The Flat Earth Society
Flat Earth Discussion Boards => Flat Earth Debate => Topic started by: Kingcosmo7 on October 06, 2008, 06:20:42 PM
-
In RE: You weigh a little less on the north pole because the earth is not a PERFECT sphere and is partially flat on top. and the closer you are to the center of gravity (or something to do with gravity) the less effect gravity has on you.
In FE: you weigh a little less on the north "pole" because ________________________________________________
mind filling in the blank? again im not here to criticize i just want to get both ends of the argument of the whole FE RE debate and i need some questions answered from both sides (mostly from FE)
-
In RE: You weigh a little less on the north pole because the earth is not a PERFECT sphere and is partially flat on top. and the closer you are to the center of gravity (or something to do with gravity) the less effect gravity has on you.
In FE: you weigh a little less on the north "pole" because ________________________________________________
In both RET and FET you weigh less at the north pole because there is nothing to fucking eat up there and you probably lost weight hiking up there in the first place.
-
I thought you would have more gravitational attraction as you decrease the distance between the center of mass of two bodies.
So if you weigh less at the north pole, you can safely rule out RET.
Another victory for FE!!
-
I don't care about RE theory on this. i want to know what FE says about this. should i just put it down as unkown phenomena?
-
FET is clear, you will experience the same accelerating force at all points on earth.
Good to see you've given up on RE, and congratulations!
-
so you weighing less on the north pole is just made up bubkiss? well if anyone goes to the north pole tell them to bring a 1 kilogram weight and a very sensitive scale.
-
and im not completely giving up on RE theory, i just want to learn as much as i can from both sides to make my own conclusion. And i wanted to come to this site to fill in the questions i have for the FE side.
-
The correction must be made, so the thread will not get sidetracked: When you take an object from the equator to one of the poles, its weight will increase because of the shorter distance to the center of the Earth. This could be explained in FET by saying that there are less stars over the poles, which is not true but would give them something to say.
The fact that the weight of an object varies from place to place on Earth due to several reasons makes FET's position untenable. As you can see in http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Earth's_gravity (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Earth's_gravity), there is no clear, simple rule for the small changes in weight between the cities tabulated, making the excuses by FE'rs for this absolutely laughable.
-
Another victory for FE!!
Good to see you've given up on RE, and congratulations!
During his career, Narcy was national champion of jumping to conclusions. He has since retired but still pursues it as a hobby.
FET is clear, you will experience the same accelerating force at all points on earth.
This is a serious flaw in FET.
-
Actually it's a serious strength because we don't have to send scientists anywhere we can to try and find variances in "graVity".
You guys keep looking though.
-
Actually it's a serious strength because we don't have to send scientists anywhere we can to try and find variances in "graVity".
You guys keep looking though.
Are you seriously suggesting that FET is better because you assume it to be correct in the face of evidence to the contrary?
Would you care to explain this (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Earth%27s_gravity#Comparative_gravities_in_various_cities_around_the_world) to us?
-
Do you have proof that you "weigh" less on the north pole?
-
Actually it's a serious strength because we don't have to send scientists anywhere we can to try and find variances in "graVity".
You guys keep looking though.
Are you seriously suggesting that FET is better because you assume it to be correct in the face of evidence to the contrary?
Would you care to explain this (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Earth%27s_gravity#Comparative_gravities_in_various_cities_around_the_world) to us?
Wikipedia as your source? That could easily be edited by NASA.
-
I don't get why he wants us to explain the smaller gravity on Uranus. I think that's especially amusing since nobody has even been to Uranus.
-
The link he posted points to the wrong part of the page. Just scroll up for a table comparing various cities on Earth, instead of planets.
-
I think that the FEers are once again dodgeing the question.
One of two answers are permittable:
1) A decent explanation for gravitational variation in FE.
or 2) A claim that no such variation exists.
If you answer with anything less, i will assume that you are indeed avoiding a very simple question.
-
Gravitational variation in FE is caused by the gravitation of the stars.
The gravitation influence of the stars is just less over the North Pole than it is over other areas, that's all.
-
The gravitation influence of the stars is just less over the North Pole than it is over other areas, that's all.
But there are more stars away from the celestial north pole than there are at the pole. Wouldn't that imply that your weight would be lowest where the greatest concentrations of stars are?
-
But there are more stars away from the celestial north pole than there are at the pole. Wouldn't that imply that your weight would be lowest where the greatest concentrations of stars are?
What are you talking about? The concentration of the stars is pretty even among the heavens. If you go to an observatory you will find that every square centimeter of the sky is packed with stars. Except for a couple small curiosities, there is no area of the sky devoid of stars. Everywhere one looks there are stars jam packed together.
It's only the brightest stars that can see in the sky with the naked eye. And brighter doesn't necessarily mean more gravitation. A bright lamp in the distance doesn't mean that it has any bigger of a gravitational field than the dim one right next to it.
-
The gravitation influence of the stars is just less over the North Pole than it is over other areas, that's all.
This is too funny, must sig this.
-
In our galaxy... or the RE galaxy, rather, there is a higher concentration of stars/ other orbital bodies around the midsection. The Milky way being a disk, any point on that disk would have a lower concentration of gravity at the upper and lower ends of it, because the rest of it lines up with the stars that form the disc-like shape. We can see other galaxies and stars in them, but they are quite far away. We can also see the stars that are in the upper and lower areas of the disc that we are located, but there is indeed less of them.
I am not sure how the earth lines of with the star density, but i can safely say that this density is visible the the naked eye. Go outside on a clear night in rural areas and chances are you will find the band of star concentration.
