you are ignorant. everyone knows the sun is center of the galaxy, NOT UNIVERSE. get a grip.
First of all, you believe that the Earth is the center of the universe??? How? A guy by the name of Galileo disproved this theory almost 400 years ago! Check out the Copernican Theory of the Universe for the geometric undeniable proof that the Earth is not the center.
The reason for gravity is spinning, every atom on Earth has forms of protons, neutrons, and electrons, which all spin. This causes the phenomena of all objects pulling towards each other.What? Show me some math that claims this.
There is alot (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Law_of_universal_gravitation (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Law_of_universal_gravitation)) of math behind this too.
For example, if a man is standing on a platform, and then the platform is sent into the sky, the man will be experience the sensation of becoming heavier due to the verticle air pressure rising.No, he will feel heavier due to acceleration of the platform.
This is the logic formulated in your 'theory'. In your theory, however, everything is moving, so no downward attraction will be experienced since nothing is sitting to push down on objects. Because of this your theory is null.Your analogy is null.
Also: I don't know where you pulled your numbers from. You said all objects are accelerating at 9.8 m/s/s. Why did you use this number, since it was formulated in coherance with the G-Force Scale (1G).Observation of the acceleration of objects not in contact with the earth.
What? Show me some math that claims this.Read up on wikipedia, thats just one page, some are filled with probably 20 pages of math...
No, he will feel heavier due to acceleration of the platform.Once again you are wrong. The reason that he feels heavier is because air pushing down on him is now an extra variable to gravity pulling down on him. In space, for example, no matter how much you accelerate or how fast you move you will not feel the presence of pressure because there are no forces acting on your body.
Your analogy is null.
Observation of the acceleration of objects not in contact with the earth.Show me these observations... cause I know its not some big coincidence that your numbers in your acceleration theory just happen to look as if they're borrowed from laws of gravity..
The reason for gravity is due to centripetal force? Please show me where it says this.What? Show me some math that claims this.Read up on wikipedia, thats just one page, some are filled with probably 20 pages of math...
In space, for example, no matter how much you accelerate or how fast you move you will not feel the presence of pressure because there are no forces acting on your body.If you are accelerating, you are experiencing a force. This is what makes you feel heavier, not air resistance.
Show me these observations... cause I know its not some big coincidence that your numbers in your acceleration theory just happen to look as if they're borrowed from laws of gravity..Let go of a pen. There you go, direct evidence of acceleration.
In space, for example, no matter how much you accelerate or how fast you move you will not feel the presence of pressure because there are no forces acting on your body.If you are accelerating, you are experiencing a force. This is what makes you feel heavier, not air resistance.
Let go of a pen. There you go, direct evidence of acceleration.
QuoteLet go of a pen. There you go, direct evidence of acceleration.
or gravity
There's evidence of acceleration, but what he's saying is, how did you guys come up with the number 9.8.
There's evidence of acceleration, but what he's saying is, how did you guys come up with the number 9.8.a = 2d/t^2. Simple equations of motion. Drop an object from a known height, measure the time it takes to traverse that distance, plug in the numbers, and poof! there's your acceleration.
gravity and acceleration are related, but not the same. if a car is accelerating horizontally, is gravity causing it to accelerate? nope. gravity only accelerates thing when they arent touching the ground.Due to relativity, it is 'gravity' causing you to accelerate, as every acceleration, is 'gravity'.
gravity and acceleration are related, but not the same. if a car is accelerating horizontally, is gravity causing it to accelerate? nope. gravity only accelerates thing when they arent touching the ground.
gravity and acceleration are related, but not the same. if a car is accelerating horizontally, is gravity causing it to accelerate? nope. gravity only accelerates thing when they arent touching the ground.
You are seriously not normal!
Basic logic syllogisms - Every puddle is a dog, but not every dog is a puddle.
OR
Every gravity is acceleration, but not every acceleration is gravity.
It's simple.
When I mentioned gravity and the flaw of your acceleration theory, is that your theory said we accelerate upwards at 9.8m/s/s.Um, yes.
You said up because on Earth (due to gravity), when you jump up, you come down.
You said 9.8 m/s/s because that is the power of 1G.
You said acceleration because 1G is 9.8m/s/s, which is accelerating.
BUT:... Where your theory is flawed is that in space, again, no matter how fast you accelerate you experience only weighlessness and do not feel any type of pressure.You feel a force, as you are accelerating. If you were to stop accelerating, you would feel 'weightless'.
You thought that when the earth/everything else moves up fast that we will experience verticle pressure and be pushed down... but you were wrong. In a weightless environment such as space, no matter how fast earth moves, nothing is pushing down on earth or its inhabitants to make them feel the phenomena of gravity.That's just dumb.
Earth's gravitational pull is caused by earth's spinning. This is why on earth no matter which direction you are facing (north or south pole, china or america), you are always drawn back to ground.I'm pretty sure that centripetal force acts opposite 'gravity', so no, that is not why you are drawn back to the ground.
If this was true, wouldn't anything that fly have to continually have to force itself from the gound (birds continually flapping, planes with thusters on the bottom)? I don't know any of this shit, just throw stuff at me and I'll learn.Yes, it is why they have wings.
When I mentioned gravity and the flaw of your acceleration theory, is that your theory said we accelerate upwards at 9.8m/s/s.
You said up because on Earth (due to gravity), when you jump up, you come down.
You said 9.8 m/s/s because that is the power of 1G.
You said acceleration because 1G is 9.8m/s/s, which is accelerating.
BUT:... Where your theory is flawed is that in space, again, no matter how fast you accelerate you experience only weighlessness and do not feel any type of pressure. You thought that when the earth/everything else moves up fast that we will experience verticle pressure and be pushed down... but you were wrong. In a weightless environment such as space, no matter how fast earth moves, nothing is pushing down on earth or its inhabitants to make them feel the phenomena of gravity. Earth's gravitational pull is caused by earth's spinning. This is why on earth no matter which direction you are facing (north or south pole, china or america), you are always drawn back to ground.
Plus im pretty sure gravity wasnt the only thing i mentioned.
When I mentioned gravity and the flaw of your acceleration theory, is that your theory said we accelerate upwards at 9.8m/s/s.Um, yes.
You said up because on Earth (due to gravity), when you jump up, you come down.
You said 9.8 m/s/s because that is the power of 1G.
You said acceleration because 1G is 9.8m/s/s, which is accelerating.QuoteBUT:... Where your theory is flawed is that in space, again, no matter how fast you accelerate you experience only weighlessness and do not feel any type of pressure.You feel a force, as you are accelerating. If you were to stop accelerating, you would feel 'weightless'.QuoteYou thought that when the earth/everything else moves up fast that we will experience verticle pressure and be pushed down... but you were wrong. In a weightless environment such as space, no matter how fast earth moves, nothing is pushing down on earth or its inhabitants to make them feel the phenomena of gravity.That's just dumb.QuoteEarth's gravitational pull is caused by earth's spinning. This is why on earth no matter which direction you are facing (north or south pole, china or america), you are always drawn back to ground.I'm pretty sure that centripetal force acts opposite 'gravity', so no, that is not why you are drawn back to the ground.
I'm done arguing you about acceleration in a weightless environment. You are wrong. Okay?Let me ask a simple question: Do you know what Newton's second law states?
Like I've said, an object can move the speed of light just until atoms start separating ,Well, Einstein says you are an idiot.
Centripetal forces do not oppose gravity, than with your logic we would all drift off into space.What direction does centripetal force act?
I'm done arguing you about acceleration in a weightless environment. You are wrong. Okay?Let me ask a simple question: Do you know what Newton's second law states?QuoteLike I've said, an object can move the speed of light just until atoms start separating ,Well, Einstein says you are an idiot.QuoteCentripetal forces do not oppose gravity, than with your logic we would all drift off into space.What direction does centripetal force act?
Like I've said, an object can move the speed of light just until atoms start separating , if its in a weightless environment it will never feel an opposing force.
You are wrong. Get over it. The Earth is round.
When I mentioned gravity and the flaw of your acceleration theory, is that your theory said we accelerate upwards at 9.8m/s/s.
You said up because on Earth (due to gravity), when you jump up, you come down.
You said 9.8 m/s/s because that is the power of 1G.
You said acceleration because 1G is 9.8m/s/s, which is accelerating.
Um, yes.QuoteBUT:... Where your theory is flawed is that in space, again, no matter how fast you accelerate you experience only weighlessness and do not feel any type of pressure.You feel a force, as you are accelerating. If you were to stop accelerating, you would feel 'weightless'.QuoteYou thought that when the earth/everything else moves up fast that we will experience verticle pressure and be pushed down... but you were wrong. In a weightless environment such as space, no matter how fast earth moves, nothing is pushing down on earth or its inhabitants to make them feel the phenomena of gravity.That's just dumb.QuoteEarth's gravitational pull is caused by earth's spinning. This is why on earth no matter which direction you are facing (north or south pole, china or america), you are always drawn back to ground.I'm pretty sure that centripetal force acts opposite 'gravity', so no, that is not why you are drawn back to the ground.
I'm done arguing you about acceleration in a weightless environment. You are wrong. Okay? Like I've said, an object can move the speed of light just until atoms start separating , if its in a weightless environment it will never feel an opposing force. Plus you havent cleared up wats making it accelerate... anyway.. Any force, be it gravitational, static or magnetic, can act as a centripetal force. Centripetal force in itself is not why objects are drawn back to earth... its gravity acting as one. Centripetal forces do not oppose gravity, than with your logic we would all drift off into space.
You are wrong. Get over it. The Earth is round.
If this was true, wouldn't anything that fly have to continually have to force itself from the gound (birds continually flapping, planes with thusters on the bottom)? I don't know any of this shit, just throw stuff at me and I'll learn.
Please tell me what you think the following things are...1. Acceleration
...Gravity;
Weight;
Weightlessness;
Acceleration;
Centripetal force...
Please tell me what you think the following things are...1. Acceleration
...Gravity;
Weight;
Weightlessness;
Acceleration;
Centripetal force...
2. Acceleration*mass
3. Acceleration without mechanical resistance or being in an inertial frame not in a gravitational field.
4. The rate of change of velocity.
5. The external force required to make a body follow a curved path at a constant speed.
Yes you did. However it was an embedded quote, my bad.Please tell me what you think the following things are...1. Acceleration
...Gravity;
Weight;
Weightlessness;
Acceleration;
Centripetal force...
2. Acceleration*mass
3. Acceleration without mechanical resistance or being in an inertial frame not in a gravitational field.
4. The rate of change of velocity.
5. The external force required to make a body follow a curved path at a constant speed.
I don't think I quoted you did I? Why would you answer my question?
um.. still no FEer gonna say anything about the diagram of the light and sphere? how it proves day and night.
yes, you can obtain the value 9.81 through observation AND by using newtons law of gravitation. Which fits in perfectly assuming the world is round.... another "coincidence" i suppose?as i already said before, I did an experiment from which i could calculate earths acceleration.
yes, you can obtain the value 9.81 through observation AND by using newtons law of gravitation. Which fits in perfectly assuming the world is round.... another "coincidence" i suppose?How do you think Newton's law of Gravitation was conceived?
accurate clocks can tell you your location on earth? please do go into more detail....By using a reference time, a receiver can calculate the distance an EM signal traveled using the time stamp embedded in the signal. Knowing the location of the transmitter, which is also encoded in the signal, the receiver can calculate it's possible locations on a sphere whose radius is the distance the signal traveled before it reached the receiver. Using three signals, the possible locations can be narrowed down to two, and using the earth as a fourth sphere, the location determined.
