A Flat Earther's Rough Guide To Winning A Nobel Prize - Much Ado About Gravity

Hopefully after reading my article yesterday, you are fully on your way to become a world famous, Nobel prize-winning physicist. However there is still much work to do, proving that the sun is only 32,000 miles away from earth and is a hell of a lot smaller than NASA shills would have you believe, is only half the job!

The thing is, in the flat earth model; as you obviously know already, you have to change how gravity works. Or rather you have to explain how it really works, and not how those NASA shills Einstein, and Sir Isaac Newton would have you believe.

Exposing Einstein

So as every flat earther knows, Einstein deliberately lied about how gravity works, in order to hide the truth that the earth is indeed a flat disc. This lie has been perpetuated with doctored experiments and empirical observations for more than a century now.

From the famous atomic clock experiment, to the LIGO detection of gravitational waves, a lot of people are putting in a lot of effort to hide the truth, and so now I'm going to explain just how you can expose the reality of our planet, and of course, win a Nobel Prize while you're at.

Win! Win!

So Einstein and Newton told us that gravity is an attractive force that is greatest towards the centre of mass.

Why is this important?

Of course you, as a flat-earther know, but indulge me for a second whilst I explain to my fellow ignorant globers.

If and it's a bloody big if; if indeed gravity attracts towards the centre of a mass, then if the earth was a flat disc, the closer you got to the edge, the greater angle you would have to lean at, to prevent yourself 'falling' back towards the centre of the earth.

In fact, the only time 'down', would actually feel like it was directly below your feet, would be if you were standing at or around the centre of the earth.

Think about houses on a steep hill, how the foundations have to be built at a greater and greater angle from the road, in order that the houses go straight up. Imagine walking up that street, how much you have to lean in order not to fall over. Well in Einstein's model of gravity, that's how you would feel, and that's how houses would have to be built, the closer you got to the edge of the world.

Funnily enough, you wouldn't fall off the edge, if you did manage to fight the force of gravity and go over, you would happily stand on the edge, as the force of g would now be acting straight down towards the centre.

Plus of course, a flat disc the size of earth couldn't survive in Einstein's universe, as the force of g would simply pull the shape into a globe.

Eyes On The Prize

OK, so Einstein was clearly wrong, as that doesn't happen when you go to Australia for instance, which is pretty close to the edge of the world. Because the alternative; the world isn't flat, is obviously too ridiculous to even give a moment's thought to.

Flat earthers know that gravity isn't actually an attractive force, and all we are feeling is the effects of the whole planet accelerating upwards at 9.8 metres per seconds squared (9.8 m/s^2).

The problem with that, is it doesn't really explain why the moon is orbiting the earth, I mean, if we are accelerating 'upwards' at 9.8 m/s^2, then presumably the sun and the moon, which is orbiting, or rather circumnavigating the disc are also accelerating at 9.8 m/s^2.

This does not explain their strange circular motion, on top of that, anybody with a half-descent telescope can observe the moons of Jupiter orbiting a round planet.

So there are obviously clear and present explanations for this weird phenomena, whereby the moons of Jupiter appear to be holding to the laws of relativity, and yet the earth is not.

OK, so it's that simple, just present the paper explaining this strange situation we seem to find ourselves in, and voila! Nobel Prize.

Uh-oh! Wait a minute! Just like yesterday, I've thought of another Nobel Prize for you!

What you need to do is explain gravitational lensing, which is an observed phenomena, whereby light is bent around a huge gravitational mass, like for instance a galaxy. Because Einstein as we know, made up general relativity and was hiding the truth, you reveal it and, voila! Nobel Prize!

OK that's it . . . Oh wait! There's more! You could get a third, yes a third Nobel Prize!

Huh, wha- how???

Simple, you need to explain exactly how if gravity doesn't exist in the sense that Einstein and Newton said it did; do stars form?

That's a biggie, because, again, without the help of those evil NASA shills and their hidden plans, anyone with a decent telescope can view stellar nebulae. Huge clouds of dust that gather together and collapse under the weight of gravity somehow accelerate together to form stars.

So there we go, explain that, in even the loosest mathematical sense, and I promise you, you will be bigger than Max Planck, Albert Einstein, and Stephen fricking Hawking rolled into one giant flat-earth bundle.

Hang on, I was just about to end this article and I thought to myself, there's another Nobel Prize that a smart flat-earther might want to win.

What's that I hear you ask?

Escape velocity!!!

Einstein's relativity states that in order to escape the gravitational pull of an object, you have to accelerate away from it with a greater force, hence the escape velocity of the earth, is around 17,500 mph, or so NASA tell you.

If we were all just accelerating upwards at 9.8 m/s^2, then anything with a greater acceleration could just fly off into space.

This clearly doesn't happen, I believe a bullet fired from a fairly powerful handgun travels at 1000 m/s^2, yet when you fire one up into the air, it doesn't just keep going and going off into space, it eventually falls down again.

So yeah, explain that in terms that people can understand, and I guarantee you, you will win your fourth Nobel Prize, you're gonna be knee deep in Nobels, you're gonna impress the ladies, or the men big time, they'll be beating a path to your door.

Further reading: Warning: More BS Glober Theories Backed Up By Plenty Of Evidence!

Projectile Motion: Mathbits Notebook

Hafele–Keating (atomic clock) experiment - Proving gravitational time dilation: Vintage News
Ballistic trajectory: parabola, ellipse, or what?: - .pdf
Lior M. Burko and Richard H. Price
Department of Physics, University of Utah, Salt Lake City, Utah 84112 - Glober physics paper which proves why flat earth gravity does not match up with observable parabolas (clearly NASA shills)

Einstein's Theory of General Relativity Made Simple (Clearly worked for NASA, decades before their existence; clever!)

Image citation: Bill Jelen for Unsplash.

Related Musing:

A Flat Earther's Rough Guide To Winning A Nobel Prize - Tackling The Sun Problem

Cryptogee Musings Contents Pages:

Page One

Page Two

OKAY GUYS, I HOPE I'VE GIVEN YOU SOME DIRECTION WHEN IT COMES TO PROVING THE FLAT-EARTH HYPOTHESIS. ALL YOU HAVE TO DO IS COMPLETELY DESTROY AND REBUILD THE WORKS OF ISAAC NEWTON AND ALBERT EINSTEIN, WHICH SHOULD BE EASY AS THEIR 'STORY' HAS SO MANY HOLES JUST WAITING TO BE EXPOSED, SO GET IN THERE FIRST AND GO AND CLAIM YOUR NOBEL PRIZES!

GO, GO NOW, THE WORLD NEEDS TO KNOW! IF YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS SURROUNDING BOGUS GLOBER THEORIES AND HOW TO DEBUNK THEM, THEN AS EVER, LET ME KNOW BELOW!

Cryptogee