61

Flat Earth General / Re: Antarctica

« on: June 23, 2024, 09:48:20 AM »

We are talking about The Final Experiment.

According to their website they will pay the $31,495 fee for one Flat Earther and one Globe Earther. The others pay. They have 2 Flat Earthers signed up as going and 7 Globe Earthers according to the front page.



 If this organization is a scam like the previous one and it disappears they will have stolen $31,495 x 7 = $220,465.

62

Flat Earth General / Re: Antarctica

« on: June 23, 2024, 09:41:36 AM »

Because you would pay the travel agency “Antarctic Logistics & Expeditions”.

It says you are paying a guy who they connect you with who they are claiming is with that organization. You are not going to that travel organization directly. This is not a sufficient process to discount fraud.

Anyone paying $31,495 and not getting the travel insurance is stupid.

If there was insurance involved then this should surely be advertised as part of the safety guarantees. As it is their only safety check is to trust them that they are connecting you to the right person who you are supposed to give a significant amount of money to.

63

Flat Earth General / Re: Antarctica

« on: June 23, 2024, 09:33:28 AM »

From The Final Experiment website FAQ:

https://www.the-final-experiment.com/faqs

"Yes! Anyone can join us in Antarctica this December for TFE. The cost is $31,495, which is the regular rate through Antarctic Logistics & Expeditions and all payments are made to them directly. If you would like to join us, contact us through our website and we will connect you with our contact at ALE."

So if you want to go you need to contact the Final Experiment people and they will give you a contact to pay. No "travel insurance" is mentioned on the website.

I don't see any reason to assume that the money will be safe transferred through this process. As far as we know these are the same despicable scammers who perpetuated the last trip to Antarctica experiment.

64

Flat Earth General / Re: Antarctica

« on: June 23, 2024, 09:21:16 AM »

For "The Final Experiment" they say that they welcome guests and if you want to go then to contact them to find out how much it will be. They apparently want $30K or something of that nature.

I would caution against giving them money, however. The last trip to Antarctica experiment turned out to be a scam perpetuated by the RE'ers organizing it. People paid a lot of money to go and the organization just disappeared with the money.

65

Flat Earth General / Re: Is the Earth stationary or rising up at 9.8 m/s?

« on: June 23, 2024, 07:05:16 AM »

Even if people still use Newtonian Gravity for its equation simplicity, the point is that the inertial-gravitational mass equivalence part of it is a point of contention in physics. Knowing that the inertial-gravitational mass equivalence is criticized as an ad hoc fix-it mechanism, we can see the true nature of other experiments explained as inertial-gravitational mass equivalency, which gave a null result when trying to measure the effects of gravitational variations.

Essentially, physicists have gone to great effort to create sensitive torsion balance experiments to detect gravitational variations from the Sun and celestial bodies. It was found that the gravitational influence of the sun, moon, or the tidal forces could not be measured as manifest of the attraction of the bodies in the experiments. Variations to "gravity" did not appear.

From "The Pendulum Paradigm: Variations on a Theme and the Measure of Heaven and Earth", by Professor Martin Beech, we read about a Princeton University experiment on p.176:



The experiment is summarized as follows:

  “ In the Princeton experiment the balance arm was oriented in a North-South direction (figure 4.13), and the idea was to see if a difference in the Sun's gravitational influence on the suspended masses could be detected. Specifically, as the Earth spins on its axis and difference between the Sun's gravitational interaction with the two masses will result in a 24 hour modulation or oscillation, in the orientation of the balance arm as seen in the laboratory. The Princeton group found no modulation of the torsion balance, and concluded that the Sun's gravitational acceleration on identical aluminum and gold masses was the same to one part in one hundred billion. ”

The masses were not attracted to the Sun in the experiment, to an accuracy of one part in one hundred billion.

Additional experiments of this class are described here. The first experiment below is the Princeton experiment described above:



The Eöt-Wash experiments were repeated by others as part of the fifth-force search and extension of the Eötvös experiment development:

https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/physics-experiment/app4.html

  “ The torsion-balance experiments of Eöt-Wash were repeated by others including (Cowsik et al. 1988; Fitch, Isaila and Palmer 1988; Adelberger 1989; Bennett 1989; Newman, Graham and Nelson 1989; Stubbs et al. 1989; Cowsik et al. 1990; Nelson, Graham and Newman 1990). These repetitions, in different locations and using different substances, gave consistently negative results. ”

66

Flat Earth General / Re: Is the Earth stationary or rising up at 9.8 m/s?

« on: June 22, 2024, 06:05:07 PM »

We haven't even been debating the shape of the earth here. We are talking about whether Newtonian Gravity has been deprecated in physics in favor of Relativity. It's an important step to getting to the earth shape debate.

The Newtonian explanation is something which does not happen with other forces.

http://eotvos.dm.unipi.it/PA2/sec1.pdf

Using Newton’s law of gravitation to write the equation of motion of a body of inertial mass m_i and gravitational mass m_g in the field of a source body of gravitational mass Mg (for instance, the Earth), if m_i ∝ m_g the resulting acceleration is the same for all bodies. With the measured value of the gravitational constant G and a proportionality factor +1 (m_i = m_g) , the local acceleration of gravity on the surface of the Earth −the same for all bodies regardless of their mass and composition− amounts to about 9.8 m/s² . This is the so called Universality of Free Fall (UFF). No such thing holds for all other fundamental forces of Nature. For instance, a proton and an electron do not have −in the same electric field− the same (in modulus) acceleration, because the inertial mass of the proton is much larger than the inertial mass of the electron and no proportionality holds between the inertial mass of a body and its electric charge.

This principle does not exist for other forces.

What more, the inertial-gravitational mass equivalency equation appears to be an ad-hoc and circular fix-it theory. A number of physicists treat it with derision.

https://journals.co.za/doi/pdf/10.10520/AJA00495530_49

While the two definitions of mass discussed hitherto are different conceptions, the one static and the other dynamic, nevertheless, Newton suggested a proportionality between them. Intuitively this was easy, for it was to be expected that the quantity of matter in an object should reflect the amount of resistance the body could offer against a force. Yet if this seems intuitively natural, it was not at all obvious, for surely this could also lead to a proportionality of inertial mass to temperature and volume, to name only a few other properties of a body

This physicist says that in the equations you could replace one of the properties with "money" and get the same result:

https://inspirehep.net/files/48c1403ed728690ce181af5df13cf581

Is the Inertial Mass Really Identical to the Gravitational Mass?

...Well, what is a gravitational mass and what is an inertial mass? A gravitational mass
is linked to the mass caused by, and acted on, by a body by the force of gravity, so it has
always been assumed that both the masses in Newton’s formula represent gravitational
masses. However, we will challenge that view here. This is because if the small mass m
has insignificant impact on M then it cancels out in all derivations of direct observable
gravitational phenomena, so we could even write:



and we would still get the correct predictions about measurable gravitational phenomena
from this equation; that is, y on both sides of the equation could be replaced with basically
anything. We could even define y as money. Money has naturally nothing to do with
gravity, but since y is on both sides of the equation we can divide by y on both sides and
we get a = GM / R², and we can measure both a and the gravitational acceleration.
Our point is that even when putting in a completely wrong mass definition for m on both
sides of these two m masses will cancel out in the derivation of anything observable.

67

Flat Earth General / Re: What is on the underside of the FE?

« on: June 21, 2024, 05:20:13 PM »

The "things" would come in contact with the Universal Accelerator and be accelerated along with the rest of the earth.

So the universal accelerator is like a pizza pan that is pushing up on the entire universe?  Anything that falls off the earth, doesn't actually go anywhere, it just makes the earth bigger?

This would mean the earth could be bulldozed, turning a Chicago thick crust pizza into a New York thin crust pizza?

