UA vs Denpressure

I get what you mean, but I don't think it's quite right.  I guess I should have stated the assumption that the earth and atmosphere ("atmoplane"?) in UA would be a more or less closed system, like the real world.  In other words, the atmosphere is all being pushed up by the accelerating earth, providing the air pressure we have in the real world due to gravity.  I assume a closed system because it seems that otherwise the atmosphere would all rush to the ground at unimaginable speed and I guess blow off the sides of the earth.

Long story short, all the air over our heads is under the same upward acceleration as the earth so there's no reason a plane couldn't fly through it normally.

In your pool metaphor, if the floor were rushing upwards, then all of the water you're swimming in would also be going up along with you.  If however the water is escaping out some other direction then it's an open system and equivalent to the the above mentioned world where the atmosphere all disappears quickly.

UA still makes no sense though.

I understand what you are saying, and I would 100 percent agree with you if there wasn't constant acceleration.

The homeostasis we witness right now is from an acceleration of nil..The speed we experience is static. So even with a spinning globe, the atmosphere is moving with it as our we. So any movement in any direction is just that, movement within a closed static system.

Would be a completely different story if the earth were accelerating it's spin by 150mph every hour...Life would be much different to say the least lol. I could perform amazing Bruce Lee kicks. And travel in different directions would have largely different times depending on the direction etc etc.

This is an example of how the planet would be yet with an upwards direct instead of spinning.

As for closed or open system, it would have to be closed, otherwise we would have left our atmosphere behind ages ago. Even now, the atmosphere should be acting completely different if there were a constant acceleration upwards.

The law of gravity would state that if a plane quit flying it would accelerate toward earth at 9.8m/s².

Under UA theory, if a plane quit flying the earth would accelerate toward it at 9.8m/s².

(both examples barring air resistance of course)

What is the difference?

The only thing I'm not clear on is how this UA is going to affect the atmsphere. This in turn affects an airplane's flight capabilities.

The law of gravity would state that if a plane quit flying it would accelerate toward earth at 9.8m/s².

Under UA theory, if a plane quit flying the earth would accelerate toward it at 9.8m/s².

(both examples barring air resistance of course)

What is the difference?

The only thing I'm not clear on is how this UA is going to affect the atmsphere. This in turn affects an airplane's flight capabilities.

Easy.... With gravity the plane would have to "stop flying" to start "falling"..With UA, it would not have to quit flying. Even in flight the plane would be "falling", as the ground would be coming towards it.

The plane would be able to still fly, however flight dynamics would be completely different than they are. Plus, the landing...I would clap Everytime lol

If the earth is a enclosed in a dome, then the entire system would be moving upwards at 9.8m/s² , not just the ground itself. Flight mechanics would not change in the slightest.

Please, explain what a barometer does in a vacuum chamber. Because "nothing" is not a valid answer.

If mercury barometer is placed in a "vacuum" chamber the pressure gradually reduced the level of mercury in the tube will gradually fall.
The difference in the mercury level between the inside and outside always indicates the difference between the outside and inside pressures in mm of Hg.

When the air pressure in the chamber falls to the vapour pressure of mercury (about 0.002 mmHg) the levels are near enough to being the same.

All very simple.

I read a similar thread not too long ago where a user called JROA had an interesting answer for the non-uniform pattern of gravitational energy.

If I recall correctly, he used an analogy using a ship's sail with rips in it. Let the sail itself represent earth, and the wind propelling the ship along represents the "dark energy" that propels the universe through space.

The varying elements within the earth's crust could allow the dark energy to pass through at different speeds, resulting in a varying "gravitational" reading.

If the earth is a enclosed in a dome, then the entire system would be moving upwards at 9.8m/s² , not just the ground itself. Flight mechanics would not change in the slightest.

It's not just traveling upwards in a homeostasis static fashion...It is accelerating...This is the difference people are missing. Static vs dynamic.

If our world was accelerating in a dynamic fashion, our reality would be much different than it is.

