The Flat Earth Society
Flat Earth Discussion Boards => Flat Earth Q&A => Topic started by: ﮎingulaЯiτy on March 28, 2007, 10:12:43 AM
-
In the "Round Earth" model gravity causes massive amounts of matter to pull toward each other which causes higher and higher pressure build ups in the center of a mass. As people dig holes in the ground, (simply put. huh?) molecules of every element are found more compact. With higher densities, the forces acting upon these elements must be stronger further down in the Earth's crust.
When we translate these findings to the FE theory, gravity is explained by the acceleration of the whole planet at the rate of gravity. If this is so, then why is more force exerted on rocks the further we dig? This also can relate to the issue that gravity or "gravitation" is lesser at high altitudes.
-
Read the book;
Earth: Not A Globe
Also dont forget to read the FAQ.
-
The more compressed stuff in the center is simply because there is more "stuff" piled on top of those minerals. It could also be a reason for the difference at higher altitudes (except with air), though that may be erroneous and there could be some extraneous factors as well.
~D-Draw
-
Read the book;
Earth: Not A Globe
Also dont forget to read the FAQ.
Tom must have teenaged kids. They are on the computer after bedtime again.
-
The more compressed stuff in the center is simply because there is more "stuff" piled on top of those minerals. It could also be a reason for the difference at higher altitudes (except with air), though that may be erroneous and there could be some extraneous factors as well.
~D-Draw
lol. That's my point. :D More stuff piled on top wouldn't make a difference unless the force of acceleration wasn't uniform for the whole planet. This means that the force is only applied to the bottom of this "disk". Therefore it is not caused by the expansion of the universe AND this would contradict the explanation of planes and other aerial devices. Higher altitudes have less of an effect on people while closer to the core of the planet makes their gravity stronger.
-
Read the book;
Earth: Not A Globe
Also dont forget to read the FAQ.
I would, but it costs $30 on Amazon. It is not at my public library nor in its connections to be sent.
Perhaps you could introduce the evidence from the book over the forum so I can directly address it? ;)
-
lol. That's my point. :D More stuff piled on top wouldn't make a difference unless the force of acceleration wasn't uniform for the whole planet. This means that the force is only applied to the bottom of this "disk". Therefore it is not caused by the expansion of the universe AND this would contradict the explanation of planes and other aerial devices. Higher altitudes have less of an effect on people while closer to the core of the planet makes their gravity stronger.
Sorry, but 'gravity' and acceleration are equivalent.
-
lol. That's my point. :D More stuff piled on top wouldn't make a difference unless the force of acceleration wasn't uniform for the whole planet. This means that the force is only applied to the bottom of this "disk". Therefore it is not caused by the expansion of the universe AND this would contradict the explanation of planes and other aerial devices. Higher altitudes have less of an effect on people while closer to the core of the planet makes their gravity stronger.
Sorry, but 'gravity' and acceleration are equivalent.
I was just about to say that...
-
Sorry, but 'gravity' and acceleration are equivalent.
Sorry, but they're not. Gravity is acceleration, but acceleration is not necessarily gravity.
Is me pushing on a wooden block gravity? Gravity implies acceleration caused by mass.
-
Sorry, but you fail at Relativity.
-
Okay, well not literally. But you're just bringing up extraneous points in order to complicate the debate.
Why do we observe matter under increased pressure as we dig into the Earth?
-
Complicating what? 'Gravity'=acceleration. That seems to be fairly simple.
-
lol. That's my point. :D More stuff piled on top wouldn't make a difference unless the force of acceleration wasn't uniform for the whole planet. This means that the force is only applied to the bottom of this "disk". Therefore it is not caused by the expansion of the universe AND this would contradict the explanation of planes and other aerial devices. Higher altitudes have less of an effect on people while closer to the core of the planet makes their gravity stronger.
Sorry, but 'gravity' and acceleration are equivalent.
