The Flat Earth Society
Flat Earth Discussion Boards => Flat Earth Q&A => Topic started by: RENTAKOW on July 10, 2007, 02:31:31 PM
-
How is it possible to make weather predictions without satellite images? Doppler has its limitations and so do other prediction methods, so how do we determine fronts and pressure zones without satellite images? And how are cloud cover maps made in real time? I don't see how "Joe Fotoshop" can sit behind a desk all day and hammer out accurate images that concur with predictions made from the previous image.
-
ignoring the fact that no weatherman has ever been correct about the weather...
Any meaningful reading is done from ground sensors.
-
ignoring the fact that no weatherman has ever been correct about the weather...
Any meaningful reading is done from ground sensors.
Evidence of your outlandish claim? None.
Hurricane predictions are a great example of how satellite imaging saves lives.
-
we're still arguing about this shit? how are you everyone.
-
we're still arguing about this shit? how are you everyone.
Uhhm, the shits never changed ::)
Hmm... Stratelittes?
-
So why do you waste your time? No one is asking you to stay.
-
Bump.
-
"Components of a modern weather forecasting system include:
* Data collection
* Data assimilation
* Numerical weather prediction
* Model output post-processing
* Forecast presentation to end-user
[edit] Data collection
Observations of atmospheric pressure, temperature, wind speed, wind direction, humidity, precipitation are made near the earth's surface by trained observers, automatic weather stations or buoys. The World Meteorological Organization acts to standardize the instrumentation, observing practices and timing of these observations worldwide. Stations either report hourly in METAR reports, or every six hours in SYNOP reports.
Measurements of temperature, humidity and wind above the surface are found by launching radiosondes (weather balloon). Data are usually obtained from near the surface to the middle of the stratosphere, about 30,000 m (100,000 ft). In recent years, data transmitted from commercial airplanes through the AMDAR system has also been incorporated into upper air observation, primarily in numerical models.
Increasingly, data from weather satellites are being used due to their (almost) global coverage. Although their visible light images are very useful for forecasters to see development of clouds, little of this information can be used by numerical weather prediction models. The infra-red (IR) data however can be used as it gives information on the temperature at the surface and cloud tops. Individual clouds can also be tracked from one time to the next to provide information on wind direction and strength at the clouds steering level. Polar orbiting satellites provide soundings of temperature and moisture throughout the depth of the atmosphere. Compared with similar data from radiosondes, the satellite data has the advantage that coverage is global, however the accuracy and resolution is not as good.
Meteorological radar provide information on precipitation location and intensity. Additionally, if doppler radar are used then wind speed and direction can be determined.[5]"
If that is really all the satellites are claimed to do, it doesn't appear that they are a complete necessity if they truly exist. Doesn't seem outlandish that it could all be done with preexisting technology and methods.
-
Where did you go rentacow? I know you've been on since I replied to this.
-
umm yeah... so? Are you trying to tell me meteorologists don't find satellites useful?
-
umm yeah... so? Are you trying to tell me meteorologists don't find satellites useful?
If they really do exist, by what I pasted and bolded, it doesn't seem like they are incredibly useful.
-
umm yeah... so? Are you trying to tell me meteorologists don't find satellites useful?
If they really do exist, by what I pasted and bolded, it doesn't seem like they are incredibly useful.
You avoid the question. Yes, satellites, by what you pasted, do exist and are useful.
-
You avoid the question. Yes, satellites, by what you pasted, do exist and are useful.
I didn't avoid the question. I didn't feel like answering blindly and getting caught in an incorrect trap.
"Although their visible light images are very useful for forecasters to see development of clouds, little of this information can be used by numerical weather prediction models."
"Compared with similar data from radiosondes, the satellite data has the advantage that coverage is global, however the accuracy and resolution is not as good."
They get to see clouds as they develop and it covers more area. Big whoop. Although, I suppose that just means that the capacity in which they're useful is incredibly low. It doesn't mean that they aren't useful in some way provided they exist.
-
So, Divito, how do they predict the path of hurricanes? And feel free to notice the dramatically increased accuracy of those predictions after the space age.
-
Predicting the weather is witchcraft! This is why God made Exodus 22:18.
Exodus 22:18 Thou shall not suffer a witch to live
-
Predicting the weather is witchcraft! This is why God made Exodus 22:18.
Exodus 22:18 Thou shall not suffer a witch to live
So god created witchcraft. After all, you say god invented computers and put the idea into our brain. So god invented Doppler radar, which we use to help forecast the weather.
-
Predicting the weather is witchcraft! This is why God made Exodus 22:18.
Exodus 22:18 Thou shall not suffer a witch to live
So god created witchcraft. After all, you say god invented computers and put the idea into our brain. So god invented Doppler radar, which we use to help forecast the weather.
But predicting the weather is considered witchcraft, and God orders witches to be killed.
-
Predicting the weather is witchcraft! This is why God made Exodus 22:18.
Exodus 22:18 Thou shall not suffer a witch to live
So god created witchcraft. After all, you say god invented computers and put the idea into our brain. So god invented Doppler radar, which we use to help forecast the weather.
But predicting the weather is considered witchcraft, and God orders witches to be killed.
Well then God created things so he can have a reason to kill people.
-
So, Divito, how do they predict the path of hurricanes?
* Data collection
* Data assimilation
* Numerical weather prediction
* Model output post-processing
* Forecast presentation to end-user
And feel free to notice the dramatically increased accuracy of those predictions after the space age.
Ya, that tends to happen as you accumulate more data over time.
-
Well then God created things so he can have a reason to kill people.
Probably, what's so wrong with that though?
-
And how exactly do they gather the majority of data?
-
And how exactly do they gather the majority of data?
I already pasted that...
-
Oh... right. Getting data on hurricanes with weather balloons.
That make sense... ???
-
Oh... right. Getting data on hurricanes with weather balloons.
That make sense... ???
So can you disprove the bold in that data collection quote then?
-
I can't find a single article that mentions weather balloons being used to gather data on hurricanes.
-
You avoid the question. Yes, satellites, by what you pasted, do exist and are useful.
I didn't avoid the question. I didn't feel like answering blindly and getting caught in an incorrect trap.
"Although their visible light images are very useful for forecasters to see development of clouds, little of this information can be used by numerical weather prediction models."
"Compared with similar data from radiosondes, the satellite data has the advantage that coverage is global, however the accuracy and resolution is not as good."
They get to see clouds as they develop and it covers more area. Big whoop. Although, I suppose that just means that the capacity in which they're useful is incredibly low. It doesn't mean that they aren't useful in some way provided they exist.
You continue to omit that the infrared spectra data is input into the numerical analysis. You continue to omit that the article does say the satellites exist. It seems odd that you would use an article to substantiate the lack of usefulness of satellite and chose to ignore that the same article in which you put stock substantiates their existence, and that weather prediction uses data from these satellites that are not otherwise available.
-
You continue to omit that the infrared spectra data is input into the numerical analysis.
I'm not omitting anything. I simply answered rentacow's question by pasting relevant information.
You continue to omit that the article does say the satellites exist.
I know that it says they exist, I am the one who pasted the quote.
It seems odd that you would use an article to substantiate the lack of usefulness of satellite and chose to ignore that the same article in which you put stock substantiates their existence, and that weather prediction uses data from these satellites that are not otherwise available.
I never claimed they weren't useful, I only discovered that after finding answers to his questions. If we were to believe that satellites don't exist, for obvious reasons in an FE, then making bold statements would be inaccurate. Stratellites and radiosondes seem to cover a good base for the numerical prediction models that are stated to be used.
Although, the stratellite is fairly new technology, so they would have to account for that supposed satellite information elsewhere.
-
It isn't possible to predict hurricanes and other weather events without satellites. That is the basis of my argument.
-
It isn't possible to predict hurricanes and other weather events without satellites. That is the basis of my argument.
I wouldn't go as far as to say that.
"High-speed computers and sophisticated simulation software allow forecasters to produce computer models that forecast tropical cyclone tracks based on the future position and strength of high- and low-pressure systems. Combining forecast models with increased understanding of the forces that act on tropical cyclones, and a wealth of data from Earth-orbiting satellites and other sensors, scientists have increased the accuracy of track forecasts over recent decades.[2] The addition of dropwindsonde missions around tropical cyclones in what are known as synoptic flow missions in the Atlantic Basin decreased track error by 15-20 percent.[3] An accurate track forecast is important, because if the track forecast is incorrect, forecasts for intensity, rainfall, storm surge, and tornado threat will also be incorrect."
It does include data from satellites, but based on the other quote regarding data collection, their information wouldn't be as reliable or accurate. I'm also not knowledgeable regarding LEO's and the like and what would be required to simulate a satellite.
-
I can't find a single article that mentions weather balloons being used to gather data on hurricanes.
Why not? They do it with airplanes quite often.
