The Flat Earth Society
Flat Earth Discussion Boards => Flat Earth Q&A => Topic started by: General Douchebag on August 13, 2008, 02:20:00 AM
-
I wanted to know, and there's no RE FAQ (how impolite of you) and I searched. Also, I want a laugh. How does gravity work again? Until you can answer, see Engy's sig.
-
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Newton's_law_of_universal_gravitation
That helps I hope.
I don't know how good you are with simple high schoold physics, but this shows that 2 bodies attract eachother with a force that is relative to it's mass.
-
Here's some simple gravity proof experiments you can do with household stuff, no they're not just dropping things.
http://www.fourmilab.ch/gravitation/foobar/
I especially like The Archimedes Apparatus.
-
The curvature of spacetime is directly related to the four-momentum (mass-energy and linear momentum) of whatever matter present. As a direct result of the interaction of mass with its environment, the geometry of spacetime curvature determins the geodesics of particles, light beams and produces the acceleration of gravity.
Don't argue against GR. FE FAQ cites it itself.
-
I'm not arguing with GR, that's gravitation. I'm arguing with the mass-magic-gravity method of Newton. As to the Wikipedia article, it calls Newton's law a description, whereas I want an explanation. I want to know about this mystical graviton, and the method by which it brings objects of mass together.
-
General Relativiy equations are reduced to Newtons laws for objects not travelling at the speed of light. Thus, to question Newton is to question GR.
I want to know about this mystical graviton, and the method by which it brings objects of mass together.
I, and the rest of the world's physicists, certainly do too.
-
Firstly, could you show this? I've never encountered it. Second, you can't answer this and you expect us to know everything?
-
and there's no RE FAQ (how impolite of you) and I searched.
Is this the round earth society?
-
Is there one?
-
Firstly, could you show this? I've never encountered it. Second, you can't answer this and you expect us to know everything?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Newton%27s_law_of_universal_gravitation#Problems_with_Newton.27s_theory
In situations where either dimensionless parameter is large, then general relativity must be used to describe the system. General relativity reduces to Newtonian gravity in the limit of small potential and low velocities, so Newton's law of gravitation is often said to be the low-gravity limit of general relativity.
-
So in RE there are three separate types of physics? And FE is stupid?
-
So in RE there are three separate types of physics? And FE is stupid?
Actually, RET has lots of types of physics.
Classical mechanics
Electromagnetism
Relativity
Thermodynamics and statistical mechanics
Quantum mechanics
Condensed matter
Atomic, molecular, and optical
High energy/particle physics
Astrophysics
Just to name a few.
-
I meant relativistic physics (large scale), Newtonian physics (small scale), and theoretical physics (subatomic scale) because all have different theories on everything.
-
Actually, RET has lots of types of physics.
Classical mechanics
Electromagnetism
Relativity
Thermodynamics and statistical mechanics
Quantum mechanics
Condensed matter
Atomic, molecular, and optical
High energy/particle physics
Astrophysics
Just to name a few.
I'm just wondering markjo if you could tell us which bits of RET clash which each other, and how. For example, I know that theories based on relativity and classical mechanics have issues, as do quantum mechanics and the previous two. Do other theories within RET clash in similar ways?
-
I meant relativistic physics (large scale), Newtonian physics (small scale), and theoretical physics (subatomic scale) because all have different theories on everything.
I see you have no idea about the RE.
-
lol
If RE theories were said to be 99% accurate and consistant, then FET would be 0.0001% accurate and 0% consistent.
-
I'm just wondering markjo if you could tell us which bits of RET clash which each other, and how. For example, I know that theories based on relativity and classical mechanics have issues, as do quantum mechanics and the previous two. Do other theories within RET clash in similar ways?
The QM, relativity and classical mechanics are tools, nothing more. Different tools are specialized for different tasks. Trying to use QM to describe the interactions of galaxies is like trying to use a microscope to study the rings of Saturn, it's the wrong tool for the job. I see no reason why different (and sometimes conflicting) theories can't be used in an attempt to accurately describe different aspects of the universe that we live in, as long a the appropriate theory is used properly.
-
So you have three separate models.
-
I'm just wondering markjo if you could tell us which bits of RET clash which each other, and how. For example, I know that theories based on relativity and classical mechanics have issues, as do quantum mechanics and the previous two. Do other theories within RET clash in similar ways?
The QM, relativity and classical mechanics are tools, nothing more. Different tools are specialized for different tasks. Trying to use QM to describe the interactions of galaxies is like trying to use a microscope to study the rings of Saturn, it's the wrong tool for the job. I see no reason why different (and sometimes conflicting) theories can't be used in an attempt to accurately describe different aspects of the universe that we live in, as long a the appropriate theory is used properly.
Don't worry, markjo, I agree. It's just a pity all RE'er don't apply the same thinking when considering FET...
-
So you have three separate models.
I can apply relativistic effects to my car but why would I?
-
I meant relativistic physics (large scale), Newtonian physics (small scale), and theoretical physics (subatomic scale) because all have different theories on everything.
Believe it or not, the rules are different at different scales. Would you expect an oxygen atom to follow the same rules as our solar system? This is why we have different theories to describe actions at different scales.
-
In the absence of the Theory of Everything ('ToE') which so many theorists are scratching their heads about, we have to make do with having theories that provide accurate predictions within their own relevant limits. This does not mean that until we can perfectly predict everything from one single law (which may actually be impossible for all we know) then physics is pointless - you can still use QM and solid state theories to build ridiculously fast microprocessors without worrying about the gravitational attraction between neighbouring transistors. Like markjo said, it's all about the right tool for the right job.
-
Maybe there's 3 different scales in RE, but most physicists will only admit to 2. And besides, I think you're describing the scales wrong.
First the 2 scales...
there's "normal" to large and massive. General Relativity supercedes Newtonian gravitation so one could compute planetary orbits in GR if one wanted (and indeed for Mercury, one must use GR) but newtonian works well enough, so all of this is one scale.
Then there's the subatomic scale, where QM effects dominate.
These 2 scales overlap when one considers massive small bodies. This is why black holes are of such interest. We need both GR and QM to explain how it works fully and... we don't have a consistent theory there. At least one diff I detect in FE vs RE on this type of point is that RE freely admits the existence of this shortcoming.
Some may argue that there's a 3rd scale, let's call it galactic scale, where "dark matter" would dominate. Those who would call this a 3rd scale are most probably believers in some type of MOND theory (Modified Newtonian Dynamics) to add an extra term that comes in at these scales that has too small an effect at solar system scales. However, most physicists today do not believe in MOND.
-
Firstly, could you show this? I've never encountered it.
I have to restrain myself for not swearing. You will encounter the Lorentz transformations in any general relativity book. You don't even need to study General Relativity, look in the first chapters of any Special Relativity book. Or here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lorentz_transformation.
So you have three separate models.
No. They describe the same world on different scales. The other RE'ers in here have explained this to you all too well.
-
The QM, relativity and classical mechanics are tools, nothing more. Different tools are specialized for different tasks. Trying to use QM to describe the interactions of galaxies is like trying to use a microscope to study the rings of Saturn, it's the wrong tool for the job. I see no reason why different (and sometimes conflicting) theories can't be used in an attempt to accurately describe different aspects of the universe that we live in, as long a the appropriate theory is used properly.
This reminds me of the official Vatican explanation for the Holy Trinity... ::)
-
It seems strange to use three different physics models based purely on size, because that's what they are. I refer you all to my original, and as yet unanswered question, how does gravity work? How can all things with mass exert energy without taking any in? Then someone decided it was an invisible, silent, otherwise completely undetectable particle, this phantom graviton. How does that work? You can't talk about question dodging, at least not until you answer this.