An "experiment"?.... i am not denying the value of g on earth is not 9.81, but the reason why it is 9.81
Not only can it be done by observation (experiment) but by using newtons law of gravitation which assumes the world is round.
yeh, like i said... i am not disputing the value of g on earth.... which does vary slightly, as you found out in your experiment... for many reasons that support a round earth theory. But the fact that g= 9.81 assuming the earth is spherical.... engineer, i will get back to you with newtons law of gravitation..... and prove to you.... with maths..... the earth is spherical...
accurate clocks can tell you your location on earth? please do go into more detail....By using a reference time, a receiver can calculate the distance an EM signal traveled using the time stamp embedded in the signal. Knowing the location of the transmitter, which is also encoded in the signal, the receiver can calculate it's possible locations on a sphere whose radius is the distance the signal traveled before it reached the receiver. Using three signals, the possible locations can be narrowed down to two, and using the earth as a fourth sphere, the location determined.
Newtons Law of gravitation can be shown at fundemental levels and not only for earth but other smaler day to day objects, and says that
F is proportinal to M1*M2/r^2
F= gravitational force= 9.81
M1 is mass of earth
M2 is an object on the earth (i.e. a human)
and r is the distance between the centre of the earth and the person
i.e. the radius of the earth (assuming it is spherical)
therefore F on a person on a SPHERICAL earth = G*M1*M2/ r^2
G is gravitational constant
therefore: you do the maths and it works it...
So if they are in the atmposhere how are they kept their without using some form of propulsion?Lighter than air broadcasting platforms.
And if I use F=m*a and put in the values, I also get 9.81N.
Mine works without assumptions and is based purely on experiments.
G is not made up, it is a constant found by experimental methods. G works not only for celestial bodies but for smaller day to day bodies... which was found by doing experiments with no assumptions because the masses would be easily known and the distance r easily measured.Yea, that's what I said. They made it up so that the math fit the data.
G is not made up, it is a constant found by experimental methods. G works not only for celestial bodies but for smaller day to day bodies... which was found by doing experiments with no assumptions because the masses would be easily known and the distance r easily measured.Yea, that's what I said. They made it up so that the math fit the data.
Mine works without assumptions and is based purely on experiments.
Good... then that proves newtons law is right and the earth is spherical, you can go about 2 ways to find the same answer and if they both match, then well.... something adds up.... the world is spherical...
i am not at all trying to provoke anyone.... i just want your opinions on evidence that supports a spherical earth theory
i mean FE-ers need to do a lot of explaining if their theories are going to stick...
Universal acceleration... hmm.... but what it can't explain is why i can't see everest from my back yard with a telescope....
care to enlighten me?
Horizon? which seems to be a costant 17 miles away or something like that also "coincidentily" ties in exactly with the curvature of a spherical earth...
Universal acceleration... hmm.... but what it can't explain is why i can't see everest from my back yard with a telescope....
care to enlighten me?
Yes, but first I'll point out that newton's law of gravity cannot explain that either :D .
You can't see everest because of the density of the atmosphere. The atmosphere gets thicker and thicker as you look further away, and at one point it gets too thick to look through.
That's the FE explanation.
My answer: You can't see Everest because you do not live on that part of the earth, and from, presumably, the States, you can't see Everest because of the curvature of the earth.
-shydeny
This Earth is neither round nor flat. It's a square.
I'm interested as to how two orbs when hung side by side will pull towards each other if there is no such thang as gravity in the FE theory.lol they beieve the Earth is going up at 9.8m/s/s. The Earth is going like 20 times the speed of light now according to them.
Also, if the earth is moving upwards at 9.81ms, and you believe in Newtons laws of physics, why when i throw a ball upwards at a greater velocity than 9.81ms does it not appear to "float" in mid-air?
I'm interested as to how two orbs when hung side by side will pull towards each other if there is no such thang as gravity in the FE theory.lol they beieve the Earth is going up at 9.8m/s/s. The Earth is going like 20 times the speed of light now according to them.
Also, if the earth is moving upwards at 9.81ms, and you believe in Newtons laws of physics, why when i throw a ball upwards at a greater velocity than 9.81ms does it not appear to "float" in mid-air?
I'm interested as to how two orbs when hung side by side will pull towards each other if there is no such thang as gravity in the FE theory.lol they beieve the Earth is going up at 9.8m/s/s. The Earth is going like 20 times the speed of light now according to them.
Also, if the earth is moving upwards at 9.81ms, and you believe in Newtons laws of physics, why when i throw a ball upwards at a greater velocity than 9.81ms does it not appear to "float" in mid-air?
Lol, you don't know nothing about relativistic physics.
I'm interested as to how two orbs when hung side by side will pull towards each other if there is no such thang as gravity in the FE theory.lol they beieve the Earth is going up at 9.8m/s/s. The Earth is going like 20 times the speed of light now according to them.
Also, if the earth is moving upwards at 9.81ms, and you believe in Newtons laws of physics, why when i throw a ball upwards at a greater velocity than 9.81ms does it not appear to "float" in mid-air?
Lol, you don't know nothing about relativistic physics.
Lol you mean the term gamma? 1 over the square root of 1-v^2/c^2. I know all about relativistic physics. FEers don't. The relativistic Energy equation E=gamma m c^2 leads to the Earth requiring huge amounts for energy that comes from where?
I'm interested as to how two orbs when hung side by side will pull towards each other if there is no such thang as gravity in the FE theory.lol they beieve the Earth is going up at 9.8m/s/s. The Earth is going like 20 times the speed of light now according to them.
Also, if the earth is moving upwards at 9.81ms, and you believe in Newtons laws of physics, why when i throw a ball upwards at a greater velocity than 9.81ms does it not appear to "float" in mid-air?
Lol, you don't know nothing about relativistic physics.
Lol you mean the term gamma? 1 over the square root of 1-v^2/c^2. I know all about relativistic physics. FEers don't. The relativistic Energy equation E=gamma m c^2 leads to the Earth requiring huge amounts for energy that comes from where?
I know all about relativistic physics.Really? Then how can you think that the earth is going faster than light? Please show the math you used to come to this conclusion.
The big bang . Theres very little force acting to slow us down.Do you people not know that there is a difference between acceleration and velocity?
Did you even read? It was a joke. Since you are postign please go answer all my other questions. You know the red shift thread and the GPS questions.I know all about relativistic physics.Really? Then how can you think that the earth is going faster than light? Please show the math you used to come to this conclusion.
I cringe everytime he says "gotcha".It's fun to watch RE'ers resign to the fact that they have no idea what they are talking about.
So...you don't know about relativity.So you can't read. Once again I know all about relativity. I have already stated anything with mass cannot go the speed of light, way before I posted in this thread.
Gotcha.
I cringe everytime he says "gotcha".
lol they beieve the Earth is going up at 9.8m/s/s. The Earth is going like 20 times the speed of light now according to them.
Lol you mean the term gamma? 1 over the square root of 1-v^2/c^2. I know all about relativistic physics. FEers don't. The relativistic Energy equation E=gamma m c^2 leads to the Earth requiring huge amounts for energy that comes from where?
Why is it i cannot get any comprehensive answers from any FE-ers about pretty much anything?You are right, it's not possible to reach the speed of light.
you say how RE's don't have any idea what they are talking about, but do you? don't you think it is a little far fetched to say what we call gravity is the earth accelerating upwards constantly?
If the earth does continue accelerating at 9.81 upwards
Eventually, we will reach the speed of light.. which....oops, is apparently not possible relavtive to anything.
Why is it i cannot get any comprehensive answers from any FE-ers about pretty much anything?
you say how RE's don't have any idea what they are talking about, but do you? don't you think it is a little far fetched to say what we call gravity is the earth accelerating upwards constantly?
If the earth does continue accelerating at 9.81 upwards
Eventually, we will reach the speed of light.. which....oops, is apparently not possible relavtive to anything.
And also could you please explain to me in the eyes of an FE-er why the value of g on earth 9.81 varies depending on your location of the earth, mainly to do with height? which is a fact and can be determined by experimental methods with no assumptions.
The RE-ers theory is that you are further away from what can be considered as the centre of mass of the earth, so the force is not as strong. Which i hope you FE-ers woul appreciete to make sense?
SO how do you plan to explain your way out of that one FE-ers if according to you the earth is "accelerating at a constant 9.81 m/s^2"????
Becuase FE-ers refuse to answer my questions.... They choose not to answer them, because they can't.
Can you answer them sir? all i want is an answer.... to the most basic of questions.... search function... haha, i don;t fancy to much looking through years of posting.... when i can shape the question i want and ask it now.....
BUT WAIT.... FE-ers choose not to answer them...
I'm interested as to how two orbs when hung side by side will pull towards each other if there is no such thang as gravity in the FE theory.
You are right, it's not possible to reach the speed of light.
Your equation is wrong.
using the equation v=u +at
Wow Solace.... suddenly your not so loud now are you?
REALLY?
for your information solace, i have read the FAQ.
and no where does it explain why g varies at differnet points of the earth.
So would you like to be so kind and explain to me why?
No? i didn't think so..
Wow Solace.... suddenly your not so loud now are you?
"Q: "Why does gravity vary with altitude?"
A: The moon and stars have a slight gravitational pull."
Ouch. Guess I don't need to be loud to be right, Do I?
Your reading skills impress me. No, really, they do.
REALLY?
for your information solace, i have read the FAQ.
and no where does it explain why g varies at differnet points of the earth.
So would you like to be so kind and explain to me why?
No? i didn't think so..
Where there does it say altitude?
Yes solace..... VERY IMPRESSIVE READING SKILLS YOU HAVE!!!
Because g does not only vary with altitude but your position on earth, due to the fact that the world is roughly a sphere but flattened at the poles. SO if you are closer to the centre of the earth i.e. at the poles as opposed to the equator you weight more.
As i have asked now, for what? the 4th time is it?
EXPLAIN
I am sorry where is the answer to my question? I don't see it?
Can you please tell me why g on earth, value around 9.81 varies depending upon height?
WHERE HERE HAS THIS BEEN ANSWERED?
NOT ONLY THIS BUT LIKE A HUNDRED OTHER QUESTIONS YOU REFUSE TO ANSWER?
I WONDER WHY?
Wow Solace.... suddenly your not so loud now are you?
"Q: "Why does gravity vary with altitude?"
A: The moon and stars have a slight gravitational pull."
Ouch. Guess I don't need to be loud to be right, Do I?
Your reading skills impress me. No, really, they do.
The real answer is due to the graitational constant equation.
Fgravity=GMaMb/r^2.
Gravity on MT Everest is less because the radius is bigger. Thats why you weigh less not because the stars which are 1000's of lightyears away.
Wow Solace.... suddenly your not so loud now are you?
"Q: "Why does gravity vary with altitude?"
A: The moon and stars have a slight gravitational pull."
Ouch. Guess I don't need to be loud to be right, Do I?
Your reading skills impress me. No, really, they do.
The real answer is due to the graitational constant equation.
Fgravity=GMaMb/r^2.
Gravity on MT Everest is less because the radius is bigger. Thats why you weigh less not because the stars which are 1000's of lightyears away.
FE model doesnt have "Gravity". Which makes that formula sort of pointless.May be good to note the Model your arguing against has the stars alot, alot closer then 1000's of lightyears. theres probably a thread detailing that better elsewhere.
Wow Solace.... suddenly your not so loud now are you?
"Q: "Why does gravity vary with altitude?"
A: The moon and stars have a slight gravitational pull."
Ouch. Guess I don't need to be loud to be right, Do I?
Your reading skills impress me. No, really, they do.
The real answer is due to the graitational constant equation.
Fgravity=GMaMb/r^2.