-
Well, you know, airplanes tend to weigh more than air... You should know that, being a pilot and all. Airplanes don't get blown about like rag dolls as much as balloons.
-
Well, you know, airplanes tend to weigh more than air...
So do balloons.
-
How do they float? Airplanes don't float like balloons do, in case you were wondering.
-
When they are filled with their gas of choice, they become very buoyant.
Airplanes don't float like balloons!?! Iz every1 taking crazy pillz?!!?
-
Well airplanes have to be moving to stay aloft.
-
Well airplanes have to be moving to stay aloft.
Correction, airfoils need to be moving relative to a fluid in order to generate lift. A helicopter is an airplane that can 'hover'. Hell, I've seen a plane flying into a strong wind. It wasn't moving relative to the Earth, but it was generating enough lift to stay up.
-
Correction, airfoils need to be moving relative to a fluid in order to generate lift. A helicopter is an airplane that can 'hover'. Hell, I've seen a plane flying into a strong wind. It wasn't moving relative to the Earth, but it was generating enough lift to stay up.
I've been in that situation with my wife. We were on a cross country flight with a 125 mph head wind. We were not making any ground and I was scared to death we were going to run out of fuel before we could make it to an airport.
-
Talking to you makes me want to take flying lessens =(
-
I've got a bunch more harrowing tales to share.
-
I'm sure. Not why don't you tell me how meteorologists can predict the path of hurricanes without satellites.
-
That has been posted over and over. You not wanting to accept what is given to you is not my problem.
-
What's been given to me is that weather balloons are used by meteorologists.
-
What's been given to me is that weather balloons are used by meteorologists.
Correct.
-
But they cannot replace satellites.
-
But they cannot replace satellites.
Based on what I've pasted, what would they need to replace?
-
Hmmm... Getting data on clouds, humidity, pressure zones, fronts, green house gases (UV exposure, volcanoes, etc...), flood zones, polar ice caps and sea levels to name a few. I don't see how a non controllable weather balloon can proved hemisphere wide coverage at only 60,000 feet, in real-time 24/7. Especially since you would need to launch a fleet of new ones every other week.
-
Says who?
-
Says who?
Says logic.
-
Says logic X2
-
Hmmm... Getting data on clouds, humidity, pressure zones, fronts, green house gases (UV exposure, volcanoes, etc...), flood zones, polar ice caps and sea levels to name a few. I don't see how a non controllable weather balloon can proved hemisphere wide coverage at only 60,000 feet, in real-time 24/7. Especially since you would need to launch a fleet of new ones every other week.
"Modern radiosondes measure or calculate the following variables:
* Pressure
* Altitude
* Geographical position (Latitude/Longitude)
* Temperature
* Relative humidity
* Wind speed and direction"
"The maximum altitude to which the balloon ascends is determined by the diameter and thickness of the balloon. Balloon sizes can range from 150 grams to 3000 grams. As the balloon ascends through the atmosphere, the pressure decreases, causing the balloon to expand. Eventually, the balloon will expand to the extent that its skin will break, terminating the ascent. An 800 gram balloon will burst at about 30,000 meters (about 100,000 feet)."
"A rocketsonde, a kind of sounding rocket, is a system for atmospheric observations that consists of a rocket that launches instruments that can make weather observations up to an altitude of 250,000 ft (76,200 m).
A typical rocket is 12 feet (3.7 m) tall and is powered by a 4 inch (10 cm) diameter solid rocket engine. The rocket engine separates at an altitude of 5000 ft (1525 m) and the rest of the rocketsonde coasts to apogee (highest point). This can be set to an altitude of 65,000 ft (19,800 m) to 370,000 ft (112,775 m).
The meteorological instruments record data on temperature, moisture, wind speed and direction, wind shear, atmospheric pressure, and air density. Position data (altitude and latitude/longitude) may also be recorded."
As for flood zones, ice caps and sea levels, there are other methods for those.
-
1) That isn't 24/7 coverage.
2) Balloons and rockets only provide local data.
-
And satellites...don't?
-
Correction, airfoils need to be moving relative to a fluid in order to generate lift. A helicopter is an airplane that can 'hover'. Hell, I've seen a plane flying into a strong wind. It wasn't moving relative to the Earth, but it was generating enough lift to stay up.
I've been in that situation with my wife. We were on a cross country flight with a 125 mph head wind. We were not making any ground and I was scared to death we were going to run out of fuel before we could make it to an airport.
Then just before you crashed, NASA Agent assassinated you.
-
1) That isn't 24/7 coverage.
2) Balloons and rockets only provide local data.
I am not an expert in meteorology; however, the young man “Divito” has provided some very good information regarding radiosondes and their capabilities.
-
Correction, airfoils need to be moving relative to a fluid in order to generate lift. A helicopter is an airplane that can 'hover'. Hell, I've seen a plane flying into a strong wind. It wasn't moving relative to the Earth, but it was generating enough lift to stay up.
I've been in that situation with my wife. We were on a cross country flight with a 125 mph head wind. We were not making any ground and I was scared to death we were going to run out of fuel before we could make it to an airport.
Then just before you crashed, NASA Agent assassinated you.
I didn't crash. I landed at my destination airport just fine.
-
And satellites...don't?
Depends on the altitude of the satellite.
-
And satellites...don't?
Depends on the altitude of the satellite.
Are you saying that one satellite at a very high altitude can give data on the whole world? Sounds like FE talk to me...
-
Wow, you don't know anything about space flight do you. A satellite in geostationary orbit can stay over a fixed point on earth indefinitely. There is plenty of room up there for more than ONE satellite.
-
Wow, you don't know anything about space flight do you. A satellite in geostationary orbit can stay over a fixed point on earth indefinitely. There is plenty of room up there for more than ONE satellite.
Wow, learn to read.
-
Are you saying that one satellite at a very high altitude can give data on the whole world? Sounds like FE talk to me...
Wow, you don't know anything about space flight do you. A satellite in geostationary orbit can stay over a fixed point on earth indefinitely. There is plenty of room up there for more than ONE satellite.
Wow, I can read just fine, so STFU.
-
Are you saying that one satellite at a very high altitude can give data on the whole world? Sounds like FE talk to me...
Wow, you don't know anything about space flight do you. A satellite in geostationary orbit can stay over a fixed point on earth indefinitely. There is plenty of room up there for more than ONE satellite.
Wow, I can read just fine, so STFU.
I asked if it's true that something at a very high altitude can look at the entire world at the same time.
Depends on the altitude of the satellite.
That's what sokarul said. I'm pointing out that in the RE a satellite at very high altitude could NOT give data on the whole Earth.
Wow, learn to read.
^Agree^
-
sokarul was posting in regards to this:
2) Balloons and rockets only provide local data.
And satellites...don't?
Depends on the altitude of the satellite.
Either way, everything that satellites do can be replicated by other technology.
-
sokarul was posting in regards to this:
2) Balloons and rockets only provide local data.
And satellites...don't?
Depends on the altitude of the satellite.
Either way, everything that satellites do can be replicated by other technology.
Except perpetual flight, but your point still remains.
-
sokarul was posting in regards to this:
2) Balloons and rockets only provide local data.
And satellites...don't?
Depends on the altitude of the satellite.
Either way, everything that satellites do can be replicated by other technology.
Except perpetual flight, but your point still remains.
Perpetual flight? I was under the impression that RE theorists believe that the orbit of these “satellites” ultimately decays and hence they come crashing down to earth. Of course, this would only apply to the so-called “low-earth” orbit satellites. Perhaps you have information indicating that ALL weather satellites are in high-earth orbit. Since it’s unlikely they exist at all, I suppose this would not be a stretch.
-
Why in the hell would a RE'er imply a single satellite could provide coverage on the whole earth? And that is assuming the satellite is in a geosynchronous orbit. It COULD cover the whole planet if it were orbiting, but not in a single instant. You are fucking stupid if you think I meant ONE satellite can cover the whole planet from geosynchronous orbit. Quit acting like you're in 6th grade.
-
You are fucking stupid if you think I meant ONE satellite can cover the whole planet from geosynchronous orbit.
Then why did you make that assumption about pseudolites?
-
I didn't. You mentioned weather balloons, which only last for a few hours at a time. It makes no difference how many weather balloons are in the air at a time.
And for the record:
Hmmm... Getting data on clouds, humidity, pressure zones, fronts, green house gases (UV exposure, volcanoes, etc...), flood zones, polar ice caps and sea levels to name a few. I don't see how a non controllable weather balloon can proved hemisphere wide coverage at only 60,000 feet, in real-time 24/7. Especially since you would need to launch a fleet of new ones every other week.
-
I said nothing of weather balloons.
-
Weather balloons were mentioned, but regarding satellites:
1) That isn't 24/7 coverage.
2) Balloons and rockets only provide local data.
And satellites...don't?
Depends on the altitude of the satellite.
