Sorry, gravity isn't always 'down' it can be in any direction, the deplection of plum bobs near mountains clearly shows this.
How about when I try to boil my eggs on a high mountain-top? They're always too soft boiled.
How about when I try to boil my eggs on a high mountain-top? They're always too soft boiled.
I personally say that the stars have a slight attracting field.
However, other FE proponents vehemently deny any alteration of g at higher altitudes.
Wasn't there an experiment not using plum-bobs that detects the subtle change in gravity between two objects? How do you respond to that?
I would respond with the experiment. I forgot its name. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Torsion_balance#Torsion_balanceI think you mean this:
I would respond with the experiment. I forgot its name. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Torsion_balance#Torsion_balanceI think you mean this:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cavendish_experiment (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cavendish_experiment).
It's not a direct proof of varying gravity, is it?You don't think it's at least a bit compelling?
How about when I try to boil my eggs on a high mountain-top? They're always too soft boiled.Uh, Parsec? That's definitely due to varying atmospheric pressure with altitude, and not gravity. The difference in gravity between the surface of the Earth at sea level (6,378 km) and the surface of the Earth at high elevation (6,382 km for the highest city on Earth, maybe 6,386 km if you're cooking on the summit of everest), as predicted by the RE model, is at most 1-(6,378/6,386)2=.25%. I have a hard time believing you'd notice that when cooking eggs. The variations due to pressure are much more dramatic (and are also easily explained in the FE model).
but, atmospheric pressure is due to the weight of the air. The higher the g, the higher the pressure and vice versa.How about when I try to boil my eggs on a high mountain-top? They're always too soft boiled.Uh, Parsec? That's definitely due to varying atmospheric pressure with altitude, and not gravity. The difference in gravity between the surface of the Earth at sea level (6,378 km) and the surface of the Earth at high elevation (6,382 km for the highest city on Earth, maybe 6,386 km if you're cooking on the summit of everest), as predicted by the RE model, is at most 1-(6,378/6,386)2=.25%. I have a hard time believing you'd notice that when cooking eggs. The variations due to pressure are much more dramatic (and are also easily explained in the FE model).
but, atmospheric pressure is due to the weight of the air. The higher the g, the higher the pressure and vice versa.That's true, but not a significant influence on pressure. Pressure is due to the weight of a column of air above you (to first approximation, neglecting effects such as the weather). This weight is less at elevation than at sea level not because of the minute decrease in g but rather because the column of air above a point at sea level contains a lot more air than the column of air above a point at high elevation.
so, space is COMPLETELY empty?!
So, according to your theory, at the top of the atmosphere, there should be zero pressure, since, by definition of the top, there should be no column of air above it. How is this possible?Well, the atmosphere gradually thins out to vacuum (which still isn't true vacuum (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vacuum#Outer_space)), so there's not really a distinct "top" of the atmosphere (although the Kármán line is sometimes used for definitional purposes). But otherwise that's true: there is no pressure in a vacuum. I'm not quite sure why you ask "How is this possible?" however, since it seems perfectly plausible to me, so I'll counter: why wouldn't it be possible?
So, according to what you said before, T = 0 K! But, this is impossible according to the Laws of Thermodynamics?!I said nothing of the sort. I said that pressure is zero in a perfect vacuum, which is true, and in accordance with the ideal gas law (since n=0). In what is commonly referred to as the "vacuum" of space (which, as I said, is not a true vacuum), the density is very small but nonzero, and the pressure is similarly very small but nonzero.
This post was not directed as a reply to your post, but, instead, to one above you, since I was typing it at the same time as you.So, according to what you said before, T = 0 K! But, this is impossible according to the Laws of Thermodynamics?!I said nothing of the sort. I said that pressure is zero in a perfect vacuum, which is true, and in accordance with the ideal gas law (since n=0). In what is commonly referred to as the "vacuum" of space (which, as I said, is not a true vacuum), the density is very small but nonzero, and the pressure is similarly very small but nonzero.
This post was not directed as a reply to your post, but, instead, to one above you, since I was typing it at the same time as you.Oh, excuse me.
As a reply to your post, if the atmosphere has no top, then it will have an infinite mass and the pressure at sea level would also be infinite.No, because, while there is no top, it gradually thins out to vacuum, so it still has only finite mass, and results in finite pressure.
So, let me get this straight. Space has some small, but nonzero density and zero pressure. Let's say ideal gas law holds:
P = ?*k*T/m,
where:
? is the average mass density,
m is the average mass of the molecules,
k = 1.3807x10-23 J/K is Boltzmann constant and
T is the absolute temperature.
