The level of absurdity of the statements made in these threads just keeps on climbing. mw, do yourself a favor and look up the definition of the word "force" (as used in physics).

And you accuse me of being stupid?? Good grief.

Per Wiki:

However, for most applications, gravity is well approximated by Newton's law of universal gravitation, which postulates that gravity causes a force where two bodies of mass are directly drawn (or 'attracted') to each other according to a mathematical relationship,

Quote from: cassini

Tell you what lads, start a poll thread.

I believe the earth is flat.

I do not believe the earth is flat.

I believe a flat earth is possible.

I don't believe a flat earth is possible.

Sure, but best to have people who agree with the forums stance on the resistance do it, rather than those who do not...

What in the hell does this have to do with anything??  Are you saying that the "forums [sic] stance on the resistance" is dogmatic and nobody else's opinion about that nor anything else means $#!+??

So all SSPXers, traditionalists in conciliardom, sedes are dogmatically wrong about the crisis AS WELL AS everything else in the world, up to an including whether the world is flat??

And you accuse me of being stupid?? Good grief.

Per Wiki:

And we thus have the measure of your intellectual prowess and capacity for scholarly endeavor.

mw, you have now clearly shown for many posts a complete lack of understanding of what the word "force" means, so please, allow me to enlighten you.

Per Wikipedia (which is a perfectly acceptable source for such things): In physics, a force is any interaction that, when unopposed, will change the motion of an object. In other words, a force can cause an object with mass to change its velocity (which includes to begin moving from a state of rest), i.e., to accelerate.



Read to bold parts carefully. ANY interaction which changes the motion of an object. When you let go of an object, it falls to the earth. That motion is caused by something. To have motion, one must have force, by definition. Therefore, there is a force which causes things to fall to the earth. That force is conventionally called gravity.

All of this is matter of defining terms. If you want to argue whether or not the force which causes objects to fall to the ground (hereafeter referred to as "gravity") is the same as the force which governs the motion of the planets, fine. That's a different argument. Just like we can have an argument about whether or not gravity causes an attraction between any two objects (spoiler alert: it does, and you can measure it with sufficiently sensitive equipment. I have done so.).

All of that can be discussed. But the fact that motion is caused by a force is a matter of definition, so stop being ridiculous and accept the necessary fact that there is a force which causes things to fall, and that it is conventionally called gravity.

St. Robert Bellarmine, in his letter to Fr. Foscarini, makes it clear that geostaticism is as much of the faith as Our Blessed Mother's virgin birth:

[171] To the Very Reverend Father Paolo Antonio Foscarini, Provincial of the Carmelites in the Province of Calabria:

  My Very Reverend Father,

  I have read with interest the letter in Italian and the essay in Latin which Your Paternity sent me; I thank you for the one and for the other and confess that they are all full of intelligence and erudition.  You ask for my opinion, and so I shall give it to you, but very briefly, since now you have little time for reading and I for writing.

  First, I say that it seems to me that Your Paternity and Mr. Galileo are proceeding prudently by limiting yourselves to speaking suppositionally and not absolutely, as I have always believed that Copernicus spoke. For there is no danger in saying that, by assuming the earth moves and the sun stands still, one saves all the appearances better than by postulating eccentrics and epicycles; and that is sufficient for the mathematician. However, it is different to want to affirm that in reality the sun is at the center of the world and only turns on itself without moving from east to west, and the earth is in the third heaven⁴ and revolves with great speed around the sun; this is a very dangerous thing, likely not only to irritate all scholastic philosophers and theologians, but also to harm the Holy Faith by rendering Holy Scripture false. For Your Paternity has well shown many ways of interpreting Holy Scripture, but has not applied them to particular cases; without a doubt you would have encountered very great difficulties if you had wanted to interpret all those passages you yourself cited.