When did I say they weren't? :o
-
I drew that from your post about airplanes not working in an accelerating model.
-
lol. That's my point. :D More stuff piled on top wouldn't make a difference unless the force of acceleration wasn't uniform for the whole planet. This means that the force is only applied to the bottom of this "disk". Therefore it is not caused by the expansion of the universe AND this would contradict the explanation of planes and other aerial devices. Higher altitudes have less of an effect on people while closer to the core of the planet makes their gravity stronger.
Sorry, but 'gravity' and acceleration are equivalent.
Still doesn't mean they are the same thing.
-
Then you should write a paper on how General Relativity is wrong.
-
Now I have a bigger question:
Why do you believe in relativity and the effect of 'gravity' by warping space-time caused by acceleration but not relativity and the effect of gravity by warping space-time caused by mass when they are incorporated in the same theory? :o
It would almost seem these principles are only used when convenient. :-\
I don't remember where I posted it, but I also recall mentioning that if the gravitation caused by acceleration of the Earth in addition to the force of the Earth just pushing against us would exceed the 1G we experience. The acceleration just pushing on us is supposed to be the cause that, and adding acceleration space-time warping to it would make it stronger than it is.
-
Then you should write a paper on how General Relativity is wrong.
2+3 = 4+1 does that mean 2 and 4 are the same?
I do not know where general relativity says gravity=acceleration or at least the acceleration as you claim it to be. They say you cant tell the different between the two. I already talked about the space elevator thought experiment. Black holes aren't accelerating upwards do to a UA or Dark Energy as you call it, both which deify physics yet you try to claim you know physics.
-
I do not know where general relativity says gravity=acceleration
That's the entire basis of General Relativity.
They say you cant tell the different between the two. I already talked about the space elevator thought experiment. Black holes aren't accelerating upwards do to a UA or Dark Energy as you call it, both which deify physics yet you try to claim you know physics.
Why does accelerating upwards defy physics?
-
That's the entire basis of General Relativity. [/quote]
Maybe angular acceleration, since spacetime bends. Where does it say that the only way for a mass to have gravity is for it to be accelerating upwards?
Why does accelerating upwards defy physics?
Magical forces defy physics. Infinite energy defies physics. "Dark energy" defies physics.
-
Where does it say that the only way for a mass to have gravity is for it to be accelerating upwards?
I don't remember saying that. I remember saying 'gravity' = acceleration.
-
Where does it say that the only way for a mass to have gravity is for it to be accelerating upwards?
I don't remember saying that. I remember saying 'gravity' = acceleration.
You said it many times. You claim the earth has no gravity other then the gravity that comes from the acceleration from the magical UA. Yet despite what you say, the moon and earth have different gravity even thought they are traveling about the same speed. Maybe you should define your use of acceleration.
-
Where does it say that the only way for a mass to have gravity is for it to be accelerating upwards?
I don't remember saying that. I remember saying 'gravity' = acceleration.
You said it many times. You claim the earth has no gravity other then the gravity that comes from the acceleration from the magical UA. Yet despite what you say, the moon and earth have different gravity even thought they are traveling about the same speed. Maybe you should define your use of acceleration.
Precisely my point. ;)
-
Acceleration causes gravitation. Now, what causes the acceleration is the true question.
-
Let's please not turn this into another relativity thread. The Engineer is right, you dolt's. They are indistinguishable! You can't tell the difference! THE END!
Now on to the OP:
In the "Round Earth" model gravity causes massive amounts of matter to pull toward each other which causes higher and higher pressure build ups in the center of a mass. As people dig holes in the ground, (simply put. huh?) molecules of every element are found more compact. With higher densities, the forces acting upon these elements must be stronger further down in the Earth's crust.
When we translate these findings to the FE theory, gravity is explained by the acceleration of the whole planet at the rate of gravity. If this is so, then why is more force exerted on rocks the further we dig? This also can relate to the issue that gravity or "gravitation" is lesser at high altitudes.