-
sorry, i posted this earlier mate, i guess it got lost in all the rubbish replies. some simple repeatable experiments in relation to gravity, as for 'how' it works, i'm afraid that's almost in the realm of the untestable, as with most quantum phenomenon, observing the forces at play could alter them. i think the general relativity explanation is the most elegant however http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_theory_of_relativity
Here's some simple gravity proof experiments you can do with household stuff, no they're not just dropping things.
http://www.fourmilab.ch/gravitation/foobar/
I especially like The Archimedes Apparatus.
-
How does gravity work again?
Is this why you believe in FE? Because an upward accelerating earth makes more sense then an unexplained gravity?
-
How does gravity work again?
Is this why you believe in FE? Because an upward accelerating earth makes more sense then an unexplained gravity?
despite the fact accelerating at 1G would have us moving at the speed of light inside a year - impossible - or the alternative, we're accelerating at less than 1G, in which case all matter on earth's face would we getting lighter.
-
How does gravity work again?
Is this why you believe in FE? Because an upward accelerating earth makes more sense then an unexplained gravity?
despite the fact accelerating at 1G would have us moving at the speed of light inside a year - impossible - or the alternative, we're accelerating at less than 1G, in which case all matter on earth's face would we getting lighter.
Look, I can tell you, do some searching before you start trying to tackle the UA. The maths involved are consistent with relativity. The assertion you have made has been made countless times by countless posters, and I can assure you, it is based on a lack of understanding as regards relativity.
-
i'm aware it's something of an old horse, but the unexplained remainder is that all mass would be either be getting lighter, or we would have temporary spells of weightlessness.
-
The maths involved are consistent with relativity.
NO. http://theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=22120.0 (http://theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=22120.0).
-
The maths involved are consistent with relativity.
NO. http://theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=22120.0 (http://theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=22120.0).
I see, a link in which your lack of understanding of relativity was explained by FE'ers and RE'ers alike.
-
NO. http://theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=22120.0 (http://theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=22120.0).
I see, a link in which your lack of understanding of relativity was explained by FE'ers and RE'ers alike.
I think this has since been resolved - anyone else who thinks of saying "Oh FE is stupid because we'd soon be going faster than light" should read that thread first - it covers a lot of ground (and was quite fun to participate in)! FE might have large inconsistencies with GR and observed cosmological evidence, but let's at least make sure that we don't end up running round in circles over time dilation and relativistic mass.
I still want to know how FE explains the cosmic background radiation dipole - something which only makes sense if you can see 'behind' you (ie - in FE accelerating upwards you would need to be able to see under the plane of the Earth to see the red-shifted CMB radiation). There is another thread on solar neutrinos which remains unresolved as far as I can tell. Come on FE theorists, get a move on!! ;)
-
Cosmology is, for me, the single biggest challenge facing FET today. The problem is that the kind of research and work needed will take decades, and probably significant funding.
-
I think the trick that FE guys will need to employ is that used by many independent researchers, and that is making predictions from their theories regarding experiments which are in the planning stages now. Research groups will always publish their raw data (if not in the main paper, then on request) so you can use the big facilities to do your own research - you just can't decide what parameters they are run at and so on.
I'd like to see some FE guys write up their predictions properly with respect to upcoming space probes (SNAP and JWST would be two good ones, although they are involved with NASA so I suppose that may invalidate them as candidates by standard FE doctrine), or even predictions about what background noise ground based observatories should see, such as the Allan Array for SETI - big experiment, independently funded, will certainly publish raw data. Without this sort of effort from the FE theorists, FET is never going to get any scientific credibility.
-
The maths involved are consistent with relativity.
NO. http://theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=22120.0 (http://theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=22120.0).
I see, a link in which your lack of understanding of relativity was explained by FE'ers and RE'ers alike.
If that is your opinion I suggest you review it a second time.
-
Cosmology is, for me, the single biggest challenge facing FET today. The problem is that the kind of research and work needed will take decades, and probably significant funding.
Come on now, cartography is at least as big a problem as cosmology for FE. You guys can't even agree if the FE is an infinite plane or a finite disc. ;)
-
Cosmology is, for me, the single biggest challenge facing FET today. The problem is that the kind of research and work needed will take decades, and probably significant funding.
Come on now, cartography is at least as big a problem as cosmology for FE. You guys can't even agree if the FE is an infinite plane or a finite disc. ;)
I think Username's theory is certainly interesting, but I remain to be convinced. In any even, the problems facing the IP theory are the exactly same as those facing the UA model- namely, cosmology and mapping.
-
The maths involved are consistent with relativity.
NO. http://theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=22120.0 (http://theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=22120.0).
I see, a link in which your lack of understanding of relativity was explained by FE'ers and RE'ers alike.
If that is your opinion I suggest you review it a second time.
In what way did you prove it was not consistent with relativity?
-
You leave me no choice but to repeat myself.
"It is a consequence of relativity that the energy of a particle of rest mass m moving with speed v is given by
E = mc2/sqrt(1 - v2/c2)
We need to be clear what we mean by continuous acceleration at 1g. The acceleration must be measured at any given instant in a non-accelerating frame of reference travelling at the same instantaneous speed. The proper time as measured by us here on earth (i.e. how old we are) will be denoted by T.
v = c th(aT/c) = at / sqrt[1 + (at/c)2]
where th is the tanh function (th x = sh x/ch x, where sh x = (ex - e-x)/2 and ch x = (ex + e-x)/2).
Insert, say 12 (twelve) years and and we would be traveling at 0,99999999996 times the speed of light. How much would a kilogram weight? We start by calculating it's energy.
E = c2/sqrt(1 - v2/c2) = 1.0062e+022 J
So it's mass is
E = 0.5mv^2 => m = 2E/v^2 = 2.2361e+005 kg
Over 220 tons! Just 1 kg! After 12 yrs?!?! These numbers increase exponentially so imagine what Jesus fucking Christ at 70 kg 2000 years ago would weight today. Let alone solid rock constituting our earth 4.5 billion years ago (age of earth)? You cannot dismiss these numbers!
As the speed approaches the speed of light, the particle's mass approaches infinity. This example was after TWELVE YEARS (or the numbers would have gotten inconveniently big). So we are back at questioning a practically infinitely large fuel source. This is regardless of time dilation, length contraction and relativistic velocity addition.
Your theory on gravity is WRONG."
The formulas are derived by GR. The numbers you ca do yourself. Thus, my proof is consistent with GR. Your next move would be to try and disprove it.
-
In your own frame of reference, acceleration, force, and mass would be constant. Use the 4 vector approach if you want to take into account relativistic effects.
This might be a good read for you:
http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Relativity/SR/rocket.html (http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Relativity/SR/rocket.html)
-
The formulas are derived by GR. The numbers you ca do yourself. Thus, my proof is consistent with GR. Your next move would be to try and disprove it.
You don't understand Frames of References. Read Robbyj's link above.
-
The formulas are derived by GR. The numbers you ca do yourself. Thus, my proof is consistent with GR. Your next move would be to try and disprove it.
As I pointed out to you, your error has already been made clear by RE'ers and FE'ers alike, and the same has now occurred in this thread.
-
The formulas are derived by GR. The numbers you ca do yourself. Thus, my proof is consistent with GR. Your next move would be to try and disprove it.
You don't understand Frames of References. Read Robbyj's link above.