So, according to what you said before, T = 0 K! But, this is impossible according to the Laws of Thermodynamics?!
QuoteAs a reply to your post, if the atmosphere has no top, then it will have an infinite mass and the pressure at sea level would also be infinite.No, because, while there is no top, it gradually thins out to vacuum, so it still has only finite mass, and results in finite pressure.
You can still have photons even if no substance is present and those can be assigned a temperature.So, let me get this straight. Space has some small, but nonzero density and zero pressure. Let's say ideal gas law holds:
P = ?*k*T/m,
where:
? is the average mass density,
m is the average mass of the molecules,
k = 1.3807x10-23 J/K is Boltzmann constant and
T is the absolute temperature.
So, according to what you said before, T = 0 K! But, this is impossible according to the Laws of Thermodynamics?!
If you had a perfect vacuum, temperature becomes irrelevant as it's a measure of the energy of the molecules in an area. If you have no molecules in an area (which is the definition of a vacuum) then it cannot be said to have a temperature, and thermodynamics is not violated.
I don't get your math.Thanks for playing. Try again.
Nah your just using fancy calculus (Which I know) to prove a very basic scenario. You are trying to dazzle. You are using integrals to find out how the infinite series can have a finite limit. Basically how infinite atmosphere at a decreasing density can have a finite pressure. You assume that the universe is infinite and the atmosphere is infinite. Pressure basically becomes negligible 60 or so miles above the earth. Sure there is some matter but its pressure is basically nil and gravity from all the other planets cancels out this pressure.So, you are saying that this is not infinite because the Universe has a finite size and our atmosphere expands throughout all the Universe. Gotcha ;)
This is basic science that even FE has to contend with.
You can still have photons even if no substance is present and those can be assigned a temperature.
What regular laws of thermodynamics do photons violate?
You can still have photons even if no substance is present and those can be assigned a temperature.
True, but until they interact with other matter they really only have a "potential" temperature, as they are still holding on to their energy. Photons don't really apply in the regular laws of thermodynamics unless they are heating up matter.
No, either model is consistent with finite pressure at sea level and a reduction of air pressure according to height. I had the FE model in mind when I wrote that, since you seem to be arguing that the FE model is inconsistent with observed air pressure, which I argue is not the case, and that a consistent account of air pressure can be made in both models.QuoteAs a reply to your post, if the atmosphere has no top, then it will have an infinite mass and the pressure at sea level would also be infinite.No, because, while there is no top, it gradually thins out to vacuum, so it still has only finite mass, and results in finite pressure.
Ok, I guess you must be discussing with the RE model in your mind.
If the atmosphere has such a huge extent, then, surely, we must take into account the varying gravity at these high altitudes.However, in the most common FE model (universal acceleration) gravity is constant, and does not vary with altitude. If you assumed constant gravity, you could carry out the same derivation, and would in fact find that ρinfinity is finite:
So only fancy smancy people with knowledge of integral calculus are allowed to post? I don't even understand why we are talking about the atmosphere. The topic is about varying gravity and I have given proof of that. You defer with boiling eggs which are affected by pressure far more than gravity.Parsec seems to have this annoying tendency to write equation-filled posts, and then assume that all replies that don't contain an equal number of equations are written by people who are incapable of understanding his equation-filled posts, even though it is often much more understandable to most people (and therefore preferable) to explain the same thing using more words and fewer equations. I'm reminded of this thread (http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=34798.0), where I gave a short and relatively equation-free explanation why one of his assumptions (that gravitational edge effects from a wide thin disk of uniform density are important in a region about as wide as the disk is thick) was false, figuring that he could fill in the details himself with a little reflection. His response was,
Either present something meaningful with complete derivations or stop pretending like you understand what is discussed.
QuoteAs a reply to your post, if the atmosphere has no top, then it will have an infinite mass and the pressure at sea level would also be infinite.No, because, while there is no top, it gradually thins out to vacuum, so it still has only finite mass, and results in finite pressure.
Nevertheless, a gas of photons exerts a pressure according to the formula:
lol, yes. But stop derailing the thread.Nevertheless, a gas of photons exerts a pressure according to the formula:
A "gas of photons"? ???
I would respond with the experiment. I forgot its name. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Torsion_balance#Torsion_balanceI think you mean this:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cavendish_experiment (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cavendish_experiment).
I am sorry. I will try to explain my assertion without equations:Yeah, thanks, I understood your previous post just fine. As I said in my above post, my comment was with regards to the FE model, where gravity doesn't vary with altitude, and the math comes out just fine. The statement that is true in both models is that the volume of gas above any point on the Earth has finite weight, and results in finite pressure.QuoteAs a reply to your post, if the atmosphere has no top, then it will have an infinite mass and the pressure at sea level would also be infinite.No, because, while there is no top, it gradually thins out to vacuum, so it still has only finite mass, and results in finite pressure.