Why is Antarctica so cold?

There are actually volcanoes on Antarctica. There is magma beneath the surface, just like in the RE version.

It is cold in Antarctica but not in Ecuador due to the specific local conditions, just like how there is snow on mountain tops but not at sea level.

68

Flat Earth General / Re: Is the Earth stationary or rising up at 9.8 m/s?

« on: June 19, 2024, 05:16:15 PM »

Arguing against the words physicists and university websites isn't going to be fruitful for you guys. Part of the academic mainstream narrative is that the classical mechanics of Newton failed in favor of Einstein because of the inertial-gravitational mass coincidence. Here is yet another source:

The Evolution of Scientific Thought from Newton to Einstein, A. D'Abro, p.254 -

https://books.google.com/books?id=ediBAAAAIAAJ&lpg=PA252&pg=PA254#v=onepage&q&f=false

"...and so it would be impossible, on the basis of mechanical experiments conducted in the interior of the enclosure, to decide whether we were in a field of inertial force generated by acceleration or in a field of gravitational force generated by matter. These are the conclusions which the equality of the two masses urges upon us. Inasmuch as the equality of the two types of masses constitutes a fact established by experiment, we may also regard as established empirically the inability of mechanical experiments to differentiate between a field of inertia and one of gravitation.

Now, up to this point, all the facts we have mentioned were perfectly well known to classical science. It is solely in the interpretation of these facts that Einstein suggests highly original views. Let us first examine what classical science had to say. Its arguments ran somewhat as follows: Our inability to differentiate between a field of inertial forces generated by acceleration and one of gravitation generated by matter is due solely to a miraculous coincidence, that of the equality of the two masses. Again, when, in the elevator falling in the earth's gravitational field, we experience no feeling of weight, it is not that the gravitational field has vanished; it is solely that the field of gravity has been counteracted by an equal and opposite field of inertia generated by the elevator's accelerated motion. The equality in the intensities of these two opposing fields is due once more to the equality of the two masses. Thus, according to classical science, there existed a very decided difference between the two types of fields of force, and it was always assumed that this difference would be detected when we performed non-mechanical experiments such as optical or electromagnetic ones.

It is this classical interpretation which Einstein challenges. He maintains that the field of force generated in an enclosure is of exactly the same nature regardless of whether it has been generated by acceleration or by gravitation. Also, in the case of the falling elevator, we should not say that the field of gravitation had been counteracted; we should say that it had vanished. Thus interpreted, the miraculous equality of the two types of masses is no miracle at all. There are no two types of masses which react to two types of forces. Since there is but one type of force, there is but one type of mass, to which classical science had erroneously given two different names, and then marveled at the fact that whatever name was given, its value remained the same. In this way Einstein succeeded in accounting for a miraculous equality which had baffled classical science."

And again, of course, Einstein's theory succeeded in that area because the surface of the earth is accelerating upwards through curved space in his theory.

“Einstein’s view of gravity is that things don’t fall; the floor comes up!”
-- Epstein, Lewis Carroll: Relativity Visualized. (Insight Press, San Francisco, 1988) pp. 65 ff.

69

Flat Earth General / Re: Is the Earth stationary or rising up at 9.8 m/s?

« on: June 16, 2024, 08:40:34 AM »

A plain understanding of how Newtonian Gravity pulls on objects shows that a body with twice the mass of another should fall faster. Newtonian Gravity requires an add-on modification of physics in the form of a separation of inertial and gravitational mass and their equivalence for bodies to fall equally.

An add on modification of physics!

F=ma is not an “add on”

It takes more force to move a heavy object than a light one.  Surely even flat earthers understand that?

We are not talking about F=ma. We are talking about this equation:

http://cosmoschool2018.oa.uj.edu.pl/pdfs/day3/CosmoSchool_Cracow2018_PiorkowskaKurpas.pdf



Although "Equivalence Principle" is something that Albert Einstein coined and he referred to for his theories, Newton's equivalency of inertial and gravitational mass is sometimes called the Newtonian equivalence principle.

From University of Pittsburgh:

https://sites.pitt.edu/~jdnorton/teaching/HPS_0410/chapters/general_relativity/

Einstein's reinterpretation eradicates an awkwardness of Newtonian theory. That theory had to posit that increases in gravitational mass in bodies are perfectly and exactly compensated by corresponding increases in inertial mass, so that the uniqueness of free fall can be preserved. Einstein's redescription does away with that coincidence and even the very idea of distinct inertial and gravitational masses. In his theory, bodies now just have mass, or, in the light of special relativity, mass-energy. For Einstein the primitive notion is the geometrical structure of spacetime with the curved trajectories traced out by all freely falling bodies, independently of their mass.

So, you're wrong. Newtonian theory proposed an absurd coincidence.

If you read the room, no one wants to defend Newton anymore, which is why you guys are now asking 'why does this matter' and about muh gravitational variations. I would suggest you run away as well, as there are hundreds of mainstream sources which repeat these reasons for why Newton's theory failed.

70

Flat Earth General / Re: Is the Earth stationary or rising up at 9.8 m/s?

« on: June 14, 2024, 04:38:40 PM »

If the gravity theory that bodies fall and accelerate down to the earth worked, they would have kept it. Instead, we have this metaphysical theory of the surface of the earth accelerating upwards through curved space.

You really think that classical mechanics can’t account for dropping things? Galileo worked this part out.

No, classical mechanics cannot adequately account for dropping things. That is why the earth's surface in the current RE gravity theory is accelerating upwards through "curved space". The dropping object theory was discredited.

A plain understanding of how Newtonian Gravity pulls on objects shows that a body with twice the mass of another should fall faster. Newtonian Gravity requires an add-on modification of physics in the form of a separation of inertial and gravitational mass and their equivalence for bodies to fall equally.

A Space.com article Relativity: The Thought Experiments Behind Einstein's Theory by astrophysicist Paul Sutter describes that this is a "sheer coincidence" mechanism to explain physical phenomena, and that there is "no reason" for it.

https://www.space.com/40920-relativity-power-of-equivalence.html

Einstein's first insight into the nature of gravity was to put a new twist on an old idea. In Isaac Newton's original mathematical description of gravity ("OG"?), there's an odd coincidence when it comes to the concept of "mass." In one famous equation, F = ma, mass is your inertia — how much oomph it takes to shove you along. In Newton's other equation on gravity, mass is more like gravitational charge — the level of attraction you might feel toward the Earth, for example.

Objects with twice the mass feel twice the attraction toward the Earth, and should therefore fall twice as quickly. But years back, Galileo Galilei had conclusively shown that they don't: Neglecting air resistance, all objects fall at the same rate regardless of their mass.

Thus for Newton's theory to work, inertial mass had to be the same as gravitational mass, but only by sheer coincidence: there was no reason for this equality to hold. For an object with twice the mass, the Earth may pull on it twice as strongly, but this is perfectly canceled out by the fact that it's now twice as hard to get the object moving. Inertial and gravitational masses move in perfect lockstep.

This odd correspondence had long been a puzzle in gravitational circles, but in 1907, Einstein took it one step further. The physicist imagined what would happen if you were to fall from a great height. Again neglecting air resistance, your inertial and gravitational masses would cancel, making you feel perfectly weightless, as if there were no gravity at all. But zero-gravity environments are precisely the playground of Special Relativity, the theory he had cooked up just a couple years prior that wove our conceptions of space and time into the unified fabric of spacetime.

To Einstein, this was a major clue. Lurking in the shadows of gravity was his precious special relativity and the essential concept of space-time, and what made that realization possible was the elevation of the equivalence between inertial and gravitational masses into a fundamental principle, rather than the awkward afterthought it had been.

Read the bolded above. This absurdity is why Newtonian Gravity was replaced with an alternate form of gravity.

