Gravity Does Not Exist!

Ok, if the truth is not hidden, can you give me some references ? Where did YOU read about these things ? Can you give me more details about what exactly Cassini did measure ? And how did he infer from his measurements the conclusions that you seem to get ?

Anyway, there are two different surveys. And they apparently give two different results. How can I choose which one I trust the most ? Should I trust the more recent one ? Should I trust the one which measured the longest segment ? Should I trust the one that measured a small segment but in many different locations ? Should I trust the one that has other compelling evidence ?

And as far as I'm aware, Cassini never argued that the Earth was flat. If you have evidence suggesting otherwise, please provide it. He argued that the polar radius was bigger than the equatorial radius, which is somethign that only make sense on a spheroid, and as you said "His data has never been found in error". So do you believe that the Earth is a spheroid ?

A good place to start - read the first three chapters of he book " Full Meridian of Glory" by P. Murdin plus the first few chapters of R. Whitaker's book " The Mapmaker's Wife ". Both will provide you with a fair overview of the controversy surrounding the shape of the earth concerning the surveys of Cassini , Maupertuis and La Condamine. Not written by flat earthers by the way.

It's up to you to apply critical reasoning and skepticism to enable you to form your own judgement.

Cassini's scientific survey over 8 degrees of latitude is a far superior work compared to the flawed survey of less than one degree ( 57' 48" if I remember) carried out in Lapland .

I'm not aware either that Cassini argued that earth was flat .However he did present his findings in a 24ft diameter known world map centered on the north pole .

Based on his findings that successive latitudes shortened by 1/800 in length I struggle to see where the prolate sphere idea came in . I'd say that information points mathematically to a plane surveyed with respect to the North star , which is how he surveyed . Prolate sphere was introduced because the only other explanation was the plane of earth .

I have no cause to believe the earth is anything but a stationary plane , based on scientific observation and experiment .

You're both right and you're both wrong.

A "Cassini Projection" as described and proposed in 1745 by César-François Cassini de Thury, is an equator-centric projection which had been taken over by Johann Georg von Soldner and is now also known as a Cassini-Soldner Projection.  Soldner, not Cassini, was most commonly referenced as a proponent of gravity affecting the travel of light.  See also https://en.wikisource.org/?curid=755966

Cassini was not researching gravity.

And, for that matter, "Cassini" is actually 4 generations of the Cassini family, which had the extraordinary task of mapping France.  The final submission of the Cassini France Map is said to have been secured and preserved as a symbol of national pride during the height of the Scourge of the French Revolution.  This is the Cassini map that is approximately 39-feet tall and 38-feet wide.  See also http://www.davidrumsey.com/xmaps10000.html

If there exists a 24-foot polar projection attributed to the Cassini family, it was an attempt at legitimizing a product by tacking on a name that was most closely associated with accuracy and precision in map-making.

Giovanni Cassini carried out his 1670's survey across France to test whether the earth was a perfect sphere , current favoured model , or an oblate sphere - a prediction of Newtons theory of gravity.
  His 24 foot terrestial planisphere map , centred on the North pole , was drawn up in the 1670s and added to as more data came in. He found latitude shortening to the pole - which completely demolished both the perfect and oblate sphere . First flat earth map imo.

Soldner copied the map in 1696 ,maybe later - it had been drawn on a floor - and altered it according his beliefs - his latitudes show latitude shortening the opposite way .

https://www.raremaps.com/gallery/detail/32236mp/planisphere-terrestre-ou-sont-marquees-les-longitudes-de-div-nolin-cassini

There is a proper representation on the web somewhere - seen it before. Will try and locate it sometime .

Basically wiki is full of shoite . Excuse mon Francais . Rumsey map is of France only.

Touché!

Are these assertions plausible or out of line?

If they are they mirror my questions exactly.

I wonder if equations for example a free body diagram F=ma or F=mg can be rewritten with density    
PS I agree there is no gravity but I want to be able to satisfy every question I have about how to explain observable phenomena without it.

Me too. Density and inherent weight may have value as a premise but beg the question: Why are they being pulled in a particular direction (the earth) and what is the attribute responsible?

All we know is the speed at which mass accelerates towards the ground naturally. Density only matters in relation to the resistant medium through which the object is falling(air, water, etc.) The denser the object is in comparison to the air or water it is falling through the closer the acceleration reaches 9.8m/s^2, and we know that there is a maximum velocity any object can reach because the resistance increases in a directly exponential relation to the velocity.

Good point about Density. Buoyancy and inherent density are great explanations, until you realize buoyancy depends on Brownian motion and a gaseous or liquid medium's propensity to fill a surrounding container (which, in the case of the firmament, it apparently doesn't). If the upper atmosphere decreases in density with elevation, another attribute or 'force' is necessary to explain the rising and falling of objects in relation to each other. When you consider that, in a vacuum, things fall regardless of medium, you realize that you're back to the 'inherent weight' question.

