Show Posts
This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.
I'm pretty sure that the earth is a globe, but I want to understand Flat Earth a little more.
Heard that y'all think the government is hiding stuff from us.
My question is: Why would they do that? What's the incentive?
Well I finished school, just got my work placement to do in the autumn and then I graduate. Got good grades too, top for every subject except one, and one that hasn't been graded yet but will probably be top grade as well.
On the downside, I'm really anaemic right now, my ferritin is 4 which is so much lower than its ever been. Need to get an iron infusion.
The only reason we think the skydiver is accelerating is because we are used to using the surface of the Earth as our frame of reference. If we free ourselves from this convention, then we have no reason to think the skydiver is accelerating at all.But the surface of the earth is our frame of reference, therefore it is perfectly reasonable to think that the skydiver is the one accelerating towards the surface of the earth and not the other way around.
An accelerometer measures 0 g when in free fall, because that is 0 g.
Not sure why you quoted all this about Le Verrier. I did not write anything about him, and you have not attributed it to anyone else.My apologies, the quote from the user named "unconvinced" appears to have gotten mixed betwixt the reply tree.
Of course not. If a force (including but not limited to gravity) was acting upon me after I stepped off the chair, I would be able to measure it.There is no force acting on the accelerometer other than the earth.And by "the earth" are you including gravity?
The rope should be pulled at the same rate as the cabin. Parts of the rope should not float upwards without resistance against gravity. The fact that it does proves that gravity is not pulling downwards on all points of the rope. Gravity is not an invisible phenomenon which pulls things down.
You do not understand gravity, nor the equivalence principle. The rope will appear to be "floating" to anyone in the cabin, when in free fall, just like everything else in the cabin. Gravity is in action, which is obvious since things are falling. The people, the rope, everything inside the Vomit Comet, is falling. How can you not understand this?
He said you can not distinguish the two by measurements... but he was wrong.This is fantastic reading. Thank you.
Le Verrier is best known predicting the existence of Neptune, which turned out to be right where he said it should be according to Newton’s laws. A marvelous validation for classical mechanics.This is a story book re-telling of the story that does not match reality. It's not your fault that you've been lied to, but LeVierrier made errors in his assumptions, and by chance actually found Neptune in the "wrong" place. It's a modern myth perpetuated by school books. Like Cristoffa Corombo and the round earth paradigm.
The eccentricity of Venus is 0-007, the smallest before known; that of Neptune is 0 005.
If we admit for the moment that my views are correct, then LeVerrier's announcement of March 29th is in perfect accordance with that of Professor Peirce of the 16th of the same month, viz. that the present visible planet Neptune is not the mathematical planet to which theory had directed the telescope. None of its elements conform to the theoretical limits. Nor does it perform the functions on which alone its existence was predicted, viz. those of removing that opprobrium of astronomers, the unexplained perturbations of Uranus.
We have it on the authority of Professor Peirce that if we ascribe to Neptune a mass of three-fourths of the amount predicted by LeVerrier, it will have the best possible effect in reducing the residual perturbations of Uranus below their former value; but will nevertheless leave them on the average two-thirds as great as before.
It is indeed remarkable that the two distinguished European astronomers, LeVerrier and Adams, should, by a wrong hypothesis, have been led to a right conclusion respecting the actual position of a planet in the heavens. It required for their success a compensation of errors. The unforeseen error of sixty years in their assumed period was compensated by the other unforeseen error of their assumed office of the planet. If both of them had committed only one theoretical error, (not then, but now believed to be such,) they would, according to Prof. Peirce's computations, have agreed in pointing the telescope in the wrong direction, and Neptune might have been unknown for years to come.
Actually, there is a way to tell the difference. Acceleration will create forces on each object which will be vectors, all perfectly parallel. A gravitational field will create forces on each object which will be vectors pointing to the center of the earth... so, not perfectly parallel.So presumably you have done this, of course. Can you present your data and experimental method? Or is this more word vomit regurgitated from a holy book?
If your equipment is sensitive to this, then the issue is decided.