Are you saying that one satellite at a very high altitude can give data on the whole world? Sounds like FE talk to me...
Check the thread for yourself if you want, but that's what was said. Makes you sound a little...off, eh?
-
I said nothing of weather balloons.
Oh, I forgot, you like word games. Let's see, I said weather balloons can't provide hemispherical coverage at 60,000 feet. CommonCents asked if satellites can provide full global coverage, which is a dumb question. I pointed out the stupidity of the question, in that more than one satellite is used. You (TheEngineer) asked me why I made the assumption that a single pseudollite COULD provide global coverage. I reminded you that 1) I never said anything about pseudollites 2) I never implied only a single weather balloon is used.
-
I said nothing of weather balloons.
Oh, I forgot, you like word games. Let's see, I said weather balloons can't provide hemispherical coverage at 60,000 feet. CommonCents asked if satellites can provide full global coverage, which is a dumb question. I pointed out the stupidity of the question, in that more than one satellite is used. You (TheEngineer) asked me why I made the assumption that a single pseudollite COULD provide global coverage. I reminded you that 1) I never said anything about pseudollites 2) I never implied only a single weather balloon is used.
Read my previous post. Read the thread. Nothing I said was stupid. I quoted people for a reason, I mentioned people for a reason.
-
And satellites...don't?
Depends on the altitude of the satellite.
Are you saying that one satellite at a very high altitude can give data on the whole world? Sounds like FE talk to me...
Would you care to explain to us the reason one satellite in a orbit over both poles with an altitude such that it completes one orbit every 17 hours could not provide data on the whole world? Could you tell us the reason this sounds like FE talk to you?
-
The entire world at once, TomG, please learn to read.
-
You can't say shit about not knowing how to read, so fuck off.
1) I never said anything about pseudollites.
2) I never implied only a single weather balloon is used.
-
1) I never said anything about pseudollites.
You said something about weather balloons performing the functions of a satellite. Therefore, you mentioned pseudolites.
-
The entire world at once, TomG, please learn to read.
Perhaps, you'd be so kind as to highlight the text where CommonCents says "at once" in the quote below? Or maybe it's you that needs to learn to read?
And satellites...don't?
Depends on the altitude of the satellite.
Are you saying that one satellite at a very high altitude can give data on the whole world? Sounds like FE talk to me...
Would you care to explain to us the reason one satellite in a orbit over both poles with an altitude such that it completes one orbit every 17 hours could not provide data on the whole world? Could you tell us the reason this sounds like FE talk to you?
-
1) I never said anything about pseudollites.
You said something about weather balloons performing the functions of a satellite. Therefore, you mentioned pseudolites.
A weather balloon is not a pseudollite. Go ahead and ask a meteorologist before you say otherwise.
-
And satellites...don't?
Depends on the altitude of the satellite.
Are you saying that one satellite at a very high altitude can give data on the whole world? Sounds like FE talk to me...
Would you care to explain to us the reason one satellite in a orbit over both poles with an altitude such that it completes one orbit every 17 hours could not provide data on the whole world? Could you tell us the reason this sounds like FE talk to you?
Since the first part is extremely obvious, I won't even bother answering it. It sounds like FE talk because on a flat Earth one could, theoretically, climb to a sufficient altitude to study the whole Earth. That is impossible on a round Earth, however.
-
The entire world at once, TomG, please learn to read.
Perhaps, you'd be so kind as to highlight the text where CommonCents says "at once" in the quote below? Or maybe it's you that needs to learn to read?
And satellites...don't?
Depends on the altitude of the satellite.
Are you saying that one satellite at a very high altitude can give data on the whole world? Sounds like FE talk to me...
Would you care to explain to us the reason one satellite in a orbit over both poles with an altitude such that it completes one orbit every 17 hours could not provide data on the whole world? Could you tell us the reason this sounds like FE talk to you?
Rofl, read the quotes:
24/7 coverage
not only local data
That sounds like "at once" to me.
-
The entire world at once, TomG, please learn to read.
Perhaps, you'd be so kind as to highlight the text where CommonCents says "at once" in the quote below? Or maybe it's you that needs to learn to read?
And satellites...don't?
Depends on the altitude of the satellite.
Are you saying that one satellite at a very high altitude can give data on the whole world? Sounds like FE talk to me...
Would you care to explain to us the reason one satellite in a orbit over both poles with an altitude such that it completes one orbit every 17 hours could not provide data on the whole world? Could you tell us the reason this sounds like FE talk to you?
Rofl, read the quotes:
24/7 coverage
not only local data
That sounds like "at once" to me.
Your question is your question--as written. Dodging your own stupid error doesn't help the FE cause.
-
Weather balloons were mentioned, but regarding satellites:
1) That isn't 24/7 coverage.
2) Balloons and rockets only provide local data.
And satellites...don't?
Depends on the altitude of the satellite.
Are you saying that one satellite at a very high altitude can give data on the whole world? Sounds like FE talk to me...
Check the thread for yourself if you want, but that's what was said. Makes you sound a little...off, eh?
EDIT: If you truly can't see what's going on there, you just might be the dumbest person I've talked or typed to.
-
Weather balloons were mentioned, but regarding satellites:
1) That isn't 24/7 coverage.
2) Balloons and rockets only provide local data.
And satellites...don't?
Depends on the altitude of the satellite.
Are you saying that one satellite at a very high altitude can give data on the whole world? Sounds like FE talk to me...
Check the thread for yourself if you want, but that's what was said. Makes you sound a little...off, eh?
EDIT: If you truly can't see what's going on there, you just might be the dumbest person I've talked or typed to.
If you believe that you didn't ask a stupid question, then you need to think long and hard about your opinion of yourself. Bullet 1 and 2 stand independent of each other. Furthermore, the satellite in polar orbit that I described could provide data 24/7. Altitude is an important part of satellite positioning, in large part determining, for example, the orbital period and the resonance over the surface of the spinning Earth. That's leaves you with no excuses for your error. Please try not to break the mirror.
-
Weather balloons were mentioned, but regarding satellites:
1) That isn't 24/7 coverage.
2) Balloons and rockets only provide local data.
And satellites...don't?
Depends on the altitude of the satellite.
Are you saying that one satellite at a very high altitude can give data on the whole world? Sounds like FE talk to me...
Check the thread for yourself if you want, but that's what was said. Makes you sound a little...off, eh?
EDIT: If you truly can't see what's going on there, you just might be the dumbest person I've talked or typed to.
What are you bolding what I said for?
The engineer is trying to claim that satellites can only provide local data. That is not even close to true.
-
The engineer is trying to claim that satellites can only provide local data. That is not even close to true.
So a satellite can cover the entire world at once?
-
The engineer is trying to claim that satellites can only provide local data. That is not even close to true.
So a satellite can cover the entire world at once?
Not in real-time, at least to my knowledge. Of course, your question doesn't address sokarul's point, but you knew that. Oh, and I seem to recall that "local" to you is "a point", right?
-
The engineer is trying to claim that satellites can only provide local data. That is not even close to true.
So a satellite can cover the entire world at once?
Ok
Local=Denver. Maybe even Colorado
Not local=United States.
Any questions?
BTW the United states has more than one satellite.
-
But they can't have more than one pseudolite?
-
But they can't have more than one pseudolite?
They can have many. But they cant do what satellites do. Weather balloons aren’t even pseudolite. One high orbiting satellite could do the work of over a couple thousand pseudolites.
-
The engineer is trying to claim that satellites can only provide local data. That is not even close to true.
So a satellite can cover the entire world at once?
Ok
Local=Denver. Maybe even Colorado
Not local=United States.
Any questions?
BTW the United states has more than one satellite.
Based on my conversations with RE theorists, it would not be difficult to put a satellite into a high enough orbit to easily cover the United States. Are you saying this is not true?
-
The engineer is trying to claim that satellites can only provide local data. That is not even close to true.
So a satellite can cover the entire world at once?
Ok
Local=Denver. Maybe even Colorado
Not local=United States.
Any questions?
BTW the United states has more than one satellite.
Based on my conversations with RE theorists, it would not be difficult to put a satellite into a high enough orbit to easily cover the United States. Are you saying this is not true?
No, I'm saying the engineer can't comprehend that idea.
-
They can have many. But they cant do what satellites do. Whether balloons aren’t even pseudolite. One high orbiting satellite could do the work of over a couple thousand pseudolites.
Anything that performs the function of a satellite is a pseudolite.
-
The engineer is trying to claim that satellites can only provide local data. That is not even close to true.
So a satellite can cover the entire world at once?
Ok
Local=Denver. Maybe even Colorado
Not local=United States.
Any questions?
BTW the United states has more than one satellite.
Based on my conversations with RE theorists, it would not be difficult to put a satellite into a high enough orbit to easily cover the United States. Are you saying this is not true?