A similar description that Newtonian Gravity predicts that bodies with twice the mass would experience twice the force is explained here on a University of Pittsburgh page. This page calls it an "unexplained coincidence", and also has illustrations for better visualization:

https://sites.pitt.edu/~jdnorton/teaching/HPS_0410/chapters/general_relativity/

In Newtonian theory, the result is given more complicated expression. The quantity that measures how much gravitational force will act on a body in some gravitational field is its gravitational mass. The quantity that measures how much a given body will accelerate when acted on by a force is the body's inertial mass. It is an unexplained coincidence in Newtonian theory that these two masses are equal. The result is the uniqueness of free fall.

Let us spell this out a little more.

A two pound mass feels twice the gravitational force than does a one pound mass in the same gravitational field, since it has twice the gravitational mass.




One might expect that, if we drop the two masses, the two pound mass would fall faster because it is acted on by twice the gravitational force.

A second factor comes into play that erases the effect of the increase. In Newtonian gravitation theory, a body with a two pound gravitational mass will also have a two pound inertial mass.

The inertial mass of the body tells us how much acceleration the body acquires when acted on by a force. (The precise relation is acceleration = force/mass.)

Thus, in passing from the one pound to the two pound mass, we have doubled both the inertial and the gravitational mass. So we have doubled the gravitational force, but halved the responsiveness of the mass to the gravitational forces.

The outcome is that both masses fall with exactly the same acceleration.




If electric forces were pulling the balls through the tube, this uniqueness of fall would fail. There is no coupling of inertial mass and electric charge. So if we drop one body which carries twice the charge of a second, there is no assurance that the inertial mass is also doubled; and so no assurance that the two will fall alike.

This remarkable result of the uniqueness of free fall is what makes the reinterpretation very comfortable.

71

Flat Earth General / Re: Is the Earth stationary or rising up at 9.8 m/s?

« on: June 14, 2024, 02:05:47 AM »

After all of this you guys still don't understand that the equivalency aspect of the Equivalence Principle is referring to General Relativity and how the surface of the earth accelerate upwards through curved space? Is this denial?

The Equivalence Principle means that gravity emulates an upwardly frame of reference. It is referring to General Relativity, or depending on usage otherwise sometimes refers to a vague notion of an undefined gravity theory in that "gravity must be this way".

In General Relativity, the current theory of gravity for the Round Earth model, the surface of the earth is accelerating upwards through curved space to explain the upwardly accelerating earth experiments as discovered on earth.

See the following slideshow from Brock University and note the second slide where it is comparing Newtonian Mechanics to the Equivalence Principle and notes that in the Equivalence Principle "the opposite is true". Red outline pointers are mine:

https://baraksh.com/static/1P0102/L16_Slides.pdf

ASTR 1P02
Brock University
Prof. Barak Shashany

Lecture 16: Einstein's Theory of Relativity









If the gravity theory that bodies fall and accelerate down to the earth worked, they would have kept it. Instead, we have this metaphysical theory of the surface of the earth accelerating upwards through curved space.

This is the current theory of gravity for YOUR model, which you are refusing to fully acknowledge.

72

Flat Earth General / Re: Is the Earth stationary or rising up at 9.8 m/s?

« on: June 11, 2024, 06:28:21 PM »

Your fundamental mistake is assuming that the Equivalence Principle is saying that Newtonian Gravity is indistinguishable from a scenario where the surface is accelerating upwards. This is wrong, and stupid. They are not indistinguishable. The principle behind a policeman's radar gun, for example, can tell what is and what is not accelerating. The experiment works out in favor of the upwardly accelerating earth version of things.

The equivalency aspect of the Equivalence Principle is comparing an upwardly accelerating surface to the General Relativity version of gravity where the surface of the earth is accelerating upwards through metaphysical curved space to cause and explain the gravity experiments experienced by investigators and in laboratories. This is the current version of gravity in the official RE Theory and you just can't accept this.

See: Gravity: A Very Short Introduction by Cosmologist Timothy Clifton

“ Consider a skydiver jumping out of an airplane. The skydiver falls freely, up to the effects of air resistance. According to Einstein, the skydiver's path is the straightest line possible through the curved space-time around the Earth. From the skydiver's perspective this seems quite natural. Except for the air rushing past her, the skydiver feels no perturbing forces at all. In fact, if it weren't for the air resistance, she would experience weightlessness in the same way that an astronaut does in orbit. 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.

Now consider yourself on the ground, looking up at the falling daredevil. Normally, your intuitive description of your own motion would be that you are stationary. But again this is only because of our slavish regard to the Earth as the arbiter of what is at rest and what is moving. Free yourself from this prison, and you realize that you are, in fact, accelerating. You feel a force on the soles of your feet that pushes you upwards, in the same way that you would if you were in a lift that accelerated upwards very quickly. In Einstein's picture there is no difference between your experience sanding on Earth and your experience in the lift. In both situations you are accelerating upwards. In the latter situation it is the lift that is responsible for your acceleration. In the former, it is the fact that the Earth is solid that pushes you upwards through space-time, knocking you off your free-fall trajectory. That the surface of the Earth can accelerate upwards at every point on its surface, and remain as a solid object, is because it exists in a curved space-time and not in a flat space.

With this change in perspective the true nature of gravity becomes apparent. The free falling skydiver is brought to Earth because the space-time through which she falls is curved. It is not an external force that tugs her downwards, but her own natural motion through a curved space. On the other hand, as a person standing on the ground, the pressure you feel on the soles of your feet is due to the rigidity of the Earth pushing you upwards. Again, there is no external force pulling you to Earth. It is only the electrostatic forces in the rocks below your feet that keep the ground rigid, and that prevents you from taking what would be your natural motion (which would also be free fall).

So, if we free ourselves from defining our motion with respect to the surface of the Earth we realize that the skydiver is not accelerating, while the person who stands on the surface of the Earth is accelerating. Just the opposite of what we usually think. Going back to Galileo's experiment on the leaning tower of Pisa, we can now see why he observed all of his cannonballs to fall at the same rate. It wasn't really the cannonballs that were accelerating away from Galileo at all, it was Galileo that was accelerating away from the cannonballs! ”

73

Flat Earth General / Re: Is the Earth stationary or rising up at 9.8 m/s?

« on: June 11, 2024, 08:23:24 AM »

Arguing with those words from the physics professor on the nature of physics is a fruitless endeavor, as you have no known physics credentials.

Einstein's Gravity does not have objects being pulled downwards towards the earth. It has the earth accelerating up into objects, in an unseen meta-physical reality called curved space. The downward pulling Newtonian Gravity was deemed to be insufficient because it does not explain the behavior that an upwardly accelerating earth predicts.

Quite simply, you are wrong and ignorant to what the Equivalence Principle and modern version of RE gravity, General Relativity, even is.

Tony Goldsmith, author of a mass-media book Space-time for Absolute Beginners and his Absolute Beginner book series, explains the Equivalence Principle as follows:

  “ When you are in a lift you may be accelerated. Where is this coming from? It is the lift pushing you up. Einstein said that the Earth does the same as a lift (which has an acceleration of g). The Earth isn't in the way; it is doing the pushing. This is his Equivalence Principle. ”

A popular science video by Veritasium with over 10 million views, Why Gravity is NOT a Force, explains at the 9:57 mark how in General Relativity when on Earth you accelerate upwards without changing your spatial coordinates with the General Relativity equation:



@9:57

“ But if I'm accelerating up and so is everyone else around the world and presumably the whole surface of the Earth, then shouldn't the whole earth be expanding?

No. It is possible for you to be accelerating even though your spatial coordinates are not changing. I will show you one equation from General Relativity...