This is not possible in the RE model with g varying with altitude according to the Inverse square law.
You still haven't answered my question: are you saying that the difference in cooking properties of eggs and other foods between sea level and high elevation constitutes evidence that the Earth is round? If not, why did you even bring it up in this thread?Please provide proof where I have claimed that.
So, let me get this straight: It is ok that the mass of the atmosphere is infinite as long as it causes finite pressure!Well, there is not really a definite end to the atmosphere, as it gradually fades into the interstellar vacuum, which still isn't a true vacuum, as already discussed. So if you are asking whether it is okay if there is an infinite amount of mass in the universe, my response is sure, why not? There is a finite amount of mass below the Kármán line, or other lines one might call the edge of the atmosphere, but those are just lines.
I didn't say you did, I just asked a question which you still have not answered. Just answer the question already, and I'll stop asking it.You still haven't answered my question: are you saying that the difference in cooking properties of eggs and other foods between sea level and high elevation constitutes evidence that the Earth is round? If not, why did you even bring it up in this thread?Please provide proof where I have claimed that.
I would respond with the experiment. I forgot its name. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Torsion_balance#Torsion_balanceI think you mean this:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cavendish_experiment (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cavendish_experiment).
http://milesmathis.com/caven.html
The varying of boiling temperature with altitude is a conclusive evidence for RE.How so? The varying of boiling temperature with altitude is entirely explained by pressure variation, and one can show (as I did earlier in this thread) that atmospheric pressure P varies with altitude h in the accelerating FE model according to the law P(h)=P0e-kh (for some constant k, to a reasonable approximation, ignoring effects of weather and temperature variation with altitude). So we would predict, using the FE model, that water should boil at a lower temperature at higher elevations, because the pressure is lower, and water boils at lower temperatures in lower pressures. So it seems to me that the empirical observation of lowered boiling point at altitude is consistent with a flat Earth, and doesn't constitute evidence that the Earth is round.
What are Miles Mathis's credentials again. Oh, that's right. He's an artist.
http://mileswmathis.com/
So, are you arguing for or aginst FE?The varying of boiling temperature with altitude is a conclusive evidence for RE.How so? The varying of boiling temperature with altitude is entirely explained by pressure variation, and one can show (as I did earlier in this thread) that atmospheric pressure P varies with altitude h in the accelerating FE model according to the law P(h)=P0e-kh (for some constant k, to a reasonable approximation, ignoring effects of weather and temperature variation with altitude). So we would predict, using the FE model, that water should boil at a lower temperature at higher elevations, because the pressure is lower, and water boils at lower temperatures in lower pressures. So it seems to me that the empirical observation of lowered boiling point at altitude is consistent with a flat Earth, and doesn't constitute evidence that the Earth is round.
So, are you arguing for or aginst FE?I'm arguing that the variation of pressure with altitude (and by extension, the variation in the boiling point) can be equally well explained in both models, and that therefore the empirical fact that boiling point varies with elevation, alone, does not constitute evidence for either model.
Also his talking of E/M fields in this experiment seems incredibly stupid. I have no idea how E/M fields would affect a Lead ball.
Ok, now see the title of this thread and reconsider whether you are posting in the correct thread.I was replying to your egg comment. Only you can explain why you posted that in this thread. When replying to comments in a thread, my tendency is to reply in the thread, rather than create a new one.
This discussion is a good example of a natural phenomenon that does not give nice and easy demonstrations of the shape of the Earth.So, are you arguing for or aginst FE?I'm arguing that the variation of pressure with altitude (and by extension, the variation in the boiling point) can be equally well explained in both models, and that therefore the empirical fact that boiling point varies with elevation, alone, does not constitute evidence for either model.
Also his talking of E/M fields in this experiment seems incredibly stupid. I have no idea how E/M fields would affect a Lead ball.If one of the objects is slightly charged, this will cause electrostatic influence separation of bound charges in the conducting metallic sphere. The closer end would be charged by opposite sign and the farhter end by the like sign. Thus, the attractive force would be slightly bigger than the repulsive force and there is an effective attraction. Note that this effect does not depend on the sign of the charge of the charged sphere.
Yea I know slight charges would do that but charges are really slight on a lead ball. I'd say that gravity would be far stronger at these distances as weak as it is.
Dino are you asking who believes in gravity?
I believe in gravity.
Dino are you asking who believes in gravity?
