There IS no gravity.

Arius said:

The Big-banged expanding universe full of globes named after pagan gods is Not from the Father, I pray you see that my fellow Aerospace friend!

Click to expand...

Well ... here's hoping you don't make use of the names of the days of the week, ... seeing as they are named after pagan (Norse) gods ...

A_Thinker said:

Well ... here's hoping you don't make use of the names of the days of the week, ... seeing as they are named after pagan (Norse) gods ...

Click to expand...

I hear you my friend, it's really messed up. But I am so thankful that God had a fellow ex-atheist debater friend open my eyes to the Flat Earth reality, because it opened my eyes to not just what you said about the days of the week, but also as to who this Big-Banged solar system revolves around, .. the god Helios, who is none-other than Lucifer the falling star/sun. So the names of the days of the week makes perfect sense, so does a lot of other things which I couldn't make sense before as a Christian, .. like the Trinity-gods. But becoming a Flat Earther I learned who created the imaginary BB-Universe, so now it all starts to make sense.

Hey Thinker, what do you think of the Gap Theory, .. you know, the Gap that the Bible reveals was there between Genesis 1:1 and Genesis 1:2, .. because I never gave it a second thought as a Christian. But with all the evidence that FE's have dug up of Mud-fossils, Giants, advanced machines (one even looked like a giants CNC mill) my eyes have been opened to a plethora of information that I was told are secrets that God doesn't want us to know, when the opposite is true.
Any who, now I know why God just lets this One World .gov rule the world. It's because as Jesus said:

John 18:36
36 Jesus said, “My kingdom is not of this world. If it were, my servants would fight to prevent my arrest by the Jewish leaders. But now my kingdom is from another place.”

Radagast said:

That really makes no sense at all.

Once again, F = G m1 m2 / d^2 and a = F / m2 implies that acceleration, in the absence of an atmosphere, is independent of the mass of the falling object.

Click to expand...

This answers nothing for me, G/g^2 times the globes wobble at 66.6 degrees, minus the moons gravity / by the gravity pulling the solar system on the fabric of Spacetime, .. whatever, .. you could go on and on avoiding this simple experiment that proves gravity is fake.
Unless you show me what each of your letters represent, it is meaningless. An obvious diversion.

Are you saying Force = Gravity times mass1 times mass 2 divided by diameter of the what, .. the feather squared?? What does this have anything to do with proving gravity in mass?

OK, again; let's examine the feather/bowling ball drop in the vacuum. We seen that they both hit the ground at the same time! They didn't show math, just the two objects falling, correct? When they show the Mars Lander on Mars, there is no math on screen explaining all that. When they shown the moon landing, again, no math. So let's see if we can test this exparimewnt and see if its gravity aka g-force that's pulling them down?

Now let's make two rockets, each with enough force to lift just the bowling ball off the floor of the vacuum chamber.
Now put the feather on one rocket, and the Bowling ball on the other.
start them both at the same time, which rocket will rise faster?

I say the one with the feather on it, a no brainer there.

If it is g-force pulling on them both, then the exact same thrust set to lift the bowling ball should counter the exact g-force of your globe (we will ignore the g-force of the bowling ball like both you guys and NASA scientists do) and it is not what NASA claims to prove gravity.

Another observation: when the rocket just lifts the bowling ball, the force would be 10 lbs. and not this falling rate g-force of 9.807 m/s^2, correct? That there also proves there is no force inherent in mass since rockets are made to "lift weight", and not designed to go at a certain speed! In other words, we don't say: "Well, to lift this object we'll have to go 9.807 m/s^2 or whatever. But we say: we need enough thrust to lift 10 lbs. Or 10lbs of thrust. We also don't say: "We need 200 horses going 60 mph to move this car".

Now a 10lb. lift on the feather would obviously shoot that feather up much, much faster (still keeping it simple)any objections?

What would this two equal thrust rocket experiment also show? It would also show that IF there was a Force pulling on the feather and the bowling ball, "the feather should have fallen first, because you guys claim your globes gravity is constant, meaning the same force on all objects. (ignoring the g-force that should be present in the 10lb. mass until you get into space) but that is NOT what happened, because there is NO Force Pulling. Just like the 9.807 m/s^2 named as "gravity" proves that NASA knows that things fall, not being pulled.

The rocket experiment has both rockets creating the same "force", which is dialed in on just lifting the bowling ball.
But we know that since the feather has less mass/weight than the bowling ball, the second rocket we put the feather on would take off like a rocket (keeping it simple), while the other rocket with the bowling ball on it is barely hovering off the ground.

* Is this not the perfect counter-test to see if there is g-force on your globe or not? Or you guys know this proves that this gravity pulling force does not exist, so you're going to go back giving me some fantastic space-math you yourselves have no clue about?

Did you mean Houston, perhaps?

Click to expand...

Oh please, looking for mistakes ey?

Rick Otto said:

It's a theory, like evolution. Not a law like biogenesis.

Click to expand...

So you, like most conspiracy/anti-science types, don;t know what a theory - or a law - is in scientific terms.

And that is a crux of your "argument."

Sad.

Rick Otto said:

Not a law like biogenesis.

Click to expand...

Yeah ...

Rick Otto said:

Thanks for explaining.
your participation was invaluable.

Click to expand...

So, you admit you don't know, yet were cool making an "argument" using the terms. Pretty typical.

If gravity is just a theory, would you jump of a building?

Rick Otto said:

What I admit is your typical lack of substantiation for an assertion.

Click to expand...

Cute, but if one is going to make claims about science, should not one understand 5th grade level science, at the very least?

Here is a hint - there is no 'progression' from theory to law.
In fact, 'law' would be a bit 'below' theory in science, since laws only describe a regularly occurring phenomenon, whereas theories explain them.

Better now, fella? Good...

High Fidelity said:

If gravity is just a theory, would you jump of a building?

Click to expand...

"Just a theory."

Why is it that so few anti-science people do not take the time to learn even the middle-school level basics about it?

Rick Otto said:

LOL! Never better, guy.
Stick with your 5th grade science. It may be your best feature.
You doubled down so hard you flipped your vertical ordering, lol.

Click to expand...

Wow, a regular genius in our midst, folks!

This lug nut thinks that one progresses in the science hierarchy! and that LAWS are given to us by the Jesus!

That is a rare comedic talent, son.
Ending on a note of condescension is always classy!

Click to expand...

And much deserved.

Flat earther... Hilarious!

SPF said:

Click to expand...

Let's assume that gravity is what the world believes it is (universal phenomena of inverse square relation) and not a result of topological quantum states.

Why is the gravity on the moon in the video TWICE the theoretical value of the gravity on the moon?

Assumptions: 1.5 m drop, no air resistance, 1 s duration for a drop.

The gravity is even greater if the estimated time interval is less than 1 s.

Calculate it.

High Fidelity said:

If gravity is just a theory, would you jump of a building?

Click to expand...

The phenomena we call gravity exists. It isnt necessarily Newtonian, or Einsteinian. Both, and severe others are like extremely wrong about the nature and origin of what people call gravity.

Falling, as it were, can be described by so-called gravity, but it is nowhere near the unique solution.

Rick Otto said:

What I admit is your typical lack of substantiation for an assertion.

Click to expand...

I note that you did not/could not explain what a law is in science, so I'd say that substantiates my position.

No go watch your cartoons in momma's basement.