Gravity on MT Everest is less because the radius is bigger. Thats why you weigh less not because the stars which are 1000's of lightyears away.
FE model doesnt have "Gravity". Which makes that formula sort of pointless.May be good to note the Model your arguing against has the stars alot, alot closer then 1000's of lightyears. theres probably a thread detailing that better elsewhere.
WHAT? A CONTRADICTION?
FE-ers don't believe in gravity... ERR in your FAQ gravity is mentioned several times.... ESPECIALLY when the stars gravitational pull makes you lighter if you are "higher" up...
Wow Solace.... suddenly your not so loud now are you?
"Q: "Why does gravity vary with altitude?"
A: The moon and stars have a slight gravitational pull."
Ouch. Guess I don't need to be loud to be right, Do I?
Your reading skills impress me. No, really, they do.
The real answer is due to the graitational constant equation.
Fgravity=GMaMb/r^2.
Gravity on MT Everest is less because the radius is bigger. Thats why you weigh less not because the stars which are 1000's of lightyears away.
FE model doesnt have "Gravity". Which makes that formula sort of pointless.May be good to note the Model your arguing against has the stars alot, alot closer then 1000's of lightyears. theres probably a thread detailing that better elsewhere.
WHAT? A CONTRADICTION?
FE-ers don't believe in gravity... ERR in your FAQ gravity is mentioned several times.... ESPECIALLY when the stars gravitational pull makes you lighter if you are "higher" up...
Wow Solace.... suddenly your not so loud now are you?
"Q: "Why does gravity vary with altitude?"
A: The moon and stars have a slight gravitational pull."
Ouch. Guess I don't need to be loud to be right, Do I?
Your reading skills impress me. No, really, they do.
The real answer is due to the graitational constant equation.
Fgravity=GMaMb/r^2.
Gravity on MT Everest is less because the radius is bigger. Thats why you weigh less not because the stars which are 1000's of lightyears away.
FE model doesnt have "Gravity". Which makes that formula sort of pointless.May be good to note the Model your arguing against has the stars alot, alot closer then 1000's of lightyears. theres probably a thread detailing that better elsewhere.
WHAT? A CONTRADICTION?
FE-ers don't believe in gravity... ERR in your FAQ gravity is mentioned several times.... ESPECIALLY when the stars gravitational pull makes you lighter if you are "higher" up...
Next line in the FAQ, you supposedly read, which, Chaos quoted. =D
My arguement with you was simply your answer was in the FAQ. You said it wasn't. I Proved you wrong. You tried to dodge the fact it's in there. I proved you wrong again. Yes, in the FE model, supposedly earth doesnt have gravity. Some acceleration.
*shrug*
Wow Solace.... suddenly your not so loud now are you?
"Q: "Why does gravity vary with altitude?"
A: The moon and stars have a slight gravitational pull."
Ouch. Guess I don't need to be loud to be right, Do I?
Your reading skills impress me. No, really, they do.
The real answer is due to the graitational constant equation.
Fgravity=GMaMb/r^2.
Gravity on MT Everest is less because the radius is bigger. Thats why you weigh less not because the stars which are 1000's of lightyears away.
FE model doesnt have "Gravity". Which makes that formula sort of pointless.May be good to note the Model your arguing against has the stars alot, alot closer then 1000's of lightyears. theres probably a thread detailing that better elsewhere.
WHAT? A CONTRADICTION?
FE-ers don't believe in gravity... ERR in your FAQ gravity is mentioned several times.... ESPECIALLY when the stars gravitational pull makes you lighter if you are "higher" up...
Next line in the FAQ, you supposedly read, which, Chaos quoted. =D
My arguement with you was simply your answer was in the FAQ. You said it wasn't. I Proved you wrong. You tried to dodge the fact it's in there. I proved you wrong again. Yes, in the FE model, supposedly earth doesnt have gravity. Some acceleration.
*shrug*
WRONG AS USUAL SOLACE
you said that FE-ers don't believe in gravity, full stop. WHICH IS WRONG. Yes you were wrong. I did read in the FAQ the FE-ers theory about the earth accelerating upwards, maybe you didn't?
And if you had the mental capaity to understnd my question that is clearly NOT explained indepth enough in the FAQ, you would appreciate that the value of g is more at the north pole and the south pole. WHICH IS NOT EXPLAINED IN THE FAQ. N00B.
Now prove me wrong.
QuoteQuote from: "dgw2"
This link talks about how gravity varies from the poles to the equator. I have never been to either to prove it one way or another, but assuming it is true how does the FE model explain this? The ground cannot be moving upwards at different speeds otherwise there would be great separations of land masses over time.
http://www.seed.slb.com/qa2/FAQView.cfm?ID=991
Firstly, one of the factors in variation that your site mentions is tides. It could be that due to the different mechanism by which tides work on the flat Earth, the effect of tides on perceived gravity is different. For example, if one half of the disc were wobbling upwards, it would create increased gravity.
Also, it is a touchy subject relying on meausurements made at the so-called poles. Claims that gravity was measured at the south pole are nonsense in the FE; claims of meausrements taken at the north pole, while plausible, might have been faked.
I think refutations to the FE model really need to involve measurements that people can do without leaving the temperate region of N. America, Europe, or Australia (where most of the members seem to be living).
-Erasmus
My internet works on cable lines. I don't even own a Cell-phone. my TV is Cable also. I wish I owned a 2007 Escalade, but sadly I don't, and GPS doesn't require satellites.
Search for pretty much every other post/thread Engineer has responded in. GPS is his favorite argument, i believe
My internet works on cable lines. I don't even own a Cell-phone. my TV is Cable also. I wish I owned a 2007 Escalade, but sadly I don't, and GPS doesn't require satellites.
Search for pretty much every other post/thread Engineer has responded in. GPS is his favorite argument, i believe
Someone can tell me data that a satellite collected and then I can go to the spot of the data and get the same results, explain.
High altitude balloon could.
yes. they're fake.
And, why cant you go to that satellite picture location and take the same readings? or are you just nervous you wont get the same results as displayed in that picture?
High altitude balloon could.
yes. they're fake.
And, why cant you go to that satellite picture location and take the same readings? or are you just nervous you wont get the same results as displayed in that picture?
I can because I’m in school right now. Someone else could minus the fact that that picture is from 2004. I can go and compare data of new pictures. Like those satellite that look for forest fires in places were none is even close too.
lol tell that to your internet you are using right now, And your cell phone in your pocket, and your TV, and your GPS in your 2007 Escalade.
I have been arguing with Engineer on GPS, he is losing.I must have missed that. Perhaps you can remind me of what thread that's in.
(http://www.physorg.com/newman/gfx/news/1128661fig2a.jpg)
Erm.. do all FE-ers use 'conspiracy' as a result of being unable to answer questions with definitive and evidencial theory?
FE-ers say that the earth, sun, moon etc. are accelerating upwards at 9.81m/s^2; the moon and sun have gravititional pulls whereas the earth does not. If this is so then wouldn't the 'flat earth' eventually hit the sun or moon due the its diagonal motion- gravitional pull from the sun and moon and its apparent acceleration upward?
Engineer, go back to school, or perhaps be smart enough to get in NASA and disprove what we believe in.
Can i get an answer FE-ers? or is this beyond you? Proof that at at least some of your theory is wrong?The Earth is not as massive as you think it is. Thus, there is MUCH less acceleration due to gravity.
Some members believe the Earth does not produce gravity, some believe it has a slight gravitational pull.
Some members believe the Earth does not produce gravity, some believe it has a slight gravitational pull.
CAN SOMEONE EXPLAIN PLEASE. YOU IZ ALL NOT MAKE ANY SENSE.
HOW CAN THE EARTH HAVE NO GRAVITY, IT IS A MASS!!
Some members believe the Earth does not produce gravity, some believe it has a slight gravitational pull.
CAN SOMEONE EXPLAIN PLEASE. YOU IZ ALL NOT MAKE ANY SENSE.
HOW CAN THE EARTH HAVE NO GRAVITY, IT IS A MASS!!
I'd say it's safe to say that those who believe the Earth has no gravity probably challenge the accepted theory of gravity.
FE-ers say that the earth, sun, moon etc. are accelerating upwards at 9.81m/s^2; the moon and sun have gravititional pulls whereas the earth does not. If this is so then wouldn't the 'flat earth' eventually hit the sun or moon due the its diagonal motion- gravitional pull from the sun and moon and its apparent acceleration upward?
An interesting theory, so you are saying that the stars pull the earth upwards slightly faster than 9.8 m/s^2 because of the gravitational attraction between, so we are accelerating slightly faster than the sun and moon??? So eventually we will crash into them?
But in the FAQ it says the earth does not generate its own gravity, and an FE-er would probably argue that it would be uneffected by the stars gravitational attraction.
But Wait. The earth does not have its own gravitational field? IS this not another vialation of a fundimental law of physics?
The earth has a mass, and gravity is a propery of all mass.
FE-ers say that the earth, sun, moon etc. are accelerating upwards at 9.81m/s^2; the moon and sun have gravititional pulls whereas the earth does not. If this is so then wouldn't the 'flat earth' eventually hit the sun or moon due the its diagonal motion- gravitional pull from the sun and moon and its apparent acceleration upward?
An interesting theory, so you are saying that the stars pull the earth upwards slightly faster than 9.8 m/s^2 because of the gravitational attraction between, so we are accelerating slightly faster than the sun and moon??? So eventually we will crash into them?
But in the FAQ it says the earth does not generate its own gravity, and an FE-er would probably argue that it would be uneffected by the stars gravitational attraction.
But Wait. The earth does not have its own gravitational field? IS this not another vialation of a fundimental law of physics?
The earth has a mass, and gravity is a propery of all mass.
Thje stars with their gravity pull the sun and the moon at the same force the moon and sun pull us thereby offsetting any net gain.
Damn fool.
FE-ers say that the earth, sun, moon etc. are accelerating upwards at 9.81m/s^2; the moon and sun have gravititional pulls whereas the earth does not. If this is so then wouldn't the 'flat earth' eventually hit the sun or moon due the its diagonal motion- gravitional pull from the sun and moon and its apparent acceleration upward?
Your so smart. I wish I was a FEer so I could make up something to post again. I repeat, I usually believe the earth is a sphere.
Sayin'
An interesting theory, so you are saying that the stars pull the earth upwards slightly faster than 9.8 m/s^2 because of the gravitational attraction between, so we are accelerating slightly faster than the sun and moon??? So eventually we will crash into them?
But in the FAQ it says the earth does not generate its own gravity, and an FE-er would probably argue that it would be uneffected by the stars gravitational attraction.
But Wait. The earth does not have its own gravitational field? IS this not another vialation of a fundimental law of physics?
The earth has a mass, and gravity is a propery of all mass.
Thje stars with their gravity pull the sun and the moon at the same force the moon and sun pull us thereby offsetting any net gain.
Damn fool.
Are you seriously stupid or something astronomy 101?
Firstly this is not my theory i am just commenting on it.
Secondly, based on the FE-ers theory in the FAQ it says the earth has no gravitational pull. Which if you choose to believe that you really do belong in a nursery, with astronomy101.
SO, assuming the earth does have gravity, the stars, the sun and the moon will have a gravitational force on the earth.
Now DamnFool101..... i mean astronomy101. This is where you should listen:
If the stars have a gravitational affect on the sun and the moon it will also have one on the earth.
Assuming the stars pull the earth, the moon and the sun at the same rate. There there would be no net change between the distance from the earth, the moon and the sun.
But seeing as the earth does have its own gravity, therefore would that not pull the moon and the sun towards the earth, which would mean they would eventually collide regardless of the stars???