No, I'm saying the engineer can't comprehend that idea.
I see...
What about it Engineer? Can you comprehend the idea of having a "satellite" at a high enough altitude to see the entire United States at once?
-
Can I comprehend that? Yes.
What was your point? You seem to have forgotten to post it.
-
They can have many. But they cant do what satellites do. Whether balloons aren’t even pseudolite. One high orbiting satellite could do the work of over a couple thousand pseudolites.
Anything that performs the function of a satellite is a pseudolite.
So weather balloons can stay up for years on end and collect data where ever is needed?
-
They can have many. But they cant do what satellites do. Whether balloons aren’t even pseudolite. One high orbiting satellite could do the work of over a couple thousand pseudolites.
Anything that performs the function of a satellite is a pseudolite.
Wow! What a great definition! Let's see Sputnik's function: to beep. My computer beeps. Hence, my computer is a pseudolite. Who knew?
Let's see the Iridium's function: to complete phone calls. My central office, a brick and mortar building weighing many tons, completes phone calls. My central office is a pseudolite. Who knew?
It's amazing what you can do when you believe in magic!
-
Can I comprehend that? Yes.
What was your point? You seem to have forgotten to post it.
No point. I was attempting to gain some clarification. sokarul claimed you could not comprehend this idea. I was simply going straight to the source...you.
-
So weather balloons can stay up for years on end and collect data where ever is needed?
No.
"Worldwide there are more than 800 radiosonde launch sites. Most countries share data with the rest of the world through international agreements. Nearly all routine radiosonde launches occur at 0000 UTC and 1200 UTC to provide an instantaneous snapshot of the atmosphere. This is especially important for numerical modeling. In the United States the National Weather Service is tasked with providing timely upper-air observations for use in weather forecasting, severe weather watches and warnings, and atmospheric research. It launches radiosondes from 92 stations in North America and the Pacific Islands twice daily. It also supports the operation of 10 radiosonde sites in the Caribbean."
Radiosondes, rocketsondes, dropsondes and aircraft can replicate satellite data.
sokarul claimed you could not comprehend this idea.
He claims lots of crazy things, like magic dirt and such.
-
No.
"Worldwide there are more than 800 radiosonde launch sites. Most countries share data with the rest of the world through international agreements. Nearly all routine radiosonde launches occur at 0000 UTC and 1200 UTC to provide an instantaneous snapshot of the atmosphere. This is especially important for numerical modeling. In the United States the National Weather Service is tasked with providing timely upper-air observations for use in weather forecasting, severe weather watches and warnings, and atmospheric research. It launches radiosondes from 92 stations in North America and the Pacific Islands twice daily. It also supports the operation of 10 radiosonde sites in the Caribbean."
Radiosondes, rocketsondes, dropsondes and aircraft can replicate satellite data.
I’m sure the news hired a balloon to take a picture of the snow last winter when we had massive snow fall. I’m sure satellite radio launches balloons every half hour. I'm sure the each balloon has millions of dollars in equipment on it. I’m sure that the coast guard uses balloons to search of distress beacons out in the water.
He claims lots of crazy things, like magic dirt and such.
You are right, someone claims magical dirt, but you know what? It’s not me.
-
So weather balloons can stay up for years on end and collect data where ever is needed?
No.
"Worldwide there are more than 800 radiosonde launch sites. Most countries share data with the rest of the world through international agreements. Nearly all routine radiosonde launches occur at 0000 UTC and 1200 UTC to provide an instantaneous snapshot of the atmosphere. This is especially important for numerical modeling. In the United States the National Weather Service is tasked with providing timely upper-air observations for use in weather forecasting, severe weather watches and warnings, and atmospheric research. It launches radiosondes from 92 stations in North America and the Pacific Islands twice daily. It also supports the operation of 10 radiosonde sites in the Caribbean."
Radiosondes, rocketsondes, dropsondes and aircraft can replicate satellite data.
sokarul claimed you could not comprehend this idea.
He claims lots of crazy things, like magic dirt and such.
First, I doubt even you, with the thickest tinfoil hat, would believe that even a well-funded conspiracy could produce the incredible amount of weather forecasting related data that satellites provide. For example, when Andrew hit Homestead, I watch near real-time satellite imagery and real-time ground reporting as Andrew came ashore. None of the suggestions that you have made could have produced that imagery that we saw.
Second, sokural is correct about magic dirt. FE by claiming that the sense of gravity on Earth is caused by a uniform acceleration of the Earth upward must claim that the Earth's dirt has a very magical quality: While it always attracts other matter when consider unit by unit, it fails to attract other matter when we consider it as a whole. So twice as much dirt has twice the attraction, and three times the dirt has three times the attraction, and so on. But when FE talks about the whole FE suddenly the dirt stops attracting. Magic!
-
<snip>
Second, sokural is correct about magic dirt. FE by claiming that the sense of gravity on Earth is caused by a uniform acceleration of the Earth upward must claim that the Earth's dirt has a very magical quality: While it always attracts other matter when consider unit by unit, it fails to attract other matter when we consider it as a whole. So twice as much dirt has twice the attraction, and three times the dirt has three times the attraction, and so on. But when FE talks about the whole FE suddenly the dirt stops attracting. Magic!
No offense but I have no idea what the hell you are saying here. Can you run this “magic dirt” thing by me one more time… ???
-
<snip>
Second, sokural is correct about magic dirt. FE by claiming that the sense of gravity on Earth is caused by a uniform acceleration of the Earth upward must claim that the Earth's dirt has a very magical quality: While it always attracts other matter when consider unit by unit, it fails to attract other matter when we consider it as a whole. So twice as much dirt has twice the attraction, and three times the dirt has three times the attraction, and so on. But when FE talks about the whole FE suddenly the dirt stops attracting. Magic!
No offense but I have no idea what the hell you are saying here. Can you run this “magic dirt” thing by me one more time… ???
Divito is trying to be funny but he is to emo to be funny. He should stick to poems.
The flat earth theory says mass does not bend spacetime. This is to say they think they are smarter then Einstein. So I labels their idea that earth doesn't bend spacetime as the ground is made of magical dirt.
-
<snip>
Second, sokural is correct about magic dirt. FE by claiming that the sense of gravity on Earth is caused by a uniform acceleration of the Earth upward must claim that the Earth's dirt has a very magical quality: While it always attracts other matter when consider unit by unit, it fails to attract other matter when we consider it as a whole. So twice as much dirt has twice the attraction, and three times the dirt has three times the attraction, and so on. But when FE talks about the whole FE suddenly the dirt stops attracting. Magic!
No offense but I have no idea what the hell you are saying here. Can you run this “magic dirt” thing by me one more time… ???
Sure thing. It's complex, and I took several shortcuts in explaining it. Sorry.
First, FE has a problem with gravity. The force you feel that keeps you on Earth is caused by two very different mechanism in the two models. RE, as you probably know, relies on gravitation. The mass of the Earth attracts other masses, such as you and the Moon. Newton's model, with improvements last century by Einstein, predicts this force quite accurately. Now FE can't have the same force. You see the disc shape would cause significant variations. Basically everyone would be pulled toward the North Pole. In the early days of the Forum there was a debate on how best to confound the REers in dealing with this problem. The decision, perhaps unwise, was to have the FE accelerating upwards at a constant 1g, and to have no regular gravity (for the attraction of the Earth's mass). You may recall the weak Equivalence Principle of Einstein's General Relativity. Basically, you can't tell the difference between the felt force in FE versus RE--until you look at the secondary effects.
So FE holds that gravity you feel on Earth is caused by acceleration, and, by necessity, the mass of the Earth does not exert a gravitational attraction, or in Einstein's terms does not bend space-time. Now this would be okay, except for the secondary effects (tidal forces, variations in the force by altitude, by local formations, and by latitude) and the Cavendish experiment.
The Cavendish experiment uses sensitive torsion bars to detect the gravitational attraction between masses. So if you pick up a pound of dirt and place it in one side of the experimental device and place you in the other side. The dirt will attract you. If you add a second pound of dirt you'll be twice as attracted. And so on. And we've never tested any mass that didn't have the predicted gravitational attraction. Now FE argues that these myriad of tests do not predict how the whole Earth will behave. They insist, rather inanely, that when all these masses are taken as a whole instead of adding according to Einstein's model, they no longer attract, denying the laws of logic and physics. Hence the term: "magical dirt"!
I hope that helps. Please follow up with any question or concerns. I'm happy to help!
-
It's a misunderstanding about FE theory on Gulliver's and Sokarul's part (indeed, a misunderstanding of science itself). They think that because something is as-yet-unexplained in the theory magic must be invoked. In the Middle Ages they would have written magnetism off as magic. They don't seem to grasp that by their definition gravity itself must be magic, since we don't really understand the mechanism that causes matter to bend space-time.
