"Falling" towards the earth

You can claim the earth accelerating upwards crap along with the crap of a flat earth, they fit nicely. But it doesnt work with a round earth, thats what i was trying to say to jack or whatever.

But someone else has confused what i was trying to achieve and has started trying to explain relativity bla to me. Which i half ass get anyway, but dnt really care.

You are having relativity explained to you as you need to understand relativity models things relative to other things, which in short means that the Earth, relitive to you, is accelerating up towards you.

As usual for FEers, you omit the phrase LOCALLY. FE fails once you make the correction as other poster point out successfully.

I'm not a FEer. I'm not sure how adding 'locally' makes any difference.


I don't enjoy taking this side in debates, but the point is both models work perfectly well for explaining the apparent downwards force we experience. The two behave, from our point of view, the same, and any problem with one in this area is going to be a problem with the other

...

Quote from: MayTheBetterModelWin on May 12, 2009, 06:21:26 AM

As usual for FEers, you omit the phrase LOCALLY. FE fails once you make the correction as other poster point out successfully.

I'm not a FEer. I'm not sure how adding 'locally' makes any difference.


I don't enjoy taking this side in debates, but the point is both models work perfectly well for explaining the apparent downwards force we experience. The two behave, from our point of view, the same, and any problem with one in this area is going to be a problem with the other

I didn't say you were an FEer. Your point fails. The effect of the gravitational field is radial, but the Equivalence Principle's effect of an accelerated object is not. Hence the OP's point that one object falling over two distant points fall in different directions in one model than the other is absolutely beyond reproach and you really should respect it. I respectfully ask you to never again omit the phrase LOCALLY for this vary reason.

BTW, here's the experiment I'd do to prove the OP's point. Using modern surveying equipment, say at the job site of long span, measure accurately the distance between two distant points. Drop a plumb line (modern sense) and measure their relative direction. FE predicts a parallel answer, RE doesn't.

The effect of the gravitational field is radial, but the Equivalence Principle's effect of an accelerated object is not. Hence the OP's point that one object falling over two distant points fall in different directions in one model than the other is absolutely beyond reproach and you really should respect it.

I'm not entirely sure what you are saying. You could indeed drop two objects from the same height from distant points, and they would move closer together as they fall if you assume a RE. This doesn't change the fact that from the point of view of one of the objects, the Earth is accelerating towards it. I also can't see the original poster making a point like this anywhere.

Quote

The effect of the gravitational field is radial, but the Equivalence Principle's effect of an accelerated object is not. Hence the OP's point that one object falling over two distant points fall in different directions in one model than the other is absolutely beyond reproach and you really should respect it.

I'm not entirely sure what you are saying. You could indeed drop two objects from the same height from distant points, and they would move closer together as they fall if you assume a RE. This doesn't change the fact that from the point of view of one of the objects, the Earth is accelerating towards it. I also can't see the original poster making a point like this anywhere.

yeah well, no shit, but it cant. Or else if i jumped out a plane on one side of the world, everyone on the otherside of the world would start floating and feel Zero gravity. This doesnt work on a round earth lol. Well in the first place, what is holding the people on the other side of the world on, the earth cant accelerate outwards in all directions at once, without changing its siZe.

You can claim the earth accelerating upwards crap along with the crap of a flat earth, they fit nicely. But it doesnt work with a round earth, thats what i was trying to say to jack or whatever.

But someone else has confused what i was trying to achieve and has started trying to explain relativity bla to me. Which i half ass get anyway, but dnt really care.

Again, EP is valid only LOCALLY. Einstein make this point quite clear in his papers and texts. He states without reservation that gravitational fields are radial.

You can't dodge the issue saying that we need only consider one object at a time. FET must face the very real problem that two objects falling from the same height over the Earth at two distant points fall toward each other. RET explains the observation; FET does not. RET is the better model.

FET must face the very real problem that two objects falling from the same height over the Earth at two distant points fall toward each other.

Only if you assume the earth is round to begin with.

Quote from: MayTheBetterModelWin on May 12, 2009, 05:55:38 PM

FET must face the very real problem that two objects falling from the same height over the Earth at two distant points fall toward each other.

Only if you assume the earth is round to begin with.

No, I'm speaking of Einstein's "assumption". Please argue with him. Of course, it is odd that Einstein's GR proofs require the Earth to be round, and yet FEers believe that GR is proven.

If you begin by assuming the earth is flat rather than spherical, locality no longer becomes an issue because locality only applies to the gravitational field portion of the equivalence. 