It is still somewhat valid becuase to properly solve the equations, they must be frame invariant ie t0=t
-
I am abselutely thrilled to see you have joined the discussion Tom Bishop.
I think we are arguing on different sets of axioms on FE. I assumed the phenomena to be cosmic. That is, I believed you claimed the phenomena to be another principle of nature (like photons or electricity whatever). That way there would be no difference between the phenomena in an inertial frame of reference and our frame of reference. You claim it only "feels" 1 kg as 1 kg regardsless of our velocity. Thus the phenomena only exists in our frame of reference and will have to be some kind of engine stuck the backside of earth that follows our position in space-time throughout the acceleration. If that is the case, you are all correct, the 1 kg would indeed only be 1 kg. But if this is the case, the engine will be of finite size. If it has to propel us forever, it would still require an infinit amount of energy and since and infinit amount of "fuel" cannot be cramped into a definite volume it would run out of fuel one way or another and not be able to sustain the acceleration.
-
If it has to propel us forever, it would still require an infinit amount of energy and since and infinit amount of "fuel" cannot be cramped into a definite volume it would run out of fuel one way or another and not be able to sustain the acceleration.
Why does the amount of energy have to be infinite?
-
I have a question for the more experienced members of this site:
As far as my knowledge of Physics extends, the energy that must be put into the Earth to accelerate it is equal to the work done, which is equal to the force applied multiplied by the distance travelled. Since, according to an inertial frame of reference, the force does not change but the velocity is always increasing, surely the power input must be increasing also?
-
I have a question for the more experienced members of this site:
As far as my knowledge of Physics extends, the energy that must be put into the Earth to accelerate it is equal to the work done, which is equal to the force applied multiplied by the distance travelled. Since, according to an inertial frame of reference, the force does not change but the velocity is always increasing, surely the power input must be increasing also?
That is correct.
-
If it has to propel us forever, it would still require an infinit amount of energy and since and infinit amount of "fuel" cannot be cramped into a definite volume it would run out of fuel one way or another and not be able to sustain the acceleration.
Why does the amount of energy have to be infinite?
Or the earth would not be able to sustain constant acceleration. I guess your next move is questioning how I can be sure it does not decrease. I know for certain it does indeed not within an accuracy of 5 decimal digits (10^-5*m*s^-2). Next you will say it does not require an infinite amount of fuel then. Regardless, I know for sure the earth has been accelerating with 9.80665+0.00001 m*s^-2 according to FET, for 4.5 billion years and so it would require a source of fuel practically infinite.
-
So you have three separate models.
I can apply relativistic effects to my car but why would I?
For the lolz of course! for the LOLZ!
-
Next you will say it does not require an infinite amount of fuel then. Regardless, I know for sure the earth has been accelerating with 9.80665+0.00001 m*s^-2 according to FET, for 4.5 billion years and so it would require a source of fuel practically infinite.
There is no such thing as practically infinite; it's either infinite or finite. I don't think anyone here can claim they know which is powering the Earth, but there is no evidence that suggests it has to be infinite; the power could run out at any time.
-
Next you will say it does not require an infinite amount of fuel then. Regardless, I know for sure the earth has been accelerating with 9.80665+0.00001 m*s^-2 according to FET, for 4.5 billion years and so it would require a source of fuel practically infinite.
There is no such thing as practically infinite; it's either infinite or finite. I don't think anyone here can claim they know which is powering the Earth, but there is no evidence that suggests it has to be infinite; the power could run out at any time.
"Unimaginably large" then. I'm tired of splitting hairs you now what I mean.
the power could run out at any time
Can't argue with that lol. You can throw a stone a million times yet you cannot prove it will fall the next time. What does that prove? Still we would be accelerating with 9.80665+0.00001 m*s^-2 according to FET, for 4.5 billion years. The amount of fuel necessary would ridiculously outweigh earth. Also, given a finite amount of fuel, the rate of acceleration would increase as fuel is spent due to a constant force and earth+fuel getting lighter.
-
LOL
-
The only possibility would be a renewing souce then. Geothermal won't work, as the earth obviously is flat, and that just leaves solar power (wind is just solarpower in the beginning). However, the sun seems to be way to weak in your model. Do explain.
-
If it has to propel us forever, it would still require an infinit amount of energy and since and infinit amount of "fuel" cannot be cramped into a definite volume it would run out of fuel one way or another and not be able to sustain the acceleration.
Why does the amount of energy have to be infinite?
Some FE models have the FE as an infinite plane of an indeterminate thickness. An infinite plane with thickness implies infinite mass. Infinite mass would require infinite energy to accelerate it.
-
Aye, but E=mc^2 The more mass the more energy is it "worth" what if this UA somehow makes energy out of mass?
I'm on neither side atm.. I believe that the earth is round, but I like to see things from more than one point of view.
-
Aye, but E=mc^2 The more mass the more energy is it "worth" what if this UA somehow makes energy out of mass?
I'm on neither side atm.. I believe that the earth is round, but I like to see things from more than one point of view.
How big a force would you suggest it would require to accelerate an infinite amount of mass by 9.82 m*s^-2?
-
Infinitly.. which is extractable from infinite mass
-
So your saying an infinitely powerful force provides exactly enough thrust to propel an infinitely large and thus infinitely heavy plane by exactly 9.80665 m/s^-2?
-
Hey, I'm not saying anything, remember that I am an RE believer, and most likely always will be :P I'm just trying to see what arguments possibly could come up.. this is one.
-
Hey, I'm not saying anything, remember that I am an RE believer, and most likely always will be :P I'm just trying to see what arguments possibly could come up.. this is one.
I guess you are right. If you haven't said it, an FE'er would.
FE'ers, if you still hold on to your claim at least revise your FAQ.
-
My question remains unanswered.
-
My question remains unanswered.
If you want an explanation, do not look for it in science. Science is not about explanations. Science is about predictions. You do not like forces acting at a distance because you feel like there should be a nice, cozy feeling that you "get it". But you do not fight against the weak force, the strong force or electromagnetism.
I have news for you: the weak and strong forces keep atoms from disintegrating and keep you alive. They are forces at a distance, and yet you do not question them. They are unexplainable in the sense you want them explained.
And guess what, electromagnetism is also unexplainable forces at a distance, but you use your computer instead of declaring it impossible to accept.
Both Newton's gravity and Einstein's curved space-time predict the orbit of planets and many other things within well known boundaries of precision, speeds and densities. If you find a theory that gets even close to that predicting power, then you can laugh.
-
So RE has no answer? Victory for FE, it appears.
-
So your saying an infinitely powerful force provides exactly enough thrust to propel an infinitely large and thus infinitely heavy plane by exactly 9.80665 m/s^-2?
It is more convenient to speak of pressure, rather than force, if one accepts the infinite plane model.
-
So RE has no answer? Victory for FE, it appears.
Don't be silly. Reread trig's excellent post. How do you explain gravitation yourself?
It is more convenient to speak of pressure, rather than force, if one accepts the infinite plane model.
My question is the same. Are saying the "engine" (call it whatever you like), stuck the backside of an infinite plane, provides an infinite amount of gravitational pressure to accelerate us by exactly 9.80665 m/s^-2?
-
My question is the same. Are saying the "engine" (call it whatever you like), stuck the backside of an infinite plane, provides an infinite amount of gravitational pressure to accelerate us by exactly 9.80665 m/s^-2?
No. p = F / A and F = ma, where p is pressure, F is force and A is the area of the base of the flat Earth. If we define the thickness of the flat Earth as x and the volume it occupies as V, then A = V / x. Then the average density of the Earth, ρ, is equal to m / V.
