3
4

Gravity Does Not Exist (self.flatearthsociety)

attackhoe が 投稿

Not only is there no evidence for it, but it is a simple-minded, nonsensical belief. But, if someone can provide evidence for the mechanism that makes gravity work, I would love to hear it. And there is a Nobel Prize waiting for you as well.

A simple request before you reply with some half thought out drivel... Please make sure you have a firm grasp of what acceleration is, as well as the Equivalence Principle. Thanks!

上位 200 件のコメント全て表示する 252
並べ替え:
ベスト
トップ新着論争中古い順Q&A

[–]stewmangroup 11ポイント12ポイント  (32子コメント)

You hold the burden of proof. Prove your conjecture and earn yourself that nobel prize.

[–]attackhoe[S] 0ポイント1ポイント  (31子コメント)

I think you are confused, friend. I am simply asking for evidence of what round earth logicians regurgitate ad nauseam. Round earth posits that gravity exists, while there is no proof for it.

It is also clear you don't know what the word conjecture means. Therefore, I can only you assume you have limited to no understanding of acceleration, nor the Equivalence Principle.

[–]stewmangroup 8ポイント9ポイント  (30子コメント)

The concept that that the Earth is flat is at best a hypothesis but it's mostly conjecture. We have yet to observe a flat celestial body, we cannot conclude the Earth is flat from that evidence.

[–]attackhoe[S] -1ポイント0ポイント  (29子コメント)

I think you may be confused. I would suggest reading the title of the topic again to help clarify your apparent misunderstanding.

We have yet to observe a flat celestial body

Irrelevant.

[–]stewmangroup 8ポイント9ポイント  (28子コメント)

Meh, you are welcome to think gravity doesn't exist. Doesn't make a damn bit of difference to the fact the Earth is a sphere.

[–]attackhoe[S] -4ポイント-3ポイント  (22子コメント)

Meh, you are welcome to think gravity doesn't exist.

And you are welcome to believe in fairy tale magic with no evidence supporting it.

[–]stewmangroup 5ポイント6ポイント  (21子コメント)

riiight, gravity is "magic"

You are so lucky to have had the truth revealed to you. You must be a very special person. As the veil is lifted from the masses, you will be regarded as a genius amongst imbeciles. No one will every doubt your superior intellect, once it is revealed to everyone that the Earth is flat.

[–]attackhoe[S] -3ポイント-2ポイント  (20子コメント)

You are so lucky to have had the truth revealed to you. You must be a very special person. As the veil is lifted from the masses, you will be regarded as a genius amongst imbeciles. No one will every doubt your superior intellect

Please refrain from projecting your insecurities onto me. Thanks!

[–]stewmangroup 6ポイント7ポイント  (19子コメント)

I'm not the special snowflake that thinks YouTube has enlightened them.

[–]attackhoe[S] -1ポイント0ポイント  (18子コメント)

I suppose it is a good thing I am not, either. Not sure how that is relevant to the discussion.

[–]cdohio2119 -2ポイント-1ポイント  (4子コメント)

It doesn't make a bit of difference?? Really. Gravity is the only thing holding your globe earth together man. It the reason why the oceans curve to make a sphere! Without gravity your beloved globe doesn't exist!

[–]stewmangroup 4ポイント5ポイント  (3子コメント)

Good thing it does then huh?

[–]cdohio2119 -2ポイント-1ポイント  (2子コメント)

What OP is telling you is there's no hard evidence for it! Go over to r/oddlysatisfying and check out that smoke bubble. That's your globe earth model going up in smoke!

[–]stewmangroup 9ポイント10ポイント  (0子コメント)

So you think UA is true?

First of all, UA does not provide a mechanism for constant acceleration. This is a serious problem with UA.

Objects of different densities fall at the same rate in a vacuum. Not accounted for in UA.

If the Earth were a spinning globe we would expect to see the gravitational force be slightly weaker at the equator, which is exactly what we measure. Not accounted for in UA.

The Cavendish Experiment and more specifically, its results are not accounted for in UA.

[–]Vietoris 5ポイント6ポイント  (0子コメント)

What OP is telling you is there's no hard evidence for it!

The earth being a sphere is a good hard evidence for gravity. Not the other way around.

The shape of the earth is something that we can measure. It's not a theory.

Gravity is a theory that can be used to explain observations of interactions between massive objects that we observe in real life. The earth being a sphere is one of these observations.

Even if the current theory of gravity was completely wrong (which is very possible), it would not change the fact that the earth is a sphere.

[–]kobullso 6ポイント7ポイント  (48子コメント)

In your hypothesis. Where is that acceleration coming from? What's accelerating? A ball is not just gaining kinetic energy just because. In your model where is that energy coming from?

[–]TotesMessenger 3ポイント4ポイント  (0子コメント)

I'm a bot, bleep, bloop. Someone has linked to this thread from another place on reddit:

If you follow any of the above links, please respect the rules of reddit and don't vote in the other threads. (Info / Contact)

[–]attackhoe[S] 0ポイント1ポイント  (46子コメント)

The universal accelerator, likely powered by dark energy, is the currently accepted theme at the Flat Earth Society which sponsors this particular subreddit. Earth is simply accelerating constantly at ~9.8m/s2.