If you begin by assuming the earth is flat rather than spherical, locality no longer becomes an issue because locality only applies to the gravitational field portion of the equivalence. 

If you being by assuming anything false, then you can prove anything. Why would anyone here assume that the Earth is flat anyway? Is the point of the Forum to demonstrate that it is, not to just assume it?

the earth can not accelerate towards two people on the opposite side of the world at once.  If you cant do it mathematically with two people on opposite sides, thats probably because it cant be done.

Why would anyone here assume that the Earth is flat anyway? Is the point of the Forum to demonstrate that it is, not to just assume it?

Assumption is necessary to understand the opposing party's viewpoint on a particular subject.   You think the earth is round,  so to understand the FE point of view you have to approach each problem from both angles to truly understand the discussion.  Otherwise, you are simply stating the earth is not flat because it is round.

the earth can not accelerate towards two people on the opposite side of the world at once.  If you cant do it mathematically with two people on opposite sides, thats probably because it cant be done.

You are misinterpreting the context of acceleration.  The earth does not have to expand in all directions to accelerate two people on opposite sides of a spherical earth simultaneously.

Quote from: MayTheBetterModelWin on May 12, 2009, 06:34:06 PM

Why would anyone here assume that the Earth is flat anyway? Is the point of the Forum to demonstrate that it is, not to just assume it?

Assumption is necessary to understand the opposing party's viewpoint on a particular subject.   You think the earth is round,  so to understand the FE point of view you have to approach each problem from both angles to truly understand the discussion.  Otherwise, you are simply stating the earth is not flat because it is round.

No. Lack of assumption is necessary.

http://genesismission.jpl.nasa.gov/educate/scimodule/Cosmogony/CosmogonyPDF/AppendixB.pdf

I don't see anything that supports your claim that anyone must assume what is to proved in order to challenge it. Care to quote that for me?

That wasn't the point of the link.  You said lack of assumption is necessary when assumptions are an important part of the process.

That wasn't the point of the link.  You said lack of assumption is necessary when assumptions are an important part of the process.

Let's review:

You said: "Assumption is necessary to understand the opposing party's viewpoint on a particular subject."

I disagreed immediately with a statement (that I hoped, perhaps unfairly, that you'd take in the context of what I was quoting): "Lack of assumption is necessary." If you prefer, I'll amend, "No, it is not. Indeed it's best to consider opposing theories without assuming either is true."

I was asking you to assume the initial condition was true not the conclusion... if the earth was flat then...  see how that works?  There is no point even discussing if you aren't going to evaluate what is said with an open mind and counter with the earth isn't flat because it is round. 

I was asking you to assume the initial condition was true not the conclusion... if the earth was flat then...  see how that works?  There is no point even discussing if you aren't going to evaluate what is said with an open mind and counter with the earth isn't flat because it is round. 

First, "If the Earth is flat" is the conclusion, not the initial condition, and that's what you asked me to assume.

Second, I regularly post based on such conditions, but I don't start to believe the assumption. You should read my post for example on the distance from Oslo to Stockholm.

Quote from: Robosteve on May 12, 2009, 03:20:28 AM

Quote from: Colossal Death Robot on May 12, 2009, 03:17:09 AM

ok well first of all, its not a FE figure. Its a RE figure. Because its based on RE measurments. Why would i need to make this measurment myself? Personal accounts isnt the only way of information recording. Ok so you want me, with no money, time or resources, to go measure the eQuator. When the FLAT EARTH SOCIETY hasnt even made a measurment themselves? So to prove them wrong, i cant use the 99.9999% accepted figure used by millions of people reliably, i actually have to measure it myself. When you havent, yet claim that the eQuator is bigger then generally accepted. Its hypocrisy at its finest.

Latitude can be measured in FET just the same as in RET. The distance from the Equator to the North Pole would be the same in either theory; the personal beliefs of the observer are irrelevant. I don't know why the RE equatorial circumference was used as the FE diameter in the FAQ; you'd have to ask whoever wrote it.

So tell me how far is from Oslo to Stockholm? What do you get when you calculate it by RE's Great Circle method? What do you get when you get using FE?

Here are my answers?
Actual: 417 kilometers or 225 nautical miles. Reference: http://www.convertunits.com/distance/from/Oslo,+Norway/to/Stockholm,+Sweden
RET Great Circle:
 Olso: 59  57 N  10  42 E, Reference: http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0001769.html
 Stockholm: 59  17 N  18  3 E, Ibid
 419km Reference: Google Earth 5.0, Ruler Tool
FET
 We need to follow RS's (inane) comment that he can calculate the distance around the Equator in FE by simple geometry. Let's apply it to this problem too!