Putting all of this together, we get:
p = ma / A
p = max / V
p = ρax
Thus, a finite pressure can accelerate a flat Earth of finite thickness and density at a finite rate, regardless of its mass and surface area.
-
I don't agree on your math.
I guess you final step is,
(http://www.texify.com/img/%5CLARGE%5C%21p%20%3D%20%5Cfrac%7B%5Crho%20a%20x%20A%7D%7BA%7D%20%5CRightarrow%20%5Crho%20a%20x.gif)
However, assuming an infinite plane, the surface area is infinitely large. Thus, this derivation is not valid since you are dividing (http://www.texify.com/img/%5CLARGE%5C%21%5Cinfty.gif) with (http://www.texify.com/img/%5CLARGE%5C%21%5Cinfty.gif).
-
No. Here is how I got from each step to the next:
F / A => ma / A (substitute ma for F, since F = ma)
ma / A => max / V (substitute x / V for 1 / A, since A = V / x)
max / V => ρax (substitute ρ for m / V, since ρ = m / V)
If you don't like the idea of doing this with an infinite plane, then consider it a finite plane and then take the limit as A approaches infinity. The variables that depend on A (that is, V = Ax, m = ρAx and F = ρaAx) will all approach infinity together, but since none of them are in the final equation it is unaffected by this limit.
-
Robosteve you are arguing that a phenomena of finite size can propel a phenomena of infinite size. The very idea is wrong in the first place. Granted, it seems at second glance your equation is valid, but only because you have derived the pressure needed per unit size. However, assuming an infinite plane would require an infinite number of fractions of the total pressure. Taking the limit of A when it doesn't appear in the equation doesn't prove a thing. I might as well take the limit of luminosity (http://www.texify.com/img/%5CLARGE%5C%21L_%7B%5Codot%7D.gif) but as it does not appear in the final equation what is the benifit?
-
Robosteve you are arguing that a phenomena of finite size can propel a phenomena of infinite size.
No I am not.
The very idea is wrong in the first place.
Yes it is.
Granted, it seems at second glance your equation is valid, but only because you have derived the pressure needed per unit size.
No I have not.
However, assuming an infinite plane would require an infinite number of fractions of the total pressure.
Do you even understand what pressure is?
Taking the limit of A when it doesn't appear in the equation doesn't prove a thing. I might as well take the limit of luminosity (http://www.texify.com/img/%5CLARGE%5C%21L_%7B%5Codot%7D.gif) but as it does not appear in the final equation what is the benifit?
One can take the limit of A throughout all of the equations, and still end up with an equation that does not involve A.
-
Granted, it seems at second glance your equation is valid, but only because you have derived the pressure needed per unit size.
No I have not.
However, assuming an infinite plane would require an infinite number of fractions of the total pressure.
Do you even understand what pressure is?
The units of pressure is, as you are most certainly very well aware, force per unit area kg*m^-1*s^-2. Thus the numerical value you assign to P is the force per unit area.
Your pressure exerts a force on the plane of the earth. The instant you ask "How big a force does my pressure exert on the earth?" the area of the infinite plane enters the equation, F = P*A. Try taking the limit now.
-
Your pressure exerts a force on the plane of the earth. The instant you ask "How big a force does my pressure exert on the earth?" the area of the infinite plane enters the equation, F = P*A. Try taking the limit now.
You are correct. That is why I said that it is more convenient to speak of pressure when dealing with the infinite plane model.
-
Your pressure exerts a force on the plane of the earth. The instant you ask "How big a force does my pressure exert on the earth?" the area of the infinite plane enters the equation, F = P*A. Try taking the limit now.
You are correct. That is why I said that it is more convenient to speak of pressure when dealing with the infinite plane model.
Oh, I see your point. But it is my opinion that discussing this particular instance in terms of different units does not provide a valid explanation. We are back at seeking an answer to how a phenomena can provide an infinitely powerful force that provides exactly enough thrust to propel a plane of infinite extent by exactly 9.80665 m/s^-2. The discussion so far shows the earth cannot be of infinite extent. What then, would you propose propels the acceleration of a finite earth?
-
Why haven't any of you proposed dark energy yet?
-
Oh, I see your point. But it is my opinion that discussing this particular instance in terms of different units does not provide a valid explanation. We are back at seeking an answer to how a phenomena can provide an infinitely powerful force that provides exactly enough thrust to propel a plane of infinite extent by exactly 9.80665 m/s^-2. The discussion so far shows the earth cannot be of infinite extent. What then, would you propose propels the acceleration of a finite earth?
Dark energy.
-
I requested such a propose because it has been discussed before and I would like to include it in this debate. It seems the only plausible explanation. But why would there be more dark energy on one side of the earth than on the other?
-
I requested such a propose because it has been discussed before and I would like to include it in this debate. It seems the only plausible explanation. But why would there be more dark energy on one side of the earth than on the other?
It acts unidirectionally throughout the Universe. That direction we call "up".
-
Why haven't any of you proposed dark energy yet?
Dark energy.
Lol :P
-
I requested such a propose because it has been discussed before and I would like to include it in this debate. It seems the only plausible explanation. But why would there be more dark energy on one side of the earth than on the other?
It acts unidirectionally throughout the Universe. That direction we call "up".
Ripples in the primordial CMB (caused by dark energy in superclusters) are scattered across the sky. So this is clearly not the case even in the FE model.
-
Fifth page, not even an attempt to actually answer the question.
-
How does gravity work again?
How do you define gravity?
-
Gravity, as in the magical force generated by all mass in RE. How do you define it?
-
The natural force of attraction exerted by a celestial body, such as Earth, upon objects at or near its surface, tending to draw them toward the center of the body.
-
That, however would also include gravitation, which we know to be an entirely different thing. Thus your very definition of the word is flawed.
-
The gravitational attraction of the mass of the earth, the moon, or a planet for bodies at or near its surface (2): a fundamental physical force that is responsible for interactions which occur because of mass between particles, between aggregations of matter (as stars and planets), and between particles (as photons) and aggregations of matter, that is 10-39 times the strength of the strong force, and that extends over infinite distances but is dominant over macroscopic distances especially between aggregations of matter called also gravitation, gravitational force
-
So that's how you define gravity. Now could you please, at last, explain how the hell it works?
-
How does gravity work? Noone can be sure at this time.
There are two forces in nature that we experience every day: gravity and magnetism. You may have magnets on your refrigerator, and you know that a magnet will attract a refrigerator with a certain amount of force. The force depends on the strength of the magnet and the distance between the magnet and the metal. Gravity is the other common force. Newton in the 1600's was the first person to study it seriously, and he came up with the law of universal gravitation: Each particle of matter attracts every other particle with a force directly proportional to the product of their masses and inversely proportional to the square of the distance between them. It adds up to a rather powerful force. It is also interesting to think about the fact that every atom attracts every other atom in the universe in some small way! Starting with the great physicist Michael Faraday in 1849, physicists have searched continually for a hidden relationship between gravity and the electromagnetic force.
Why atoms attract one another is still not fully understood. The goal is to combine gravity, electromagnetism and strong and weak nuclear forces into a single unifying theory. Gravity holds us firmly on the ground and keeps the earth circling the sun. This invisible force also draws down rain from the sky and causes the daily ocean tides. It keeps the earth in a spherical shape. In many ways, gravity remains a profound mystery.