Do you understand astronomy101 or should i draw you a nice felt tip pen colour picture, like the ones in your nursery?
If the stars have a gravitational affect on the sun and the moon it will also have one on the earth.
Assuming the stars pull the earth, the moon and the sun at the same rate. There there would be no net change between the distance from the earth, the moon and the sun.
But seeing as the earth does have its own gravity, therefore would that not pull the moon and the sun towards the earth, which would mean they would eventually collide regardless of the stars???
Do you understand astronomy101 or should i draw you a nice felt tip pen colour picture, like the ones in your nursery?
Here's my answer: You are irritating to the point of contemptible silence.
If the stars have a gravitational affect on the sun and the moon it will also have one on the earth.
Assuming the stars pull the earth, the moon and the sun at the same rate. There there would be no net change between the distance from the earth, the moon and the sun.
But seeing as the earth does have its own gravity, therefore would that not pull the moon and the sun towards the earth, which would mean they would eventually collide regardless of the stars???
Do you understand astronomy101 or should i draw you a nice felt tip pen colour picture, like the ones in your nursery?
You're assuming that the earth, the sun and the moon react the same to the "pulling" of the stars. You're wrong.
If the stars have a gravitational affect on the sun and the moon it will also have one on the earth.
Assuming the stars pull the earth, the moon and the sun at the same rate. There there would be no net change between the distance from the earth, the moon and the sun.
But seeing as the earth does have its own gravity, therefore would that not pull the moon and the sun towards the earth, which would mean they would eventually collide regardless of the stars???
Do you understand astronomy101 or should i draw you a nice felt tip pen colour picture, like the ones in your nursery?
You're assuming that the earth, the sun and the moon react the same to the "pulling" of the stars. You're wrong.
Because the moon the earth and the sun will also have a pull regardless of the stars. So why has the earth not crashed into the moon or sun?
Will this is just a wild guess, but i would say because the earth is spherical.
The "Pulling", or gravity, is the same for all matter. The sun, moon, stars, and earth are all made of matter, and they all have a gravitational pull. Proof? For earth, there is gravity since we seem to "fall" towards it. The moon's gravity is seen in the ocean tides. The sun has a gravitational field since we orbit around it, and the sun also influences the tides to a degree. For the stars, look outside on a clear night and try to find the milky way "strip" of stars. Without gravity, stars would not form into galaxies. Also, look at the Andromeda galaxy, see how the star's gravity pulled it into the spiral galaxy that is so easy to spot? Oh and also, without gravity, stars, planets, everything we see would not form like it did, and the universe would be radically different.
You could easily proove that Earth had a gravitaional pull by suspending two large lumps of it on wires and measuring the distance by which they are pulled towards one another. If you did this with all known elements that occur naturally on earth then there you have your proof.
The "Pulling", or gravity, is the same for all matter. The sun, moon, stars, and earth are all made of matter, and they all have a gravitational pull. Proof? For earth, there is gravity since we seem to "fall" towards it. The moon's gravity is seen in the ocean tides. The sun has a gravitational field since we orbit around it, and the sun also influences the tides to a degree. For the stars, look outside on a clear night and try to find the milky way "strip" of stars. Without gravity, stars would not form into galaxies. Also, look at the Andromeda galaxy, see how the star's gravity pulled it into the spiral galaxy that is so easy to spot? Oh and also, without gravity, stars, planets, everything we see would not form like it did, and the universe would be radically different.
No. We don't "fall" towards Earth, it's moving towards us. I understand that, in physics, it's the same and exact thing, but it's no "proof" that the Earth has a gravitational pull.
Because the moon the earth and the sun will also have a pull regardless of the stars. So why has the earth not crashed into the moon or sun?
Will this is just a wild guess, but i would say because the earth is spherical.
You're actually saying that the Earth and the Sun are not crashing together because the Earth is "spherical" ?
So you think the earth has no gravitational pull?
What i am saying here is the standard model of the earth for RE-ers is spherical and in this model the earth orbits the sun. It is this orbit, which produces a centrifugal force between the earth and the sun that stops the earth crashing into the sun and the centripetal force stopping earth flying past the sun.
Yes, sorry 'bout that, thought you were quouting me there for a second, but I realize my mistake now.
No, i did think you were an RE-er, my explaination was for asterisque who believes the earth has no gravity due to mass. Which is absurd. I mean at least give yourself a fighting chance by saying we feel "gravity" beause the earth is accelerating upwards coupled with its gravity due to mass. That makes the net acceleration 9.81 ms^-2.
If the stars have a gravitational affect on the sun and the moon it will also have one on the earth.
Assuming the stars pull the earth, the moon and the sun at the same rate. There there would be no net change between the distance from the earth, the moon and the sun.
But seeing as the earth does have its own gravity, therefore would that not pull the moon and the sun towards the earth, which would mean they would eventually collide regardless of the stars???
Do you understand astronomy101 or should i draw you a nice felt tip pen colour picture, like the ones in your nursery?
You're assuming that the earth, the sun and the moon react the same to the "pulling" of the stars. You're wrong.
The "Pulling", or gravity, is the same for all matter. The sun, moon, stars, and earth are all made of matter, and they all have a gravitational pull. Proof? For earth, there is gravity since we seem to "fall" towards it. The moon's gravity is seen in the ocean tides. The sun has a gravitational field since we orbit around it, and the sun also influences the tides to a degree. For the stars, look outside on a clear night and try to find the milky way "strip" of stars. Without gravity, stars would not form into galaxies. Also, look at the Andromeda galaxy, see how the star's gravity pulled it into the spiral galaxy that is so easy to spot? Oh and also, without gravity, stars, planets, everything we see would not form like it did, and the universe would be radically different.
So how does gravity influence things without mass?
As gravity is the force between two masses in the universe...
Gravity can bend light, like when the powerful pull of a black hole does not let even light escape. Also, the sun bends starlight, during a solar eclipse you can see how the sun's gravity bends the starlight that goes around it. The less mass an object has, the less gravity affects it.So how does gravity influence things without mass?
As gravity is the force between two masses in the universe...
No, i did think you were an RE-er, my explaination was for asterisque who believes the earth has no gravity due to mass. Which is absurd. I mean at least give yourself a fighting chance by saying we feel "gravity" beause the earth is accelerating upwards coupled with its gravity due to mass. That makes the net acceleration 9.81 ms^-2.
Quantum mechanics deals with really small particles, smaller than an atom, quarks. General relativity deals with big things, like planets and galaxies. It's hard to put these two theories together, since the small and large world are radically different. The subatomic world is random and chaotic, while the large world is calm and predictable. For example, a quark has a 2/5 chance to be HERE, a 1/9 chance to be THERE, a 1/10000 chance to be NEAR and THERE at the same time, and so on, very chaotic, literraly impossible to predict. Planets and stars are not like that, they are easily predicable. Jupiter can only be in one place, not THERE and HERE
No, i did think you were an RE-er, my explaination was for asterisque who believes the earth has no gravity due to mass. Which is absurd. I mean at least give yourself a fighting chance by saying we feel "gravity" beause the earth is accelerating upwards coupled with its gravity due to mass. That makes the net acceleration 9.81 ms^-2.
What causes gravity? Mass? Then why doesn't General Relativity play nicely with Quantum Mechanics?
Quantum mechanics deals with really small particles, smaller than an atom, quarks. General relativity deals with big things, like planets and galaxies. It's hard to put these two theories together, since the small and large world are radically different. The subatomic world is random and chaotic, while the large world is calm and predictable. For example, a quark has a 2/5 chance to be HERE, a 1/9 chance to be THERE, a 1/10000 chance to be NEAR and THERE at the same time, and so on, very chaotic, literraly impossible to predict. Planets and stars are not like that, they are easily predicable. Jupiter can only be in one place, not THERE and HERE
No, i did think you were an RE-er, my explaination was for asterisque who believes the earth has no gravity due to mass. Which is absurd. I mean at least give yourself a fighting chance by saying we feel "gravity" beause the earth is accelerating upwards coupled with its gravity due to mass. That makes the net acceleration 9.81 ms^-2.
What causes gravity? Mass? Then why doesn't General Relativity play nicely with Quantum Mechanics?
Oops? Why oops? Because I didnt mention black holes? Wows, not mentioning black holes cracked the entire round earth theory to pieces, o noes!Quantum mechanics deals with really small particles, smaller than an atom, quarks. General relativity deals with big things, like planets and galaxies. It's hard to put these two theories together, since the small and large world are radically different. The subatomic world is random and chaotic, while the large world is calm and predictable. For example, a quark has a 2/5 chance to be HERE, a 1/9 chance to be THERE, a 1/10000 chance to be NEAR and THERE at the same time, and so on, very chaotic, literraly impossible to predict. Planets and stars are not like that, they are easily predicable. Jupiter can only be in one place, not THERE and HERE
No, i did think you were an RE-er, my explaination was for asterisque who believes the earth has no gravity due to mass. Which is absurd. I mean at least give yourself a fighting chance by saying we feel "gravity" beause the earth is accelerating upwards coupled with its gravity due to mass. That makes the net acceleration 9.81 ms^-2.
What causes gravity? Mass? Then why doesn't General Relativity play nicely with Quantum Mechanics?
That's all well and good, but what about black holes? Oops!
Once again you are wrong. The reason that he feels heavier is because air pushing down on him is now an extra variable to gravity pulling down on him. In space, for example, no matter how much you accelerate or how fast you move you will not feel the presence of pressure because there are no forces acting on your body.
Quantum mechanics deals with really small particles, smaller than an atom, quarks. General relativity deals with big things, like planets and galaxies. It's hard to put these two theories together, since the small and large world are radically different. The subatomic world is random and chaotic, while the large world is calm and predictable. For example, a quark has a 2/5 chance to be HERE, a 1/9 chance to be THERE, a 1/10000 chance to be NEAR and THERE at the same time, and so on, very chaotic, literraly impossible to predict. Planets and stars are not like that, they are easily predicable. Jupiter can only be in one place, not THERE and HERE
No, i did think you were an RE-er, my explaination was for asterisque who believes the earth has no gravity due to mass. Which is absurd. I mean at least give yourself a fighting chance by saying we feel "gravity" beause the earth is accelerating upwards coupled with its gravity due to mass. That makes the net acceleration 9.81 ms^-2.
What causes gravity? Mass? Then why doesn't General Relativity play nicely with Quantum Mechanics?
That's all well and good, but what about black holes? Oops!
Black holes include a singularity.
BTW, with all that complexity about quarks, probability as in previous post, together with other quantum weirdness, singularities and the like, I think that gives FE a certain latitude in explaining things before RE physics complains about FE requiring a lot of ad hoc explanation.
Personally, I think the apparent wall of ice is a singularity at the South Pole. If conventional physics can have wormholes and point singularities in black holes, why can't FE have a singularity too?
But lucky was claiming gravity was a force between masses. ???
Sorry light still doesn't have mass. It can have momentum without mass since energy is mass. The experiment with some type of wheel in a glass bulb will show that light is able to spin the wheel.
The equation
E=squareroot of p^2c^2+m^2c^4 since light has energy it has momentum, m^2c^4 is zero.
Oops? Why oops?Quantum mechanics deals with really small particles, smaller than an atom, quarks. General relativity deals with big things, like planets and galaxies. It's hard to put these two theories together, since the small and large world are radically different. The subatomic world is random and chaotic, while the large world is calm and predictable. For example, a quark has a 2/5 chance to be HERE, a 1/9 chance to be THERE, a 1/10000 chance to be NEAR and THERE at the same time, and so on, very chaotic, literraly impossible to predict. Planets and stars are not like that, they are easily predicable. Jupiter can only be in one place, not THERE and HERE
No, i did think you were an RE-er, my explaination was for asterisque who believes the earth has no gravity due to mass. Which is absurd. I mean at least give yourself a fighting chance by saying we feel "gravity" beause the earth is accelerating upwards coupled with its gravity due to mass. That makes the net acceleration 9.81 ms^-2.