[equation]

...so in curved space-time you have to accelerate just to stand still. ”

74

Flat Earth General / Re: Is the Earth stationary or rising up at 9.8 m/s?

« on: June 11, 2024, 05:37:25 AM »

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 two are embarrassingly mistaken, and need to learn more about the Equivalence Principle and Einstein.

Einstein even uses the fact that you become weightless in freefall as part of his proof against Newtonian Gravity. In Einstein's view the phenomenon of weightlessness while falling shows that the surface of the Earth is accelerating upwards. It is why in the Round Earth model the downwards-pulling Newtonian Gravity is disproven in favor of a scenario where the surface of the earth is accelerating upwards through curved space.

Re-read this section "Why Is Spacetime Curved?" from the book Time Travel in Einstein’s Universe by John Richard Gott III, professor of astrophysical sciences at Princeton University:

https://books.google.com/books?id=3QBgCgAAQBAJ&newbks=1&newbks_redir=0&lpg=PP1&pg=PT97#v=onepage&q&f=false

  “ A famous (perhaps apocryphal) story about Einstein describes one occasion when he fell into conversation with a man at the Institute for Advanced Study at Princeton. During their chat, the man suddenly pulled a little book from his coat pocket and jotted something down. Einstein asked, “What is that?" “Oh,” the man answered, “it's a notebook I keep, so that any time I have a good idea I can write it down before I forget it.” “I never needed one of those," Einstein replied. “I only had three good ideas.”

One of them occurred to him in 1907—what he would later call the “happiest” idea of his life. Einstein noted that an observer on Earth and an observer on an accelerating spaceship in interstellar space would have the same sensations. Follow this chain of thought to see why. Galileo had shown that an observer dropping two balls of different mass on Earth sees them hit the floor at the same time. If an observer in an accelerating rocket in interstellar space performed the same experiment, dropping two balls of different mass, they would float motionless in space—but, since the rocket was firing, the floor of the spaceship would simply come up and hit both of them at once. Both observers thus should see the same thing. In one case, it is the result of gravity; in the other case, it is caused by an accelerating floor with no gravity involved. But then Einstein proposed something very bold—if the two situations looked the same, they must be the same. Gravity was nothing more than an accelerated frame-of-reference. Likewise, Einstein noted that if you get in an elevator on Earth and cut the cable, you and everything in the elevator will fall toward Earth at the same rate. (Galileo again—objects of different mass all fall at the same rate.) So, how do things look to you in the falling elevator? Any object you drop will float weightless in the elevator—because you, the object, and the elevator are all falling at the same rate together. This is exactly what you would see if you were in a spaceship floating in interstellar space. All the objects in the spaceship, including you, would be weightless. If you want to experience weightlessness just like an astronaut, all you have to do is get in an elevator and cut the cable. (This works, of course, only until the elevator hits bottom.)

Einstein's assertion that gravity and acceleration are, the same—which he called the equivalence principle—was influenced, no doubt, by his previous success in equating the situation of a stationary magnet and a moving charge with that of a stationary charge and a moving magnet. But if gravity and accelerated motion were the same, then gravity was nothing but accelerated motion. Earth's surface was simply accelerating upward. This explained why a heavy ball and a light ball, when dropped, hit the floor at the same time. When the balls are released, they just float there—weightless. The floor (Earth) simply comes up and hits them. What a remarkably fresh way of looking at things!

Still one must ask how Earth’s surface could be accelerating upward (away from Earth's center) if Earth itself is not getting bigger and bigger with time like a balloon. The only way the assertion could make sense is by considering spacetime to be curved.

Einstein proposed that mass and energy cause spacetime to curve. It took him 8 years of hard work to derive the equations governing this. He had to learn the abstruse geometry of curved higher dimensional spaces. He had to learn about the Riemannian curvature tensor—a mathematical monster with 256 components telling how spacetime could be curved. This was very difficult mathematics, and Einstein ran upon many false leads. But he didn't give up because he had great faith in the idea. ”

75

Flat Earth General / Re: Is the Earth stationary or rising up at 9.8 m/s?

« on: June 11, 2024, 05:01:14 AM »

Stack is correct. An accelerometer in free-fall proves that it is inert and that the earth is accelerating upwards. It can also be seen with a water balloon, which acts as a crude accelerometer.



Source

When in freefall bodies become weightless. This is also demonstrated on one of those zero-g airplane flights. When the aircraft falls the occupants in the craft become weightless.



In the above the girl's hair become weightless. However, if there was something invisible pulling every atom of the hair "down," it should not become weightless.

For example, consider if we had a horizontal length of rope on one of the zero-g aircraft flights. While the cabin is falling there should still be "gavity" pulling every point of the rope "down" as in the left hand side of the below image. Parts of the rope should not be able to float and deform upwards weightlessly without resistance against gravity, as in the right hand side of the image.



Hence, we have a demonstration that reality acts as if freefalling bodies are inert and the earth is accelerating upwards.

76

Flat Earth General / Re: Universal deceleration theory

« on: May 26, 2024, 04:54:26 PM »

It doesn't vary. The experiments which show variations are uncontrolled. There are also contradicting experiments which show no variation. Show us the experiment and I will show you the fallacy.

Can you explain the Eötvös effect?

The experiment was performed with a gravimeter, which is a seismometer. See: https://wiki.tfes.org/Gravimetry

The effect occurs when traveling in a eastwards or westwards direction in a ship. It tells us that something east-west is creating subseismic disturbances when moving with or against the noise. Ie. the movement of the stars and celestial bodies, or the movement of large underwater east-west water or magma currents further down. Since a gravimeter is a seismometer, it is not directly measuring gravity. As such, it can come under a number of interpretations on what is creating subseismic noise.

The tfes.org page on the Eötvös Effect is here -

The Eötvös Effect, named after Hungarian nobleman and physicist Baron Roland von Eötvös, is a longitudinal effect which affects gravimeters and occurs when a vessel is traveling eastwards or westwards. In the early 1900s, a German team from the Institute of Geodesy in Potsdam carried out gravity measurements on moving ships in the Atlantic, Indian and Pacific Oceans. While studying their results Eötvös noticed that the readings of the gravimeter were slightly lower when the boat moved eastwards, and slightly higher when it moved westward.

An Effect of Gravimetry

It is found that a gravimeter is a low-frequency seismometer, and that the theory of gravimetry is based on a theoretical assessment of the background noise in the subseismic band. The patterns of the tides and other phenomena can be pulled out of the background noise, and are assumed to be due to "gravity".

In connection with the above, the Eötvös Effect is an effect which adds or subtracts anthropogenic and microseismic noises to the gravimeter when a vessel moves eastwards or westwards. Although the cause of the noise is unknown, the noise may be related to the stars, tides, or even the upper flow of the 'great ocean conveyor belt', all of which make regular westwards motions across the earth. A vessel going against this noise would pick up greater noise than a vessel which goes with the noise.

Due to the nature of the gravimeter, it is suggested that this effect seen in the gravimeter should be better classified under a category of seismology.

77

Flat Earth General / Re: Universal deceleration theory

« on: May 26, 2024, 02:57:35 PM »

You are talking about gravimeters, which has been given a FE response at depth here: https://wiki.tfes.org/Gravimetry

Gravimeters are seismometers which study an alleged byproduct of gravity in the subseismic band. There are many quotes on that page of scientists calling gravimeters seismometers.

Where is the proof that gravimeters are not seismometers?

Where is the proof that this there was actually a variation of g which was directly and empirically detected?

You have not been able to substantiate any of this, and your repeated response to the quotes are along the lines of "nuh uh, those gravimeter scientists are wrong about gravimeters." I expect that you will continue to waste our time with this underwhelming response. Alternatively, you will outright refuse to respond, creating some kind of inane argument that you don't need to read and address the material given to you, like a child.