But hey, what do you expect from someone who thinks you can see black holes and dark matter, and someone who can't even spell the word "quit"?
The sad fact is that the first person to actually bring up the concept of magical dirt was, in fact, Sokarul.
-
How was this picture taken?
http://aviationweather.gov/data/obs/sat/intl/ir_ICAO-B1_bw.jpg (http://aviationweather.gov/data/obs/sat/intl/ir_ICAO-B1_bw.jpg)
ETA: It's a mosaic, yes, but how many pseudollites would it take to make that picture? Just imagine each one of those grid squares as the useful FOV of a single camera, at ~300,000. 204 Units
-
First, I doubt even you, with the thickest tinfoil hat, would believe that even a well-funded conspiracy could produce the incredible amount of weather forecasting related data that satellites provide.
I'll paste this again:
"Components of a modern weather forecasting system include:
* Data collection
* Data assimilation
* Numerical weather prediction
* Model output post-processing
* Forecast presentation to end-user
[edit] Data collection
Observations of atmospheric pressure, temperature, wind speed, wind direction, humidity, precipitation are made near the earth's surface by trained observers, automatic weather stations or buoys. The World Meteorological Organization acts to standardize the instrumentation, observing practices and timing of these observations worldwide. Stations either report hourly in METAR reports, or every six hours in SYNOP reports.
Measurements of temperature, humidity and wind above the surface are found by launching radiosondes (weather balloon). Data are usually obtained from near the surface to the middle of the stratosphere, about 30,000 m (100,000 ft). In recent years, data transmitted from commercial airplanes through the AMDAR system has also been incorporated into upper air observation, primarily in numerical models.
Increasingly, data from weather satellites are being used due to their (almost) global coverage. Although their visible light images are very useful for forecasters to see development of clouds, little of this information can be used by numerical weather prediction models. The infra-red (IR) data however can be used as it gives information on the temperature at the surface and cloud tops. Individual clouds can also be tracked from one time to the next to provide information on wind direction and strength at the clouds steering level. Polar orbiting satellites provide soundings of temperature and moisture throughout the depth of the atmosphere. Compared with similar data from radiosondes, the satellite data has the advantage that coverage is global, however the accuracy and resolution is not as good.
-
How was this picture taken?
http://aviationweather.gov/data/obs/sat/intl/ir_ICAO-A_bw.jpg (http://aviationweather.gov/data/obs/sat/intl/ir_ICAO-A_bw.jpg)
Oh noes, what happened to the Americas!?
-
Wow! What a great definition! Let's see Sputnik's function: to beep. My computer beeps. Hence, my computer is a pseudolite. Who knew?
Let's see the Iridium's function: to complete phone calls. My central office, a brick and mortar building weighing many tons, completes phone calls. My central office is a pseudolite. Who knew?
It's amazing what you can do when you believe in magic!
Wow! It's amazing what crap you can spew when you have no idea what you are talking about!
Pseudolite is a contraction of the term "pseudo-satellite," used to refer to something that is not a satellite which performs a function commonly in the domain of satellites.
-
Now this would be okay, except for the secondary effects (tidal forces, variations in the force by altitude, by local formations, and by latitude) and the Cavendish experiment.
You said the 'f' word. You fail.
-
What? Force? Forces exist. If I you were hit by a cement truck on the freeway, would you be feeling a force? I think yes.
-
Gravity has a force doesn't exist.
-
Then why don't I float away if I jump?
-
Because of your tendency to follow geodesics in spacetime, or, the earth catches up with you, depending on your belief system.
-
So something is 'forsing' me to come bak to earth? Assuming the RE model.
-
So something is 'forsing' me to come bak to earth? Assuming the RE model.
You are following a geodesic, but there is no force acting on you.
-
What is the definition of 'forse' exaktly?
-
An apparent exception would seem to be the force of gravity, which is also proportional to the mass upon which it acts. Although gravity can be considered a "real" physical force for the purposes of calculations in classical mechanics, Albert Einstein showed in his theory of general relativity that gravity itself can also be considered a fictitious force. In his theory, the free-falling reference frame is equivalent to an inertial reference frame (the equivalence principle). By contrast, Einstein noted that observers standing on the Earth are experiencing an unrecognized acceleration from the normal force pushing up on their feet and, thus, are in a non-inertial (accelerated) reference frame. Further details may be found under general relativity.
-
Are you suggesting that I'm not being held to the earth?
-
You are constantly trying to fall through it.
-
Bekause gravity is forsing me to go down.
-
No, you are just trying to follow a geodesic through the earth. The earth just happens to not be very forgiving, and thus provides the force you feel through whatever part of your body is in contact with the earth.
-
What if I don't WANT to follow it.
-
Then do something about it.
-
Wow! What a great definition! Let's see Sputnik's function: to beep. My computer beeps. Hence, my computer is a pseudolite. Who knew?
Let's see the Iridium's function: to complete phone calls. My central office, a brick and mortar building weighing many tons, completes phone calls. My central office is a pseudolite. Who knew?
It's amazing what you can do when you believe in magic!
Wow! It's amazing what crap you can spew when you have no idea what you are talking about!
Pseudolite is a contraction of the term "pseudo-satellite," used to refer to something that is not a satellite which performs a function commonly in the domain of satellites.
And given how many pseudolite applications have been successfully deployed and the very limited range of each, I don't for a moment consider FE's suggestion that near real-time satellite data used in weather forecasting can be provided by a vast array of pseudolites worthy. It's crap that you've been spewing for a long time.
Oh, and I see don't see your definition in Wiki's article. Perhaps you oversimplify. Perhaps you just enjoy misleading.
-
Now this would be okay, except for the secondary effects (tidal forces, variations in the force by altitude, by local formations, and by latitude) and the Cavendish experiment.
You said the 'f' word. You fail.
From Wikipedia: "Gravity is the force of attraction between massive particles." Gee, TheEngineer is wrong if Wikipedia is right.
-
First, I doubt even you, with the thickest tinfoil hat, would believe that even a well-funded conspiracy could produce the incredible amount of weather forecasting related data that satellites provide.
I'll paste this again:
"Components of a modern weather forecasting system include:
* Data collection
* Data assimilation
* Numerical weather prediction
* Model output post-processing
* Forecast presentation to end-user
[edit] Data collection
Observations of atmospheric pressure, temperature, wind speed, wind direction, humidity, precipitation are made near the earth's surface by trained observers, automatic weather stations or buoys. The World Meteorological Organization acts to standardize the instrumentation, observing practices and timing of these observations worldwide. Stations either report hourly in METAR reports, or every six hours in SYNOP reports.
Measurements of temperature, humidity and wind above the surface are found by launching radiosondes (weather balloon). Data are usually obtained from near the surface to the middle of the stratosphere, about 30,000 m (100,000 ft). In recent years, data transmitted from commercial airplanes through the AMDAR system has also been incorporated into upper air observation, primarily in numerical models.
Increasingly, data from weather satellites are being used due to their (almost) global coverage. Although their visible light images are very useful for forecasters to see development of clouds, little of this information can be used by numerical weather prediction models. The infra-red (IR) data however can be used as it gives information on the temperature at the surface and cloud tops. Individual clouds can also be tracked from one time to the next to provide information on wind direction and strength at the clouds steering level. Polar orbiting satellites provide soundings of temperature and moisture throughout the depth of the atmosphere. Compared with similar data from radiosondes, the satellite data has the advantage that coverage is global, however the accuracy and resolution is not as good.
You did not address my comment. Do you find that there is sufficient evidence to believe that it's plausible that the nascent technology of pseudolites (with their limited range and use) can allow the conspiracy to mimic the vast amount of useful data supposed collected from RE's weather satellites? I also fixed the bold tags for you above.
-
You did not address my comment. Do you find that there is sufficient evidence to believe that it's plausible that the nascent technology of pseudolites (with their limited range and use) can allow the conspiracy to mimic the vast amount of useful data supposed collected from RE's weather satellites? I also fixed the bold tags for you above.
I did. I'm also not seeing this useful data that the satellite is providing.
I showed you that the "incredible amount of weather forecasting related data that satellites provide" isn't all it's cracked up to be. It's replicated by the technologies I've already mentioned.
"Although their visible light images are very useful for forecasters to see development of clouds, little of this information can be used by numerical weather prediction models." - You know, the stuff forecasts are made from.
The infra-red data gives temperature, wind speed and direction. Hey, so do radiosondes! You even bolded part of it yourself.
"Compared with similar data from radiosondes, the satellite data has the advantage that coverage is global, however the accuracy and resolution is not as good."
Coverage is only global because multiple satellites would be used, and as stated, it's not as accurate.
Forecasting is exactly that, forecasting. It involves prediction and computer simulations based on physics and the data collected. Do you know those images that weathermen show you of a forecast? Do you know why they only show a brief timeline into the future on the weather? Because "the errors in a forecast will inevitably grow with time due to the chaotic nature of the atmosphere."