What causes gravity? Mass? Then why doesn't General Relativity play nicely with Quantum Mechanics?
That's all well and good, but what about black holes? Oops!
Quantum mechanics deals with really small particles, smaller than an atom, quarks. General relativity deals with big things, like planets and galaxies.
Sorry light still doesn't have mass. It can have momentum without mass since energy is mass. The experiment with some type of wheel in a glass bulb will show that light is able to spin the wheel.
The equation
E=squareroot of p^2c^2+m^2c^4 since light has energy it has momentum, m^2c^4 is zero.
In modern physics it is accepted that light has particle-wave duality. Which means it is both a particle and wave depending on how you measure it.
the formula for momentum
is: momentum = mass* velocity
if mass =0
then the momentum is also zero. It is as simple as that.
please don't try and defy the laws of maths aswell as physics.
And you are hardly being precise by saying "The experiment with some type of wheel"
Anyway, is what you are describing the proof that light has an equivalent mass?
considering the law of conservation of momentum
initial momentum = final momentum
therefore
mv=mv
mass of light * speed of light = mass of wheel * speed of wheel
which proves light needs to have an equivalent momentum.
Sorry you are contridicting the laws of physics. But
momentum= mass*velocity
therefore light needs to have an equivalent mass.
basically we can go on argue for this forever because even in modern physics it is still unclear the nature of light. But i still maintian that light has an equalivalent mass. Just as an electron has an equivalent wavelength. Such as when you fire an electron beam at a diffraction grating it produces bright and dark fringes that is what happens to waves because of superposition.
Regardless of light having a mass or not. How can the earth not have a mass? Because that is what FE-ers are saying when they say the earth has no gravitational pull.
momentum= mass*velocitywe have Energy = p[momentum] * c[speed of light] when [m]mass equals zero.
Sorry you are contridicting the laws of physics.
I will submit that light has momentum and a relativistic mass, but zero rest mass. This is a direct result of the general equation of energy (E2 = m2c4 + p2c2) and the observation that light travels at the speed of light (surprise!!!) thus must have zero rest mass. So instead of:momentum= mass*velocitywe have Energy = p[momentum] * c[speed of light] when [m]mass equals zero.
Sorry you are contridicting the laws of physics. But
momentum= mass*velocity
therefore light needs to have an equivalent mass.
basically we can go on argue for this forever because even in modern physics it is still unclear the nature of light. But i still maintian that light has an equalivalent mass. Just as an electron has an equivalent wavelength. Such as when you fire an electron beam at a diffraction grating it produces bright and dark fringes that is what happens to waves because of superposition.
Regardless of light having a mass or not. How can the earth not have a mass? Because that is what FE-ers are saying when they say the earth has no gravitational pull.
About the only thing FE'ers have done is thrown out the mass generates gravity aspect of relativity in favor of acceleration. And I have to agree with them because of the existence of Black Holes.
And you are essentially attempting to disprove the existence of Lasers.
I will submit that light has momentum and a relativistic mass, but zero rest mass. This is a direct result of the general equation of energy (E2 = m2c4 + p2c2) and the observation that light travels at the speed of light (surprise!!!) thus must have zero rest mass. So instead of:momentum= mass*velocitywe have Energy = p[momentum] * c[speed of light] when [m]mass equals zero.Sorry you are contridicting the laws of physics. But
momentum= mass*velocity
therefore light needs to have an equivalent mass.
basically we can go on argue for this forever because even in modern physics it is still unclear the nature of light. But i still maintian that light has an equalivalent mass. Just as an electron has an equivalent wavelength. Such as when you fire an electron beam at a diffraction grating it produces bright and dark fringes that is what happens to waves because of superposition.
Regardless of light having a mass or not. How can the earth not have a mass? Because that is what FE-ers are saying when they say the earth has no gravitational pull.
About the only thing FE'ers have done is thrown out the mass generates gravity aspect of relativity in favor of acceleration. And I have to agree with them because of the existence of Black Holes.
And you are essentially attempting to disprove the existence of Lasers.
Ok, i don't like to dwell to much in the realm of quantumn mechanics. But regardless of this.... i am still confussed as to how you think gravity is not a property of mass.
And how does the existance of blackholes disprove this. And how do lasers also disprove this? you need to explain more..
Its a law of the universe that you will just have to accept.Sounds like an assumption to me.
Its a law of the universe that you will just have to accept.Sounds like an assumption to me.
Sorry you are contridicting the laws of physics.
Sorry, but you are showing your lack of understanding of Relativity. Once you know Relativity, come back and see me.
Might as well bring up the big bang, what happened then? What about souls, sicence cant explain weathet or not we have souls, so it must be wrong! Faster than light travel! We dont know how that works, in ohter words, all science is wrong!Oops? Why oops?Quantum mechanics deals with really small particles, smaller than an atom, quarks. General relativity deals with big things, like planets and galaxies. It's hard to put these two theories together, since the small and large world are radically different. The subatomic world is random and chaotic, while the large world is calm and predictable. For example, a quark has a 2/5 chance to be HERE, a 1/9 chance to be THERE, a 1/10000 chance to be NEAR and THERE at the same time, and so on, very chaotic, literraly impossible to predict. Planets and stars are not like that, they are easily predicable. Jupiter can only be in one place, not THERE and HERE
No, i did think you were an RE-er, my explaination was for asterisque who believes the earth has no gravity due to mass. Which is absurd. I mean at least give yourself a fighting chance by saying we feel "gravity" beause the earth is accelerating upwards coupled with its gravity due to mass. That makes the net acceleration 9.81 ms^-2.
What causes gravity? Mass? Then why doesn't General Relativity play nicely with Quantum Mechanics?
That's all well and good, but what about black holes? Oops!
Because you said this:Quantum mechanics deals with really small particles, smaller than an atom, quarks. General relativity deals with big things, like planets and galaxies.
Remember? And, last time I checked, a "black hole" was something very tiny (Quantum Mechanics) and also very massive (General Relativity). Since GR and QM don't play well together, there's a hole in your theory. Hence the "Oops".
Makes me laugh FEers always trying to be clever asking everyone to explain gravity. Well wise guys don't forget that gravity exists in FE theory too. Think about that the next time you're about to smugly ask someone to explain gravity.The only reason I ask people to explain gravity is, is because they claim that either the RE has no holes in the model, or that it can explain everything.
Oh RE does have holes, just a LOT less than FE does.Makes me laugh FEers always trying to be clever asking everyone to explain gravity. Well wise guys don't forget that gravity exists in FE theory too. Think about that the next time you're about to smugly ask someone to explain gravity.The only reason I ask people to explain gravity is, is because they claim that either the RE has no holes in the model, or that it can explain everything.
Which is my point.Oh RE does have holesMakes me laugh FEers always trying to be clever asking everyone to explain gravity. Well wise guys don't forget that gravity exists in FE theory too. Think about that the next time you're about to smugly ask someone to explain gravity.The only reason I ask people to explain gravity is, is because they claim that either the RE has no holes in the model, or that it can explain everything.
Physics has holes. I don't see any holes in Round Earth theory though. At least not ones that are in FE theory too.I agree. But in the curved light theory I have proposed, the same facts and same laws apply except for the local curvature close to the Earth. So there are no holes in FE theory either, or at least no more than one more than RE theory (that I know of).
Its a law of the universe that you will just have to accept. Every mass generates its own gravity providing it is a gravitational field, i.e. in the presence of another mass.Except Einstein and almost all physicists after him say that the "gravitational field" is just curvature of spacetime, which just means that paths of light (which they define as straight) can be observed to diverge close to massive objects.
This is accepted by modern physics, so to say this is wrong is calling einsten, newton and countless other scientists idiots.
Doesn't light bending away from Earth go against the curvature of space time theory? I mean a good source of evidence of the curvature is light being affected by large masses. Why would Earth have the opposite effect? I think this is the one major hole. It works of you just look at Earth but once you tilt your telescope to space it kind of falls apart. Well as far as I can see anyway.Good question. To believe in FE and (most of) modern physics, you have to believe the Earth is a bit special. Its actually OK, I think to believe in the gravity generated by flat earth of sufficient thickness to have enough mass to generate the local gravitational field - if it were a flat disk, it would have a vertical field. All I need is an explanation of the local electromagnetic curvature. It took about 400 years from Newton to get even Einstein's explanation of gravity, and even he got only part-way - there is still no explanation of how mass curves spacetime, and I've only spent about 3 hours on the curved theory, as opposed to an army of really smart people thinking for centuries, so please give us a bit of a break on demanding explanations.
The gravitational field would still come from the centre even on a disk. If I'm at the edge facing the centre of the disk then there is more mass diagonally infront/downard of me than beneath me.Only for uniform density - if the Earth was slightly denser, or thicker, towards the Rim, that would compensate.
If it were thicker toward the outside, it would just create two forces, one toward the center of the earth and one down, and thus the vectors together would put the force toward the earths center of gravity, a flat earth which is more dense on the outside would be marginally more plausible, but gravity would still act toward the center of the earth.The gravitational field would still come from the centre even on a disk. If I'm at the edge facing the centre of the disk then there is more mass diagonally infront/downard of me than beneath me.Only for uniform density - if the Earth was slightly denser, or thicker, towards the Rim, that would compensate.
I don't quite follow. From the hub of the Earth, you would feel vertical pull because everything would be symmetric.If it were thicker toward the outside, it would just create two forces, one toward the center of the earth and one down, and thus the vectors together would put the force toward the earths center of gravity, a flat earth which is thicker on the outside would be marginally more plausible, but gravity would still act toward the center of the earth.The gravitational field would still come from the centre even on a disk. If I'm at the edge facing the centre of the disk then there is more mass diagonally infront/downard of me than beneath me.Only for uniform density - if the Earth was slightly denser, or thicker, towards the Rim, that would compensate.
If you were standing at the edge of the earth everything would be hubward of you, and thus you would be pulled toward the center.I don't quite follow. From the hub of the Earth, you would feel vertical pull because everything would be symmetric.If it were thicker toward the outside, it would just create two forces, one toward the center of the earth and one down, and thus the vectors together would put the force toward the earths center of gravity, a flat earth which is thicker on the outside would be marginally more plausible, but gravity would still act toward the center of the earth.The gravitational field would still come from the centre even on a disk. If I'm at the edge facing the centre of the disk then there is more mass diagonally infront/downard of me than beneath me.Only for uniform density - if the Earth was slightly denser, or thicker, towards the Rim, that would compensate.
From closer to the rim, facing Hubwards, you would feel vertical pull because the backwards pull of the closer part of the wall would offset the pull from the greater area in front of you. It would take careful arrangement of the mass, but that just happens automatically because of the rotation of the Earth around the hub: centrifugal force effect.
Yes, though not by a huge amount. But I don't think anyone has stood on the edge of the Earth and done the experiment; do you?If you were standing at the edge of the earth everything would be hubward of you, and thus you would be pulled toward the center.I don't quite follow. From the hub of the Earth, you would feel vertical pull because everything would be symmetric.If it were thicker toward the outside, it would just create two forces, one toward the center of the earth and one down, and thus the vectors together would put the force toward the earths center of gravity, a flat earth which is thicker on the outside would be marginally more plausible, but gravity would still act toward the center of the earth.The gravitational field would still come from the centre even on a disk. If I'm at the edge facing the centre of the disk then there is more mass diagonally infront/downard of me than beneath me.Only for uniform density - if the Earth was slightly denser, or thicker, towards the Rim, that would compensate.