First let's calculate the distance around the FE on the 59th N.
 First the radius. The 59th N is 31 of 180, so the radius of the 59th is (the diameter of the FE)/2 * 31/180 = (24900 miles)/2 * 31/180 = 2,144.16667 miles.
 Second the length around the 59th is that radius * pi =  6,736 miles
 Third the distance from 10⁰ 42' to 18⁰ 3' = (18⁰ 3') - (10⁰ 42'))/360 * that radius = 7.35/360 * 6,736 miles = 137.5 miles = 221 km.
 Fourth we can get a great upper bound by using the taxi cab metric and adding in the FE distance north to south and using this more southern latitude. The north-south distance would be (40'/360⁰)(diameter of the FE)/2 = 23 miles = 37 km. So the upper bound is 258 km.

So we have a conclusive, real-world demonstration that RE's prediction of 419km is better than FE's prediction of less than 258km against the actual of 417km.

The earth being flat was not the conclusion.  You were talking about tidal effects and locality.

Quote from: MayTheBetterModelWin on May 12, 2009, 05:55:38 PM

FET must face the very real problem that two objects falling from the same height over the Earth at two distant points fall toward each other.

Only if you assume the earth is round to begin with.

No. There's no assumption at all. Its an observation. It's why Einstein made his Equivelence Principle "local".

Wow Robbyj you're failing hard here.

The earth being flat was not the conclusion.  You were talking about tidal effects and locality.

No, the conclusion is whether the Earth is flat or round. Examination of falling objects is one of the experimental topics in the analysis.

No. There's no assumption at all. Its an observation.

Show me where this has been observed experimentally please.

Quote from: dr.spock on May 13, 2009, 04:57:07 AM

No. There's no assumption at all. Its an observation.

Show me where this has been observed experimentally please.

Sure. How about the success orbital flights of John Glenn?

Quote from: dr.spock on May 13, 2009, 04:57:07 AM

No. There's no assumption at all. Its an observation.

Show me where this has been observed experimentally please.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drop_tower

I'll repeat: Since this makes up part of Einsteins Equivelence Principle its pretty obvious that it'll be observed.

Again, EP is valid only LOCALLY. Einstein make this point quite clear in his papers and texts. He states without reservation that gravitational fields are radial.

You can't dodge the issue saying that we need only consider one object at a time. FET must face the very real problem that two objects falling from the same height over the Earth at two distant points fall toward each other. RET explains the observation; FET does not. RET is the better model.

I'm not considering one object at a time. I'm considering one frame of reference, which is that of the person falling. From that reference frame, the Earth appears to be accelerating towards you.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drop_tower

I'll repeat: Since this makes up part of Einsteins Equivelence Principle its pretty obvious that it'll be observed.

Someone has observed the two objects move together by less than 2 hundredths of a millimetre, and been able to put it down to the direction the objects are being attracted in and nothing else?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drop_tower

Fail.

I'll repeat: Since this makes up part of Einsteins Equivelence Principle its pretty obvious that it'll be observed.

Only if the earth is round.  What part of that do you not understand?

Quote from: dr.spock on May 13, 2009, 08:57:34 AM

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drop_tower

Fail.

'Fraid not.

Quote from: dr.spock on May 13, 2009, 08:57:34 AM

I'll repeat: Since this makes up part of Einsteins Equivelence Principle its pretty obvious that it'll be observed.

Only if the earth is round.  What part of that do you not understand?

Your continued stupidity despite being bombarded with anti-stupidtrons.

Quote from: Robbyj on May 13, 2009, 05:18:48 PM

Quote from: dr.spock on May 13, 2009, 08:57:34 AM

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drop_tower

Fail.

'Fraid not.

Where in your link does it mention tidal effects being observed experimentally then?

Where in your link does it mention tidal effects being observed experimentally then?

I gave you somewhere where they are observed. I told you that its so fundamental it makes up part of Einsteins EP. If you still don't get it call up any of the drop towers and tell them some of your retarded ideas. I'm sure they'll LOL at you.

Quote from: Robbyj on May 14, 2009, 03:09:31 AM

Where in your link does it mention tidal effects being observed experimentally then?

I gave you somewhere where they are observed. I told you that its so fundamental it makes up part of Einsteins EP. If you still don't get it call up any of the drop towers and tell them some of your retarded ideas. I'm sure they'll LOL at you.

Radial tidal effects are impossible to observe in a drop tower.  Sorry.