You are supposed to have mountains of evidence for all of this. This is what you guys repeatedly claim, at least. At this point if you don't have the resources to defend and substantiate your position, then you have lost.

78

Flat Earth General / Re: Universal deceleration theory

« on: May 26, 2024, 12:04:32 PM »

If so, you still have the question of why does g vary?

It doesn't vary. The experiments which show variations are uncontrolled. There are also contradicting experiments which show no variation. Show us the experiment and I will show you the fallacy.

79

Flat Earth General / Re: Universal deceleration theory

« on: May 26, 2024, 11:15:21 AM »

I don't really have a problem with the concept of an infinite or near-infinite cosmic energy which powers UA.

However, UA really just says that the surface of earth is accelerating upwards, not how it is accelerated. There is a possibility of Universal Acceleration through circular centripetal motion. Under this concept UA is caused by circular centripetal force, like when you swing a bucket filled with water around and the water stays flattened against the bottom. The bottom of the bucket is accelerating against the water, causing it to flatten.



It is possible that the Earth is at the bottom of the bucket, moving at a constant speed horizontally along a large circle, with a 9.8 m/s/s imparted in g acceleration. A more realistic version might be a scenario in which the Flat Earth exists inside of the cavity of something akin to a very large spinning porous asteroid-like superstructure. The spinning of the superstructure is constant and would produce an imparted 1g of acceleration as we experience and define it.

There are number of different possibilities for the dimensions of this contraption. At omnicalculator.com a centrifugal force calculator can be found which can compute possible values for the physical dimensions of the circle of motion for a centrifugal acceleration of 1G. For the Centrifugal Acceleration field enter 1G, for the Tangential Velocity field fill in a speed value such as 10000000 km/h, and for the Mass field enter in a random value (which is required but will not affect the radius result) to get the radius of the circle, which would be 786,818,066 km for the preceding values.

80

Flat Earth General / Re: Is the Earth stationary or rising up at 9.8 m/s?

« on: May 25, 2024, 04:40:54 PM »

How can a policeman's radar gun tell if the red shift is due to acceleration due to gravitation or due to the earth physically accelerating upwards?  The EP says that it can't because there is no difference between the two. 

We know that physical acceleration causes the readings on a policeman's radar gun. While it might be possible to invent something invisible to create those readings, this is only an effort to emulate the physical scenario of upwards acceleration. The scenario of upwards acceleration is what gravity must emulate as prima facie.

You also must remember that the EP can only be applied to uniform acceleration.  The earth does not experience uniform acceleration, therefore the EP can not be used as evidence of anything (except maybe evidence of your ignorance or intellectual dishonesty).

The existence of these variations are questionable. In the mainstream narrative there are experiment claims that a uniform gravitational field has been observed to great heights.

https://wiki.tfes.org/Gravitational_Time_Dilation

Ballistic Rocket

According to the mainstream narrative it is claimed that in 1976 the Smithsonian Astrophysical Observatory and the National Aeronautics and Space Administration engaged in a joint project to test the Equivalence Principle by comparing the difference of time dilation at high altitudes and the surface of the earth. A ballistic (sub-orbital) rocket was sent to an altitude of 10,000 km (6,200 mi) on an elliptical trajectory over the Atlantic Ocean before falling back down to earth. At a great height an atomic clock on board the rocket was compared to an atomic clock on the surface of the earth, confirming that time dilates in accordance with the uniform nature of the Equivalence Principle.

http://research.omicsgroup.org/index.php/Gravity_Probe_A (Archive)

Gravity Probe A

  “ Gravity Probe A (GP-A) was a space-based experiment to test the equivalence principle, a feature of Einstein's theory of relativity. It was performed jointly by the Smithsonian Astrophysical Observatory and the National Aeronautics and Space Administration. The experiment sent a hydrogen maser, a highly accurate frequency standard, into space to measure with high precision the rate at which time passes in a weaker gravitational field.

~

The experiment was a test of a major fallout of Einstein's general relativity, the equivalence principle. The equivalence principle states that a reference frame in a uniform gravitational field is indistinguishable from a reference frame that is under uniform acceleration. Further, the equivalence principle predicts that phenomenon of different time flow rates, present in a uniformly accelerating reference frame, will also be present in a stationary reference frame that is in a uniform gravitational field.
~

The probe was launched on June 18, 1976 from the NASA-Wallops Flight Center in Wallops Island, Virginia. The probe was carried via a Scout rocket, and attained a height of 10,000 km (6,200 mi), while remaining in space for 1 hour and 55 minutes, as intended. It returned to Earth by splashing down into the Atlantic Ocean.

~

The objective of the Gravity Probe A experiment was to test the validity of the equivalence principle. The equivalence principle was a key component of Albert Einstein's theory of general relativity, and states that the laws of physics are the same regardless of whether you consider a uniformly accelerating reference frame or a reference frame that is acted upon by uniform gravitational field.

The equivalence principle can be understood by picturing a rocket ship in two scenarios. First, imagine a rocket ship that is at rest on the Earth's surface; objects in the rocket ship are being accelerated downward at 9.81 m/s². Now, imagine a rocket ship that has escaped Earth's gravitational field and is accelerating upwards at a constant 9.81 m/s² due to thrust from its rockets; objects in the rocket ship that are dropped will fall to the floor with an acceleration of 9.81 m/s². This example shows that a uniformly accelerating reference frame is indistinguishable from a gravitational reference frame.

~

The 100 kg Gravity Probe A spacecraft housed the atomic hydrogen maser system that ran throughout the mission. Maser is an acronym for microwave amplification by stimulated emission of radiation, and is similar to a laser, as it produces coherent electromagnetic waves in the microwave region of the electromagnetic spectrum (as opposed to lasers which produce light in the visible or ultraviolet region). The probe was launched nearly vertically upward to cause a large change in the gravitational potential seen by the maser, reaching a height of 10,000 km (6,200 mi). At this height, relativity predicted a clock should run 4.5 parts in 1010 faster than one on the Earth.

~

The experiment was thus able to test the equivalence principle. Gravity Probe A confirmed the prediction that deeper in the gravity well the time flows slower,[4] and the observed effects matched the predicted effects to an accuracy of about 70 parts per million. ”

If this ballistic rocket experiment took place, the results claim that it observed a uniform gravitational field. The methodology involved comparing the clock in a rocket to a clock on earth, determining that time dilated in accordance with the equivalence principle which says that gravity behaves as if the environment were accelerating upwards (uniformly).

There is another quote from a different source regarding the "uniform gravitational field" here:

Uniform Gravitational Field

Additional reference to the 'uniform gravitational field' of the Equivalence Principle can be seen on p.8 of How The Universe Works: Introduction To Modern Cosmology:

  “ The Gravity Probe A experiment also confirmed another important General Relativity effect: the equivalence principle, which states that the object behaves the same regardless of whether it is uniformly accelerating or placed in a uniform gravitational field. ”

Beyond this experiment, there are also other experiments referenced on that tfes.org page which show that the same experiment has been conducted with a clock on the ground as compared to a clock on a mountain, which have also verified the equivalence principle.

81

Flat Earth General / Re: Is the Earth stationary or rising up at 9.8 m/s?

« on: May 25, 2024, 09:09:19 AM »

considering that all it takes is a few clicks in Photoshop, what are you trying to prove?

It's not a photoshop. Astronomers accept this phenomenon and claim that light bends across the sky on the celestial sphere.

https://web.archive.org/web/20190516183015/http://www.upenn.edu/emeritus/essays/MyersMoon.html

I was not one of those kids fascinated early by space, the ones who know Norton's Star Atlas inside out by the age of ten, who save up their allowance to buy a telescope advertised on the back pages of a popular science magazine. Outside my bedroom window, the Cincinnati night sky was obscured by a partnership of buildings, trees, bright lights and clouds. I could follow the counterclockwise rotation of the Big Dipper around the North Star and spot Orion rising in the southeast in the winter sky, but I was 18 years old before I got my first unimpeded view of the stars and the Milky Way one clear night in the Arizona desert.