Parsec you could be right that the slight forces negate as I am far too lazy to calculate. I guess I'm wrong on that part but he still says that the experiment works. Bishop really helped out RE with that.
I believe in gravity.
So you are a relativity denier? They arent consistent theories are they?
I believe in gravity.
So you are a relativity denier? They arent consistent theories are they?
Don't tell me this is going to degenerate to another pedantic gravity/gravitation discussion. ::)
I believe in gravity.
So you are a relativity denier? They arent consistent theories are they?
Don't tell me this is going to degenerate to another pedantic gravity/gravitation discussion. ::)
Not at all. There is no force of gravity in relativity. And the theories make different predictions. They do not reconcile. Why are the REers here using such an archaic theory, one they know to be wrong? There is no occult gravity force and that there are intelligent people here arguing for one only goes to show they are trolls.
Not at all. There is no force of gravity in relativity.Sure there is, in the same way centrifugal force is a real force. Yes, it is an artifact of using certain frames of reference, but in those frames of reference it is a very real force.
And the theories make different predictions. They do not reconcile. Why are the REers here using such an archaic theory, one they know to be wrong?They do make different predictions, but those predictions are very close together in most situations, and the force predicted by the Newtonian model is much easier to calculate, so there is nothing wrong with using the Newtonian model in the realm where it gives good predictions.
Here we post conclusive evidence that gravity varies with height. Let me start:That's a quote, which is hardly conclusive evidence. Also, it doesn't seem to refer to height-related variation, but rather deflection owing to large masses (mountains), which is something else entirely. Where is your conclusive evidence that the force of gravity varies with height?Sorry, gravity isn't always 'down' it can be in any direction, the deplection of plum bobs near mountains clearly shows this.
But, these scientists (http://www.physicsforums.com/archive/index.php/t-138568.html) have even calculated the deflection angle.Yes, they have calculated what the deflection angle would be for a hanging plumb bob on a spherical rotating Earth due to centrifugal force. But nowhere in that thread is any evidence that they have measured said force, so their calculations are evidence of nothing. In any case, since they compute the dependence on latitude, this seems to have little to do with your claimed height-related variation of gravity.
Not at all. There is no force of gravity in relativity.Sure there is, in the same way centrifugal force is a real force. Yes, it is an artifact of using certain frames of reference, but in those frames of reference it is a very real force.QuoteAnd the theories make different predictions. They do not reconcile. Why are the REers here using such an archaic theory, one they know to be wrong?They do make different predictions, but those predictions are very close together in most situations, and the force predicted by the Newtonian model is much easier to calculate, so there is nothing wrong with using the Newtonian model in the realm where it gives good predictions.
Not at all. There is no force of gravity in relativity.Sure there is, in the same way centrifugal force is a real force. Yes, it is an artifact of using certain frames of reference, but in those frames of reference it is a very real force.QuoteAnd the theories make different predictions. They do not reconcile. Why are the REers here using such an archaic theory, one they know to be wrong?They do make different predictions, but those predictions are very close together in most situations, and the force predicted by the Newtonian model is much easier to calculate, so there is nothing wrong with using the Newtonian model in the realm where it gives good predictions.
I like this. Arent the predictions of UA right in most situations?Oh certainly. Most scientists treat the Earth as flat and gravity as constant (not varying with height) all the time, because locally it's true. That doesn't mean that they think the Earth is flat, only that taking its curvature into account would be a lot of extra work for no actual benefit.
I believe in gravity. It's pretty real to me. In fact it is more real than your silly UA. Why? Because you can measure the slight attraction between two objects or between say a mountain and a plum bob. UA has no provisions for this except ignore it. You are right, the truth should be true.This. You guys stop derailing my thread. Any new ideas as evidence?
I believe in gravity. It's pretty real to me. In fact it is more real than your silly UA. Why? Because you can measure the slight attraction between two objects or between say a mountain and a plum bob. UA has no provisions for this except ignore it. You are right, the truth should be true.I've seen a lot of claims about this, but no evidence. How do you propose I measure this?
http://www.uwsp.edu/geo/faculty/ozsvath/images/plumb_bob_observations.htmPrecisely. Irrefutable.
Get yourself a plumb bob and head over to the nearest massive mountain chain. Also the cavendish experiment can show the attraction between 2 objects.
So you don't trust the link I gave but trust wikipedia? Who do you trust? Get some good equipment and this should be simple. Do multiple trials at different locations with different hardware, and you can eliminate error. If you do this like a real science lab (controls, lots of trials, etc) you can get pretty close to the correct answer.