[–]aphilsphan 6ポイント7ポイント  (27子コメント)

Do the math. It takes about a year to get to light speed. That's a prediction your model makes. It is a hallmark of science that models make predictions. If the predictions are confirmed, the model can become an accepted theory. However, the fact that the earth moon system would, within a year, begin to approach the speed of light, with all the relativistic implications of that falsifies the model.

[–]attackhoe[S] 1ポイント2ポイント  (26子コメント)

It takes about a year to get to light speed.

Based on whose frame of reference? You can accelerate forever at a constant rate and never reach the speed of light. I am not sure what point you are attempting to make with this.

[–]aphilsphan 9ポイント10ポイント  (25子コメント)

Wow, reference frames. Well, in our reference frame, Alpha Centauri must ALSO be accelerating at that same rate, since it does not move relative to us (I'm ignoring proper motion for simplicity). But, of course, Alpha Centauri is a light in the dome isn't it?

[–]attackhoe[S] 0ポイント1ポイント  (24子コメント)

But, of course, Alpha Centauri is a light in the dome isn't it?

I am not sure what you are referring to.

[–]stewmangroup 3ポイント4ポイント  (21子コメント)

Now you are just playing ignorant. There are very few FE conjectures that don't include a dome or firmament of some sort. I am pretty sure the Flat Earth Society's official view is that there is a dome or firmament. I could give a fuck about looking it up but you could!

[–]attackhoe[S] -2ポイント-1ポイント  (20子コメント)

There are very few FE conjectures that don't include a dome or firmament

False. It seems you are the ignorant one in this instance, friend.

I am pretty sure the Flat Earth Society's official view is that there is a dome or firmament

Which FES?

I could give a fuck about looking it up

Seems to be your approach to every topic thus far. This actually explains your ignorance quite well.

[–]stewmangroup 6ポイント7ポイント  (19子コメント)

Show me a functioning FE model that does not include an firmament or dome.

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/

Considering how little you know about the topic you support, perhaps you should spend some time doing some research and work on your reading comprehension at the same time. Kill two birds with one big flat stone.

[–]attackhoe[S] -2ポイント-1ポイント  (18子コメント)

I am not sure what point you are trying to make here. It seems you have decided to just ramble incoherently at this point as you have utterly failed to provide any evidence for gravity. I will say, your deflection and hand waiving efforts are good. Now if only your reading comprehension and understanding of simple physics were as good, we could have an actual conversation.

[–]notaneggspert 6ポイント7ポイント  (1子コメント)

Some FE's believe stars are basically just lights on a man (god?) made dome encapsulating the earth.

It's not universally accepted by FE's but tge glass dome is what some believe in.

[–]attackhoe[S] 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

Some FE's believe stars are basically just lights on a man (god?) made dome encapsulating the earth

I suppose it is good that this view isn't supported by the FES which sponsors this sub.

[–]kobullso 3ポイント4ポイント  (17子コメント)

What about the speed of light? Does flat earth think anything different about that?

[–]attackhoe[S] 0ポイント1ポイント  (16子コメント)

What about it? It is the same in either model.

[–]kobullso 6ポイント7ポイント  (15子コメント)

Then you just debunked the entire premise. Vf=Vo+at. figure you start from stationary. so Vf=at. 60 seconds in a minute60 minutes in an hour24 hours in a day*365.25 (for leap years) days in a year = 31,557,600 seconds in a year. 9.8 m/s2 * 31,557,600 seconds in a year gives me a final velocity of 309,264,480 m/s. Which is a problem since the speed of light is only 299,792,458...

[–]attackhoe[S] 0ポイント1ポイント  (14子コメント)

I would suggest maybe doing some research before making such a long-winded, incorrect post. You are using classical mechanics where they do not apply. You can accelerate at a constant rate forever and never reach the speed of light. I would try using the more appropriate equation if I were you.

[–]kobullso 6ポイント7ポイント  (13子コメント)

Incorrect. The reason you vcan not hit light speed is because the energy required to accelerate something closer and closer asymptomaticly approaches infinity. You can not accelerate at 9.8 m/s2 forever. You might want to review your basic physics.

[–]attackhoe[S] -1ポイント0ポイント  (12子コメント)

he reason you vcan not hit light speed is because the energy required to accelerate something closer and closer asymptomaticly approaches infinity.

A good thing there seems to be enough dark energy available for that, then.

You can not accelerate at 9.8 m/s2 forever.

False.

You might want to review your basic physics.

I would suggest you do the same. Maybe also read the parable of the pot and the kettle while you are at it...

[–]kobullso 4ポイント5ポイント  (11子コメント)

Just think about this for a second. say you are going 1 m/s under the speed of light. You then accelerate at 9.8 m/s. whaT happens?

edit. it is the famous you are 10 ft from a wall and every step takes you half the remaining distance to it. do you ever touch the wall. The answer is no.

[–]attackhoe[S] 0ポイント1ポイント  (10子コメント)

Just think about this for a second. say you are going 1 m/s under the speed of light. You then accelerate at 9.8 m/s. whaT happens?

You continue to approach the speed of light, but never reach it. The maths support this.

[–]BunnyOppai 4ポイント5ポイント  (65子コメント)

First off, you do realise that Einstein is the one that stated that you wouldn't be able to feel the difference in a closed system between gravity and acceleration, correct? Isn't this the same person that used gravity in the majourity of his theories? So which is it? Idiot or genius; corrupt or pure? You guys can't pick and choose what you want to believe. That's not how science works. That equates to religion at that point.