One might easily hold an accelerometer and see what it says as the floor rises to meet you. Just as easy to measure the acceleration of the floor with an accelerometer.The issue is making an accelerometer that isn't influenced by other forces, like gravity.
If you just blindly accept the results of the accelerometer, then different parts of Earth's surface are accelerating at different rates, which would tear it apart.
except requires you to monkey around with every caclulation requiring individual frames of reference and perspectives so much that there is no universal accelleration.
The floor would argue that you are the one falling down to meet it.
"Universal acceleration" does not need to be "falsified". It needs to be proven. There is literally nothing about flat earth concepts that has been demonstrated... NOTHING!!!
This is one of the silliests websites I've ever seen.
Firstly there is only Physics. A subject you obviously know nothing about.I am not sure you have noticed what has happened around you in the last two decades, but pretending to be John Oliver is not persuasive anymore. People are waking up and cannot be silenced by haughty derision. Would you say the decades of condescension has resulted in fewer people believing you? Is FET less popular or more than previous?
...make believe world of the flat earth believer.
Anyone with half an ounce of scientific reasoning would dismiss ...
A fat man with glasses a bad haircut and a belief in a flat earth immediately precludes him from saying anything that has any scientific merit.
As I said flat earth belief has no facts or science and is little more than a silly fiction put forward by silly people.
Based on what scientific evidence? Since you love science so much.Look out your window.
I see you are ignoring the point that your definitions are just wrong.Not at all.
And I suppose you also think that Newton’s law was named after it’s replacement over 200 years later?No. He theorized that gravitation was due to a force and was dependent on the mass of objects. He called that force "Gravitatis". Or "Gravity". It's where we got the english word (in that context). We also know that isn't true. The phenomenon he believed Gravity explained was gravitation.
You can start with how Newtonian mechanics was accepted by scientists.Newton's Gravity was not accepted by scientists. It was non-cartesian, for one, which at the time made it unattractive. It had no stated mechanism (and gravitation is no closer to finding a mechanism today), which was also incredibly unattractive. Third, it didn't actually match planetary motion. It gradually gained traction, and then almost immediately started losing it again when Le Verrier himself, published perturbations it could not describe. Then it was quickly repudiated by Maxwell, Gauss, Lorentz, and others trying to explain observed perturbation.
Try to reconcile either of these scientific advancements with your batty beliefs about the shape of the earth.How lauded can the "advancements" be if they do not even describe reality?
What fascinates me is your apparent total lack of scientific curiosity about your own beliefs. Are you happy to just witter on about how science works on the internet, or are you going to put some thought into how to test your own ideas?One of you (you, I believe) just went on an obscurantist rant about how things do not even need to be falsifiable, just useful to you. But you want me to spend time describing things to you? To what good? I am quite confident in my belief. I have over a decade and a half of posting on this forum. If you wish to read what I think or what I have done, feel free to use the search function.
You are over 2000 years behind.Or 6000 years ahead.
Gravitation didn’t replace gravity,How surprised Albert will be.
That’s why General Relativity is also known as Einstein’s Theory of Gravity, compared to Newton’s Law of Universal Gravitation.By people other than himself, I suppose?
PS. Fancy answering my earlier questions on the falsifiability of your own wacky ideas?You could make a good start by demonstrating your assertion that "gravity is a force", I suppose. It is not, but if you could demonstrate that it is, it would certainly falsify universal acceleration. I suppose demonstrating the mechanism of either gravity or gravitation may falsify universal acceleration pending the actual mechanism.
Excellent point, markjo.Imagine not believing that the term gravity is often used when discussing gravitation, even by physicists.LOLImagine having a several page discussion on Newton, Einstein, and falsifiability and coming out of the other side of the conversation believing that Gravity is: real, a force, and that physicists take it seriously.
Gravity is what we call the force (or interaction) on a small body by a much larger body, usually the earth, but could be the moon or another planet.
Gravitation is the more general force/interaction between any two bodies.
Saying no one takes gravity seriously is total nonsense.
You're only 110 years behind the first part of the discussion and 165 years behind the other.
If you don't believe me, just look at some of Tom's sources in his gravitation wiki articles.