From closer to the rim, facing Hubwards, you would feel vertical pull because the backwards pull of the closer part of the wall would offset the pull from the greater area in front of you. It would take careful arrangement of the mass, but that just happens automatically because of the rotation of the Earth around the hub: centrifugal force effect.
In fact, that's such a good point, we should check: could someone on this site who has been close to the edge tell us if they felt as if they leaning slightly out? Or is the ground always too rough to tell? If the ground were slightly rounded at the edge, it would be difficult to check.You wouldn't have to be that close to tell, you could definitely tell in southern Chile, and there is no nonmagnetic force toward the north pole anywhere.
Not if it was dense enough at the edge.In fact, that's such a good point, we should check: could someone on this site who has been close to the edge tell us if they felt as if they leaning slightly out? Or is the ground always too rough to tell? If the ground were slightly rounded at the edge, it would be difficult to check.You wouldn't have to be that close to tell, you could definitely tell in southern Chile, and there is no nonmagnetic force toward the north pole anywhere.
I'm pretty sure you would still be pulled toward the earth's center of gravity, and there is also the problem that it isn't made of exponentially more dense material.Not if it was dense enough at the edge.In fact, that's such a good point, we should check: could someone on this site who has been close to the edge tell us if they felt as if they leaning slightly out? Or is the ground always too rough to tell? If the ground were slightly rounded at the edge, it would be difficult to check.You wouldn't have to be that close to tell, you could definitely tell in southern Chile, and there is no nonmagnetic force toward the north pole anywhere.
Sorry you are contridicting the laws of physics.
Sorry, but you are showing your lack of understanding of Relativity. Once you know Relativity, come back and see me.
Relativity? i suppose you have a degree in it.
Would you be so kind to point out where i have clearly gone wrong?Well, here:
So, if a photon of light has a momentum it must have a mass.
"Regardless of light having a mass or not. How can the earth not have a mass? Because that is what FE-ers are saying when they say the earth has no gravitational pull."
Gravity does not exist as a force.
Because the patent clerk said so.
Are you saying that Einstein believed in gravity as a force?
btw, taking into account general relativity:No. GR allows you to accelerate forever, without reaching the speed of light, you just get closer to it. You don't even need GR, Special Relativity (a simpler part of GR) will do it. The reason is that space is not Euclidean, rigid bodies shrink when in relative motion and clocks tick more slowly. Read any book on relativity for the explanation.
Fundamental principles
General relativity is based on the following set of fundamental principles which guided its development.[2][6] These principles are:
The general principle of relativity: The laws of physics must be the same for all observers (accelerated or not).
so is this not saying we can't be accelerating upwards forever because we will reach the speed of light? no matter how we look at it?
What then, makes things (with mass) bend space-time hmm?
A FE-er calling me stupid? please.
Lets take it down a step. I can't help but feel you are refusing to answer the obvious. How is it that i can get masses on the earth and show that they have a gravitational pull?
Would this not mean the earth has a gravitational pull, seeing as it is made up of these masses?
"Einstein's theory is exactly analogous to this. In Newton's theory, gravity makes particles leave their straight paths. In Einstein's theory of general relativity, gravity is a distortion of space-time. Particles still follow the straightest possible paths in that space-time. But because space-time is now distorted, even on those straightest paths, particles accelerate as if they were under the influence of what Newton called the gravitational force."
but at the end of the day, to put it in plain english, masses attract each other no matter how you want to explain it.
I am not formiliar with the term "psudoforce" so i checked the definition and found nothing. So assuming you ment psedi force i found this:
pseudo force
n.
The physically apparent but nonexistent force needed by an observer in a noninertial frame to make Newton's laws of motion hold true. The centrifugal force is a pseudo force. Also called fictitious force.
right? this explains how grivity does not exist how?
Because the patent clerk said so.Or more specifically, Einstein said that just as centrifugal force is really an illusion due to the observer being in a non-inertial frame (accelerating towards the centre), so gravity is an illusion due to the observer being in a noninertial frame (accelerating relative to the local inertial frames in curved spacetime). The acceleration is felt as pressure from beneath from the Earth pushing us up, just as an accelerating spacecraft or elevator causes the illusion of gravity.
Are you saying that Einstein believed in gravity as a force?
IF gravity is not a force what is it then? a word?
Gravity is a fictitious force.Are you saying that Einstein believed in gravity as a force?
IF gravity is not a force what is it then? a word?
Yes, it is.
Basically things that have a mass attract each other. Right?But what about things without mass?
In this case, we are all clearly going to die, or should be dead already because the moon and the sun are going to crash into the earth. Because of this attraction. An intelligent FE-er could you explain please.The sun/moon/earth can be modeled by a second order, underdamped, differential equation, whose solution would lead to harmonics that would have died out billions of years ago.
"Your question is too vague, or else obviously flawed - you shouldn't be able to get two masses on Earth to attract each other (with gravity alone), because the Earth's "gravitational field" cancels out the miniscule force between the two objects (For GTR, Earth bends spacetime in such a way that smaller masses barely contribute and can be seen as negligible)."
Hey, I am getting a little confussed. Now FE-ers believe the earth has a gravitational Field? This is not the impression i got from the FAQ.
This thread shall never die. : ;D
You guys do know to say gravity=acceleration, you would also be saying the moon and the Earth would have the same gravity right?
I'd just like to know what causes the oceans to accelerate towards the moon.
I'd just like to know what causes the oceans to accelerate towards the moon.
This effect was created with a machine made by the government, we dont know the location of this machine however it is most likely hidden in the icewall.
Gravity is a fictitious force.Are you saying that Einstein believed in gravity as a force?
IF gravity is not a force what is it then? a word?
Yes, it is.
Basically things that have a mass attract each other. Right?But what about things without mass?QuoteIn this case, we are all clearly going to die, or should be dead already because the moon and the sun are going to crash into the earth. Because of this attraction. An intelligent FE-er could you explain please.The sun/moon/earth can be modeled by a second order, underdamped, differential equation, whose solution would lead to harmonics that would have died out billions of years ago.
There is no force. That is why I said it was a fictious force. Gravity as a force does not exist.
But at the end of the day there is an effect due to this fictious force that forces things with a mass to attract each other. Why is it you are refusing to accept this fact? is it because it disagrees with your model??
Tell me on object without a mass.A photon.
underdamped differential equation?? whose solution would lead to harmonics? HOW?That's what happens to second order, under damped, differential equations.
Please stop making this way more complicated than it needs to be, basically, if the earth has a gravitational field the earth will collide with the sun and the moon.Exactly. Which can be modeled by that 2nd order ODE.
So you dont have an answer for my question?What was it?
You guys do know to say gravity=acceleration, you would also be saying the moon and the Earth would have the same gravity right?
Its not accelerating faster.
Apparently the moon has more acceleration yet never accelerates away from the Earth.It seems to me like that's what you are saying.
So by what you say its gravity is 9.8m/s/s. Which is wrong, it has less gravity then the Earth.It can't have less 'gravity' than the earth, as the earth doesn't have any.
Well then you answered it wrong. The inside of the moon and Earth have the same gravity as the outside according to the FE model. I know you know you are wrong.
The moon would only experience the 9.8m/s^2 on the surface which was 'seen' by it's direction of travel. The rest of the moon would have less gravitation.
Well then you answered it wrong. The inside of the moon and Earth have the same gravity as the outside according to the FE model. I know you know you are wrong.
Are you aware that you're arguing physics with a mechanical engineer?
No, but maybe I was going to fast for you. Let me slow it down. If the moon is spherical, then the only part of the moon that will have a 1g acceleration at the surface will be at the point in which a vector normal to the sphere is in the same direction as the moon's travel. All other points will have less than 1g of acceleration normal to the surface due to the moon's movement. The moon itself will have a gravitation associated with all other points on it's surface, lower than 1g.The moon would only experience the 9.8m/s^2 on the surface which was 'seen' by it's direction of travel. The rest of the moon would have less gravitation.
You said right here the surface of the moon has 9.8m/s/s of gravity. Yet thats wrong. And you said the rest has less, which would have to be inside the moon. Are you still lost? Do I still need to explain what you said?
Before i go on to the main topic of my post i would like to question why my thread on clouds got removed. It was not fully answered to me, as to how the clouds are also constantly accelerating upwards at 9.81 ms^-2 when there is clearly no force acting on them to accelerate them.
Before i go on to the main topic of my post i would like to question why my thread on clouds got removed. It was not fully answered to me, as to how the clouds are also constantly accelerating upwards at 9.81 ms^-2 when there is clearly no force acting on them to accelerate them.
Clouds aren't "outside" of the earth. They are within the atmosphere so what holds them up there on a RE would do the same for them on a FE.
Well then you answered it wrong. The inside of the moon and Earth have the same gravity as the outside according to the FE model. I know you know you are wrong.
Are you aware that you're arguing physics with a mechanical engineer?
Especially Engineers who think they know physics.Do you realize that physics is the entirety of engineering?
Before i go on to the main topic of my post i would like to question why my thread on clouds got removed. It was not fully answered to me, as to how the clouds are also constantly accelerating upwards at 9.81 ms^-2 when there is clearly no force acting on them to accelerate them.How do airplanes fly when there is clearly no force acting on them, making them accelerate upwards?
Before i go on to the main topic of my post i would like to question why my thread on clouds got removed. It was not fully answered to me, as to how the clouds are also constantly accelerating upwards at 9.81 ms^-2 when there is clearly no force acting on them to accelerate them.How do airplanes fly when there is clearly no force acting on them, making them accelerate upwards?
But you said that the clouds can't be accelerating as there is no visible force acting on them. How can you believe that airplanes fly, as there is no visible force acting on them?Before i go on to the main topic of my post i would like to question why my thread on clouds got removed. It was not fully answered to me, as to how the clouds are also constantly accelerating upwards at 9.81 ms^-2 when there is clearly no force acting on them to accelerate them.How do airplanes fly when there is clearly no force acting on them, making them accelerate upwards?
The force is called lift, it is due to the different pressures of air that flow under and over the wing. Surely an "Engineer" would know that?
i guess you didn't do a degree in aeronautical engineering...
But you said that the clouds can't be accelerating as there is no visible force acting on them. How can you believe that airplanes fly, as there is no visible force acting on them?Before i go on to the main topic of my post i would like to question why my thread on clouds got removed. It was not fully answered to me, as to how the clouds are also constantly accelerating upwards at 9.81 ms^-2 when there is clearly no force acting on them to accelerate them.How do airplanes fly when there is clearly no force acting on them, making them accelerate upwards?
The force is called lift, it is due to the different pressures of air that flow under and over the wing. Surely an "Engineer" would know that?
i guess you didn't do a degree in aeronautical engineering...
Newtonian physics are inaccurate. While his three laws of motion are still used today and are the basis for most of modern science, they become increasingly wrong as velocities increase. At slow speeds, Newton's laws are simple to use and the error is very small. As velocities approach fractions of c, the errors become extreme. SR is always accurate, and is sometimes used in place of Newton's works, even though the math of SR is much more complicated.
I still feel that you have not fully answered my question. You see right i do realise that general relativity took the place of newtonian physics, but i read somewhere that even Nasa scientist use newtonian physics to work out things such as the trajectories of shuttles and other complex calculations.
