Never seen someone ask for something then ignore it and make a baseless assertion after

Wonder how many fallacies that is

**Hafele–Keating experiment** @Rudi

@Morning Dew you claim gravity can work on a flat earth?

But that's not what gravity is

It isn't a force

Yes but label is different from scientific theory

Too many people think gravity is a label when it's an explicit explanation of a set of observed phenomena

So you're just using the term inaccurately to create false claims

🤔

How was that a word salad

Your claim was wrong since you're using a term incorrectly. If you really want to deny that by saying that I just want to feel smart then be my guest.

Except it does matter what gravity is since that's how you can even determine if it works on a flat earth

How you describe gravity is crucial as to whether or not it works on flat earth in the first place

But... it can't?

You continually claim I'm missing the point but you're the one whose using ignorant of what gravity is described as in the globe model. This ignorance is leading to a false claim.

I'm just stating that your description of gravity is inaccurate if you believe it to be compatible with the flat earth, which you've claimed.

Ah yes, you've got no real argument so you turn to ad homs. Should've expected that.

@raspberry if you're going to cite gravity then it's as a theory.

My argument is that your claim is wrong because your idea of gravity is wrong. Not that hard to see.

@raspberry if you call gravity the actual phenomena of objects falling that's rather incorrect. Since usually gravity is described as the explanation and cause for the observation.

@raspberry I honestly think that's ignorance more than anything. In physics at least gravity is usually reffering to the cause.

@Morning Dew I was pointing out that your conclusion was derived from ignorance. But if your ad homs were calling for me to explain then Alright.

Gravity will cause anything of sufficient mass to collapse into a sphere

Gravity on a flat earth would cause it to collapse into a globe

@raspberry well newtonian gravity never really gave a cause for it

@A Search for Roche's Rifle it's not, since that's what gravity in the globe model does

@Morning Dew if you're suggesting to use gravity whilst ignoring how gravity works and making the claim "god stops it from doing this" then sure, you could twist it all you wanted to work for you. Except that isn't really gravity, that's just a version in which specific rules are ignored to make it reconcile with a model it should classically be impossible to exist on.

Not as strongly crafted as your word salad, my friend

@Morning Dew also, your common fallacy that my type seems to consistently present is not completely accurate.
We made an explanation to explain a certain observation, but this explanation also predicts other observations and gives direct mathematical predictions for these observations.
And guess what? When we try to experimentally test and confirm said predictions they turn out to be perfectly consistent with our theory.

That's why general relativity (our theory of gravity) has been experimentally shown to be consistent and mirror reality

It may not be the only way, but its shown to be consistent and able to predict phenomena with precision

Therefore it can accurately reflect reality and has been shown to

I never said it's the "only" explanation, I said it's an explanation we use because it's consistent with reality. Thus why it's still a modern theory.

@raspberry you mean the predictions?

There's gravitational redshifting, gravitational lensing, and gravitational time dialation

None really require an appeal to authority since they're all involved with a profession that you can achieve and do a direct observation or measurement yourself.

@Morning Dew but the explanation that could work on a flat earth isn't gravity. That's my point. You're trying to use a specific theory and say it's the same as a completely different one that would need different rules and properties. And no gravity still doesn't work on a flat earth, you're literally claiming that a completely changed version of the theory in the globe model is the exact same as the original, it's like saying newtonian gravity is the exact same as general relativity.

@raspberry curvature of spacetime?

I'm not really talking about earth though

@Morning Dew there isn't one equation to describe said phenomenon. I've identified a specific cause for said phenomenon rooted in mathematics, yes. But this specific cause also implies other consquences of itself that have turned into predictions of the model. These predictions have been experimentally observed and proven consistent with the original model. Therefore we have not only attributed a cause to the observation but made predictions that have been confirmed showing our model to be consistent with reality.

@Morning Dew you're not actually responding to any of my points with actual science, rather making remarks based in either ad homs or evidence-less claims. If you seriously believe you're making any remote argument here by invoking a philosophical debate, you're mistaken. In fact you're somehow debating off a claim I never made, since you're saying that I've said there is no other explanation for this phenomena, which is a strawman.

So essentially throughout this you've acted like a sophist

Definetly seen your type

@mineyful don't, he's baiting with ad homs.

He's a sophist, no suprise

I know you've already run away from our debate but in the end you've made no substantial claims besides using a strawman to argue and the consistent ad homs. So mate, you're a sophist.

Not writing essays, merely pointing out your fallacious style of debate. Another ego remark too, unsurprisingly.

Atmospheric refraction

It's an approximation on the perceived effects of refraction on earths apparent curvature.

@Morning Dew lol

I like your ad homs

They're pretty unique

@SAM101907 vacuum energy isn't something that just makes sense on paper 🤔

And it's been confirmed

@Drewski4343 if a particle is accelerating their worldline may never meet the future light cone, causing an apparent horizon to arise in the particles reference frame. And beyond this boundary events are unobservable.

As the flat earth accelerates in "UA" the apparent horizon would inch closer and closer

Making it important for UA to be true just based off easy observations we can use for that

It's not though

It's established, and tested, and proven

And well understood

So I'm not sure why exactly this is what you choose to pick on

Instead of the misapplication

Well you worded that poorly then

@Albert Einstein relativistic speeds meaning speeds that are getting closer to light. Or in which relativistic effects kick in to large degrees. Or relative to it's original reference frame. You can interpret it in any of these ways.

@Albert Einstein no they wouldn't

Unless they were infinitely accelerating

Four-acceleration, my friend

The idea requires the earth to have a constant acceleration

Eventually if this was true according to more inaccurate mechanics It would surpass lightspeed

But since we have SR we know that wouldn't happen and that's why you need to use SR for UA

To get a correct conclusion

So it's needed because without it we will undoubtably get a wrong conclusion

@Albert Einstein yeah

The equivalence principle mainly holds without an outside observer

Any grabbity denyers on?

How would you prove it

Gravity refers to the cause, not the effect

Gravity refers to the force that causes these certain observations

But more accurately gravity isn't a force and causes a lot more than just stuff falling. So to say gravity is just objects falling is wrong because other things are *caused* by gravity and aren't that sole observation.

@Gurr we don't know what gravity is, but we have theories that can explain it pretty dang well

And that statement even is iffy

I could claim we could completely understand it, and I should because this is a flat earth server

Gravity is more so a property

@Gurr I can tell you all about gravity

Turns out we don't need NASA for that

But then I can tell you about all the predictions we've made as a consequence of our idea of gravity

Then show how we tested and verified every single one

With complete accuracy to our original theory of gravity

@Gurr 🤔

They didn't tell me to do them though bud

Or do you think all physics has to do immedietly with NASA

No point wasting time on a troll

@Deleted User how do you disprove gravity

@Deleted User but it has been proven

You take some observation, and make a hypothesis for how it works

Gravity

You then make an extensive idea for how it functions and then try making predictions using that, then use experiments to see if your predictions are correct and show your theory does predict what reality does.

@Deleted User things falling could be one

Of course