Today, an app called StarWalk changes all that. One can point an iPad at the sky day or night, in clear or cloudy weather, and fix the locations of the planets, nearby stars, and constellations. Technology has simplified but not replaced the wonderment and pleasure of stargazing and following the motions of the planets along the ecliptic.

One evening several years ago, I took this picture of the misty glow of an almost full moon shining between pine trees in my backyard. The moon was beautifully illuminated and dominated the dark sky. Yet something was disturbing about the atmospheric night scene: the illumination of the moon seemed to be coming from the wrong direction! In this photograph of a waxing moon in the southern sky, its illumination appears to be coming from above to the right. But the sun---which had set an hour earlier---was already below the western horizon to the right when this photo was taken. If the sun is below the horizon, I thought, shouldn't its illumination of the moon appear to be coming from below the horizon? Intrigued, I made further observations when both the sun and the moon occupied the evening sky at the same time, and it certainly seemed that light rays from the sun would have to follow a curved path to shine on the moon at the observed angle. The sketch drawn below may help to explain the difference between what I expected to see and what I actually saw.

I asked everyone willing to listen if they were familiar with this illusion: why does a light ray from the sun to the moon appear to follow a curved path? No one had seen or heard of it. Several imaginative explanations were offered: "The light rays are bent by the earth's atmosphere." Or, "Gravitational lensing as predicted by Einstein's general theory of relativity is responsible." I was surprised not to find the illusion described in astronomy textbooks. I googled "moon illusion" but the articles were about an entirely different illusion: the apparent magnification of the full moon when it's close to the horizon.

Finally, help came from my daughter, who located published papers by googling "moon tilt illusion". The scientific explanation is based on the projection of a straight line onto the surface of a sphere. A simpler explanation was provided in a conversation with Benjamin Shen, Professor Emeritus of Astronomy at Penn, who said that light appears to follow a great circle route from the sun to the moon. That's why the moon's lit face appears to us not to face the sun squarely, regardless of whether the sun is above or below the horizon.

The moon tilt illusion is counter-intuitive and magical---look for it the next time you are under a night sky.

82

Flat Earth General / Re: Is the Earth stationary or rising up at 9.8 m/s?

« on: May 24, 2024, 04:32:25 AM »

The quote comes from the astrophysicist in the Space.com article. If you think he is wrong then you should take it up with him or that organization, and preferably post your correspondence here for our amusement. Obviously, it is you who is wrong in your understanding of Newtonian Gravity.

83

Flat Earth General / Re: Is the Earth stationary or rising up at 9.8 m/s?

« on: May 24, 2024, 04:03:19 AM »

Pound–Rebka experiment

Both Pound and Rebka ASSUMED that the speed of light is constant and not a variable.

If the speed of the light pulses in the gravitational field is VARIABLE, then the frequency shift measured by Pound and Rebka is a direct consequence of this variability and there is no gravitational time dilation.

See the discussion here: http://blog.hasslberger.com/2006/04/recovering_the_lorentz_ether_c.html

Anything which attempts to explain this is just seeking to emulate what would happen in an upwardly accelerating rocket.

In fact, gravity as a whole has been trying to explain why it is operating as if the earth is accelerating upwards. Under a plain interpretation of Newtonian Gravity, where gravitation is due to mass, a body with twice the mass of another should fall faster. Yet bodies with different masses "fall" at the same rate, as they would in an upwardly accelerating rocket. Newton added in an ad-hoc mechanism to fix the glaring hole in his theory of gravity.

See this section from https://wiki.tfes.org/Equivalence_Principle

Thought Experiments Behind Einstein's Theory

A Space.com article Relativity: The Thought Experiments Behind Einstein's Theory by astrophysicist Paul Sutter explains that under a plain interpretation of how Newtonian Gravity pulls on objects, a body with twice the mass of another should fall faster. Newtonian Gravity requires a separation of inertial and gravitational mass and their equivalence for bodies to fall equally. It is suggested that this is an ad-hoc mechanism to explain physical phenomena.

  “ Einstein's first insight into the nature of gravity was to put a new twist on an old idea. In Isaac Newton's original mathematical description of gravity ("OG"?), there's an odd coincidence when it comes to the concept of "mass." In one famous equation, F = ma, mass is your inertia — how much oomph it takes to shove you along. In Newton's other equation on gravity, mass is more like gravitational charge — the level of attraction you might feel toward the Earth, for example.

Objects with twice the mass feel twice the attraction toward the Earth, and should therefore fall twice as quickly. But years back, Galileo Galilei had conclusively shown that they don't: Neglecting air resistance, all objects fall at the same rate regardless of their mass.

Thus for Newton's theory to work, inertial mass had to be the same as gravitational mass, but only by sheer coincidence: there was no reason for this equality to hold. For an object with twice the mass, the Earth may pull on it twice as strongly, but this is perfectly canceled out by the fact that it's now twice as hard to get the object moving. Inertial and gravitational masses move in perfect lockstep.

This odd correspondence had long been a puzzle in gravitational circles, but in 1907, Einstein took it one step further. The physicist imagined what would happen if you were to fall from a great height. Again neglecting air resistance, your inertial and gravitational masses would cancel, making you feel perfectly weightless, as if there were no gravity at all. But zero-gravity environments are precisely the playground of Special Relativity, the theory he had cooked up just a couple years prior that wove our conceptions of space and time into the unified fabric of spacetime.

To Einstein, this was a major clue. Lurking in the shadows of gravity was his precious special relativity and the essential concept of space-time, and what made that realization possible was the elevation of the equivalence between inertial and gravitational masses into a fundamental principle, rather than the awkward afterthought it had been. ”


We've already spoken at length about the reality behind Einstein's theory, that the surface of the Earth is accelerating upwards through curved space-time. Looking back at the theory before it, Newton understood that his theory of gravity did not work on its own, and needed to insert mechanisms to patch it.

84

Flat Earth General / Re: Is the Earth stationary or rising up at 9.8 m/s?

« on: May 23, 2024, 06:17:24 PM »

Actually the quotes on the Equivalence Principle page show that the Equivalence Principle means that the upwards acceleration scenario is what must be emulated.

I hope that you'll understand if I take your cherry picked wiki page with a rather sizable grain of salt.  If gravitation is indistinguishable from upward acceleration, then I'd say that gravitation emulates upwards acceleration just as well as upward acceleration emulates gravitation.

Gravitation is only emulating upwards acceleration. For example, one of the experiments uses the principle behind a policeman's radar gun to see that the ceiling is accelerating away from photons emanating from the floor, and that the floor is accelerating towards photons that emanating from the ceiling. A police man's radar gun can tell whether something is accelerating towards it or away from it.

https://wiki.tfes.org/Evidence_for_Universal_Acceleration#The_Pound.E2.80.93Rebka_Experiment

The Pound–Rebka Experiment

The Pound-Rebka experiment and Pound-Rebka-Snyder experiments are optical tests of the Equivalence Principle, where light redshifts or blueshifts when traveling vertically upwards or downwards. Like with the previous section, light behaves differently when traveling upwards or downwards. In General Relativity (Archive) by Prof. Benjamin Crowell, its author explains that the experiment is a test of the Equivalence Principle:

  “ The Pound-Rebka Experiment

The 1959 Pound-Rebka experiment at Harvard was one of the first high-precision, relativistic tests of the equivalence principle to be carried out under controlled conditions ”

From Special and General Relativity (Archive) by Norman K Glendenning on p.28 we read an analogy with an upwardly accelerating spaceship:

  “ One can also see the role of the equivalence principle by considering a pulse of light emitted over a distance h along the axis of a spaceship in uniform acceleration g in outer space. The time taken for the light to reach the detector is t = h (we use units G = c = 1). The difference in velocity of the detector acquired during the light travel time is v = gt = gh, the Doppler shift z in the detected light. This experiment, carried out in the gravity-free environment of a spaceship whose rockets produce an acceleration g, must yield the same result for the energy shift of the photon in a uniform gravitational field f according to the equivalence principle. The Pound-Rebka-Snyder experiments can therefore be regarded as an experimental proof of the equivalence principle. ”

The Pound-Rebka-Snyder experiments are the same 1959 experiment, conducted with an additional researcher, which has been improved and repeated over the years to increasing precision (Archive).