It is still a law of physics that applies if you put the right values in, or else they would not still be teaching it/ using it still. And general relativity is a way of explaining how newtonian physics works and the reason why objects attract each other. But at the end of the day newtonian physics still works and should be considered in your FE model.
however being able to accelerate individual particles that make up the atmosphere, is neither visible or explain-able in the FE model.. unless you care to enlighten me...How am I able to breathe in an airplane that is taking off? According to you, the aircraft can not accelerate the air inside, so everyone should suffocate.
however being able to accelerate individual particles that make up the atmosphere, is neither visible or explain-able in the FE model.. unless you care to enlighten me...How am I able to breathe in an airplane that is taking off? According to you, the aircraft can not accelerate the air inside, so everyone should suffocate.
The aircraft I fly are not pressurized. According to you, the aircraft cannot accelerate the air inside, so as I increase the throttle, all the air in the aircraft should be left behind, leaving me nothing to breathe.
So why is it not windy in airplanes or cars? I would be lucky if I didn't crash due to being in a 200mph air stream.
Ok, say you fly unpressurised air craft... you accelerate leaving air behind you, but what do you accerate into?? more air right?
Before i go on to the main topic of my post i would like to question why my thread on clouds got removed. It was not fully answered to me, as to how the clouds are also constantly accelerating upwards at 9.81 ms^-2 when there is clearly no force acting on them to accelerate them.
Clouds aren't "outside" of the earth. They are within the atmosphere so what holds them up there on a RE would do the same for them on a FE.
In the RE model of the earth the reason for the atmosphere staying on the earth is because of the very shape of the earth, a rough sphere. The denser elements are drawn towards the core of the earth (dense iron core), and the lighter elements are in the atmosphere, the outer sphere of the earth. They are prevented from going into space because of the earths gravity.
FE-ers cannot use this explaination, 1 because they do not believe in gravity on the earth and 2, if they do believe the earth has gravity, the very nature of the earth accelerating upwards would mean that the atmosphere would just be left behind in space, and the fact the believe the earth is flat would mean that the atmosphere would only exist in the middle of thier earth (the nort pole) anyway.. if there was no acceleration.
I have told you my truth, now you tell me yours. FE-ers i mean.
So why is it not windy in airplanes or cars? I would be lucky if I didn't crash due to being in a 200mph air stream.
Ok, say you fly unpressurised air craft... you accelerate leaving air behind you, but what do you accerate into?? more air right?
Before i go on to the main topic of my post i would like to question why my thread on clouds got removed. It was not fully answered to me, as to how the clouds are also constantly accelerating upwards at 9.81 ms^-2 when there is clearly no force acting on them to accelerate them.
Clouds aren't "outside" of the earth. They are within the atmosphere so what holds them up there on a RE would do the same for them on a FE.
In the RE model of the earth the reason for the atmosphere staying on the earth is because of the very shape of the earth, a rough sphere. The denser elements are drawn towards the core of the earth (dense iron core), and the lighter elements are in the atmosphere, the outer sphere of the earth. They are prevented from going into space because of the earths gravity.
FE-ers cannot use this explaination, 1 because they do not believe in gravity on the earth and 2, if they do believe the earth has gravity, the very nature of the earth accelerating upwards would mean that the atmosphere would just be left behind in space, and the fact the believe the earth is flat would mean that the atmosphere would only exist in the middle of thier earth (the nort pole) anyway.. if there was no acceleration.
I have told you my truth, now you tell me yours. FE-ers i mean.
Uhhm, wasn't the question about CLOUDS not the ATMOSPHERE?
That doesn't answer as to why it is not windy. If the airplane itself cannot accelerate the air inside, it must also not accelerate the air outside, therefore the air should pass right into the cockpit, at whatever speed the aircraft is flying, e.g. 200mph.
However if you are in a car/aeroplane with a roof obviously the air inside the cabin is under some pressure.
200mph air stream? is that not the equavilent of flying an air speed 200 m.p.h? I mean jet planes can do what 10 times that much now?And?
Newtonian physics are inaccurate. While his three laws of motion are still used today and are the basis for most of modern science, they become increasingly wrong as velocities increase. At slow speeds, Newton's laws are simple to use and the error is very small. As velocities approach fractions of c, the errors become extreme. SR is always accurate, and is sometimes used in place of Newton's works, even though the math of SR is much more complicated.
I still feel that you have not fully answered my question. You see right i do realise that general relativity took the place of newtonian physics, but i read somewhere that even Nasa scientist use newtonian physics to work out things such as the trajectories of shuttles and other complex calculations.
It is still a law of physics that applies if you put the right values in, or else they would not still be teaching it/ using it still. And general relativity is a way of explaining how newtonian physics works and the reason why objects attract each other. But at the end of the day newtonian physics still works and should be considered in your FE model.
That doesn't answer as to why it is not windy. If the airplane itself cannot accelerate the air inside, it must also not accelerate the air outside, therefore the air should pass right into the cockpit, at whatever speed the aircraft is flying, e.g. 200mph.
However if you are in a car/aeroplane with a roof obviously the air inside the cabin is under some pressure.Quote200mph air stream? is that not the equavilent of flying an air speed 200 m.p.h? I mean jet planes can do what 10 times that much now?And?
I told you: Refer to that 2nd order ODE.
the aeroplane is accelerating the air inside, there is pressure inside the cabin. If you have a basic grasp of gas laws, you will know that the pressure inside the plane is pressing against the cabin walls, the cabin is part of the plane, the plane is accelerating, therefore the gas is accelerating.
FE-ers cannot use this explaination, 1 because they do not believe in gravity on the earth and 2, if they do believe the earth has gravity, the very nature of the earth accelerating upwards would mean that the atmosphere would just be left behind in space, and the fact the believe the earth is flat would mean that the atmosphere would only exist in the middle of thier earth (the nort pole) anyway.. if there was no acceleration.
Do you have something against gravitation?Stop contradicting yourself. The rocks on the moon would fall off if Gravity=acceleration. But since the rocks stay on Gravity = force do to something (most likely mass).
the aeroplane is accelerating the air inside, there is pressure inside the cabin.You said it was not possible. But now it is?
I don't see how a 2nd order Differential Equation can defy the laws of physics.It demonstrates those laws, and the interaction of them.
I didn't contradict myself. Gravity does not exist. Gravitation does.Do you have something against gravitation?Stop contradicting yourself. The rocks on the moon would fall off if Gravity=acceleration. But since the rocks stay on Gravity = force do to something (most likely mass).
About the 200 mph air speed thing. Did you not say you would crash in a plane if you did that speed?If I had to fly with a 200 mph wind in my face, it would make the act of flying a very difficult one.
the aeroplane is accelerating the air inside, there is pressure inside the cabin.You said it was not possible. But now it is?QuoteI don't see how a 2nd order Differential Equation can defy the laws of physics.It demonstrates those laws, and the interaction of them.
If there was a dome or some container that kept the earths atmosphere in, it would need to be pressurised, and the pressure would need to be constant, which it clearly isn't, as pressure varies at altitudes.
Think of the analogy of putting a divers oxygen tank in a car and accerlerating. The pressure in the tank will remain constant, although it will be accelerating.
SO FE-ers, the question still is.... explain your model ...
I never said this was not possible. Only on the scale of the earth, where there is no apparent dome to keep gas at a constant pressure.
is flawed, because there is not a constant pressure throughout the atmosphere. The pressure is greater at the surface.
One would think you would learn the Earth is round by now. You do realize you don't believe in millions of pictures and lots of data, and believe in a giant ice wall that no one ever saw.
Einstein didn't think the Earth was flat.
If you did a experiment on top of a "flat earth" and then tried to do it on the bottom there would be a problem according to you.
One would think you would learn the Earth is round by now. You do realize you don't believe in millions of pictures and lots of data, and believe in a giant ice wall that no one ever saw.Hmm, I didn't realize that.
Who said he did?
Einstein didn't think the Earth was flat.
If you did a experiment on top of a "flat earth" and then tried to do it on the bottom there would be a problem according to you.Not really.
Yep, it would be just like having 'gravity' pull you off the surface.
Not on the underside of the FE.Yep, it would be just like having 'gravity' pull you off the surface.
Except gravity pulls you to surfaces, not away.
I never said this was not possible. Only on the scale of the earth, where there is no apparent dome to keep gas at a constant pressure.Quote from: luckyis flawed, because there is not a constant pressure throughout the atmosphere. The pressure is greater at the surface.
Uh, which one is it?
By the way, due to Einstein and the Equivalence Principle, there is no local example that is explained by gravity, that cannot be explained by acceleration. One would think you would have figured that out by now.
I did not say it was impossible to accelerate a gas. But it is hard to imagine being able to accelerate the atmosphere with no visible force acting on it, gas does not accerate for no apparent reason... But now suddenly a dome has been brought in this.So once again, is it hard to imagine being able to accelerate an airplane upwards with no visible force acting on it?
suck it
you guys r retards. what about satilite tv a consiricy too omg
but i guess you all are uneducated retards
I did not say it was impossible to accelerate a gas. But it is hard to imagine being able to accelerate the atmosphere with no visible force acting on it, gas does not accerate for no apparent reason... But now suddenly a dome has been brought in this.So once again, is it hard to imagine being able to accelerate an airplane upwards with no visible force acting on it?
The atmosphere accelerates due to the fact that it is in contact with the earth.
The atmosphere accelerates because it is in contact with the earth? What kind of reasoning is that??The same kind of reasoning Newton did.
Imagine the earth was a half dome (like a spoon) positioned as a
'U'. Now flip the atmospheric dome upside down, in the 'U' position also, and press it against the earth 13,000,000.00 ft away from the surface. This should answer how pressure and gravity actually function.
D.J.-F.I.C.O.
"There is no path to enlightenment --> Enlightenment is the path!"
I did not say it was impossible to accelerate a gas. But it is hard to imagine being able to accelerate the atmosphere with no visible force acting on it, gas does not accerate for no apparent reason... But now suddenly a dome has been brought in this.So once again, is it hard to imagine being able to accelerate an airplane upwards with no visible force acting on it?
The atmosphere accelerates due to the fact that it is in contact with the earth.
Look, stop playing on my english, i know it is not perfect... But at the end of the day... their is a valid reason why a plane accelerates upwards... lift. No such thing is true for the atmosphere in the FE model. Anyway, the aeroplane is a solid not a gas.
The atmosphere accelerates because it is in contact with the earth? What kind of reasoning is that??
For that to happen It needs to be pressurised.... like the air plane analagy. Or else it would just be left behind in space.So some FE-ers have proposed a dome theory... that contains the atmosphere and keeps it pressurised. Which i can't see as being a viable model for FE-ers...
Why would the air escape if you are accelerating? How is your example any different than the RE?
i.e. imagine a plane that could fly into space, this plane has no roof, it is an open top. As you accelerate upwards into space, you will leave the atmosphere behind. Now imagine the plane is the earth. The same thing would happen!!!
Newton thought the earth was round. And by saying what you are saying has no context or meaning here.I didn't say Newton thought otherwise. By Newton's third law, the air is in contact with the earth, therefore, the earth provides a force to the air. Again, gravity and acceleration are locally indistinguishable.
Why would the air escape if you are accelerating? How is your example any different than the RE?
i.e. imagine a plane that could fly into space, this plane has no roof, it is an open top. As you accelerate upwards into space, you will leave the atmosphere behind. Now imagine the plane is the earth. The same thing would happen!!!QuoteNewton thought the earth was round. And by saying what you are saying has no context or meaning here.I didn't say Newton thought otherwise. By Newton's third law, the air is in contact with the earth, therefore, the earth provides a force to the air. Again, gravity and acceleration are locally indistinguishable.
I GOT IT! The earth is surrounded by a giant glass dome that holds in the atmosphere.