You're just not understanding how pressure is created. There is a pressure gradient in both the FE and RE models.
If you have studied fluids you will know of something called 'hydrostatic pressure.' This pressure is created by the "weight" of everything above the point of interest. The equation goes as:
pressure = [density] * [acceleration] * [depth of measurment]
-
Where does it say that the only way for a mass to have gravity is for it to be accelerating upwards?
I don't remember saying that. I remember saying 'gravity' = acceleration.
how does acceleration = gravity in a vacuum?
-
Acceleration causes gravitation. Now, what causes the acceleration is the true question.
That doesn't answer why two objects with the same acceleration have different amounts of gravitation. Both objects are accelerating yet the Earths gravitational pull is stronger. Not just on the surface of the Earth.
You're just not understanding how pressure is created. There is a pressure gradient in both the FE and RE models.
If you have studied fluids you will know of something called 'hydrostatic pressure.' This pressure is created by the "weight" of everything above the point of interest. The equation goes as:
pressure = [density] * [acceleration] * [depth of measurment]
I think your missing my point. Pressure in a Flat Earth model is applied by the universal accelerator at the very bottom causing that area the highest pressure. This force isn't accelerating the whole planet at once, just applying the acceleration to the bottom of it. Otherwise there is no reason to have the change in pressure. That is where the expansion of the universe theory is contradicted.
-
I was missing your point (or your point has changed...). Irregardless, I understand what you're talking about, and I have thought about it sometime before. We just don't know what is down there well enough. Be it rock or unobtainium, the evidence (that we are accelerated by the Earth, and not the UA) shows that the UA field is absorbed or deflected by this layer of material. We are behind this "bow shock" created by the deflection which keeps us outside the influence of the UA.
Let us call this pocket we live in the Terrapause.
-
Aww. Why do you get to name it?! lol.
Anyways, why aren't the moon and sun in the Terrapause? Since they would have to be accelerating along with the earth..
-
I get to name it because I am he who is I am! >:(
They're not in it because the terrapause closes up again, just like the heliopause and the geopause in the RE model. There may be similar bubbles associated with the Sun and Moon and other celestial bodies, but we can't see them because they are on the other side of said bodies.
-
I was missing your point (or your point has changed...). Irregardless, I understand what you're talking about, and I have thought about it sometime before. We just don't know what is down there well enough. Be it rock or unobtainium, the evidence (that we are accelerated by the Earth, and not the UA) shows that the UA field is absorbed or deflected by this layer of material. We are behind this "bow shock" created by the deflection which keeps us outside the influence of the UA.
Let us call this pocket we live in the Terrapause.
Antiphysics. Good thing you dont go to Mines.
-
Define antiphysics and how it applies to what I said. I think you only say that because you didn't learn about such things in physics 200.
I no longer go to Mines, it's true.
-
Define antiphysics and how it applies to what I said. I think you only say that because you didn't learn about such things in physics 200.
I no longer go to Mines, it's true.
I go to Metro. I do not believe you went to Mines.
The UA in itself goes against physics. A universal accelerator that is able to be stopped by an inch of a substance or the bottom of the Earth yet it is universal? Where does the infinite energy come from to accelerate things? Energy inst created or destroyed.
-
Just for clarification: You do agree that the UA would be invisible? :D
-
lol. I think its hilarious how you believe in the heliopause even though this was found by the evil conspirators at NASA. ;)
-
lol. I think its hilarious how you believe in the heliopause even though this was found by the evil conspirators at NASA. ;)
Didn't say I believed it. You assume too much, my friend.
We can't see the UA, so I have no reason to believe it is directly visible.
I go to Metro. I do not believe you went to Mines.
The UA in itself goes against physics. A universal accelerator that is able to be stopped by an inch of a substance or the bottom of the Earth yet it is universal? Where does the infinite energy come from to accelerate things? Energy inst created or destroyed.
