- Start Here
- First Questions Asked?
- Jesuits; Rulers of Evil
- History of Geocentric Theory
- The Heliocentric Globalist Theory
- Reasons to Doubt the Earth is Truly a Sphere
- Reasons to Doubt Everything NASA
- Moon Hoax Images
- Moon Hoax Videos
- Trusted FE Links
- Other Author Websites
- The F.E.S.S. Forum
- Flat Earth Videos
- Flat Earth Library
- Quotes
- Flat Earth Gallery I
- Flat Earth Gallery II
- FE Memes I
- FE Memes II
- FE Music Vids
- New! FE Maps
- Flat Earth Book Now On Sale!
It appears there is the problem with explaining gravity using the Flat Earth model. Using Newtonian mechanics and assuming a Flat Earth, the formula for the time of swing of a pendulum, for example incorporates ‘g’ (about 9.81 m/s/s). This value is an average because ‘g’ varies as where we are on the earth. Rockets are launched using Newtonian equations of dynamics which defines acceleration, momentum, falling bodies and terminal velocity – and the formulas work very well, or we would not be able to launch a rocket. Newton based his theories on a spherical earth, a ball. But I think it could work on a Flat Earth model also if the North Pole is seen as the centre of gravity of a Flat Earth model. The variation of ‘g’ could also be accounted for. But this assumes that ‘gravity’ exists and density and buoyancy alone may not explain adequately why heavy objects fall to earth. Not all Newtonian formulae are proven. For example, the mutual attraction of two bodies using the universal gravitational constant ‘G’ is questionable. Cavendish’s experiment has never been replicated to this day as far as I know, and goes unchallenged by those who want to believe it to be true to support the accepted world view.
I think we need some concrete experimental evidence to support that density/buoyancy argument. It is insufficient to simply replace the gravity paradigm with words that appear to make sense. Perhaps we do not need to abandon all Newtonian gravitational arguments. We are on the frontier of a huge paradigm change and it will not be easy. One of the best books I have ever read is Thomas Kuhn’s ‘The Structure of Scientific Revolutions’ and shows clearly the mechanism of change and it’s a rocky road. He suggests that the whole history of science is based on error (e.g. Phlogiston theory).
I would like to ask for advice on this from any person interested in flat earth physics.
Glenn Harrison, retired physics teacher
LikeLike