As far as I know there is no FE explanation for why the air doesn't escape over the sides. The atmosphere is hundreds of miles thick so there would have to be something keeping it there. Maybe it's another mysterious force like the UA and selective gravity.
http://c:/Documents%20and%20Settings/Kit/My%20Documents/My%20Pictures
so i can't load from my computer??? I need to save it to a URl address?
I assume from your FAQ that you are generally familiar with both special and general relativity. I assume that you believe that we are not living in a gravitational field, but in fact an accelerated reference frame. I understand the Equivalence Principle very well. Locally, you cannot do any physical experiment to test the difference between an accelerated reference frame or a gravitational field. However, over large regions you definitely can tell a difference. If the entire earth were an accelerated reference frame, the gravitational field would not vary at all. It wouldn't vary across the surface of the earth, and it wouldn't vary with height. I am a physicist, and I have tested both of these things experimentally. The gravitational field varies across the surface of the earth, due to the different densities of material beneath. The more dramatic field change is that it varies with height. It seems to me that you are also denying that gravity exists at all, which means you are denying the second half of general relativity which explains how mass-energy distorts space-time.
There are also experiments you can do to prove that the earth is spinning. There are measurable Coriolis and Centrifugal forces that change with latitude. These affect projectile motion and are essential in calculating such things as missile trajectories. The direction and magnitude of the measured forces are perfectly consistent with a body the shape of an oblate spheroid rotating about a central axis with a period of one rotation every 24 hours.
I'm not sure if you are denying gravitational affects or not, but don't forget that it is completely possible to measure the gravitational "force" between two masses in a laboratory. I know this, I have done it myself. It's a fairly sophisticated procedure, but it can be done.
The easiest test of geometry would be to measure the circumference and radius of a circle that is confined to the surface of the earth. We should measure the distance around the earth at the equator (circumference), and the radius from the equator to the north pole (radius). If the circumference is exactly 2pi (6.28 . . .) times the radius, we are living on a flat earth. If the circumference is closer to 4 times the radius, we are living on what is close to a spherically shaped earth. If you want to prove to the world that you are correct, you should do this experiment. I would recommend flying in an airplane around the equator at a constant speed and measuring the time it takes to circle it once. Then I would fly from the equator to the North Pole and time that at a constant speed. Does it take 1/4 or 1/6 the amount of time. I'm guessing that it takes you longer to get to the North Pole than you think it would.
Therefore when the particle hits the surface of the earth, it will initially be accelerated by the earth, but then as there is a build up of particles they will eventually run off the side of the earth, leaving the atmosphere behind.You finally got it. That's what we have been saying all along. Since we can breathe at altitude, there must be some type of container that restricts the movement of air out of the system.
See above.
lol@ Engineer being blind to the fact that the atmosphere would leave in a gravity not due to mass and the Earth being flat.
Therefore when the particle hits the surface of the earth, it will initially be accelerated by the earth, but then as there is a build up of particles they will eventually run off the side of the earth, leaving the atmosphere behind.You finally got it. That's what we have been saying all along. Since we can breathe at altitude, there must be some type of container that restricts the movement of air out of the system.
I assume from your FAQ that you are generally familiar with both special and general relativity. I assume that you believe that we are not living in a gravitational field, but in fact an accelerated reference frame. I understand the Equivalence Principle very well. Locally, you cannot do any physical experiment to test the difference between an accelerated reference frame or a gravitational field. However, over large regions you definitely can tell a difference. If the entire earth were an accelerated reference frame, the gravitational field would not vary at all. It wouldn't vary across the surface of the earth, and it wouldn't vary with height. I am a physicist, and I have tested both of these things experimentally. The gravitational field varies across the surface of the earth, due to the different densities of material beneath. The more dramatic field change is that it varies with height. It seems to me that you are also denying that gravity exists at all, which means you are denying the second half of general relativity which explains how mass-energy distorts space-time.
There are also experiments you can do to prove that the earth is spinning. There are measurable Coriolis and Centrifugal forces that change with latitude. These affect projectile motion and are essential in calculating such things as missile trajectories. The direction and magnitude of the measured forces are perfectly consistent with a body the shape of an oblate spheroid rotating about a central axis with a period of one rotation every 24 hours.
I'm not sure if you are denying gravitational affects or not, but don't forget that it is completely possible to measure the gravitational "force" between two masses in a laboratory. I know this, I have done it myself. It's a fairly sophisticated procedure, but it can be done.
The easiest test of geometry would be to measure the circumference and radius of a circle that is confined to the surface of the earth. We should measure the distance around the earth at the equator (circumference), and the radius from the equator to the north pole (radius). If the circumference is exactly 2pi (6.28 . . .) times the radius, we are living on a flat earth. If the circumference is closer to 4 times the radius, we are living on what is close to a spherically shaped earth. If you want to prove to the world that you are correct, you should do this experiment. I would recommend flying in an airplane around the equator at a constant speed and measuring the time it takes to circle it once. Then I would fly from the equator to the North Pole and time that at a constant speed. Does it take 1/4 or 1/6 the amount of time. I'm guessing that it takes you longer to get to the North Pole than you think it would.
Stop posting huge retarded posts!! No one reads them cause:
1) theyre long
2) theyre boring
3) THEYRE WRONG
now read the faq+ earth: not a globe and GTFO
Finally i got it? What?? i have said the above non stop from the beginning of the subject.What you have said from the beginning was that air can't be accelerated and that invisible forces can't exist.
Finally i got it? What?? i have said the above non stop from the beginning of the subject.What you have said from the beginning was that air can't be accelerated and that invisible forces can't exist.
In the FE model the atmosphere would just fall off as the earth is accelerating into it, that it what i maintaned throught my arguement. Therefore there would be no atmosphere left in the FE model. Which is FURTHER PROOF the FE model is flawed.DOME.
But, what force can accelerate gas without being in contact with another body except for gravity?It sounds like you are saying the Earth is not exerting a force on the atmosphere again. The Earth is in contact with the atmosphere. The Earth is accelerating the atmosphere.
The dome is the only possibility for a constant atmosphere over history on a flat Earth, unless all of space is also full of air.
Do astrophysicists have any proof of dark matter and energy or is it the only possible explanation of galactic rotation and distribution while still keeping the current laws of physics?
The dome is the only possibility for a constant atmosphere over history on a flat Earth, unless all of space is also full of air.
Do astrophysicists have any proof of dark matter and energy or is it the only possible explanation of galactic rotation and distribution while still keeping the current laws of physics?
Do FEers have any proof of dark matter the shadow object or this dome you speak of? Obviously, the dome is easily measurable, send something high into the sky, if it hits something then theres a dome.Do we really have to tell you guys all this stuff over and over again? Dark matter is your mess, not ours. Evidence of the shadow object can be seen by looking at the moon. Evidence of the dome is there every time you breath.
Obviously there are many things unknown, people cant measure or observe these and make up theories based on information at the time, unlike a dome.
Do a search. The dome idea has been around for a long time. It is also much bigger than you are assuming. Here is a to-scale diagram of the FE and sun. The little speck in the left of center is the sun. Asteroids are near or above the level of the sun, putting them inside the dome to begin with.
(http://mattm.zapto.org/images/assem1.jpg)Do FEers have any proof of dark matter the shadow object or this dome you speak of? Obviously, the dome is easily measurable, send something high into the sky, if it hits something then theres a dome.Do we really have to tell you guys all this stuff over and over again? Dark matter is your mess, not ours. Evidence of the shadow object can be seen by looking at the moon. Evidence of the dome is there every time you breath.
Obviously there are many things unknown, people cant measure or observe these and make up theories based on information at the time, unlike a dome.
I've never seen it happen so I have little reason to believe it is true.
Do a search. The dome idea has been around for a long time. It is also much bigger than you are assuming. Here is a to-scale diagram of the FE and sun. The little speck in the left of center is the sun. Asteroids are near or above the level of the sun, putting them inside the dome to begin with.
(http://mattm.zapto.org/images/assem1.jpg)
And those of yu who think the earth is flat... well, i am not going to try and persuade you otherwise.. but please... open your eyes to the obvious holes inthe FE model that you cannot explain.
And those of yu who think the earth is flat... well, i am not going to try and persuade you otherwise.. but please... open your eyes to the obvious holes inthe FE model that you cannot explain.
That sounds like attempted persuasion. :D
See, as I understand it Flat Earthers have a lot of theories explaining the way our universe is devised. This is probably the saddest part of your belief: you're contradicting the most basic laws of physics, making up excuses for giant theoretical flaws, and even disputing fact that came about hundreds of years ago.
First of all, you believe that the Earth is the center of the universe??? How? A guy by the name of Galileo disproved this theory almost 400 years ago! Check out the Copernican Theory of the Universe for the geometric undeniable proof that the Earth is not the center.
Secondly, in your FE model, stars are only a few thousand miles from the Earth? So then I guess that you think suns are half-pluto sized light bulbs that only produce enough energy to power Miami for a day... Wrong. The intense heat from stars being that close to us would immediately destory everything on the planet. Plus, have you ever heard of a supernova? (I know, all government nonsense, right?) If just one star died and it was the farthest star from us in your model the Earth would be engulfed in a wave of heat thousands of degrees above the sun's normal level!
Thirdly, I have heard it stated that you do not believe in gravity. Can this be true? Gravity's precense has been known since the BC era! The reason for gravity is spinning, every atom on Earth has forms of protons, neutrons, and electrons, which all spin. This causes the phenomena of all objects pulling towards each other.
There is alot (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Law_of_universal_gravitation (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Law_of_universal_gravitation)) of math behind this too... Either way, if you disagree with the basic laws of gravity, you are also in opposition to all of Quantam physics and much of nuclear physical explanation as well.
Fourthly, you have said that all heavenly bodies are observed in two dimensions, and thus are two dimensional bodies. This is further from the truth than fathomable! The reason for depth (the third dimension) appearing in a picture is because of shadow and lighting.(http://i100.photobucket.com/albums/m28/Alegoo92/Picture1.png)In figure A, you see an image as seen through wash lighting, where depth can be shown with shadows on and casted from the object. In space however, depth cannot be observed, because the surroundings of any celestial body are empty and cannot contain light. Without surrounding light, the body's other sides do not reflect and do not appear to exist.
In either case with this, why would so many three dimensional objects exist on our planet while everything else is flat and 2D?
Back to gravity. Your explanation for the absense of gravity is that all bodies in the universe are accelerating upward at 9.8m/s/s. I do understand where your logic was when you formulated this explanation, but it is a completely impossible theory.
When you made this upward acceleration explanation you were basing it off of the current laws of physics.
--
For example, if a man is standing on a platform, and then the platform is sent into the sky, the man will be experience the sensation of becoming heavier due to the verticle air pressure rising. The vertical air pressure (air pressure above and below him, in this case above) is only rising because the air above him is sitting still while he rushes through it.. This combination of air pressure and gravity push and pull at the man so he wiil feel a downward attraction.
--
This is the logic formulated in your 'theory'. In your theory, however, everything is moving, so no downward attraction will be experienced since nothing is sitting to push down on objects. Because of this your theory is null. Also: I don't know where you pulled your numbers from. You said all objects are accelerating at 9.8 m/s/s. Why did you use this number, since it was formulated in coherance with the G-Force Scale (1G).
This is actually a small list of fundamental flaws I found in your beliefs. I also find it very, very odd that you call each other brothers... that's quite cultish of you...
Please! Respond with retorts, comments, support, opposition, idc, but dont leave questions unanswered. And if you find that people are proving you wrong...start to try to believe and let go of what your holding on to so hard...
Alex