Put something floating in a glass of water and then start raising it up quickly, watch what happens to the thing floating in the water

I know the earth is accelerating. That's why I wrote that it was moving at 9.8m/s²

It makes no difference. Since the entire system is enclosed in the dome, the difference between an upwardly accelerating plane and what we experience as gravity would be indestinguishable.

If the earth is a enclosed in a dome, then the entire system would be moving upwards at 9.8m/s² , not just the ground itself. Flight mechanics would not change in the slightest.

While I do agree with the Flat Earth, a dome or UA, that is not a bad way of looking at it on a flat earth subject under an acceleration.

It fits with the accelerating "rocket" or "elevator" used in the explanations of Einstein's Equivalence Principle.

From anywhere within the "rocket", "elevator" or the "Flat Earth", you cannot tell the difference between uniform gravity and acceleration.

I don't really know why I, a Globe supporter, am pushing for "Universal Acceleration" over "Denpressure"
because denpressure would be far easier to debunk, as it is a completely impossible explanation of the effects of gravity.

I know the earth is accelerating. That's why I wrote that it was moving at 9.8m/s²

It makes no difference. Since the entire system is enclosed in the dome, the difference between an upwardly accelerating plane and what we experience as gravity would be indestinguishable.

By this thinking our system would have to be pressurized (which it is)...So you are saying every single atom is being forced to accelerate, not just the land mass?

You could combine that thinking with denspressure and solve the issue of "down"....

Denspressure UA ... Interesting

I know the earth is accelerating.

You claim that you "know the earth is accelerating".

To claim that you know something seems to imply that you have irrefutable evidence for it - where is this irrefutable evidence?

The Flat Earth Wiki has another theory for gravity that involves neither acceleration nor denpressure:

Infinite Flat Earth

The infinite flat earth theory has been talked about by writers such as Samuel Rowbotham, Voliva and Shenton. It is a stationary geocentric earth model.

Gravitational Theory

Gravity is caused by mass and creates a finite pull.

Infinite Finite Gravitational Pull and Gauss' Law

American Flat Earth President John Davis and forum administrator jroa came up with the formulation of the gravitational pull of an infinite plane. It follows Gauss's Law for gravitation which states that an infinite slab or plane will have a finite gravitational pull equal to 2π G p h where G is the gravitational constant, p is density, and h is the depth of the slab. As we can see horizontal forces "cancel" out and we are left with a converging sum for vertical components.

The mathematical formulation of this is as follows:


From Infinite Flat Earth

The "maths hang together" and an infinite flat plane earth would be stable,

But, it's definitely not my theory, take it up with John Davis, "the leading Zetetic scientist of our time" as proven in

I am not a failed man, but the leading Zetetic scientist of our time. I have advanced our knowledge of the universe more so than any one other person since Rowbotham himself. When the veil is lifted from the eyes of the world, they will sing songs to laud the sacrifices that have led to what we know about the flat earth.

This is a Voldemort vs Harry Potter discussion, isn't it?

Quote from: Pineal on January 27, 2017, 05:19:26 PM

I know the earth is accelerating.

You claim that you "know the earth is accelerating".

To claim that you know something seems to imply that you have irrefutable evidence for it - where is this irrefutable evidence?

Rab, you do get carried away don't you?  Pineal was just talking about the thought experiment of UA to Babyhighspeed who doesn't really get it.

Quote from: Arealhumanbeing on January 27, 2017, 09:13:12 AM

Please, explain what a barometer does in a vacuum chamber. Because "nothing" is not a valid answer.

If mercury barometer is placed in a "vacuum" chamber the pressure gradually reduced the level of mercury in the tube will gradually fall.
The difference in the mercury level between the inside and outside always indicates the difference between the outside and inside pressures in mm of Hg.

When the air pressure in the chamber falls to the vapour pressure of mercury (about 0.002 mmHg) the levels are near enough to being the same.

All very simple.

There's another reason we use mercury: you don't need anything like as much of it as you would for a water based barometer (which would need to be about 12m high).