Summarily, light will be redshifted or blueshifted when traveling upwards or downwards because "gravity" operates exactly as if the earth were accelerating upwards. When light is traveling downwards from a light source on the ceiling to a detector on the ground, the earth is rising quicker into the photons and will cause a blueshift (its frequency will increase). When light is traveling upwards from the ground to a detector on the ceiling, the detector on the ceiling is moving away from the photons and they will redshift (frequency will decrease).

Experiment Overview Diagram



Left: Light moving downwards - Blueshifted
Right: Light moving upwards - Redshifted

(Source) (Archive)

Redshift and Blueshift of Light

In connection with the above, in the following Redshift-Blueshift Doppler Shift of Light diagram we can see that when a body that emits light is receding from you it would cause a red shift, and when is approaching you quicker it will cause a blue shift:



(Source) (Archive)

Police Doppler Radar

The Doppler Effect principle is used in a policeman's radar gun to measure speed and acceleration. A policeman's radar gun can use doppler shift to determine whether an object is accelerating away or towards you.

https://copradar.com/chapts/chapt3/ch3d1.html

  “ Police microwave radars all use the Doppler Principle to measure speed. The radar transmits a continuous microwave signal and simultaneously measures the echo that is frequency shifted proportional to speed, the Doppler Shift. The frequency shift is measured in cycles per second and has unit dimensions of Hertz (Hz).

...Microwave signals travel at the speed of light but still obey the Doppler Principle. Microwave radars receive a Doppler frequency shifted reflection from a moving object. Frequency is shifted higher for approaching objects, and lower for receding objects. The frequency shift is proportional to speed. ”



In the Pound–Rebka Experiment when the light suspended on a ceiling travels downwards towards the upwardly moving floor the frequency shifts higher (blueshifts), and when the light source is on the floor shining upwards at the upwardly moving ceiling the frequency is shifted lower (redshifts), just as would happen if the building were sitting on an upwardly accelerating earth. Light behaves differently when moving upwards than downwards.

So, the principle of a policeman's radar gun says that the ceiling is accelerating away from the upwardly directed photons and that the floor is accelerating towards the downwardly directed photons.

85

Flat Earth General / Re: Is the Earth stationary or rising up at 9.8 m/s?

« on: May 22, 2024, 11:39:04 PM »

Huh?  Oh, the Shortt clock master pendulum is in a vacuum chamber.  So, no atmospheric effects.  How does latitude affect a pendulum clock?

Where was this experiment conducted with that pendulum clock? The only reference to the earth's rotation I could find is this:

https://articles.adsabs.harvard.edu/full/seri/MNRAS/0089//0000240.000.html




This has nothing to do with gravitational variation by latitude, and says that they could not find much of a difference in the clock rate between 1927 and 1928.

Scales are affected by the atmosphere and show variation by latitude.

Really?  Can you explain?  What does that have to do with the Shortt clock?  Where do scales come to play?  How are scales affected by atmosphere?

Yes, there is a page on the scale experiments here: https://wiki.tfes.org/Weight_Variation_by_Latitude

Atomic clocks are not affected by the atmosphere and do not show variation by latitude.

From your reference.

Time dilates at different altitudes in agreement with an upwardly accelerating Earth1, but not at different latitudes as suggested by a rotating Round Earth.

So, your reference says there is an effect caused by altitude.  Is that because of the diminished value of 'g'?

If you just read the links you will learn that physical upwards acceleration predicts time dilation when measured at different altitudes within an upwardly accelerating environment.

https://wiki.tfes.org/Gravitational_Time_Dilation

From p.8 of Cosmological Physics by John A. Peacock, PhD. we read the following:

GRAVITATIONAL TIME DILATION

  “ Many of the important features of general relativity can be obtained via rather simple arguments that use the equivalence principle. The most famous of these is the thought experiment that leads to gravitational time dilation, illustrated in figure 1.1. Consider an accelerating frame. which is conventionally a rocket of height h, with a clock mounted on the roof that regularly disgorges photons towards the floor. If the rocket accelerates upwards at g, the floor acquires a speed v = gh / c in the time taken for a photon to travel from roof to floor. There will thus be a blueshift in the frequency of received photons, given by Δv / v = gh / c^2, and it is easy to see that the rate of reception of photons will increase by the same factor.

Now, since the rocket can be kept accelerating for as long as we like, and since photons cannot be stockpiled anywhere, the conclusion of an observer on the floor of the rocket is that in a real sense the clock on the roof is running fast. When the rocket stops accelerating, the clock on the roof will have gained a time Δt by comparison with an identical clock kept on the floor. Finally, the equivalence principle can be brought in to conclude that gravity must cause the same effect. Noting that ΔΦ = gh is the difference in potential between roof and floor, it is simple to generalize this to Δt / t = ΔΦ / c^2 ”



  “ Figure 1.1. Imagine you are in a box in free space far from any source of gravitation. If the box is made to accelerate ‘upwards’ and has a clock that emits a photon every second mounted on its roof, it is easy to see that you will receive photons more rapidly once the box accelerates (imagine yourself running into the line of oncoming photons). Now, according to the equivalence principle, the situation is exactly equivalent to the second picture in which the box sits at rest on the surface of the Earth. Since there is nowhere for the excess photons to accumulate, the conclusion has to be that clocks above us in a gravitational field run fast. ”


If you imagine yourself running into the line of incoming photons you will know why time appears to speed up when accelerating into a line of time-representing photons. There is a physical reason for why time dilates due to acceleration, and is equivalent to the explanation here in the Water Droplet Example from the tfes.org page:

Water Droplet Example

"For further clarification of why upwards acceleration into a line of incoming clock signals affects the perception of time, as in the previous left side example, we may use an example of water droplets.

Imagine that you are on one end of a spacecraft under zero gravity. A line of water droplets is traveling from the far end of the spaceship towards you, hitting you at a rate of 1 drop per second.



You then accelerate towards the drops. Will you experience the water droplets hitting you at a rate quicker than 1 drop per second?



When you accelerate into droplets you perceive their sequence of events quicker. We see that the physical act of accelerating into an incoming line of water droplets would cause them to appear to increase at a quicker rate than if you were not accelerating into them. This is the cause of time dilation in the previous example of an astronaut accelerating into the incoming clock signals within a rocket."


"Gravity" must emulate what happens in an upwardly accelerating environment, per the equivalence principle.

Therefore, the RE model based on uncontrolled experiments is false.

That's a long way from saying the globe earth model is wrong.  Your reference seems to be saying it has to do with the equivalence principle.  No?

It's wrong. You can't cite a controlled experiment on this. Scales and pendulums are affected by the atmosphere. The atomic clock experiments are not affected by the atmosphere do not show latitude effects.

86

Flat Earth General / Re: Is the Earth stationary or rising up at 9.8 m/s?

« on: May 22, 2024, 11:21:39 PM »

Proves nothing

You made an uncorrelated conclusion.