Second, I'm assuming you believe in this magical "Universal Acceleration"? Trust me when I say that there's even less proof of UA than there is of gravity. If you can provide proof from trusted sources, then please, go right ahead and prove that UA is any less "magical" than gravity. At least we have the Cavendish Experiment. What experiment can you provide that detects UA?

[–]attackhoe[S] 0ポイント1ポイント  (64子コメント)

Trust me when I say that there's even less proof of UA than there is of gravity

I am not really a listen and believe kind of person. You can observe acceleration, but not gravity. Unless you care to explain the mechanism behind it.

[–]BunnyOppai 6ポイント7ポイント  (43子コメント)

You can observe acceleration, sure, but please, tell explain the mechanism behind your belief. The Burden of Proof is on your shoulders, afterall. You can't just claim that gravity is unverifiable whilst providing your own unverifiable claim.

[–]attackhoe[S] 0ポイント1ポイント  (42子コメント)

You can't just claim that gravity is unverifiable whilst providing your own unverifiable claim.

See, you RE folks are struggling with how burden of proof works again. The dominating theory is gravity, yet there is no evidence it exists. The burden falls on you to prove it. I am simply taking the role of a skeptic asking for evidence.

[–]BunnyOppai 7ポイント8ポイント  (25子コメント)

The burden is on the one making the claim. At the very least, we have the Cavendish Experiment and gravitational waves. You guys just say that both are bullshit. On the other hand, you have zero proof of UA. You're the one making the original claim in your post, so you have to back up that claim.

[–]attackhoe[S] 0ポイント1ポイント  (24子コメント)

The burden is on the one making the claim.

Correct.

At the very least, we have the Cavendish Experiment and gravitational waves.

Neither of which are evidence of gravity.

You guys just say that both are bullshit.

Not necessarily bullshit. Just not evidence of gravity.

On the other hand, you have zero proof of UA.

False. You can confirm this with an accelerometer. Or, more simply, stand on a chair, then step off.

You're the one making the original claim in your post, so you have to back up that claim.

Again, false. I may have had a bit of a sensationalist headline, but I am simply a skeptic asking for proof of a dominating RE theory.

[–]BunnyOppai 3ポイント4ポイント  (23子コメント)

You seem to claim that you understand Burden of Proof, but the problem here is that you don't understand the fact that you're the one that originally made the claim that acceleration is the reason for us falling.

Neither of which are evidence of gravity.

Please, tell me how this is so.

False. You can confirm this with an accelerometer. Or, more simply, stand on a chair, then step off.

Okay, you're starting to sound like a troll at this point. Those are proofs that we fall, not proof of UA or gravity. An actual proof of UA or some other force would be an observation of the actual force, not its effects on us. Please explain to me why these aren't proofs of gravity instead of UA.

[–]attackhoe[S] 0ポイント1ポイント  (22子コメント)

You seem to claim that you understand Burden of Proof, but the problem here is that you don't understand the fact that you're the one that originally made the claim that acceleration is the reason for us falling.

I didn't make the original claim that gravity existed. I am simply a skeptic asking for evidence. I would suggest going back and maybe reading beyond the title for evidence of that. Also, acceleration is the reason in either model, so that is moot.

Please explain to me why these aren't proofs of gravity instead of UA.

Simple. You can observe acceleration. You can't observe gravity, and no one seems to know how it works.

[–]stewmangroup 3ポイント4ポイント  (9子コメント)

You have been provided evidence and you reject it. Now it is your turn to provide evidence.

Just because you don't understand something, doesn't mean no one does. An argument from ignorance seems to be the best you've got.

[–]attackhoe[S] 0ポイント1ポイント  (8子コメント)

You have been provided evidence and you reject it

False. Nothing you have mentioned is evidence for gravity. What makes gravity work?

Just because you don't understand something, doesn't mean no one does.

Using your own methodology, can you cite scholarly sources explaining the mechanism behind gravity?

An argument from ignorance seems to be the best you've got.

Pot , meet kettle.

[–]BunnyOppai 0ポイント1ポイント  (11子コメント)

I didn't make the original claim that gravity existed. I am simply a skeptic asking for evidence. I would suggest going back and maybe reading beyond the title for evidence of that. Also, acceleration is the reason in either model, so that is moot.

You said, and I quote, "...please make sure you have a firm grasp of what acceleration is...", seemingly implying that UA was what you believed in. If that's what you weren't implying at all, then please tell me what your belief is.

Simple. You can observe acceleration. You can't observe gravity, and no one seems to know how it works.

Except you can observe gravity. Gravitational waves have been observed and the Cavendish, as I've already said, is proof of gravity as well. Both require sensitive equipment, so people like those in Flat Earth are obviously going to doubt them though. Therein lies the problem: You guys doubt anything and everything against your model, thus making the majourity of our arguments against you completely useless, even if they're undeniable evidence entirely against Flat Earth.

[–]attackhoe[S] 0ポイント1ポイント  (10子コメント)

please make sure you have a firm grasp of what acceleration is...", seemingly implying that UA was what you believed in.

That was simply a prerequisite for the discussion to be productive, so I didn't have to repeat myself so often.

If that's what you weren't implying at all, then please tell me what your belief is.