Satellites in the end, are not required in regards to weather forecasting.
-
Oh, and I see don't see your definition in Wiki's article. Perhaps you oversimplify. Perhaps you just enjoy misleading.
I know you have difficulty reading, so once again:
Pseudolite is a contraction of the term "pseudo-satellite," used to refer to something that is not a satellite which performs a function commonly in the domain of satellites.
-
From Wikipedia: "Gravity is the force of attraction between massive particles." Gee, TheEngineer is wrong if Wikipedia is right.
From Einstein: "Gravity is not a force." Gee, TomG is wrong as usual, and Einstein and TheEngineer are right.
-
From Wikipedia: "Gravity is the force of attraction between massive particles." Gee, TheEngineer is wrong if Wikipedia is right.
From Einstein: "Gravity is not a force." Gee, TomG is wrong as usual, and Einstein and TheEngineer are right.
Please provide a reference to you quote of Einstein. We're all amazed by the way that you're smarter than Wikipedia.
Oh and here's another book that you're smarter than: DICTIONARY OF GEOPHYSICS, ASTROPHYSICS, and ASTRONOMY, CRC Press, 2001, p. 220.
gravity According to Newton’s law of gravity, any mass m exerts a gravitational attraction g on any other mass which is given by
g =Gmm'/r2
where r is the distance between the masses and the universal constant of gravity G is a fundamental constant in physics. The gravitational attraction of the mass of the Earth is responsible for the acceleration of gravity at its surface. In general relativity, gravity is the expression of the intrinsic curvature of the 4-dimensional spacetime.
-
From Wikipedia: "Gravity is the force of attraction between massive particles." Gee, TheEngineer is wrong if Wikipedia is right.
From Einstein: "Gravity is not a force." Gee, TomG is wrong as usual, and Einstein and TheEngineer are right.
Please provide a reference to you quote of Einstein. We're all amazed by the way that you're smarter than Wikipedia.
Oh and here's another book that you're smarter than: DICTIONARY OF GEOPHYSICS, ASTROPHYSICS, and ASTRONOMY, CRC Press, 2001, p. 220.
gravity According to Newton’s law of gravity, any mass m exerts a gravitational attraction g on any other mass which is given by
g =Gmm'/r2
where r is the distance between the masses and the universal constant of gravity G is a fundamental constant in physics. The gravitational attraction of the mass of the Earth is responsible for the acceleration of gravity at its surface. In general relativity, gravity is the expression of the intrinsic curvature of the 4-dimensional spacetime.
There's the problem. Hell you even quoted late that gravity is the EXPRESSION of the intrinsic curvature of the 4-dimensional spacetime. That, right there, says it doesn't exist as a force, but is instead an idea. Thanks for proving the point with some of that TomG/B copy and paste magic.
-
From Wikipedia: "Gravity is the force of attraction between massive particles." Gee, TheEngineer is wrong if Wikipedia is right.
From Einstein: "Gravity is not a force." Gee, TomG is wrong as usual, and Einstein and TheEngineer are right.
The geodesic and the force:
How do you measure the distance between two points? The simplest way is to take a ruler and measure. The simplest ruler is a beam of light or the path taken by a bullet. You fire one or the other past one point in space, clock how long it takes to pass the second, and multiply by the speed of light or bullet. The bullet or light takes the shortest path (the “straight line”, or more formally, the geodesic) between the two points. What happens if we try this near a big mass (say the Earth)? We fire a bullet past the Earth and we see the trajectory bend toward the Earth. If we do not accept theories about masses and gravity, we will conclude that this trajectory must be the “straight line” between the two points, the shortest distance.
It is only when we compare our geodesic so empirically determined with our preconceptions based on idealized Euclidean geometry that we get surprised. We see that the geodesic is not a “straight” line in the Euclidean sense, and then demand an explanation (a force). Einstein's answer is rather Zen in that we declare the question makes no sense, because a straight line should be defined by direct experiment, and if straight lines (geodesics) so determined do not correspond to Euclidean straight lines, then that is not a priori evidence of a weirdness (a force) but only of the inadequacy of Euclidean geometry to describe reality. Hence the experience of a gravitational force returns to its ancient simplicity: you experience a gravitational force when you stand in the way of something moving inertially, in a “straight line”.
-
There's the problem. Hell you even quoted late that gravity is the EXPRESSION of the intrinsic curvature of the 4-dimensional spacetime. That, right there, says it doesn't exist as a force, but is instead an idea. Thanks for proving the point with some of that TomG/B copy and paste magic.
Wow! Even when confronted by unconvertible evidence, you refuse to accept that treating gravity as a force is a tried and true part of modern physics. That's expected I guess. I'd written you off as a mere nuisance quite a while ago. Good luck on finding that quote from Einstein, by the way. I imagine you'll be looking forever.
-
Wow! Even when confronted by unconvertible evidence, you refuse to accept that treating gravity as a force is a tried and true part of modern physics.
Well done! At this rate, I won't even have to argue anymore, as you will just prove me right all by yourself!
-
There's the problem. Hell you even quoted late that gravity is the EXPRESSION of the intrinsic curvature of the 4-dimensional spacetime. That, right there, says it doesn't exist as a force, but is instead an idea. Thanks for proving the point with some of that TomG/B copy and paste magic.
Wow! Even when confronted by unconvertible evidence, you refuse to accept that treating gravity as a force is a tried and true part of modern physics. That's expected I guess. I'd written you off as a mere nuisance quite a while ago. Good luck on finding that quote from Einstein, by the way. I imagine you'll be looking forever.
What quote from Einstein am I looking for? In what you posted you supported TheEngineer's argument that gravity does not exist as a force. I'll paste what you put right down here:
In general relativity, gravity is the expression of the intrinsic curvature of the 4-dimensional spacetime.
So, is Einstein wrong about spacetime bending? Is there, in fact, a messenger particle that can communicate at faster than light speeds? TomG vs Einstein, I'll stick with Einstein. ^_^
-
There's the problem. Hell you even quoted late that gravity is the EXPRESSION of the intrinsic curvature of the 4-dimensional spacetime. That, right there, says it doesn't exist as a force, but is instead an idea. Thanks for proving the point with some of that TomG/B copy and paste magic.
Wow! Even when confronted by unconvertible evidence, you refuse to accept that treating gravity as a force is a tried and true part of modern physics. That's expected I guess. I'd written you off as a mere nuisance quite a while ago. Good luck on finding that quote from Einstein, by the way. I imagine you'll be looking forever.
What quote from Einstein am I looking for? In what you posted you supported TheEngineer's argument that gravity does not exist as a force. I'll paste what you put right down here:
In general relativity, gravity is the expression of the intrinsic curvature of the 4-dimensional spacetime.
So, is Einstein wrong about spacetime bending? Is there, in fact, a messenger particle that can communicate at faster than light speeds? TomG vs Einstein, I'll stick with Einstein. ^_^
You and TheEngineer continue to abuse Einstein claiming that he said exactly: "Force as a force does not exist.". You continue to use Einstein thoughtful and useful analysis as an excuse to unfairly abuse those who responsibly and reasonably treat gravity as a force. Particularly in a Forum where GR went out the window after the first page of the FAQ. If FE can't tolerate GR, then you should never expect to use GR to argue that FE is sound in some manner.
-
If FE can't tolerate GR, then you should never expect to use GR to argue that FE is sound in some manner.
I'm sorry, TomG, but when was this discussion about the FE?
You and TheEngineer continue to abuse Einstein claiming that he said exactly: "Force as a force does not exist.".
I'm pretty sure we were not arguing that.
-
If FE can't tolerate GR, then you should never expect to use GR to argue that FE is sound in some manner.
I'm sorry, TomG, but when was this discussion about the FE?
You and TheEngineer continue to abuse Einstein claiming that he said exactly: "Force as a force does not exist.".
I'm pretty sure we were not arguing that.
Doesn't the search function work for you? Gee, selective memory or selective expectations?
Check your quote (complete with quotation marks!) in this thread to realize that is exactly what you argued and have yet to substantiate--still.
-
Is gravity truly not a forse? Or is TheEngineer just making a play on words?
I think anything that kauses mass to move is a forse.
-
I don't recall TheEngineer saying "Force as a force does not exist."
I recall TheEngineer saying "Gravity as a force does not exist."
I recall your post referring to gravity to support this in saying:
In general relativity, gravity is the expression of the intrinsic curvature of the 4-dimensional spacetime.
I don't see 'force' in there.
-
So it's a play on words... Way to waste time, TheEngineer.
-
So it's a play on words... Way to waste time, TheEngineer.
Spot on.
-
I love it when TomG realizes his mistakes and 'forgets' to respond to posts directed at him.
-
I love it when TomG realizes his mistakes and 'forgets' to respond to posts directed at him.