So like I've said before: we know what the maximum natural acceleration is, the cause cannot actually be tested because there is no other environment to test upon(unless you're a Moon skipping astroNOT or soon to be Mars skipping astroNOT) We know that gravity is bunk because there is absolutely no measurable attraction between objects.

Exactly. We can toss 'gravity' because it seeks to explain things that seem to have nothing to do with the relationship between the earth and objects upon it, like tides, planetary orbits and such. If we just postulated a general observable 'attraction' between the earth and objects we see, I don't think we're giving anything back to the ballers. There's obviously something going on between my feet and the surface beneath. I don't feel the need to complicate my life by calling it 'gravity', but it's something. It's observable and measurable and it's not going away, so it's time for dialog and experiment. Aside from the eclipse thing, which is a lesser conundrum, this is the great unexplainable about the Flat Earth model (even though many of us have attempted to explain it). Eric has the right idea in the 'inherent weight' idea (better than the buoyancy thing the Sarge was talking about), but the Ballers can still rightly call us out for not discussing why the weight is all pointing in one direction.

Thank you for bringing up these excellent points.
fritz

fritzdekatt wrote:

Why are they being pulled in a particular direction (the earth)

In the last 10-days we've had three (3) newbs show-up to tell us about Spaceship Earth, Gravity, and now how things are "being pulled".

Could you elaborate on how things are "being pulled" towards Earth?

Schpankme wrote:

fritzdekatt wrote:

Why are they being pulled in a particular direction (the earth)

In the last 10-days we've had three (3) newbs show-up to tell us about Spaceship Earth, Gravity, and now how things are "being pulled".

Could you elaborate on how things are "being pulled" towards Earth?

I am a newb to this forum, but certainly not to Flat Earth. I am not purporting to tell you anything, certainly not about Spaceship Earth. You'll recognize that I was agreeing with another member that his questions were worth asking. I have no position on the matter as of this moment.

I don't know how the mechanism of weight works in the Flat Earth model, which is why I was asking.
From my empirical observation, I see that when I let anything go from my hand, it falls down to the earth, rather than up or sideways. Why is that? Since it would do the same thing in a vacuum (only faster), our stock answers concerning relative pressures may not suffice. I don't insist that this happens for any particular reason, but it happens and there's a reason and I wonder if anybody knows anything about it.

Postulating an affinity between the earth and the falling object is not the same as accepting the baller notion of gravity. If the flat earth, the only plane of its kind in the universe (if you'll forgive the term), possesses properties unlike all other objects, it's hardly surprising. If an attractive attribute (or force) is one of those characteristics, it's not the worst possible explanation, for lack of a better one.

Therefore, I'm asking: Do you have a better one?

fritzdekatt wrote:
If an attractive attribute (or force) is one of those characteristics
Do you have a better one?

There is no force pulling down, there is only falling and rising through density, objects seek equilibrium based on the resistance of their surrounding medium, all unsupported objects heavier than air have a natural tendency to fall by their own weight.

The ocean of air (fluid) that you breath exerts pressure, 14.7 psi at Sea-Level, in equal amounts on all sides.

Examples:
submarine uses compressed air to ascend in water.
hot-air-balloon uses hot air to ascend in the air.
airplane uses pressure difference across its flying surfaces to gain lift.

Air is liquid, the mass of objects without air, weigh less.
Air-filled balloon falls slower than balloon without Air. WHY?
The air filled balloon gains air resistance slowing it's rate of descent; in our natural system all objects fall or rise based on their density.
...

The Vomit Comet (aka Zero G Plane) provides a protected environment for Free-Fall; unlike Sky-Divers who must Fall through differing air resistance based on speed and conditions. For the Sky-Diver, without the protected Cabin air resistance increases with velocity until equilibrium is reached and acceleration stops; this is called terminal velocity.

Schpankme wrote:

fritzdekatt wrote:
If an attractive attribute (or force) is one of those characteristics
Do you have a better one?

There is no force pulling down, there is only falling and rising through density, objects seek equilibrium based on the resistance of their surrounding medium, all unsupported objects heavier than air have a natural tendency to fall by their own weight.

The ocean of air (fluid) that you breath exerts pressure, 14.7 psi at Sea-Level, in equal amounts on all sides.

Examples:
  submarine uses compressed air to ascend in water.
  hot-air-balloon uses hot air to ascend in the air.
  airplane uses pressure difference across its flying surfaces to gain lift.