I don't have an absolute belief in any of the models yet. UA isn't without faults, it is just that most people don't understand the RE model well enough to attack this particular FE model. I am mostly interested in discussions.

Except you can observe gravity.

False.

Gravitational waves...

Good thing that isn't gravity, then.

You guys doubt anything and everything against your model

I don't know who you talk to from the FE side, but that is simply not true.

[–]stewmangroup 2ポイント3ポイント  (15子コメント)

If you are going to make a claim that runs counter all evidence and settled science, you hold the burden of proof. Where are all the peer reviewed papers supporting Universal Acceleration?

Why is the gravitational force at the equator less than at the poles? This runs counter to any version of UA you can pull out. Yet, it matches precisely with what we would expect to see from a slowly spinning sphere.

[–]attackhoe[S] -1ポイント0ポイント  (14子コメント)

evidence and settled science

What evidence? Nothing has been settled yet, friend.

Where are all the peer reviewed papers supporting Universal Acceleration?

Irrelevant.

Why is the gravitational force at the equator less than at the poles?

Likely uncalibrated equipment. Celestial bodies may also have minimal gravitational influence.

This runs counter to any version of UA you can pull out.

False.

Yet, it matches precisely with what we would expect to see from a slowly spinning sphere.

Also false.

[–]stewmangroup 2ポイント3ポイント  (13子コメント)

Fair enough, it's not settled for people like you. You are welcome to shout into your little echo chamber as loud as you want. The rest of us will simply enjoy watching you make fools of yourselves.

If UA had any merit, it would be published, reviewed and elevated to theory, assuming it passes muster. Since it hasn't done that, and won't anytime soon, the lack of peer review papers is most certainly relevant to point out.

The equipment was calibrated just fine and the measurements are repeatable and verifiable. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravity_of_Earth#Local_topography_and_geology

Gravitational force would be equal across the planet were UA a reality. Since it isn't, my statement is not false.

You hold the burden of proof. So, like I said before, get out there and earn that Noble prize! Prove UA, prove gravity does't exist, prove the flat Earth conjecture. We'll be waiting (and giggling). Good luck dipshit!

[–]attackhoe[S] 0ポイント1ポイント  (12子コメント)

You are welcome to shout into your little echo chamber as loud as you want.

Except that this Flat Earth Society isn't an echo chamber. Quite the opposite. We welcome all viewpoints and opinions.

If UA had any merit, it would be published, reviewed and elevated to theory, assuming it passes muster.

Do you have any evidence to support your outlandish claim?

the measurements are repeatable and verifiable.

Yet, there is no data which supports your claim in that link.

Gravitational force would be equal across the planet were UA a reality.

This is objectively false.

You hold the burden of proof.

Again, false. Until you supply evidence for gravity's existence, it's mechanism, etc., then the burden still falls on RE. I would suggest maybe doing some research as to how the burden of proof works before posting again. It is starting to make you look a little foolish. If you find yourself still struggling, I recommend the following resource:

rif.org

Take care!

[–]stewmangroup 2ポイント3ポイント  (11子コメント)

I have visited your website and it's just as shitty as the subs here.

Publish a paper supporting UA and have it reviewed. If it passes muster UA will be elevated to theory. If you are incapable of compiling enough data to support your claim, then get together with all your flat Earth buddies and figure it out. It's not hard, people submit papers for peer review all the time.

There is nothing in UA that accounts for the variations that we see in gravitational force across the planet. The gravitation force has been measured to be slightly less at the equator and it doesn't really matter if you accept it or not because that is our reality.

Your assertion that you do not hold the burden of proof is cute. Keep it coming man, you are a riot!

[–]attackhoe[S] 0ポイント1ポイント  (10子コメント)

I have visited your website and it's just as shitty as the subs here.

I am sorry you prefer an actual echo chamber, rather than a place that encourages open discussion.

Your assertion that you do not hold the burden of proof is cute.

Still waiting for that evidence of gravity... You know, the dominant RE theory which there is no evidence for and which you continue to refuse to even attempt to proving.

[–]stewmangroup 3ポイント4ポイント  (19子コメント)

So what causes the constant acceleration of the flat Earth?

[–]aphilsphan 2ポイント3ポイント  (0子コメント)

Good arguments. They take the legitimate scientific questions about how gravity works in a quantum mechanical world and declare, "well that means my cockamamie theory..." or "my 8th century BCE shepherd's beliefs..." are correct. Arrant nonsense.

Of course, we've elected a science illiterate POTUS, so what these guys think doesn't really matter.

[–]attackhoe[S] -1ポイント0ポイント  (17子コメント)

The universal accelerator is the commonly accepted theory at the Flat Earth Society which sponsors this sub.

The universal accelerator is the commonly accepted theory at the Flat Earth Society which sponsors this sub.

[–]aphilsphan 1ポイント2ポイント  (5子コメント)

Name one scientist who accepts it.

[–]attackhoe[S] 0ポイント1ポイント  (4子コメント)

Name one scientist who accepts it.

Literally irrelevant.

[–]aphilsphan 2ポイント3ポイント  (3子コメント)

There are scientists who deny climate change. Not many, but a few. They use scientific arguments to try to disprove change. They don't talk about conspiracies. Wacky politicians like Donald Trump do, but the second s climate scientist talks about conspiracy hr loses all credibility.

