a constant because we cannot measure any difference, which isn't science.

I have already shown why twice now that this is actually bunk - because denser objects can be shown to fall faster (in water) thus they fall faster, there isn't a debate after that point, it is proven.

So this being a constant is not anything anyone has any proof of, it is just another "We say this is the way it is so it is". Again, this isn't how science is done.

Seriously what else would you call it? Can't call something that doesn't change a variable because it isn't.

I have already said it is so close to a constant it might as well be called one but that doesn't mean it literally/physically is a constant and it is provably not a constant.

Dropping equal sized balls of steel and plastic in identical tanks of water proves within seconds that denser spheres of the same size fall faster than the less dense spheres do, case closed.

You see I can prove it, you can't, that's the difference here.

You're not proving acceleration is a constant in a vacuum, but anyone can replicate the experiment I am pointing out.

You do realise "constant" is a fairly well defined English word with no room for ambiguity right???

You do realize don't you that you guys always say you do realize don't you to nearly everything?

So because you can't detect any difference in acceleration between objects of (let's face it, on this scale of density, very similar densities) you call it a constant.

Thats fair enough if it is "so near we might as call it a constant" but we know it isn't because of dropping a steel ball in a tank and a plastic ball in another tank.

Once that experiment is done there's no way to say the rate of acceleration is a constant, you're going backwards to suggest it is.

You guys then just go around the houses yet again to explain silly bunk like "Well the water resists the objects" and other nonsense. The fact is the denser object in water overcomes the resistance better than the less dense object, the reason is because the more dense object has... drum roll... more density.

The notion that some "force" (gravity) physically pulls on the objects to make them do this is one I find amusing at this stage. I simply never get one shred of proof for it but get told I "have to" believe it.

This, coming from a field of study that prides itself on proving everything... it is the most crude religion of all the religions and at the same time the most widely accepted. Absolutely ingenious, as I have said before it is the "perfect religion".

"The nice thing about science is, it is true whether you believe in it or not" - Neil DeGrasse Tyson.

Right - but I thought the whole point of science was that it escapes all of this "true whether you believe in it or not" stuff and proves everything?

No it doesn't! It doesn't prove gravity, it uses hoaxes with pendulums to "prove" stuff that isn't being proven by doing that, making up stuff about sticks and shadows that also works on a flat Earth with an encircling sun, you can go down the list of these things and none of them add up to anything.

Then we have al the rest of it that never gets explained like how come if you need to be tipping the nose of a plane down at 550 MPH, no pilot ever does?

How come if Earth is a ball pilots can't just take off, get to say 5,000 feet up then level off and "climb" by simply flying parallel to the Earth? Won't the ground drop below them?

Nope - and you know why? Because it ain't curved. If it is, prove it. If it is moving, prove it. If gravity is there, prove it.