Air is liquid, the mass of objects without air, weigh less.
Air-filled balloon falls slower than balloon without Air.   WHY?
The air filled balloon gains air resistance slowing it's rate of descent; in our natural system all objects fall or rise based on their density.
...

The Vomit Comet (aka Zero G Plane) provides a protected environment for Free-Fall; unlike Sky-Divers who must Fall through differing air resistance based on speed and conditions.  For the Sky-Diver, without the protected Cabin air resistance increases with velocity until equilibrium is reached and acceleration stops; this is called terminal velocity.

Your examples are valid, yet if I were a Dr. Tyson-type baller, I would argue that Density is a function of gravity (at least on the Ball model). To use it on the FE model, we'd have to make a container to keep the air in at pressure, like a dome (the Firmament). This would cover all use cases except (as I mentioned earlier) a terrestrial vacuum. Relative densities don't operate there.

Assuming that objection could be overcome, why does everything fall in one direction (towards the earth)? Either the earth itself has an attractive property of some kind, the theoretical 'dome' has a repulsive property, or every object on earth shares an affinity for the earth, which would end up being the same, I suppose, as a property of the earth.

I was a fan of the Dome model to explain the tendency of objects to fall toward the earth, but I could not reconcile the lack of air pressure (or at least oxygen) in the upper atmosphere. Without gravity, you need a diffusion of gas (or liquid) inside a sealed container to let density behave like 'gravity'. Also, there's the vacuum thing. Things manage to fall in a vacuum just as well as they do in air.

Thank you for your thoughtful response,
fritz

fritzdekatt wrote:
why does everything fall in one direction (towards the earth)

The ocean of air (fluid) that you breath exerts pressure, 14.7 psi at Sea-Level, all unsupported objects heavier than air have a natural tendency to fall by their own weight.

Schpankme wrote:

fritzdekatt wrote:
why does everything fall in one direction (towards the earth)

The ocean of air (fluid) that you breath exerts pressure, 14.7 psi at Sea-Level, all unsupported objects heavier than air have a natural tendency to fall by their own weight.

Why would the pressure exert itself in any particular direction? Why would it be pressing down toward the ground? What is the property that makes an expression of density or pressure operate only in one direction?

fritzdekatt wrote:

Why would it be pressing down toward the ground

WATER has cumulative weight.

"Weight" begs the question: Why does "weight" express itself as a tendency to push against the earth? What is the property that forces objects downward?

fritzdekatt wrote:
What is the property that forces objects downward

Objects heavier than air have a natural tendency to fall by their own weight.

Schpankme wrote:

fritzdekatt wrote:
What is the property that forces objects downward

Objects heavier than air have a natural tendency to fall by their own weight.

OK.
Thank you for your time and trouble,
fritz

The entire basis of the term, "gravity" is that Mass-attracts-Mass.  Helium has mass.  A rubber balloon has mass.  The ground has mass.

An empty balloon will fall to the ground.  That same balloon filled up with helium, even though it now has more mass, will fly away.  This shows a clear flaw in the idea of gravity.  

Heavy-stuff falls down and floatie-stuff floats up, indeed, but not because of mass-attracting-mass.

You have been told that gravity is a vector, a force that points in a certain direction; moreover, the bigger something is, you have been told it will have even More Gravity.

If the Earth and Sun were truly big heavy balls and gravity was truly a vector, then balloons filled with helium at sunset should then fly sideways toward the setting sun.

Please consider.

With respect, I reply with the following comments:

Oliver_Bestfall wrote:
The entire basis of the term, "gravity" is that Mass-attracts-Mass.  Helium has mass.  A rubber balloon has mass.  The ground has mass.

It is my understanding that, on a flat or ball earth, objects still have mass. Some flat earthers call this 'weight', but this is a semantic distinction without a physical difference, in my opinion.

An empty balloon will fall to the ground.  That same balloon filled up with helium, even though it now has more mass, will fly away.  This shows a clear flaw in the idea of gravity.  

Though I'm not a believer in Newtonian gravity, I don't see this as a flaw per se. The Flat Earth model employs the concept of buoyancy and relative density, just as the globe model does.

Heavy-stuff falls down and floatie-stuff floats up, indeed, but not because of mass-attracting-mass.

But until you come up with an explanation of why things fall down, you aren't answering the glober critics.

You have been told that gravity is a vector, a force that points in a certain direction; moreover, the bigger something is, you have been told it will have even More Gravity.

So far, experimental science confirms that objects fall to earth, though not that objects necessarily attract objects. So we agree interplanetary and inter-object 'gravity' is a fabrication. Still, there is something that 'pulls' objects to earth.
What is it? That is my question. It does it in a vacuum. It does it with balloons and bowling balls and everything I know.