A few scientists are Creationists. They have no credibility because they are all biblical literalists and have no basis for their arguments other than that.

But NO one trained in science is a UA flat earther. No one. That's how utterly nutty the theory is,

[–]attackhoe[S] 0ポイント1ポイント  (2子コメント)

There are scientists who deny climate change.

Irrelevant.

A few scientists are Creationists. They have no credibility because they are all biblical literalists and have no basis for their arguments other than that.

Also irrelevant.

But NO one trained in science is a UA flat earther. No one. That's how utterly nutty the theory is,

There's a pattern forming here...

[–]aphilsphan 2ポイント3ポイント  (1子コメント)

Well, my battery is dying and you are wed to a theory that is already falsified. So, I'm going to say "good night."

[–]attackhoe[S] 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

you are wed to a theory that is already falsified

This is objectively untrue and bordering on intellectual dishonesty. Have a good night, friend.

[–]stewmangroup 1ポイント2ポイント  (10子コメント)

What is the source of thrust to cause universal acceleration?

If you are going to claim gravity doesn't exist, you must provide a model that functions equally or better. Not only, in small scale but throughout the known cosmos. UA doesn't even work on Earth, let alone account for the forming of galaxies, stars, planets, etc. The only thing more absurd than UA is the flat Earth conjecture as a whole.

[–]attackhoe[S] 0ポイント1ポイント  (9子コメント)

What is the source of thrust to cause universal acceleration?

Dark energy, most likely.

If you are going to claim gravity doesn't exist, you must provide a model that functions equally or better.

Already done, friend.

UA doesn't even work on Earth

False.

let alone account for the forming of galaxies, stars, planets, etc.

Irrelevant.

The only thing more absurd than UA is the flat Earth conjecture as a whole.

And yet, still no evidence of gravity. Nice deflection.

[–]stewmangroup 0ポイント1ポイント  (8子コメント)

Awesome conjecture, now get out there and earn your Noble prize! We'll be waiting.

[–]attackhoe[S] -1ポイント0ポイント  (7子コメント)

Another post, still no evidence for gravity. Not looking good for your theory... Take care, friend!

[–]stewmangroup 2ポイント3ポイント  (6子コメント)

At least it's a theory! You don't even have one of those.

[–]attackhoe[S] -1ポイント0ポイント  (5子コメント)

Ah, now you are struggling with simple comprehension. I must implore that you visit rif.org first. Once you are done there, maybe try try a dictionary. Take care!

[–]adydurn 4ポイント5ポイント  (18子コメント)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cavendish_experiment

How does UA explain this? I mean this seriously. This is a demonstrable experiment showing mutual attraction between masses. It was using this that Henry Cavendish was able to work out the gravitational constant and then measure the mass of the Earth.

All the maths is present so you can easily do this yourself and determine the mass of Earth yourself.

[–]attackhoe[S] 0ポイント1ポイント  (16子コメント)

Simply an effect of electromagnetism, likely caused by the UA.

[–]adydurn 0ポイント1ポイント  (15子コメント)

Umm, the experiment calls for massive balls of lead. You know, the famously heavy non-ferrous metal? Can you show that it's electromagnetism? Also how does UA have that effect on massive objects? What's interesting is if you swap the lead with, say, cartons or mercury, or aluminium, or silicates, you get the exact same results. The only thing that changes the output is changing the mass of the objects.

How is electromagnetism generated by UA?

Another question for UA is that the acceleration is not uniform across the Earth, fuck it's not uniform across Britain. How can this be the case? The Earth would have to be accelerating at different speeds based on where you are in the world.

The two phenomena can ONLY be accurately described by gravity. Electromagnetism has no attractive force on lead.

If however you are right and it's 'simply an effect' then describe it. It's a simple effect, you don't need access to long words.

[–]attackhoe[S] 0ポイント1ポイント  (14子コメント)

How is electromagnetism generated by UA?

Acceleration of the earth caused by dark energy, generating radial magnetization.

I'm not suggesting a magnetic relationship, just the UA is responsible. Differences in the measurement of acceleration at various points on earth has already been covered in this thread.

[–]adydurn 1ポイント2ポイント  (5子コメント)

I'm not suggesting a magnetic relationship, just the UA is responsible.

You said that it was caused by electromagnetism. The key part of that word is the magnetism... the passing of electricity generates a magnetic effect. This is called electromagnetism. It's not some magical force that you can switch in and out whenever gravity does something you don't want it to do. At least the guys who claim UA to be bollocks try and cover their arses with density. They don't say what causes density but it's there.

Can you like me to your answer on non-uniform universal acceleration please? There are 200 replies to your bullshit conjecture and I don't have time to trawl through all of them.

[–]attackhoe[S] 0ポイント1ポイント  (4子コメント)

It's not some magical force

No, that is gravity. What I am explaining is not only easier to understand, but it actually exists.

Can you like me to your answer on non-uniform universal acceleration please?

No, I am not doing your homework for you. I understand that round earthers like to have their hands held and be spoon fed, but maybe try to put in a little effort of your own. This is another reason why your arguments never hold up, you RErs seem to lack the ability to put in even a minimal amount of work.

There are 200 replies to your bullshit conjecture and I don't have time to trawl through all of them.

It's almost like there is a feature actually built-in here that would make that process quicker...

[–]adydurn 1ポイント2ポイント  (3子コメント)

No, that is gravity. What I am explaining is not only easier to understand, but it actually exists.