I can tell you more than enough about my socially retarded school to make you crap your pants.
The UA is stopped by an inch of substance?
You are using the name "universal" too strictly. It's a name used to identify a phenomenon. Similar to words like parkway / driveway; reiterate (why do you have to 're' do something that is already repeated? It's just redundant). I could go on.
Where does the infinite energy of gravity come from? It is, after all, continuously accelerating everything; where does that energy come from? It's the same as the UA in that sense.
-
Define antiphysics and how it applies to what I said. I think you only say that because you didn't learn about such things in physics 200.
I no longer go to Mines, it's true.
I go to Metro. I do not believe you went to Mines.
The UA in itself goes against physics. A universal accelerator that is able to be stopped by an inch of a substance or the bottom of the Earth yet it is universal? Where does the infinite energy come from to accelerate things? Energy inst created or destroyed.
Basically they dont know and just pull shit from their ass.
-
Didn't say I believed it. You assume too much, my friend.
I must agree I have a tendency to do that. :D
Perhaps my train of thought was concluding that properties of such a phenomenon could be applied to other things only if they were interpreted as reliable sources. Come to think of it, I suppose this is not necessary as you were merely comparing them. :-\
-
I must agree I have a tendency to do that. :D
Perhaps my train of thought was concluding that properties of such a phenomenon could be applied to other things only if they were interpreted as reliable sources.
Any reasonable person will admit he makes this err. We are all fools, it's just that some of us know it and some of us don't.
One should not drag the assumptions of some conclusion along with its underlying theory. The ideas behind the heliopause are completely independent of the assumption of a round Earth. If one makes a different situational assumption, a different conclusion must be drawn -- even given the same scientific phenomena.
A great example of this is Eratosthenes' famous experiment. Eratos already believed the Earth was round and used this assumption to calculate the circumference of the Earth. If we make a different assumption -- that the Earth is flat -- then a completely different mathematical conclusion emerges: the distance between the Earth and the Sun.
The science Eratos used was not wrong but merely his assumptions were wrong.
-
I must agree I have a tendency to do that. :D
Perhaps my train of thought was concluding that properties of such a phenomenon could be applied to other things only if they were interpreted as reliable sources.
Any reasonable person will admit he makes this err. We are all fools, it's just that some of us know it and some of us don't.
One should not drag the assumptions of some conclusion along with its underlying theory. The ideas behind the heliopause are completely independent of the assumption of a round Earth. If one makes a different situational assumption, a different conclusion must be drawn -- even given the same scientific phenomena.
A great example of this is Eratosthenes' famous experiment. Eratos already believed the Earth was round and used this assumption to calculate the circumference of the Earth. If we make a different assumption -- that the Earth is flat -- then a completely different mathematical conclusion emerges: the distance between the Earth and the Sun.
The science Eratos used was not wrong but merely his assumptions were wrong.
My assumption was your references of reality. I have yet to confuse facts underlying the principles of the Round or Flat Earth models. :D
-
My assumption was your references of reality. I have yet to confuse facts underlying the principles of the Round or Flat Earth models. :D
Well, I don't know about that, but I didn't name you in my last post. I didn't single anyone out. Now i will though: Sokarul and NooBs.
-
Excuse me for skipping the bulk of this thread and only addressing the OP, I'm basically just going through all these "unresolved" posts to make a point in another thread.
Anyway:
By disregarding gravity, you don't disregard simple laws about pressure and inertia. Put very simply, if 3 pieces of matter, a, b and c are stacked with a at the bottom and c at the top against an impenetrable blanket of matter which is pushing them upwards at an accelerating rate, c will be squashed only by the squashing power of b, b will be squashed by the squashing power of a and the added squash of c's squashage, and a will be the most squashed because it is squashed by the squashing power of the blanket as well as the compound squashage of b and c. I would have thought this was so fundamentally obvious as to not warrant explanation.