Gravity cannot be shielded in any way. Neither does gravity depend on the chemical composition of objects, but only on their mass, which we perceive as weight. Blocks composed of glass, lead, ice or even styrofoam, if they all have equal mass, will experience (and exert) identical gravitational forces. These are experimental findings, with no underlying theoretical explanation. Attempts to explain gravity have included invisible particles, called gravitons, that travel between objects. The final explanation may come two days from now or two hundred years from now.
-
Gravity, as in the magical force generated by all mass in RE. How do you define it?
The natural force of attraction exerted by a celestial body, such as Earth, upon objects at or near its surface, tending to draw them toward the center of the body.
Theories have been proposed that extend the standard model with gravitons although these have issues on high-energy scale. String Theory overcomes these problems but is far from being proven. The standard model is still awaiting the prove of or against the Higgs particle (the particle that provides the mass itself) so there is a long way to go. So far modern science don't know what causes the actual gravitation. We can only submit to the fact that General Relativity provides amazing mathematical tools to describe curvature of space-time that has yet to be disproved. We've been through this many times. No one knows the mechanism yet. Neither RE of FE.
-
Gravity, as in the magical force generated by all mass in RE. How do you define it?
The natural force of attraction exerted by a celestial body, such as Earth, upon objects at or near its surface, tending to draw them toward the center of the body.
Theories have been proposed that extend the standard model with gravitons although these have issues on high-energy scale. String Theory overcomes these problems but is far from being proven. The standard model is still awaiting the prove of or against the Higgs particle (the particle that provides the mass itself) so there is a long way to go. So far modern science don't know what causes the actual gravitation. We can only submit to the fact that General Relativity provides amazing mathematical tools to describe curvature of space-time that has yet to be disproved. We've been through this many times. No one knows the mechanism yet. Neither RE of FE.
I love the FE arguments " you do not know the mechanism to explain the results of your experiments, so therefore our untested explanations are more correct"
-
We have theories and you have baseless, random experiments. Theories are better.
-
We have theories and you have baseless, random experiments. Theories are better.
we have experiments based upon theories you have a story
-
Gravity, as in the magical force generated by all mass in RE. How do you define it?
The natural force of attraction exerted by a celestial body, such as Earth, upon objects at or near its surface, tending to draw them toward the center of the body.
Theories have been proposed that extend the standard model with gravitons although these have issues on high-energy scale. String Theory overcomes these problems but is far from being proven. The standard model is still awaiting the prove of or against the Higgs particle (the particle that provides the mass itself) so there is a long way to go. So far modern science don't know what causes the actual gravitation. We can only submit to the fact that General Relativity provides amazing mathematical tools to describe curvature of space-time that has yet to be disproved. We've been through this many times. No one knows the mechanism yet. Neither RE of FE.
I love the FE arguments " you do not know the mechanism to explain the results of your experiments, so therefore our untested explanations are more correct"
Please reread what you quoted.I explicitly said we can only submit to the mathematical equations of General Relativity. From where did you extract that "our explanations are more correct?". This forum, RE'ers and FE'ers alike, acknowledge GR which, for the record, is not untested.
We have theories and you have baseless, random experiments.
The experiments are certainly not baseless. I can point you to one that you can conduct in your own living room: http://theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=22247.0 (http://theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=22247.0).
Theories are better.
Are you questioning the validness of developing theories based on experiments?
-
It requires me to have a somewhat powerful computer, a considerable talent in coding, and enough money to buy a highly expensive software that, in the end, will produce numbers that will mean nothing to me. If it's so easy, why don't you carry it out and post your results?
-
Fair enough.
If it's so easy, why don't you carry it out and post your results?
I can do that: http://www.kaspermarstal.com/scm.pdf (http://www.kaspermarstal.com/scm.pdf). This document explains the physics of everything incorporated in the model: albedo and albedo feedback, heat transport, radiation flux gradient and global warming feedback. It explains the idea and framework of the code and it presents results from toying around with the model.
-
It requires me to have a somewhat powerful computer, a considerable talent in coding, and enough money to buy a highly expensive software that, in the end, will produce numbers that will mean nothing to me. If it's so easy, why don't you carry it out and post your results?
Sure it means something to you... Its a tool. NAM (ETA), GFS, RUC... here are some weather models google them. Every single one of these models has had MILLIONS of dollars invested in to them. Guess what they are pretty good, not perfect. Most of them can do a pretty good job forecasting out 12 hours, but once you get past the 72 hour point your screwed unless its high pressure.
Your model deals with way more things than just weather so I would find it very hard to believe that it's perfect. Weather models take years to go operational and when they do they are still considered test models until they iron out any major problems. oh I forgot to mention that it takes about 6 hours for super computers to run the 3+ day forecast... it would take your Mac years to run a 3+ day forecast... even just a 1 day forecast.
My point here is that all the data needed to compute your model is crazy and its impossible that you have it all there. You have a few selected things that you chose to put there (or whoever created the model) that support your ideas, anything that doesn't support gets left out. If someone points out a missing item your quick to disprove it with a stupid fact that isn't a fact.
Also does your model support the smaller details like in the 2 posts i made? NOPE... and my details are facts not theorys.
-
http://www.bbc.co.uk/sn/tvradio/programmes/horizon/broadband/tx/gravity/
this was an interesting documentary that you might find somewhere on the interweb to watch
-
It looks good, but I can't find it on any sites. If it involved one of the biggest discoveries in the history of physics, I probably would have heard about it though.
-
It didn't involve any discoveries. He merely tries to ascertain what causes gravity. Hope you can find it somewhere, fe or re it was very good.
-
P.S Not that i condone such behaviour but if you had a friend of a friend that was naughty they might go to mininova and find it. I do not condone the naughtiness.
-
Torrents?! You're a monster.
-
Don't be tedious.
It's a name for the experienced manifestation of gravitation on Earth.
You are playing with semantics
-
Spectacular re-rail. And it wasn't me who got into semantics, I still just want an explanation of
magic gravity.
-
Well you won't find it. Become a scientist and find out yourself, it'll probably give you the Nobel price of physics.
The thing is we can't describe it (yet) but we can point towards several factors that shows that this kind of force would explain mainly everything we can see happening around us, the earths orbit around the sun, the moons orbit around the earth, and, mainly us sticking to the ground.
-
Yet you're the only REer that says this. In all honesty, I already knew that, and this was an experiment of sorts into REers on this site. The fact that it took six pages before someone was big enough to admit that they didn't know doesn't say much for RE on the whole.
-
We have very good theories which explain gravity, and the initial assumption you call "magic", which, as everything else, started as a hypothesis, has later been backed up by enormous amounts of facts. Maybe not as much as evolution or RE in general, but still, a lot. Every single stellar object in the solar system which we have observed, have we also predicted where it is going to go, and where it is coming from, using Newton's law of universal gravitation, and general relativity. We have also done this for most other stellar objects, and those predictions and calculations also fit perfectly with the observations. This is why we can predict solar and lunar eclipses, why we can predict where all the planets is going to be on the night sky, why we can predict the paths of comets and asteroids, and so on. And what are you going to say if CERN detects the "gravity particle", which is the elementary particle predicted by the standard model, which transfers gravity? Are you going to refuse that too?
I would also like to add this: YES!, there has been many assumptions in science, but this is how science works. You observe something, create a hypothesis, and test this hypothesis. Then you work on it, to make it fit better, and so on. If it has, for a substantial period, stood up, and "beaten" (in lack of a better word) every attempt to falsify it, you have a theory. The difference between all the hypotheses which FEH rests on, and this one which the RET partly relies on, is that the theory(ies) of gravity, has been confirmed by observations, and stood up against every attempt to falsify it, which cannot be said for the FE hypotheses.