"Apples grow on trees but watermelons dont therefore the earth is flat."

None of those examples are even related to earth properties or earth science experiments.

The earth is stationary in the sense that it does not rotate or translate.

The earth and the entire observable universe move upward at a rate of 9.8 m/s^2.
 https://wiki.tfes.org/Universal_Acceleration
 https://wiki.tfes.org/Evidence_for_Universal_Acceleration
 https://wiki.tfes.org/Equivalence_Principle

Aside from the litany of experimental evidence referenced in those pages, the most obvious clue that the Earth is accelerating upwards is in the Equivalence Principle page that you linked, which shows that in the official Round Earth Theory the surface of the earth is also accelerating upwards.

And yet you keep ignoring the fact that the Equivalence Principle clearly states that it is impossible to create any experiment to tell the difference between uniform gravitation and uniform acceleration.  The clue is in the name "equivalence", as in "indistinguishable".

Actually the quotes on the Equivalence Principle page show that the Equivalence Principle means that the upwards acceleration scenario is what must be emulated.

https://wiki.tfes.org/Equivalence_Principle

Relativity Visualized

  “ Einstein’s view of gravity is that things don’t fall; the floor comes up! ”
                  —Epstein, Lewis Carroll: Relativity Visualized. (Insight Press, San Francisco, 1988) pp. 65 ff.

Tony Goldsmith

Tony Goldsmith, author of a mass-media book Space-time for Absolute Beginners and his Absolute Beginner book series, explains the Equivalence Principle as follows:

  “ When you are in a lift you may be accelerated. Where is this coming from? It is the lift pushing you up. Einstein said that the Earth does the same as a lift (which has an acceleration of g). The Earth isn't in the way; it is doing the pushing. This is his Equivalence Principle. ”

Why Gravity is NOT a Force

A popular science video by Veritasium with over 10 million views, Why Gravity is NOT a Force, explains at the 9:57 mark how in General Relativity you accelerate upwards without changing your spatial coordinates with the General Relativity equation:



  “ But if I'm accelerating up and so is everyone else around the world and presumably the whole surface of the Earth, then shouldn't the whole earth be expanding?

No. It is possible for you to be accelerating even though your spatial coordinates are not changing. I will show you one equation from General Relativity...

[equation]

...so in curved space-time you have to accelerate just to stand still. ”

Inner Life of Numbers

In a book on how math relates to the universe One to Nine: The Inner Life of Numbers by mathematician Andrew Hodges (bio), he describes that the earth's surface is accelerating upwards against your feet in the geometry of curved space-time:

  “ Earth's mass curves the geometry of space-time in such a way that the Earth's surface is always accelerating upwards at 9.81 m/sec^2 and so presses on your feet. Weight doesn't exist, but the Earth's electromagnetic forces push harder on fat boys than on slim. This sounds crazy, but it is no crazier than the fact that if you steam straight ahead on a sphere you will end up back where you started. Such things are made possible by curvature. ”

Earth’s Surface Accelerates Up (and Out)

A physics student, Berry, came across this subject and made us a brief paper about what he learned in his upper level physics classes, showing the math on how in the globe model of gravity the surface of the earth is actually accelerating upwards.

  “ This paper uses the Schwarzchild geometry utilized by the current globe Earth model to show that the surface of the Earth is accelerating upwards. ”

87

Flat Earth General / Re: Is the Earth stationary or rising up at 9.8 m/s?

« on: May 22, 2024, 05:50:43 PM »

You may find it interesting that the value of 'g' (not 'G') has an impact on pendulum time pieces.

Well, that proves it then. Pendulum clocks are affected by the atmosphere and show variation by latitude. Scales are affected by the atmosphere and show variation by latitude. Atomic clocks are not affected by the atmosphere and do not show variation by latitude.

Therefore, the RE model based on uncontrolled experiments is false.

88

Flat Earth General / Re: Is the Earth stationary or rising up at 9.8 m/s?

« on: May 22, 2024, 09:47:05 AM »

There is no variation of 9.86 m/s that has been shown with a controlled experiment.

There has been plenty of variations which have been documented with controlled experiments which you just ignore because it doesn't fit your fantasy.
Again, such dishoensty is par for the course for you.

We've looked at this extensively in these conversations. There are no controlled experiments which show variation. You mentioned the scale experiments. It is seen that the scale differs slightly at different latitudes, and it is claimed that it is due to a combination of centrifugal forces from the earth's rotation and the flattening of the poles. However, those experiments are not controlled.

See: https://wiki.tfes.org/Weight_Variation_by_Latitude

They did not perform the experiment in a vacuum chamber to discount the nature of the atmosphere at different latitudes affecting the scale. Therefore it is not controlled. You guys need to re-do this.

In other latitude experiments it has been shown that the expected time dilation by latitude which Einstein notably predicted to happen due to the rotation of the earth does not occur. The earth behaves as if it were non-rotating.

See: https://wiki.tfes.org/Time_Dilation_by_Latitude

There are contradicting experiments here. Tellingly, scales are affected by the atmosphere and clocks are not, showing us the real result here.

89

Flat Earth General / Re: Is the Earth stationary or rising up at 9.8 m/s?

« on: May 21, 2024, 06:25:44 PM »

You mean your dishonest representation of the moon terminator illusion?
Which is merely a result of you trying to take a wide angle view which necessarily distorts the view and place it on a flat plane?

The Moon Tilt is something you can see with the naked eye and does not require wide angle lenses. I have seen it many times, and also took a series of photos with a Google Pixel 3 XL Phone in 2021, which has a rectilinear lens like an iPhone. Click images or links for bigger:

https://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=17844.0

I am reposting my observation here for posterity and reference regarding the Moon Tilt Illusion.

On the "Ball Experiment" -

Bay Area California, Feb 21st, 2021, pictures taken around 5:27 PM PST with a Google Pixel 3 XL Phone.

Image 1:

I placed the ball on a post along the side of a road. The sun was shining from a horizontal direction. The ball is half lit.

Full Size: https://i.imgur.com/6AMa1fZ.jpg



Image 2:

Viewpoint from behind the ball, looking at Sun:

Full Size: https://i.imgur.com/dahZJsy.jpg



Image 3:

From a position front of the ball, with our back to sun, we can see that the illuminated portion of the Moon pointing upwards in the background. See Full Size for detail.

Full Size: https://i.imgur.com/yXGCLyR.jpg



Image 4:

Closeup of the Moon in the background, while zooming in the device created a digital leveling tool on the screen to help ensure the device was level. Compare the orientation to the Moon in the Full Size Image 3 above.

Full Size: https://i.imgur.com/eSmtd9N.jpg



Image 5:

Next I moved my position to below the ball and the top of the post, to get the ball to point upwards via a close range perspective effect. I could have done a better job at getting the phase to match, by moving the camera around. But it was easy to move the camera downwards to get the illuminated portion to point upwards:

Full Size:  https://i.imgur.com/rSV2mAx.jpg



Another version of the Tilt - https://i.imgur.com/n1cYCrS.jpg

Image 6:

Finally, I turned the device and placed the ball across the screen from the sun on a wide frame. The illuminated portion pointed at the Sun.

Full Size: https://i.imgur.com/BNazZl6.jpg

90

Flat Earth General / Re: Is the Earth stationary or rising up at 9.8 m/s?

« on: May 21, 2024, 06:25:11 PM »

I have explained in my AFET the reason for the 9.86 figure, it has nothing to do with gravity, it refers to the DENSITY of the nine subquarks and the 0.86 quantity of the connnecting lines.

But it isn't 9.86. It is a value that varies across Earth.

And seriously, you say it explains gravity, and then say it has nothing to do with gravity. Make up your mind.

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