Quote from: rabinoz on January 27, 2017, 05:59:42 PM

Quote from: Pineal on January 27, 2017, 05:19:26 PM

I know the earth is accelerating.

You claim that you "know the earth is accelerating".

To claim that you know something seems to imply that you have irrefutable evidence for it - where is this irrefutable evidence?

Rab, you do get carried away don't you?  Pineal was just talking about the thought experiment of UA to Babyhighspeed who doesn't really get it.

I was just throwing one more spanner in the works.  The more the merrier, they claim.

Because liquid mercury is very dense and does not absorb atmosphere, readily. It's excellent at repelling atmospheric pressure upon it, just like everything else does, because denpressure is how it all works.

How much water would a cubic metre of mercury displace?

How much water would a cubic metre of mercury displace?

Umm   1 cubic meter perhaps,   Oh, sorry I see you are debating scepti...    good luck with that.

How much water would a cubic metre of mercury displace?

Try it next time you have some spare.

Quote from: onebigmonkey on January 28, 2017, 03:49:08 AM

How much water would a cubic metre of mercury displace?

Try it next time you have some spare.

The density of mercury is 13.56. So one cubic metre of mercury will weigh 13.56 tonnes.

How much water will it displace when submerged?

Quote from: sceptimatic on January 28, 2017, 04:02:49 AM

Quote from: onebigmonkey on January 28, 2017, 03:49:08 AM

How much water would a cubic metre of mercury displace?

Try it next time you have some spare.

The density of mercury is 13.56. So one cubic metre of mercury will weigh 13.56 tonnes.

How much water will it displace when submerged?

one tonne

Quote from: onebigmonkey on January 28, 2017, 03:49:08 AM

How much water would a cubic metre of mercury displace?

Try it next time you have some spare.

Sad you have a problem with numbers.

Quote from: sceptimatic on January 28, 2017, 04:02:49 AM

Quote from: onebigmonkey on January 28, 2017, 03:49:08 AM

How much water would a cubic metre of mercury displace?

Try it next time you have some spare.

The density of mercury is 13.56. So one cubic metre of mercury will weigh 13.56 tonnes.

How much water will it displace when submerged?

13.56 tonnes.

Quote from: onebigmonkey on January 28, 2017, 04:44:57 AM

Quote from: sceptimatic on January 28, 2017, 04:02:49 AM

Quote from: onebigmonkey on January 28, 2017, 03:49:08 AM

How much water would a cubic metre of mercury displace?

Try it next time you have some spare.

The density of mercury is 13.56. So one cubic metre of mercury will weigh 13.56 tonnes.

How much water will it displace when submerged?

13.56 tonnes.

Bzzzt.. wrong  which is a bit sad since I gave you the correct answer already.

One cubic meter of mercury will displace exactly one cubic meter of water,  which is a volume of 1000 liters or approximately 1000 kg  ( depending on temperature )

Quote from: onebigmonkey on January 28, 2017, 04:44:57 AM

Quote from: sceptimatic on January 28, 2017, 04:02:49 AM

Quote from: onebigmonkey on January 28, 2017, 03:49:08 AM

How much water would a cubic metre of mercury displace?

Try it next time you have some spare.

The density of mercury is 13.56. So one cubic metre of mercury will weigh 13.56 tonnes.

How much water will it displace when submerged?

13.56 tonnes.

OK so now we're getting somewhere.

In this small demonstration, ably assisted by Betty the Destroyer, we have a 1 lb weight and a measuring jug containing 400 ml of water.



1 lb equals 453 grammes, so by your 'logic' that weight should more than double the amount of water in the container as 453 grammes = 453 ml which is impossible, because it won't hold that amount.

Let's see what happens:



Hmm - the weight is completely submerged but has only displaced roughly 60 ml of water.

Iron has a density of 7.87. If we divide the mass of the weight by this we get 57 - almost exactly a match for the amount of water displaced.

You getting the significance of that yet?

Easy.... With gravity the plane would have to "stop flying" to start "falling"..With UA, it would not have to quit flying. Even in flight the plane would be "falling", as the ground would be coming towards it.