  [172] Second, I say that, as you know, the Council⁵ prohibits interpreting Scripture against the common consensus of the Holy Fathers; and if Your Paternity wants to read not only the Holy Fathers, but also the modern commentaries on Genesis, the Psalms, Ecclesiastes, and Joshua, you will find all agreeing in the literal interpretation that the sun is in heaven and turns around the earth with great speed, and that the earth is very far from heaven and sits motionless at the center of the world. Consider now, with your sense of prudence, whether the Church can tolerate giving Scripture a meaning contrary to the Holy Fathers and to all the Greek and Latin commentators. Nor can one answer that this is not a matter of faith, since if it is not a matter of faith “as regards the topic,” it is a matter of faith “as regards the speaker”; and so it would be heretical to say that Abraham did not have two children and Jacob twelve, as well as to say that Christ was not born of a virgin, because both are said by the Holy Spirit through the mouth of the prophets and the apostles.

  Third, I say that if there were a true demonstration that the sun is at the center of the world and the earth in the third heaven, and that the sun does not circle the earth but the earth circles the sun, then one would have to proceed with great care in explaining the Scriptures that appear contrary, and say rather that we do not understand them than that what is demonstrated is false. But I will not believe that there is such a demonstration, until it is shown me. Nor is it the same to demonstrate that by assuming the sun to be at the center and the earth in heaven one can save the appearances, and to demonstrate that in truth the sun is at the center and the earth in heaven; for I believe the first demonstration may be available, but I have very great doubts about the second, and in case of doubt one must not abandon the Holy Scripture as interpreted by the Holy Fathers. I add that the one who wrote, “The sun riseth, and goeth down, and returneth to his place: and there rising again,”⁶ was Solomon, who not only spoke inspired by God, but was a man above all others wise and learned in the human sciences and in the knowledge of created things; he received all this wisdom from God; therefore it is not likely that he was affirming something that was contrary to truth already demonstrated or capable of being demonstrated. Now, suppose you say that Solomon speaks in accordance with appearances, since it seems to us that the sun moves (while the earth does so), just as to someone who moves away from the seashore on a ship it looks like the shore is moving. I shall answer that when someone moves away from the shore, although it appears to him that the shore is moving away from him, nevertheless he knows that this is an error and corrects it, seeing clearly that the ship moves and not the shore; but in regard to the sun and the earth, no scientist has any need to correct the error, since he clearly experiences that the earth stands still and that the eye is not in error when it judges that the sun moves, as it also is not in error when it judges that the moon and the stars move.  And this is enough for now.

  With this I greet dearly Your Paternity, and I pray to God to grant you all your wishes.

  At home, 12 April 1615.
  To Your Reverend Paternity.

As a Brother,
Cardinal Bellarmine.

Notes
⁴“In the third heaven” just means in the third orbit around the sun.
⁵The Council of Trent (1545–63). [Session the Fourth, Decree concerning the Canonical Scriptures; reiterated in Vatican I's Dei Filius]
⁶Ecclesiastes 1:5 [Douay-Rheims version]

The Essential Galileo p. 146-148

Quote from: cassini

Oh my goodness, now we are denying that on a flat earth comets fall to earth, rocks thrown up never come down, blown up aeroplanes crash to earth, rain falls down from the clouds etc. The WORD used by mankind to describe all things loose in the air falling down to earth is GRAVITY. It is just a WORD,

You really have not read any aspects of the flat earth model.

Don't shoot the messenger because you do not understand the model - I didn't make it up.

Gravity is considered as a force or a phenomenon...

Gravity is considered unexplainable by modern scientists - all of them are perplexed by how it works, and they have no real explanation for its cause.

There is NO SUCH THING as "gravity" on the flat earth.

Gravity does not "give weight" to an object. Rocks thrown up come down because they weigh more than the air around them, same for airplanes crashing, and rain falling. It's very simple.

If rocks thrown up come down because they weigh more than the air around them, regardless of their weight due to gravity, then why do rocks fall down in a vacuum, where there is no ambient air around them?

Furthermore, why do rocks or cannonballs for that matter, fall to earth precisely as fast as does a feather when it's falling in a vacuum?

BTW there is no such thing as empirical proof.  

Maybe you haven't been paying attention.  

Here is a video showing empirical evidence (not proof) for the effect of gravity.

Which do you suppose hits the ground first, the bowling ball or the feathers?

(Answer:  the feathers land first because they're hanging down lower than the ball.)

[youtube]https://www.youtube.com/embed/E43-CfukEgs[/youtube]

.