A force used to validate gravity cannot be used to disprove gravity, seriously, do I really need to tell you this? You cannot be this stupid.

No, I am not doing your homework for you. I understand that round earthers like to have their hands held and be spoon fed, but maybe try to put in a little effort of your own. This is another reason why your arguments never hold up, you RErs seem to lack the ability to put in even a minimal amount of work.

Ahh, I see, it's one of those then. You can't back it up, and most likely someone else has pointed out that UA can't be UA if it's not U - Universal, ie the same all over.

It's almost like there is a feature actually built-in here that would make that process quicker...

Probably more word salad and reliance on gravity validating proofs against gravity. The irony of this is just washing off you isn't it?

[–]attackhoe[S] 0ポイント1ポイント  (2子コメント)

A force used to validate gravity

Good thing we aren't discussing anything that validates gravity, then.

Ahh, I see, it's one of those then. You can't back it up, and most likely someone else has pointed out that UA can't be UA if it's not U - Universal, ie the same all over.

If you would have taken a minute to do the slightest bit of work on your own, you could have avoided looking as foolish as you do here. It really already has been covered. You seem to have time for long-winded, nonsensical replies, but no time for a 10 second search. You round earth logicians never cease to amaze me.

The irony of this is just washing off you isn't it?

I'd suggest looking up what irony is before using it to try to sound clever. It is clear you don't understand irony anymore than you understand basic physics...

[–]adydurn 1ポイント2ポイント  (1子コメント)

Good thing we aren't discussing anything that validates gravity, then.

Except that whenever you refer to dark energy, you are implicitly accepting that gravity exists as the theory of dark energy EXISTS TO VALIDATE GRAVITY

Wow, you really are this stupid aren't you?

If you would have taken a minute to do the slightest bit of work on your own, you could have avoided looking as foolish as you do here. It really already has been covered. You seem to have time for long-winded, nonsensical replies, but no time for a 10 second search. You round earth logicians never cease to amaze me.

On my phone, either link, paraphrase or admit defeat.

I'd suggest looking up what irony is before using it to try to sound clever. It is clear you don't understand irony anymore than you understand basic physics...

Irony is writing a song about irony and only including cases of bad luck. Irony is believing you are open-minded in your ceaseless attempt to prove something demonstrably false.

[–]attackhoe[S] 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

you are implicitly accepting that gravity exists

Objectively false.

Wow, you really are this stupid aren't you?

More ad hominem. The round earth logician's favorite fallacy.

On my phone

Irrelevant.

Irony is writing a song about irony and only including cases of bad luck. Irony is believing you are open-minded in your ceaseless attempt to prove something demonstrably false.

If this is your understanding of irony, then everything else you have said up to this point makes perfect sense now. :)

[–]adydurn 0ポイント1ポイント  (7子コメント)

Word salad, I'm afraid, you're explaining nothing. Do you want to try again or just admit defeat here?

[–]attackhoe[S] 0ポイント1ポイント  (6子コメント)

Word salad, I'm afraid, you're explaining nothing

I really do apologize if it is too difficult for you to understand. I am not sure I can help you in that regard.

Do you want to try again or just admit defeat here?

Defeat of what? If you are simply trying to end the debate to hide your lack of understanding, then that is fine. At least be honest about it, though. You are coming off a bit disingenuous at the moment.

[–]adydurn 0ポイント1ポイント  (5子コメント)

I really do apologize if it is too difficult for you to understand. I am not sure I can help you in that regard.

I understand everything you're saying, it's not only wrong but incoherent and a blatant misuse of 'sciency' words.

Defeat of what? If you are simply trying to end the debate to hide your lack of understanding, then that is fine. At least be honest about it, though. You are coming off a bit disingenuous at the moment.

You are saying that the lead is being attracted by an electromagnetic force caused by dark energy. Now seeing as magnetism (yes magnetism) doesn't affect lead and that dark matter is a theory postulated to validate gravity nothing you've said make an iota of sense.

So, would you like to try again or admit you that you fuck all about these cosmic words you are using?

[–]attackhoe[S] 0ポイント1ポイント  (4子コメント)

I understand everything you're saying

It is obvious that is simply not true, at least up to this point.

You are saying that the lead is being attracted by an electromagnetic force caused by dark energy.

Please point out where I said that.

So, would you like to try again

Try what again? I would suggest going back and reading the thread again to help with your clear misunderstanding of what is being discussed. It really isn't that hard.

[–]adydurn 0ポイント1ポイント  (3子コメント)

Please point out where I said that.

Simply an effect of electromagnetism, likely caused by the UA.

Try what again? I would suggest going back and reading the thread again to help with your clear misunderstanding of what is being discussed. It really isn't that hard.

Explaining the Cavendish experiment using UA, or explaining how UA is not Universal.

[–]attackhoe[S] 0ポイント1ポイント  (2子コメント)

So you can't point out where I said what you claimed I said, then. Gotcha.

[–]setecordas 2ポイント3ポイント  (75子コメント)

Hold something in the air, let it go, and it accelerates to the earth. Jump in the air and notice yourself be quickly accelerated towards the earth. Notice that you are not floating around, but experience a constant pull towards the earth.

All that is the effect of gravity. You experience gravity continuously. Proof? You are proof that gravity is real.