If the Earth and Sun were truly big heavy balls and gravity was truly a vector, then balloons filled with helium at sunset should then fly sideways toward the setting sun.

That makes sense in a certain context.

Please consider.

I will. Thank you for taking the time to interject.
fritz

@fritzdekatt as Del says, can you please provide the mechanics of 'pull'

Alpha wrote:@fritzdekatt as Del says, can you please provide the mechanics of 'pull'

I don't know the mechanics of it. That's why I'm asking.
There is a 'quality', let's say, of the earth which causes objects to fall towards it. How that happens, I don't know. Yet it exists.

fritzdekatt wrote:

Alpha wrote:@fritzdekatt as Del says, can you please provide the mechanics of 'pull'

I don't know the mechanics of it. That's why I'm asking.
There is a 'quality', let's say, of the earth which causes objects to fall towards it. How that happens, I don't know. Yet it exists.

This entire forum, with plenty of posts, videos and links to cross reference, explains why "it" gravity does not exist. If you are looking for a "quality" that "pulls" then you are subjecting yourself to the pull of persuasion and pride. This is forum for researching and assessing perspectives and understanding for yourself.

But, if you really want some more perspective on why Newtonian Gravity is, at best, inaccurate, then check out this link ... https://aplanetruth.info/2015/04/02/25-is-sir-isaac-newtons-law-of-gravity-just-one-great-big-lie/

Consider the perspective that Density relative to the surrounding medium is why the more heavy, more dense stuff slides down a hill, falls through the air and flops straight down in the mud, and floatie stuff floats straight up. There is no uni-directional pull, only omni-directional density push toward the path of least resistance.

Decide for yourself.

Oliver_Bestfall wrote:
https://aplanetruth.info/2015/04/02/25-is-sir-isaac-newtons-law-of-gravity-just-one-great-big-lie/

Be advised, "aplanetruth as document in this forum is a Shill and Christpsychotic (fear monger), he will spin stories and tell you half-truths to promote Abrahamic Religion on the back of flat Earth.

Sir Issac Newton was a Judaeo-Freemason and professional bullshitter same as the Vatican Jesuits.

1543 - Jesuits invent Theory Heliocentricism
1582 - Jesuits invent Heliocentric calendar (Pope Gregorian calendar)
1651 - Jesuits invent Moon features (Selenography)
1658 - Jesuits invent Theory of Germ disease (see Virus)

1687 - Sir Isaac Newton invents Theory of Gravity

1763 - Jesuits invent Theory Atomic Energy
1809 - Jesuits invent Theory Transmutation of Species (see Theory of Evolution)
1923 - Jesuits invent Theory Missing Link (bones lost molds prove find)
1931 - Jesuits invent Theory Big Bang (another ejaculation into the virgin source)

How about this one?



Easier to digest, also.

Oliver_Bestfall wrote:

fritzdekatt wrote:

Alpha wrote:@fritzdekatt as Del says, can you please provide the mechanics of 'pull'

I don't know the mechanics of it. That's why I'm asking.
There is a 'quality', let's say, of the earth which causes objects to fall towards it. How that happens, I don't know. Yet it exists.

This entire forum, with plenty of posts, videos and links to cross reference, explains why "it" gravity does not exist.  If you are looking for a "quality" that "pulls" then you are subjecting yourself to the pull of persuasion and pride.  This is forum for researching and assessing perspectives and understanding for yourself.


Consider the perspective that Density relative to the surrounding medium is why the more heavy, more dense stuff slides down a hill, falls through the air and flops straight down in the mud, and floatie stuff floats straight up.  There is no uni-directional pull, only omni-directional density push toward the path of least resistance.  

Decide for yourself.

Sir

We can agree to disagree that 'this entire forum explains why gravity doesn't exist'. If such were so (to me), I wouldn't have asked.

Ditto for the article you so thoughtfully linked to. I have seen it before, but I read it again to make sure I didn't miss anything. The author's objections are in many cases valid, but his alternate hypothesis seems incomplete, as 'weight' insists on a cause and a body of rules, which he fails to provide.

It is interesting that so many flat earthers regard 'weight' and 'density' as actual explanations rather than properties, but it doesn't help me in my search to find an actual reason why things fall down (even in a vacuum, where there is no density).

In my opinion, there is a 'baby with the bathwater' consensus among the FE community, insisting that because elements of physics have been misapplied or expanded to fit a 'global' agenda, therefore all of conventional physics is wrong. I don't think that follows. The flat world has as much real science to explain it as the spherical world of science fiction and NASA photos.

Thank you very much for your time.
I will discontinue my pursuit of this topic on this forum, as I see this matter has been settled in the minds of the membership here, and my continued objections can only be an irritant to those who are comfortable with the answers already provided.

peace
fritz