So you don't trust the link I gave but trust wikipedia? Who do you trust?I trust Wikipedia to mostly report the consensus of interested parties, backed up by citation, and to occasionally contain errors and deliberate misinformation. I don't trust it any further than that, and neither should you. Here I am just using it to find what RE scientists claim the deflection should be according to RE theory, not to prove that one model or another is correct (which should involve an experiment can be performed by me personally or someone I trust, so I don't have to worry about "the conspiracy").
Get some good equipment and this should be simple. Do multiple trials at different locations with different hardware, and you can eliminate error. If you do this like a real science lab (controls, lots of trials, etc) you can get pretty close to the correct answer.You can't take an experiment that doesn't work and throw multiple trials at it to make it work. If my experiment isn't sensitive enough to detect the difference between the predictions of FE (no deflection due to gravity from large mountains) and RE (deflection due to gravity from large mountains), performing the same experiment many times is not going to help.
Yes. You could ask the pilot to maintain a prefect 1g; I'm sure he'd be delighted to do so even if he was capable.
Yes. You could ask the pilot to maintain a prefect 1g; I'm sure he'd be delighted to do so even if he was capable.
If the pilot maintained a perfect 1g, wouldn't that kind of defeat the whole purpose of the experiment?
Yes. You could ask the pilot to maintain a prefect 1g; I'm sure he'd be delighted to do so even if he was capable.
If the pilot maintained a perfect 1g, wouldn't that kind of defeat the whole purpose of the experiment?
The experiment is not feasible was my point.
Even easier, Hot Air balloon. Wait for no wind, and you can get a small change in your weight.The world record for hot air balloon altitude is about 20 km (and I'm probably not about to set any world records in ballooning). At that altitude, the difference in gravity relative to sea level is .6% (http://www.google.com/search?q=1-(radius+of+earth/(radius+of+earth+%2B+20+km))%5E2). In other words, to be sure I've detected a reading, I need to know that my balloon is not changing its rate of drifting by as little as .06 m/s2. How do you propose I get a hot air balloon drifting at 20,000 meters that close to stationary? The same applies to commercial airline flights - the plane's trajectory must be exactly level or the experiment is worthless, and I can't know that it is.
Not at all. There is no force of gravity in relativity.Sure there is, in the same way centrifugal force is a real force. Yes, it is an artifact of using certain frames of reference, but in those frames of reference it is a very real force.QuoteAnd the theories make different predictions. They do not reconcile. Why are the REers here using such an archaic theory, one they know to be wrong?They do make different predictions, but those predictions are very close together in most situations, and the force predicted by the Newtonian model is much easier to calculate, so there is nothing wrong with using the Newtonian model in the realm where it gives good predictions.
So REer's prefer models which are "easier to calculate". I agree with this. REer's look for convenient models. They are are biased toward the idea that truth is convenient.
Shouldnt the truth also be true?
I thought FE'ers didnt believe in gravity, and that stars were merely a 'backdrop' painted some precise distance from the Earth?How about when I try to boil my eggs on a high mountain-top? They're always too soft boiled.
I personally say that the stars have a slight attracting field.
However, other FE proponents vehemently deny any alteration of g at higher altitudes.
I thought FE'ers didnt believe in gravity, and that stars were merely a 'backdrop' painted some precise distance from the Earth?How about when I try to boil my eggs on a high mountain-top? They're always too soft boiled.
I personally say that the stars have a slight attracting field.
However, other FE proponents vehemently deny any alteration of g at higher altitudes.
I read the FAQ some time ago.
I thought FE'ers didnt believe in gravity, and that stars were merely a 'backdrop' painted some precise distance from the Earth?How about when I try to boil my eggs on a high mountain-top? They're always too soft boiled.
I personally say that the stars have a slight attracting field.
However, other FE proponents vehemently deny any alteration of g at higher altitudes.
I read the FAQ some time ago.
Not all FET's reject gravity. See the gravity sticky.
But then wouldn't the Earth crumple into a ball?
You are asking Canadark to throw himself waist deep into a pile of rubbish to find the particular shell of rotten egg that he finds objectionable?But then wouldn't the Earth crumple into a ball?
I can appreciate you don't want to read the entire mega-thread that is the gravity sticky to find out the that answer to your question is "no, not necessarily", but if you want to dig up the conversation again I would suggest at least skimming it for relevant nuggets you find particularly objectionable.
But then wouldn't the Earth crumple into a ball?
I can appreciate you don't want to read the entire mega-thread that is the gravity sticky to find out the that answer to your question is "no, not necessarily", but if you want to dig up the conversation again I would suggest at least skimming it for relevant nuggets you find particularly objectionable.