[–]attackhoe[S] -1ポイント0ポイント  (74子コメント)

False. That is proof of acceleration.

[–]Demon_God_Burny 6ポイント7ポイント  (27子コメント)

And what, pray tell, do you believe is the cause of this acceleration?

[–]Rourke2013 5ポイント6ポイント  (0子コメント)

I believe this is the million dollar question.

OP?

[–]attackhoe[S] -1ポイント0ポイント  (25子コメント)

The universal accelerator is the commonly accepted theory at the Flat Earth Society which sponsors this sub.

[–]Demon_God_Burny 5ポイント6ポイント  (24子コメント)

And what proof do you have to support this claim? What causes the upwards acceleration? Why has the disk not surpassed the speed of light? What information has lead to you accepting this claim?

[–]attackhoe[S] -1ポイント0ポイント  (23子コメント)

And what proof do you have to support this claim?

You can observe the acceleration firsthand.

What causes the upwards acceleration?

Dark energy is the current theory/placeholder.

Why has the disk not surpassed the speed of light?

Because you can constantly accelerate forever and never reach the speed of light.

What information has lead to you accepting this claim?

I haven't committed to accepting this claim, yet. It is one of a few different RE theories. It just happens to be the one adopted by this iteration of the Flat Earth Society.

[–]Demon_God_Burny 3ポイント4ポイント  (4子コメント)

You can observe the acceleration firsthand.

And what allows you to de termini that the acceleration is caused by the earth ascending, rather than gravity?

Dark energy is the current theory/placeholder.

To be fair, the same is applied to the concept of universal expansion in the globe earth model. There's no teal direct proof though, so there's no real argument for or against.

Because you can constantly accelerate forever and never reach the speed of light.

I'm sorry, what? Accelerating upwards at 9.8 m/s/s, it would only take 30591067.1 seconds, or a little under a year, to achieve light speed. From then on, the speed would either have to stabilize, which means no acceleration, and therefore no ability for objects to fall, or it would have to keep accelerating, thereby violating relatively. If this were the case, then it would contradict your method of acceleration, as the amount of energy required to move an object at or beyond the speed of light is infinite.

It just happens to be the one adopted by this iteration of the Flat Earth Society.

You do realize that TFES is run by trolls, right? Even "real" flatties like Jism, Dubay, and Mullen advise that TFES is all misinformation used to take away from the legitimately of the actual flat earth hypothesis.

That's implying that the flat earth hypothesis had any legitimately to begin with, but I'm sure you get what I'm saying.

[–]attackhoe[S] 0ポイント1ポイント  (3子コメント)

And what allows you to de termini that the acceleration is caused by the earth ascending, rather than gravity?

The lack of evidence for gravity.

To be fair, the same is applied to the concept of universal expansion in the globe earth model.

That is fine. Universal expansion isn't mutually exclusive with FE or RE.

I'm sorry, what? Accelerating upwards at 9.8 m/s/s, it would only take 30591067.1 seconds, or a little under a year, to achieve light speed.

You are using classical mechanics when you should be using SR. You can asymptotically approach light speed but never reach it. The maths clearly show this.

You do realize that TFES is run by trolls, right?

I can personally attest that this is not true. Please don't equate modern TFES with anything Dubay does. The reincarnation of FES happened over a decade ago at theflatearthsociety.org and is in no way tied to Youtubers within the last couple years. I personally am a member at tfes.org, a group that broke off from theflatearthsociety.org about 3 years ago.

[–]Demon_God_Burny 3ポイント4ポイント  (2子コメント)

The lack of evidence for gravity.

No, there's plenty of evidence in support of gravity, you just refuse to accept it.

You are using classical mechanics when you should be using SR. You can asymptotically approach light speed but never reach it. The maths clearly show this.

If you're gonna mention that the math clearly shows it, shouldn't you, oh I dunno, fucking show the math that shows it?

Also, the flat earth movement was reincarnated by a man who managed to be fooled by Rowbotham's bullshit book "Zetetic Astronomy," based on the data taken from the rigged bedford level experiment. Said experiment, as well as the dozens of retards performed over the years, perfectly support a round earth.

[–]attackhoe[S] 0ポイント1ポイント  (1子コメント)

No, there's plenty of evidence in support of gravity

False.

you just refuse to accept it.

I'd be happy to accept evidence that explains how gravity functions.

If you're gonna mention that the math clearly shows it, shouldn't you, oh I dunno, fucking show the math that shows it?

Sure thing, what do you want to know? Asymptotically approaching the speed of light is a pretty standard equation.

Rowbotham's bullshit book "Zetetic Astronomy,"

Have you read it? It seems like you haven't.

Said experiment, as well as the dozens of retards performed over the years, perfectly support a round earth.

False.

[–]adydurn 2ポイント3ポイント  (16子コメント)

Dark energy is the current theory/placeholder.

Define dark energy.

[–]attackhoe[S] 0ポイント1ポイント  (15子コメント)

Define dark energy.

Roughly 2/3 of the total energy in the universe.

[–]TotesMessenger 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

I'm a bot, bleep, bloop. Someone has linked to this thread from another place on reddit:

If you follow any of the above links, please respect the rules of reddit and don't vote in the other threads. (Info / Contact)

[–]setecordas 3ポイント4ポイント  (45子コメント)

Your denial reason is incorrect. Acceleration is an element. The directionally biased acceleration is proof of gravity.