I think it's how he tries to avoid being wrong. Too bad we still know he's wrong even if he doesn't admit it. ;D
-
I love it when TomG realizes his mistakes and 'forgets' to respond to posts directed at him.
I would say without any doubt, he is not the only one of you who does this.
-
So it's a play on words... Way to waste time, TheEngineer.
No, it's not. GR states that gravity is a fictitious force. It's been pretty simply laid out before.
-
Well I'm stuk to the earth so gravity is real enough.
-
I love it when TomG realizes his mistakes and 'forgets' to respond to posts directed at him.
Oh, you misrepresent me. I'm perfectly willing to back up any assertion that I made, or withdraw it. I just will not tolerate your laziness in failing to specify what assertion you wish to see supported. If you want to challenge an assertion, then say what assertion you challenge. Simple kindnesses just elude certain pompous individuals.
-
I don't recall TheEngineer saying "Force as a force does not exist."
I recall TheEngineer saying "Gravity as a force does not exist."
I recall your post referring to gravity to support this in saying:
In general relativity, gravity is the expression of the intrinsic curvature of the 4-dimensional spacetime.
I don't see 'force' in there.
-
So it's a play on words... Way to waste time, TheEngineer.
No, it's not. GR states that gravity is a fictitious force. It's been pretty simply laid out before.
You misrepresent GR. GR says that gravity may be considered a fictitious force in certain FoRs. You extrapolate without just reason. Consider this from Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Introduction_to_general_relativity#Tidal_effects)
As useful as the equivalence between gravitational and inertial effect might be, it does not constitute a complete theory of gravity. Notably, it cannot answer the following simple question: what keeps the people on the other side of the world from falling off? We might be able to explain gravity near our location on the Earth's surface as a fictitious force – as due to the fact that we have chosen a reference frame that is not in free fall. But a freely falling reference frame on our side of the Earth cannot explain why the people on the opposite side of the Earth experience a gravitational pull in the opposite direction.
A more subtle manifestation of the same effect involves two bodies that are falling side by side towards the Earth. In a reference frame that is in free fall alongside these bodies, they appear to hover weightlessly – but not completely so: after all, if you look more closely, these bodies are not falling in the same direction, but towards the same point in space: the Earth's center of gravity. Because of this, there is a minute component of motion bringing the two bodies ever closer to each other (see the image at right).
Whenever bodies fall in different directions or at different rates due to differences in the strength and direction of gravitational forces, we are dealing with what are called tidal effects (since such differences in force are also responsible for the tides in the Earth's oceans). The equivalence between inertia and gravity cannot explain these tidal effects – it cannot explain the variation of the gravitational field from location to location
Yes, gravity can be consider a fictitious force in certain FoRs, ignoring secondary effect, but this tenet of GR does not and indeed has, to my knowledge, never been held to conclude Einstein's "gravity as a force does not exist".
-
Yes, gravity can be consider a fictitious force in certain FoRs, ignoring secondary effect, but this tenet of GR does not and indeed has, to my knowledge, never been held to conclude Einstein's "gravity as a force does not exist".
Sorry, but gravity is a fictitious force in all FoRs, including any that have 'secondary effects'.
-
Yes, gravity can be consider a fictitious force in certain FoRs, ignoring secondary effect, but this tenet of GR does not and indeed has, to my knowledge, never been held to conclude Einstein's "gravity as a force does not exist".
Sorry, but gravity is a fictitious force in all FoRs, including any that have 'secondary effects'.
We're all still waiting on the Einstein quote, pal. Be sure to explain to us how Wikipedia is wrong ( and you're right again!) by showing all of us the FoR with only fictitious forces that holds two people down on the opposite sides of the Earth at the same time. Boy, Wikipedia sure needs your help, doesn't it?!
-
A non inertial frame of reference.
-
A non inertial frame of reference.
Horse and feathers that they don't have? Wikipedia says that you have to consider gravity a force for at least one of the two. Just how do you argue that you're right and Wikipedia is wrong?
-
Now i tend to disagree with you. When the rain hits the earths surface it becomes a sweet moistured nectar that which is later feasted on by mermans. Now If you tend to rub this nectar with i don't say a moreckular current then you will find that it gives us the ability to refract light, hence leaving us with the answer to your question.
Yours Truly
Professor Ned Sneebly.
-
A non inertial frame of reference.
Horse and feathers that they don't have? Wikipedia says that you have to consider gravity a force for at least one of the two. Just how do you argue that you're right and Wikipedia is wrong?
In Euclidean Geometry there would need to be a force. Einstein believed, however, that Euclidean Geometry was not an accurate way to view spacetime. GR uses non-Euclidean Geometry. Either you don't believe in GR or gravity is a force. Since you have stated that you do believe in GR, gravity as a force does not exist.
In GR, spacetime is not straight (as it would be in Euclidean Geometry). Instead it curves from mass and energy. If you follow a 'straight' line (inertial) in a curved coordinate system (GR), then you may experience things that appear to be 'forces' but are not. This is just because you're trying to explain something which relies on non-Euclidean Geometry in terms that work for Euclidean Geometry.
-
A non inertial frame of reference.
Horse and feathers that they don't have? Wikipedia says that you have to consider gravity a force for at least one of the two. Just how do you argue that you're right and Wikipedia is wrong?
In Euclidean Geometry there would need to be a force. Einstein believed, however, that Euclidean Geometry was not an accurate way to view spacetime. GR uses non-Euclidean Geometry. Either you don't believe in GR or gravity is a force. Since you have stated that you do believe in GR, gravity as a force does not exist.
In GR, spacetime is not straight (as it would be in Euclidean Geometry). Instead it curves from mass and energy. If you follow a 'straight' line (inertial) in a curved coordinate system (GR), then you may experience things that appear to be 'forces' but are not. This is just because you're trying to explain something which relies on non-Euclidean Geometry in terms that work for Euclidean Geometry.
You've made the same mistake as many, but GR does not conclude that "gravity as a force does not exist". It proposes that there are situations where gravity can be considered a fictitious force by changing of FoRs. It cannot and does not completely remove gravity as a real force. GR is insightful and useful, and I greatly appreciate its elegance and beauty. Einstein never said that gravity as a force does not exist.
Wikipedia (again) (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Introduction_to_general_relativity#Tidal_effects):
As useful as the equivalence between gravitational and inertial effect might be, it does not constitute a complete theory of gravity. Notably, it cannot answer the following simple question: what keeps the people on the other side of the world from falling off? We might be able to explain gravity near our location on the Earth's surface as a fictitious force – as due to the fact that we have chosen a reference frame that is not in free fall. But a freely falling reference frame on our side of the Earth cannot explain why the people on the opposite side of the Earth experience a gravitational pull in the opposite direction.
A more subtle manifestation of the same effect involves two bodies that are falling side by side towards the Earth. In a reference frame that is in free fall alongside these bodies, they appear to hover weightlessly – but not completely so: after all, if you look more closely, these bodies are not falling in the same direction, but towards the same point in space: the Earth's center of gravity. Because of this, there is a minute component of motion bringing the two bodies ever closer to each other (see the image at right).
Whenever bodies fall in different directions or at different rates due to differences in the strength and direction of gravitational forces, we are dealing with what are called tidal effects (since such differences in force are also responsible for the tides in the Earth's oceans). The equivalence between inertia and gravity cannot explain these tidal effects – it cannot explain the variation of the gravitational field from location to location.[9]
-
You're failing to think non-Euclideanly...if that's a word. GR IS non-Euclidean. The force of 'gravity' is only needed to explain the phenomena in Euclidean Geometry.
-
You're failing to think non-Euclideanly...if that's a word. GR IS non-Euclidean. The force of 'gravity' is only needed to explain the phenomena in Euclidean Geometry.
I fully understand non-Euclidean geometries. You fail to understand that Einstein's analogy cannot, and he freely admits this, remove gravity as a force in all situations. See the Wikipedia quote in my previous post in this thread.
This is really important to understand. GR does not say "gravity as a force does not exist." It says that in many FoRs the force of gravity can be considered to be a fictitious force by the shifting of FoRs.
-
No, it says it in all FoRs. Please refer to your own article which was fine for you to use when you thought it supported your position, but now that it proves your ignorance, you claim is taken out of context. Not to mention, this is the second time you've done this.
-
If you are moving in a 'straight' line through a coordinate system, and this coordinate system is bent, your line will not be 'straight' The fact that you cannot see with your own eyes the bending of the coordinate system does not mean it is not bending. Because you cannot see the bending of the coordinate system you say "Well, something forced me in this direction. I think I'll call this the force of gravity."
Hopefully that can put it in perspective for you.
-
Geodesics ftw!!
-
No, it says it in all FoRs. Please refer to your own article which was fine for you to use when you thought it supported your position, but now that it proves your ignorance, you claim is taken out of context. Not to mention, this is the second time you've done this.