If you still don't accept it, or believe me, read more here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravity
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_theory_of_relativity
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Newton%27s_law_of_universal_gravitation
Satisfied?
-
Yet you're the only REer that says this. In all honesty, I already knew that, and this was an experiment of sorts into REers on this site. The fact that it took six pages before someone was big enough to admit that they didn't know doesn't say much for RE on the whole.
I think you missed my acknowledgment a few pages back GeneralD.
-
Fifth page, not even an attempt to actually answer the question.
Sixth page and not even an attempt to understand the scientific method. If I want, I can create an explanation of gravity just as you have created explanations of dark energy, universal accelerators, light bending and much more. But check the definition of the scientific method, something so basic that my 8 year old son is already learning at school. Science is not about explanations, it is about predictions.
Let's say there is a fourth spatial dimension, one that makes all matter on the Universe millions of times closer than what we think. Gravitons travel through this dimension, but all the other energy travels only through the usual three spatial dimensions. The Sun is really a few meters away from Earth, so gravitational pull is not harder to explain than electromagnetic forces. And every experiment that shows corroborating evidence is being suppressed by a governmental conspiracy. Prove me wrong.
-
We have theories and you have baseless, random experiments. Theories are better.
As I said, you do not have even a hint of what the scientific method is. What you call "theories" is not even what science considers a tentative hypothesis.
If you declare yourself independent of or anti science, I will stop the hassle and let you use whatever word you want for whatever you can pull out of your brain.
-
A theory is an idea with evidence and experiments to back it up. We have both, so :P to you.
-
A theory is an idea with evidence and experiments to back it up. We have both, so :P to you.
And the source for your definition is... your own head?
Just to mention one place, here you can see what the scientific method is.
http://teacher.pas.rochester.edu/phy_labs/appendixe/appendixe.html (http://teacher.pas.rochester.edu/phy_labs/appendixe/appendixe.html)
Lets say your definition holds some water. Then I can make my own theory: there is no gravity, and what we see as gravity is electromagnetism. I have my experiment: I drop my cup of coffee and it crashes into the floor. Evidently the cup has a positive charge and the floor has a negative charge. And I see how opposite charges attract and how things fall, and they look the same. Therefore I have an idea, evidence and experiments to back it up, so :P back to you!
See how, when you eliminate the requirements of the scientific method, especially the requirement for predictions, the whole scientific process unravels?
-
"A scientific theory or law represents an hypothesis, or a group of related hypotheses, which has been confirmed through repeated experimental tests." Only I added evidence, I made it harder for myself. As for your crackpot theory, it would only take a mildly powerful magnet to prove it wrong, so your analogy isn't actually an analogy at all, just another brick in an ever growing tower of RE fail. And even ignoring that, seeing it happen and seeing something like it isn't what I was referring to.
-
I'm sorry I just caught the end of that there - how does a strong magnet disprove RET??
-
Someone said that they could just make up a theory about (thing wot keeps us on the ground) based around magnetism, based on the theory that shit falls, and said shit might have an electrical charge, so they're right. I said no, you would only need a powerful magnet, though I meant to say electromagnet, and you could make everything float in your theory and then they left. It was a hypothetical theory, beginning with an analogy and ending with its failure.
-
Someone said that they could just make up a theory about (thing wot keeps us on the ground) based around magnetism, based on the theory that shit falls, and said shit might have an electrical charge, so they're right. I said no, you would only need a powerful magnet, though I meant to say electromagnet, and you could make everything float in your theory and then they left. It was a hypothetical theory, beginning with an analogy and ending with its failure.
Ya he was wrong but that doesn't make you right. You still haven't proven what the magic that pushes earth forward is, and you haven't proven gravity wrong (I am not saying that guy was even close to beiong right).
-
Jump off of a cliff. Then come back and tell us whether you felt a force acting upon you when you were in freefall. As if you were weightless? Or as if you were traveling upwards at a constant rate while the Earth accelerated up to meet you? And in my model at least, the force pushing us forwards is the same force accelerating all matter away from the center of the Universe, as is observed by both FE and RE believers, proper scientists no less, with a journal and everything.
-
Ahh ok, with you now on the crazy magnets thing.
As for expanding from the centre of the Universe... do you subscribe to the Big Bang model of cosmology? If so, you are aware that there is no centre of the Universe, by definition, right? (Or equivalently, that everywhere is the centre)
-
By centre I meant the point from which the Universe began to expand.
-
That's my point - if the Universe began as a point and then expanded, then everywhere is at the centre of expansion. That is why galaxies appear to be receding in all directions you observe, at least in the RE model.
-
Please, all of you, read the posts completely! I said that if a theory is an idea with a corroborating experiment, then anybody can create a crackpot theory!
In science a theory is the highest level of knowledge. It is the same as a law, except that now scientists are much more open to throw away a law or theory if a better one is proposed.
General Douchebag diluted the notion to "a theory is an idea with evidence and experiments to back it up", which is perfect for his lackluster grasp of science. If you want to know what a theory is you have to learn what the scientific method is, not like General Douchebag, who is content with his made up definitions!
-
Jump off of a cliff. Then come back and tell us whether you felt a force acting upon you when you were in freefall. As if you were weightless? Or as if you were traveling upwards at a constant rate while the Earth accelerated up to meet you? And in my model at least, the force pushing us forwards is the same force accelerating all matter away from the center of the Universe, as is observed by both FE and RE believers, proper scientists no less, with a journal and everything.
This is as great an example of bogus science as you will ever get. The result of the experiment is whether you "felt a force". Or whether you felt "as if you were traveling upwards at a constant rate". There is nothing to measure, no models or theories to predict the possible result and then compare it with the experimental result. Using the same logic you would have to say that atmospheric pressure does not exist, because you do not "feel it".
If you do not do anything else in your life, at least learn the scientific method!
-
Saying that atmospheric pressure does not exist because you don't feel it is stupid because the pressure inside our bodies is equal, while there is no such thing with gravity. Stop using analogies, or get better ones, I don't care which. And as to my "lackluster grasp of science" that was a quote from a link you posted, and as for "scientific method", have you ever heard of a thing called zetetic science, based on our own experiences? It's a far better method than yours, (I'm not referring to scientific method) which is that whoever came up with the theory was completely right, so if such a situation where their law was to be broken, it would be the Universe at fault. Here's an analogy, watch and learn. Assuming an RE, so you don't get bitchy, if a zeteticist (not necessarily an FEer) and a traditional scientist (not necessarily an REer) both began to float away for no apparent reason, the zeteticist would assume that there was a flaw in whichever method of remaining on the ground they previously believed, while the traditionalist would assume he was somehow being tricked. Have you seen the episode of The Simpsons when they got a free safari holiday? They saw a rhino hatch from an egg, and Lisa (traditionalist) said "That's impossible, rhinos don't hatch from eggs" and Homer (our zetetic friend) said "What did you just see, Lisa? What did you just see?"
-
At this point it might be worth considering posting in this thread:
http://theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=22424.0
I think it could be quite a good starting point for a more meaningful debate (admittedly probably not as entertaining as a spectator sport, however).
-
Jump off of a cliff. Then come back and tell us whether you felt a force acting upon you when you were in freefall. As if you were weightless? Or as if you were traveling upwards at a constant rate while the Earth accelerated up to meet you? And in my model at least, the force pushing us forwards is the same force accelerating all matter away from the center of the Universe, as is observed by both FE and RE believers, proper scientists no less, with a journal and everything.