Yes, the ground would be coming towards it...the question is, what do you think is happening to all the air between the ground and the plane?

The ground accelerates up towards the plane but it necessarily has to be pushing the entire atmosphere up with it, compressing the air against the earth with 1g of acceleration.  Just like gravity does.  Otherwise where does the air under the plane go?

The example of floating something in a glass of water and accelerating it upward is a little off...because I would be doing so in a world that already has gravity.  Just holding the glass still would give the conditions you're looking for.

Quote from: sceptimatic on January 28, 2017, 05:26:25 AM

Quote from: onebigmonkey on January 28, 2017, 04:44:57 AM

Quote from: sceptimatic on January 28, 2017, 04:02:49 AM

Quote from: onebigmonkey on January 28, 2017, 03:49:08 AM

How much water would a cubic metre of mercury displace?

Try it next time you have some spare.

The density of mercury is 13.56. So one cubic metre of mercury will weigh 13.56 tonnes.

How much water will it displace when submerged?

13.56 tonnes.

Bzzzt.. wrong  which is a bit sad since I gave you the correct answer already.

One cubic meter of mercury will displace exactly one cubic meter of water,  which is a volume of 1000 liters or approximately 1000 kg  ( depending on temperature )

Yes it will displace one cubic metre of water when just submerged in shallow water but that's not the real truth of the matter.
Allow the mercury to sink to its level and it will displace exactly what I said.
The major problem with that is, we cannot measure it like that for obvious reasons.
The best way we can do it is to displace the water by creating a resistance against it.
How?
Easy.
We simply place the block on a floating platform and measure the overspill, which would be?

Yep, 13.56 tonnes.

Quote from: sceptimatic on January 28, 2017, 05:26:25 AM

Quote from: onebigmonkey on January 28, 2017, 04:44:57 AM

Quote from: sceptimatic on January 28, 2017, 04:02:49 AM

Quote from: onebigmonkey on January 28, 2017, 03:49:08 AM

How much water would a cubic metre of mercury displace?

Try it next time you have some spare.

The density of mercury is 13.56. So one cubic metre of mercury will weigh 13.56 tonnes.

How much water will it displace when submerged?

13.56 tonnes.

OK so now we're getting somewhere.

In this small demonstration, ably assisted by Betty the Destroyer, we have a 1 lb weight and a measuring jug containing 400 ml of water.



1 lb equals 453 grammes, so by your 'logic' that weight should more than double the amount of water in the container as 453 grammes = 453 ml which is impossible, because it won't hold that amount.

Let's see what happens:



Hmm - the weight is completely submerged but has only displaced roughly 60 ml of water.

Iron has a density of 7.87. If we divide the mass of the weight by this we get 57 - almost exactly a match for the amount of water displaced.

You getting the significance of that yet?

A small water container. Hmmm. Sorry but you're not playing the real game here. I could explain using a different analogy but it'll just whizz past you and your like.

I use what i have. I guarantee that it will work with any size water container. Absolutely 100% guarantee it.

Feel free to provide your own demonstration. You'll need your own cat.

Or are you too pussy?

Swidt?

I use what i have. I guarantee that it will work with any size water container. Absolutely 100% guarantee it.

Feel free to provide your own demonstration. You'll need your own cat.

Or are you too pussy?

Swidt?

Me? How?

Geddit?

Now you know I can't emulate the real experiment. It's way lout of mine and your power.
It has to be done another way to see what's happening.

You see, just like atmosphere being stacked, so is water.
It isn't incompressible, it just resists compression a lot better than atmosphere, because it's more dense, obviously.

The more a block sinks by it's own density and attempted crushing by the water pressure, the water pressure becomes much higher due to that dense block displacing it by that crush or attempted crush.

This would be transferred UP and out as further spillage to create a water weight that matches the block. A little beaker or barrel won't solve this issue with your mercury.

I'm correct and you are under the impression that you are simply by adhering to indoctrinated protocol.