[–]attackhoe[S] -1ポイント0ポイント  (44子コメント)

Do you have any evidence to support your outlandish claim?

[–]setecordas 4ポイント5ポイント  (43子コメント)

Are you floating in the air?

[–]attackhoe[S] -1ポイント0ポイント  (42子コメント)

I think you are confused as to how acceleration works.

[–]setecordas 0ポイント1ポイント  (41子コメント)

Really? Then do tell. Don't forget to show your math.

[–]attackhoe[S] 0ポイント1ポイント  (40子コメント)

What maths would you like?

[–]setecordas 2ポイント3ポイント  (39子コメント)

You go ahead and choose. Surprise me.

[–]attackhoe[S] -1ポイント0ポイント  (38子コメント)

Sure thing, friend. Relativistic acceleration can be expressed as:

v/c = tanh (at/c)

Hope that helps!

[–]stewmangroup 1ポイント2ポイント  (2子コメント)

Congratulations, less than one day on Reddit and you have already made it into r/TopMindsOfReddit. That might be a record, very impressive!

[–]attackhoe[S] -1ポイント0ポイント  (0子コメント)

Cool story, bro.

[–]attackhoe[S] -1ポイント0ポイント  (0子コメント)

Actually, what is funny about that is that the OP was shown by what is likely a non-FE supporter how wrong the counter-arguments have been. So much so that the OP asked for help from said person.

Well done, geniuses....

[–]armo_man 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

the earth is neither round or flat, it's the shape of a woman's vagina.

[–]Lustan 0ポイント1ポイント  (1子コメント)

Instead of making this statement in this echo chamber go post it in askscience. Make your case there. You seem to think you can hold your own. Become famous.

[–]attackhoe[S] 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

They are welcome to come here and post any evidence they may have.

[–]Vietoris 0ポイント1ポイント  (3子コメント)

Understanding the effects of something is very different from understanding its causes.

For example, an evidence for the fact that I exist, is that I wrote that comment. The comment is a consequence of my existence, and hence provides an evidence of my existence.

On the other hand, I exist because my parents had sex together. If I give you evidence that my parents had sex together, it would NOT be an evidence for my existence. It would be an evidence for the cause of my existence. In other words, a sextape of my parents is NOT an evidence that I exist. But a sextape is an evidence for the "mechanism that makes me exist".

Now, back to the subject at stake. You seem to confuse two things in your post. You say "Gravity does not exist, we have no evidence for it". And then you say "provide evidence for the mechanism that makes gravity works". Do you realize that you are asking for two very different things here ?

We understand perfectly well the consequences of gravity. For example, if you drop your pen, it will accelerate downwards. That is a consequence of gravity. If you let a huge gas cloud in the vacuum of space, it will start to collapse from its own weight and create a star. That's another consequence of gravity.

As consequences of gravity, these things provide evidences that gravity does exist. Just like my comment, which is a consequence of my existence, provides evidence that I exist.

Now understanding the "mechanism that makes gravity work" would be understanding the cause of gravity, which is very different. Not knowing the causes of something is not a problem if you want to understand if this thing exists. For example, you don't need to see the sextape of my parents to know that I exist. This comment is enough.

Just to be clear, I'm repeating the same things in different ways because your post is unclear. So I want to make sure that my post is clear.

In any case, all of that is irrelevant when discussing the shape of the earth, because we don't need any assumptions about the nature of gravity to measure that the earth is a sphere.

[–]attackhoe[S] 0ポイント1ポイント  (2子コメント)

For example, you don't need to see the sextape of my parents to know that I exist. This comment is enough.

You have built a nice strawman, here. However, it is irrelevant to what is being discussed.

For example, if you drop your pen, it will accelerate downwards. That is a consequence of gravity.

It is actually a consequence of acceleration.

these things provide evidences that gravity does exist.

False.

So I want to make sure that my post is clear.

There really isn't much that is clear about your post other than you are terrible at comparisons.

because we don't need any assumptions about the nature of gravity to measure that the earth is a sphere.

Did I suggest in this thread that the earth wasn't a sphere?

[–]Vietoris 0ポイント1ポイント  (1子コメント)

However, it is irrelevant to what is being discussed.

Well, it is irrelevant to the actual questions, of course.

But it is relevant to the way you ask questions about gravity on the one hand and on the "mechanism that makes gravity works" on the other hand.

For example, if you drop your pen, it will accelerate downwards. That is a consequence of gravity.
It is actually a consequence of acceleration.

Wait, you mean that acceleration is a consequence of acceleration ? What a wonderful discovery !

these things provide evidences that gravity does exist.
False.

True.

That was very helpful, right ?

Did I suggest in this thread that the earth wasn't a sphere?

Yes. Repeatedly.

[–]attackhoe[S] 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

But it is relevant to the way you ask questions about gravity on the one hand and on the "mechanism that makes gravity works" on the other hand.

No, it actually still is irrelevant. You know people can discuss more than one topic at a time. While these are closely related components of an overarching topic, that certainly isn't a requirement.

Wait, you mean that acceleration is a consequence of acceleration

Gravity certainly has nothing to do with it.

True.

Yet there is still no evidence. Very helpful, indeed...

Did I suggest in this thread that the earth wasn't a sphere?

Yes. Repeatedly.

Please point out where I said that.