I'll keep quoting the Wikipedia article that disagrees with your statement until you answer the challenge.
Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Introduction_to_general_relativity#Tidal_effects)
As useful as the equivalence between gravitational and inertial effect might be, it does not constitute a complete theory of gravity. Notably, it cannot answer the following simple question: what keeps the people on the other side of the world from falling off? We might be able to explain gravity near our location on the Earth's surface as a fictitious force – as due to the fact that we have chosen a reference frame that is not in free fall. But a freely falling reference frame on our side of the Earth cannot explain why the people on the opposite side of the Earth experience a gravitational pull in the opposite direction.
A more subtle manifestation of the same effect involves two bodies that are falling side by side towards the Earth. In a reference frame that is in free fall alongside these bodies, they appear to hover weightlessly – but not completely so: after all, if you look more closely, these bodies are not falling in the same direction, but towards the same point in space: the Earth's center of gravity. Because of this, there is a minute component of motion bringing the two bodies ever closer to each other (see the image at right).
Whenever bodies fall in different directions or at different rates due to differences in the strength and direction of gravitational forces, we are dealing with what are called tidal effects (since such differences in force are also responsible for the tides in the Earth's oceans). The equivalence between inertia and gravity cannot explain these tidal effects – it cannot explain the variation of the gravitational field from location to location.[9]
-
Geodesics.
Non Euclidean space.
In other words, General Relativity.
-
Geodesics.
Non Euclidean space.
In other words, General Relativity.
Once again the evasive "horses and the feathers they don't have" ploy. You have the challenge. Describe the situation of two people standing on opposite sides of the Earth without gravity acting as a force. You've been challenge repeated and evaded. Could it be that you're wrong?
-
I've answered your question Gulliver. They're following the curvature of spacetime. No force necessary, except the one the Earth applies to 'stop' them.
-
Geodesics.
That's the answer. If you are too stupid to realize it, well, just keep on doing what you are doing, as we are all having a big laugh at your expense, TomG.
-
Gulliver is pretty dense.
Please note that that's just an observation. I don't really have any sources (except for the nonsense he keeps posting) to back it up.
-
Gulliver is pretty dense.
Please note that that's just an observation. I don't really have any sources (except for the nonsense he keeps posting) to back it up.
Would he sink in a sea of people of normal density? ^_^
-
Geodesics.
That's the answer. If you are too stupid to realize it, well, just keep on doing what you are doing, as we are all having a big laugh at your expense, TomG.
To TheEngineer, Sorry, but no. There is no FoR shift that can explain how two people standing on opposite sides of the Earth are attracted to the Earth at the same time. You can't produce it. You have failed. Your claim that "gravity as a force does not exist" is demonstratively refuted.
To CommonCents, give it some thought. The accelerations are going in opposite directions so a FoR shift can only translated one, but not both, into the GR's fictitious force paradigm. Really, honestly, and truly, TheEngineer is mistaken and you're bright enough to see it.
To divito, read my quotes too. It really is the case that GR, all too often, gets overly simplified. At first when you consider simpler cases, yes you can treat gravity as a fictitious force. However, this FoR shift cannot describe more complicated cases. Yes, we can often treat gravity as fictitious force, but not always. It's an exaggeration to say "gravity as a force does not exist". Einstein didn't say it. Indeed I've already posted where he says it can't always be done. (Let me know if you need a pointer to that post.)
-
I should have known better than to have TomG admit defeat. Imagine a FoR outside spacetime. One which can see its curvature and see how objects move along it. This is a FoR where gravity is a fake force.
-
I should have known better than to have TomG admit defeat. Imagine a FoR outside spacetime. One which can see its curvature and see how objects move along it. This is a FoR where gravity is a fake force.
Let's me see if I understand you. You're suggesting, in direct contradiction to SR, that there exists a special FoR outisde of S-T. Is that right? Further you suggest that you start from this FoR and shift to some other FoR to see that gravity for both persons is a fictitious force. Is that right? If so, what is the new FoR? Let's call the first person, Alice, and place her on the "up" of the Earth. Let's call the second person, Bob, and place him on the "down" of the Earth. Just tell me the new FoR and show me how your FoR shift makes gravity a fictitious force for for Alice and Bob. Otherwise, I hope you'll consider that I'm right.
-
First, we're talking about GR.
Second, Where does SR state that you can't have a FoR that can see the curvature of spacetime? I never shifted to another FoR as you say. I am wrong in saying "a FoR outside spacetime." However, I don't see why a FoR that can observe the curvature of spacetime would be against SR. It would see the same laws of physics, just the representation would be different.
Look, I admitted I was wrong to say "a FoR outside spacetime." I can admit when I'm wrong (apparently). Can you?
-
Can you?
NEVER! I'M ALWAYS RIGHT!
-
Can you?
NEVER! I'M ALWAYS RIGHT!
It's in a quote, it must be true!
-
First, we're talking about GR.
Second, Where does SR state that you can't have a FoR that can see the curvature of spacetime? I never shifted to another FoR as you say. I am wrong in saying "a FoR outside spacetime." However, I don't see why a FoR that can observe the curvature of spacetime would be against SR. It would see the same laws of physics, just the representation would be different.
Look, I admitted I was wrong to say "a FoR outside spacetime." I can admit when I'm wrong (apparently). Can you?
Once you correct your statement, you're fine. You don't seem to understand the process about how gravity comes to be considered a fictitious force. The process requires a change of FoR. The problem is you can't shift to one FoR for Alice and make what she feels fictitious and have Bob's gravity fictitious at the same time. (And it's not just me saying this. I've provided the Einstein quote from Relativity: the Special and General Theory and the Wikipedia quote. You, really, really, can't do this. Stating that "gravity as a force does not exist" is wrong.
-
I'm not changing FoR from Alice to Bobby...I'm not even changing FoR to Greg or Jeff. I told you a FoR in which gravity is a fake force is one which can see the curvature of spacetime. It still sees 'gravity,' so the laws of physics haven't changed. It just sees 'gravity' as spacetime bending and Alice AND Bobby are following its curvature to the Earth. That's 1 FoR, stop telling me I'm using more.
-
Hey, maybe the earth is actually flat and spacetime all around us is curved, thus explaining why we observe things that make it look like the earth is curved!
-
OMG U R TEH EINSTEIN MK. II !!!
-
Geodesics.
Non Euclidean space.
In other words, General Relativity.
Geodesics are defined locally ::)
-
I stand on the earth. I'm held to the earth. I throw a ball up. the ball comes bak down. Something applied a forse on the ball to make it stop moving up, then start moving down.
Sounds like a forse to me.
-
I stand on the earth. I'm held to the earth. I throw a ball up. the ball comes bak down. Something applied a forse on the ball to make it stop moving up, then start moving down.
Sounds like a forse to me.
In Euclidean Geometry, yes, a force is needed.
In GR, no, no force is needed.
-
I stand on the earth. I'm held to the earth. I throw a ball up. the ball comes bak down. Something applied a forse on the ball to make it stop moving up, then start moving down.
Sounds like a forse to me.
You believe yourself to be an inertial frame of reference, you are not. Therefore, Newton's laws don't apply.
-
But the ball stopped, then reversed. An objekt in motion will... Sounds Newtonian to me.
-
But the ball stopped, then reversed. An objekt in motion will... Sounds Newtonian to me.
The ball's motion goes against the bending of spacetime when you throw it up. It fights the curvature until it runs out of energy (at the highest point) at which point it follows the curvature back 'down' to Earth. No 'gravity' force needed.
-
And what is the bent spase-time doing to the ball?
-
Space and time bend towards the mass of the Earth.
Movement through time is movement in spacetime.
The ball's movement in time as part of the bent spacetime draws it towards the Earth.
-
Sooo... The ball turns around bekause it is moving through spase and time?
-
Exactly, no force is needed, just the curvature of spacetime! That's why gravity doesn't exist as a force in GR.
-
Then it's just a random event? The ball follows spase-time... Then turns around.
What is your reasoning for this?
-
No, the ball goes against the curvature of spacetime when you throw it. The curvature of spacetime acts against the ball similarly as a force would. The ball slows down (in space not spacetime), eventually stops(in space, not spacetime), and follows the curvature back to Earth.
-
Something applied a forse on the ball to make it stop moving up, then start moving down.
Or a forse on you.
-
But the ball stopped, then reversed. An objekt in motion will... Sounds Newtonian to me.
Except you are in a non inertial frame of reference, so objects will seem to disobey Newton, but as you believe you are in an inertial FoR, you introduce fake forces, as in 'gravity'.
-
No, the ball goes against the curvature of spacetime when you throw it. The curvature of spacetime acts against the ball similarly as a force would. The ball slows down (in space not spacetime), eventually stops(in space, not spacetime), and follows the curvature back to Earth.
But I thought something that akts on an objekt is a fose...