The experiment would be, use two parachutes, different sizes and see if the earth catches up with you at the same amount of time.
-
Don't put words in my mouth, that wouldn't work.
-
Saying that atmospheric pressure does not exist because you don't feel it is stupid because the pressure inside our bodies is equal, while there is no such thing with gravity. Stop using analogies, or get better ones, I don't care which. And as to my "lackluster grasp of science" that was a quote from a link you posted, and as for "scientific method", have you ever heard of a thing called zetetic science, based on our own experiences? It's a far better method than yours, (I'm not referring to scientific method) which is that whoever came up with the theory was completely right, so if such a situation where their law was to be broken, it would be the Universe at fault. Here's an analogy, watch and learn. Assuming an RE, so you don't get bitchy, if a zeteticist (not necessarily an FEer) and a traditional scientist (not necessarily an REer) both began to float away for no apparent reason, the zeteticist would assume that there was a flaw in whichever method of remaining on the ground they previously believed, while the traditionalist would assume he was somehow being tricked. Have you seen the episode of The Simpsons when they got a free safari holiday? They saw a rhino hatch from an egg, and Lisa (traditionalist) said "That's impossible, rhinos don't hatch from eggs" and Homer (our zetetic friend) said "What did you just see, Lisa? What did you just see?"
And the quote where I said that science is having an idea and having some evidence and making an experiment... you are saying that is my quote?
With analogies, explanations, quotes, and everything I can imagine I have tried to transmit a simple message: Science is not about explanations: science is about predictions. You follow the scientific method, you make predictions based your theories and hypothesis, and you are making science. You are welcome to being a "zetetic scientist", so long as you are clear that you are not a scientist. You show any train of thought that is compatible with science, and then you can say you have a theory.
Those "analogies" that enrage you so much are just examples of an idea, an experiment and some evidence that lead to a completely absurd conclusion. That is why the scientific method has to be carried out completely, not just half of it. When your idea is good only to explain or predict the results of your original experiment, you are doing nothing.
-
At this point it might be worth considering posting in this thread:
http://theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=22424.0
I think it could be quite a good starting point for a more meaningful debate (admittedly probably not as entertaining as a spectator sport, however).
Yes, that thread is interesting, since I have read proponents and opponents of the notion of falsifiability. In this thread I would be happy enough if somebody could understand that science is not about getting people to say "oh, now I understand".
-
How can you, without knowing the mechanism of gravity, make an accurate prediction?
-
How can you, without knowing the mechanism of gravity, make an accurate prediction?
Observe, test, repeat.
-
I can make an accurate prediction about what will happen if I jump off a cliff without having to know the mechanism - the trick is finding things that your model predicts that others disagree with. This is why GR is so successful, not because Einstein climbed the mountain and came back down with the stress energy tensor engraved on a stone tablet.
-
How can you, without knowing the mechanism of gravity, make an accurate prediction?
Predictions based on gravity have been done for more than 200 years, with better precision than other branches of science will ever see. In quantum mechanics almost everything is impossible to understand, and yet you and I use computers that work through the mechanisms of quantum mechanics, every day. And the predictable results of your computer are unimaginable in any other area of your life.
-
http://theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=22645.0 (http://theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=22645.0)
about ur first post, there's a RE FAQ.. thread got locked (even though it was approved by a moderator) so you will have to comment here.
-
I just love the ridiculous threads that get started on here.
Analogy time, can anyone explain how magnets attract metals? No? Oh well that must proove that magnetism doesn't exist and is therefore a conspiracy against flat earthers!
-
Analogy time, can anyone explain how magnets attract metals? No? Oh well that must proove that magnetism doesn't exist and is therefore a conspiracy against flat earthers!
...exchange of virtual photons? Sorry... :-\
-
@trig I don't actually want an explanation of gravity, I know there isn't one, I just wanted to see how hypocritical you are. And you really are. 7 pages, one admission, and a whole lot of bullshit. You all go "How does the UA work lol win 4 RE!" then when I ask the same about gravity, you start screaming "science isn't about explanations, it's about predictions!" I predict that if something doesn't have enough support to keep it up, it will stop accelerating as fast as the Earth, the Earth will accelerate up to meet it, hey presto, shit just fell. Am I a scientist now? Now that I made a prediction you can test (and I greatly encourage you to) by dropping your computer out of your window. The reason I'm pissed off is that I said this 2 pages ago and you have the fucking nerve to complain I'm not reading your whole posts when I am?!
@matrix. You just won science. I wish to sig that.
-
@General: ;D
@Hammond: You LOSE!
-
Sorry, too many characters with both quotes, and it isn't funny at all out of context.
-
That's OK Gen., it's the thought that counts...
:'(
-
@General: ;D
@Hammond: You LOSE!
Oh well that prooves it for me.
Shame you can't actually read, look at my username carefully!
Mind you FE belief does require IQ < 10.
-
We figured it was a typo. Sorry if you're just thick.
-
Yes, mistyping an 'n' to make your username an actual name means I have an IQ < 10... hmm... This from the man who still think science views magnetism as a mystery. It's called the STANDARD MODEL.
n00b.
-
Yes, mistyping an 'n' to make your username an actual name means I have an IQ < 10... hmm... This from the man who still think science views magnetism as a mystery. It's called the STANDARD MODEL.
n00b.
Your appaling knowledge of anything is quite entertaining. Perhaps you should actually do some research on a subject before you criticise, Hammod is a real name, if you had done any research you would know that. But since the fact that you believe in flat earth, we know you are incapable of research or indeed rational thought.
-
OK, yes, you have me. I fail abysmally. My lack of knowledge of all possible names renders my knowledge of physics obsolete. Please, just kill me now and end my suffering.
Of course, that is if don't die of colossal irony first. Do a quick search - go on, I know it's a complex task, but try - where I assert that I believe in a flat earth. That's what epic fail feels like.
-
OK, yes, you have me. I fail abysmally. My lack of knowledge of all possible names renders my knowledge of physics obsolete. Please, just kill me now and end my suffering.
Of course, that is if don't die of colossal irony first. Do a quick search - go on, I know it's a complex task, but try - where I assert that I believe in a flat earth. That's what epic fail feels like.
I see, so by arguing with me about a round earth, you are agreeing - it is all so obvious to me now.
-
Sure, why not? You win, hooray! Now you have a great anecdote to dine out on and can leave before we contract your servere retardness!
-
Yes, mistyping an 'n' to make your username an actual name means I have an IQ < 10... hmm... This from the man who still think science views magnetism as a mystery. It's called the STANDARD MODEL.
n00b.
Uh, the mechanism for magnetism is still a mystery to modern science.
Who discovered the theoretical messenger particle, the magnetic photon?
-
Uh, the mechanism for magnetism is still a mystery to modern science.
Who discovered the theoretical messenger particle, the magnetic photon?
By implying that the mystery was solved, I was not implying we have a fully functional theory of everything. I should have been more restrained in my enthusiasm for the standard model (it is broken, after all). Still, the exchange of virtual photons works pretty well in explaining electrostatics and magnetism, insofar as the predictions of QED match up with observations to an incredible level of precision.
But yes, lest I incur the wrath of Bishop, I freely admit that nature is still a mystery - we just happen to have a vague sketch map to show us where the landmarks are.
-
Should I just lock this? My experiment is over, RE failed, do you want to keep arguing with this noob over semantics or should I?
-
Should I just lock this? My experiment is over, RE failed, do you want to keep arguing with this noob over semantics or should I?
Sure knock yourself out, you are making yourself look real stoopid, so by all means carry on.