LOLImagine having a several page discussion on Newton, Einstein, and falsifiability and coming out of the other side of the conversation believing that Gravity is: real, a force, and that physicists take it seriously.
Gravity is what we call the force (or interaction) on a small body by a much larger body, usually the earth, but could be the moon or another planet.
Gravitation is the more general force/interaction between any two bodies.
Saying no one takes gravity seriously is total nonsense.
No. Noone takes gravity very seriously anymore. Yet, possibly something like gravitation.Of course variations can exist. The variations simply need be caused by something other than the Universal Accelerator.
You mean, something like gravity?
if variations exist, then the Universal Up cant' work.Of course variations can exist. The variations simply need be caused by something other than the Universal Accelerator.
you can't universally up things less here and more there even by a fraction.
unless you manufacture an Overhead-Reverse-Down that makes a body go more up than the Universal Up.
sounds about right, right?
There is no variation of 9.86 m/s that has been shown with a controlled experiment.
Gravimeters are seismometers which indirectly measure gravity through its supposed seismic effects - https://wiki.tfes.org/Gravimetry
OK, I take it back about him not saying they were wrong. Einstein didn’t say that Newton’s laws don’t work for cases where relativistic and quantum effects are insignificant. I made it clear enough that’s what I’m talking about.
No one serious thinks the universe works via Newtonian mechanics. That the laws make a reasonable and simple approximation under a set range of circumstances does not make them "true". Noone is debating the merit of using the far simpler Newton to complete your high school physics experiment to get an accurate approximation of reality. Noone should be fooled, however, that the Newtonian mechanics are "true" depictions of the underpinning physical reality. Lorentz, Lagrange, Einstein, all built upon the failings of Newton.
So is the Earth flat and constantly accelerating upwards or not?It certainly makes the most sense to me, though others find the infinite plane theory compelling. Sandokhan, of course, has his own ideas.
Your sense of irony is impressive. If there’s anything more “post modern” than the flat earth movement, I’ve not heard of it.
I will assume that no one close to you has taken the time to tell you this, but this is the internet. get over it.
You can't be stupid and expect people to show you decorum.Well, this is a perfect example of what you will not do here. Please use the next two days to silently contemplate what kind of person you choose to be going forward.
second, I assume that you have read a previous post of mine where I explain the difference between why stars move and how stars move. So, I ask again, do you know HOW stars move?Asked and answered.
Einstein didn’t say Newton’s laws of motion were wrong,
Newtonian mechanics were certainly falsified by relativity
Newtons laws of motion are only “falsified” for certain conditions
A thing either is or is not.
You appear to be getting caught up in the definition and are missing my point. Falsified or not, ...
https://www.nature.com/nature-index/news/the-idea-that-a-scientific-theory-can-be-falsified-is-a-myth
so, after reading your article, it proves more so than ever that you are every bit delusional as they come. so, answer my question or get lost and stop posting links that have virtually no connection to reality. or common sense.I will charitably assume noone close to you has taken the time to tell you this, but this is anti-social behaviour. Noone here or in the real world enjoys it or respects you for it.
Newtons laws of motion are only “falsified” for certain conditions. Relativity explains what happens at the extremes.
The crop I have the most luck with is any variety of southern peas. They don't seem to mind the rainy season, but other veggies turn to mush.I have the opposite problem with heat and dryness. I have debated installing misters, but it would turn into more of a project than it already is.
Einstein didn’t say Newton’s laws of motion were wrong,
A constantly accelerating flat earth ... It’s not science.It's not "The Science"™, certainly.
Interesting that you can't answer such a simple question. I think that says all that is needed.Interesting that you think you asked a coherent question.
This is why the plantain is a go-to vegetable in Puerto Rico. It is one of the few crops that grows very readily there and takes less effort than many other crops. The problem is, it is one of the least nutritious vegetables you could pick. But they love it and have it at nearly every meal.
Are you saying that you do not believe science?Again, it is not at all clear what you mean by "science". Science is simply a process. It isn't something to "believe" apart from some niche epistemological angle regarding it as a process. Even in that context "science" seems woefully vague or ambiguous.