-
Ok. REers are hypocrites, another win for FE!
-
He might be a hypocrite, but at least he has a real name.
-
Sorry for the unlock and necrobump, everyone, but we appear to have some REers who believe RET is flawless again! Be ashamed, you two, as you look upon this mountain of RE fail.
-
Sorry for the unlock and necrobump, everyone, but we appear to have some REers who believe RET is flawless again! Be ashamed, you two, as you look upon this mountain of RE fail.
Until you prove nasa is a fake, we have real proof the earth is round.
Unlike FE'ers, who have no real proof. :)
-
Sorry for the unlock and necrobump, everyone, but we appear to have some REers who believe RET is flawless again! Be ashamed, you two, as you look upon this mountain of RE fail.
Until you prove nasa is a fake, we have real proof the earth is round.
Unlike FE'ers, who have no real proof. :)
The earth is flat.
-
Sorry for the unlock and necrobump, everyone, but we appear to have some REers who believe RET is flawless again! Be ashamed, you two, as you look upon this mountain of RE fail.
Until you prove nasa is a fake, we have real proof the earth is round.
Unlike FE'ers, who have no real proof. :)
The earth is flat.
give reputable proof that the earth is flat, or give reputable proof that nasa is lying, and I will beleive.
-
Conceptual explanation of gravity by mass in relation with space-time. Profit.
(Clearer than the previous)
-
Sorry for the unlock and necrobump, everyone, but we appear to have some REers who believe RET is flawless again! Be ashamed, you two, as you look upon this mountain of RE fail.
Until you prove nasa is a fake, we have real proof the earth is round.
Unlike FE'ers, who have no real proof. :)
The earth is flat.
give reputable proof that the earth is flat, or give reputable proof that nasa is lying, and I will beleive.
Look out your window. What do you see?
-
i see a round earth
-
No, you don't.
-
I see dead people
-
No one saw my videos :(
-
Sorry man, my electronic survival instincts prevent me from following links to other websites from forums :)
-
It's only 2 youtube videos, you can trust me, I ain't in the conspiracy (yet) :P
-
How does gravity work again?
So gravity works as the Disk Earth accelerates up at 9.8m\s^2..?? :)
Genius...
-
It could do (for the most part, but I don't want to spoil your fun by telling you how it doesn't) - see the Gravity sticky :)
-
How does gravity work again?
So gravity works as the Disk Earth accelerates up at 9.8m\s^2..?? :)
Genius...
No, there's no way gravity could work like that, that's inertia..!! :)
Moron...
-
I wanted to know, and there's no RE FAQ (how impolite of you) and I searched. Also, I want a laugh. How does gravity work again? Until you can answer, see Engy's sig.
(I am not reading all 100-something posts)
when mass warps the space-time fabric
-
(I am not reading all 100-something posts)
when mass warps the space-time fabric
Really? So photons don't interact gravitationally?
-
(I am not reading all 100-something posts)
when mass warps the space-time fabric
Really? So photons don't interact gravitationally?
I never said that.
-
(I am not reading all 100-something posts)
when mass warps the space-time fabric
Really? So photons don't interact gravitationally?
I never said that.
How does gravity work then?
-
Bring on gravity sticky II: attack of the clones
-
(I am not reading all 100-something posts)
when mass warps the space-time fabric
Really? So photons don't interact gravitationally?
I never said that.
How does gravity work then?
Just because i never said it doesn't mean its true. once an object is in motion it remains in motion. even photons. So light has a path, and that path is on the space-time fabric. when the space-time fabric warps, so does the path of light.
-
So in RE there are three separate types of physics? And FE is stupid?
I meant relativistic physics (large scale), Newtonian physics (small scale), and theoretical physics (subatomic scale) because all have different theories on everything.
They are different- yes. What makes them wrong? Newtonian physics is inaccurate only because it is a simplification of GR. Newton's formula are simplified leaving out unnecessary variables for relativistic circumstances. They correctly model the apparent force of gravity for 'normal' conditions, but GR applied to normal conditions would get the same result. GR is an improvement to Newtonian calculations, not a replacement.
Economics Example:
Where the function C(q) evaluates cost of manufacturing for q quantity of products produced:
C'(q) = MC(q)*1
Marginal Cost is The derivative times dx. dx = 1 by the definition of marginal ie incremental. Therefore it can be elimated from the equation. If dx were to change we would need to put it back into the equation.
Newtons' laws approximate the effects of gravity (not a force but an observed phenomenon) in standard conditions. GR is a much deeper understanding of these laws.
-
Really? So photons don't interact gravitationally?
A(mass) -> B(gravitation) does not mean
C(energy) !-> B(gravitation).
Fallacy in your assumption.
-
A(mass) -> B(gravitation) does not mean
C(energy) !-> B(gravitation).
Fallacy in your assumption.
So he gave an incomplete definition of gravitation? I was looking for a definition of what it is, not one of the ways in which it can act.
-
(I am not reading all 100-something posts)
when mass warps the space-time fabric
Isn't that GR, anyway?
-
I think it's more accurate to say "mass-energy warps space time" rather than making it exclusive to mass - photons deform space time as well, for instance, even though they have zero rest mass.
-
That, while being a better description, is still gravitation.
-
Momentum, along with energy, also bends space-time.
-
Momentum, along with energy, also bends space-time.
both things quite closely linked with mass
-
Momentum, along with energy, also bends space-time.
both things quite closely linked with mass
So photons don't have momentum or energy?
-
I thought since Mass and Energy are interrelated, that photons would curve spacetime slightly.
-
I thought since Mass and Energy are interrelated, that photons would curve spacetime slightly.
They do.
-
I thought since Mass and Energy are interrelated, that photons would curve spacetime slightly.
They do.
when you say photons, your talking about light right?
-
Momentum, along with energy, also bends space-time.
both things quite closely linked with mass
So photons don't have momentum or energy?
From this statement I thought you were implying that they do not. I guess I'm confused by what you are questioning.
-
when you say photons, your talking about light right?
Yes.
From this statement I thought you were implying that they do not. I guess I'm confused by what you are questioning.
iznih claimed that momentum and energy are closely linked with mass. Since photons are massless, I'm asking him if he is saying that they don't have momentum or energy either.
-
when you say photons, your talking about light right?
Yes.
From this statement I thought you were implying that they do not. I guess I'm confused by what you are questioning.
iznih claimed that momentum and energy are closely linked with mass. Since photons are massless, I'm asking him if he is saying that they don't have momentum or energy either.
ahhh, gotcha. ;)
-
a photon has no mass when v=0m/s is given. its gravitational mass is 0. when travelling at a certain speed v (c in most cases) a photon has the energy E=hv. with E=mc2 you can assign a inertial mass to the photon. when creating a pair of matter / antimatter particles with photons you can observe that this inertial mass and the energy is conserved. the momentum of the photon can be calculated by p=mv or by p=h/lambda. itīs easy to show that these two equations give the same result.
thatīs what i wanted to express by saying momentum, mass and energy are closely linked.
-
a photon has no mass when v=0m/s is given. its gravitational mass is 0. when travelling at a certain speed v (c in most cases) a photon has the energy E=hv. with E=mc2 you can assign a inertial mass to the photon. when creating a pair of matter / antimatter particles with photons you can observe that this inertial mass and the energy is conserved. the momentum of the photon can be calculated by p=mv or by p=h/lambda. itīs easy to show that these two equations give the same result.
thatīs what i wanted to express by saying momentum, mass and energy are closely linked.
Nice save.
-
thanks :)