-
The Milky Way does have a larger concentration of stars than any other place in the sky, and that is clear to anyone who not only owns two top-of-the-line telescopes, but uses them.
Further more, the Milky Way is not aligned with Earth's Equator; in fact, it contains Acrux, a star with -63 degrees declination, and Caph, a star with +59 degrees declination, which roughly mark the southernmost and northernmost points of it.
If the stars were the cause for differences in gravitational pull, we would have a daily oscillation in the perceived Earth gravity, and anyone with a few bucks and a piezo-electric pressure sensor and voltmeter would be able to blow the conspiracy to pieces.
-
What are you talking about? The concentration of the stars is pretty even among the heavens. If you go to an observatory you will find that every square centimeter of the sky is packed with stars. Except for a couple small curiosities, there is no area of the sky devoid of stars. Everywhere one looks there are stars jam packed together.
There are definite concentrations of stars. The band of the Milky Way is close to the celestial equator (overhead at the equator)...
(http://www.astro.uiuc.edu/~kaler/sow/cm1rc.jpg)
This concentration of stars, and hence gravitation, is not at the poles. Even with a telescope, there are more stars in that region of the sky.
It's only the brightest stars that can see in the sky with the naked eye. And brighter doesn't necessarily mean more gravitation. A bright lamp in the distance doesn't mean that it has any bigger of a gravitational field than the dim one right next to it.
Actually, at night from the deck of a ship, you can observe many stars that aren't visible on land due to the lack of background light. Even then, most of the stars are concentrated in the band of the Milky Way. I am going on pure quantity of stars and giving no star credit for larger gravitational potential.
-
The gravitation influence of the stars is just less over the North Pole than it is over other areas, that's all.
The concentration of the stars is pretty even among the heavens. If you go to an observatory you will find that every square centimeter of the sky is packed with stars. Except for a couple small curiosities, there is no area of the sky devoid of stars. Everywhere one looks there are stars jam packed together.
Tom,
-The second quote contradicts the first, if "concentration" of mass is linked to gravitation (which it is)
-The line of the Milky Way demonstrates the second statement to be wrong.
-I have not seen a record of gravitation changing when the Milky Way it overhead.
-
Gravitational variation in FE is caused by the gravitation of the stars.
These anomolies do not rotate with a period of 24 hours. Another explanation needed.
-
In FE: you weigh a little less on the north "pole" because ________________________________________________
You burned off a lot of fat getting there?
-
In FE: you weigh a little more on the north "pole" because ________________________________________________
When an object accelerates, the leading edge accelerates slower than the tailing edge.
-
In FE: you weigh a little more on the north "pole" because ________________________________________________
When an object accelerates, the leading edge accelerates slower than the tailing edge.
Why?
-
When an object accelerates, the leading edge accelerates slower than the tailing edge.
Why?
Relativistic effects inherant in acceleration itself. Or were you looking for a more specific answer.
-
When an object accelerates, the leading edge accelerates slower than the tailing edge.
Why?
Relativistic effects inherant in acceleration itself. Or were you looking for a more specific answer.
Please.
-
In FE: you weigh a little more on the north "pole" because ________________________________________________
When an object accelerates, the leading edge accelerates slower than the tailing edge.
And? If FET is correct, the entire surface is the leading edge. So, one would weigh the least at the peak of Everest and the most at the bottom of the Mariana Trench is what you are saying, and that does not coincide with observed phenomena.
-
When an object accelerates, the leading edge accelerates slower than the tailing edge.
Why?
Relativistic effects inherant in acceleration itself. Or were you looking for a more specific answer.
Unless you are near the event horizon of a black hole, would this be a measurable effect?
-
When an object accelerates, the leading edge accelerates slower than the tailing edge.
Why?
Relativistic effects inherant in acceleration itself. Or were you looking for a more specific answer.
Please.
When an object, whether it is an elevator, rocket, flat earth, what have you, accelerates, time is dilated more the further from the source of the acceleration you go. So, a clock at a higher elevation relative to the source will run slow compared to one at a lower elevation. This, along with length contraction, causes the dv/dt to be skewed based on the gamma factor. I have a good shortcut somewhere you might want to take a look at, I'll try to find it later.
And? If FET is correct, the entire surface is the leading edge. So, one would weigh the least at the peak of Everest and the most at the bottom of the Mariana Trench is what you are saying, and that does not coincide with observed phenomena.
Are you saying that you do not weigh less on Everest than at a lower elevation?
Unless you are near the event horizon of a black hole, would this be a measurable effect?
We're talking about acceleration, not gravitation. So what you mean to ask is "Unless you are near the speed of light, would this be a measurable effect" in which case I say, yes, that we would be going fast enough by now to take relativistic effects into consideration.
-
We're talking about acceleration, not gravitation. So what you mean to ask is "Unless you are near the speed of light, would this be a measurable effect" in which case I say, yes, that we would be going fast enough by now to take relativistic effects into consideration.
I thought that for our local frame of reference we were traveling no where near the speed of light.
-
Gravitational variation in FE is caused by the gravitation of the stars.
The gravitation influence of the stars is just less over the North Pole than it is over other areas, that's all.
-
We're talking about acceleration, not gravitation. So what you mean to ask is "Unless you are near the speed of light, would this be a measurable effect" in which case I say, yes, that we would be going fast enough by now to take relativistic effects into consideration.
I thought that for our local frame of reference we were traveling no where near the speed of light.
You are right in the sense that we are no closer to reaching the speed of light than we were when said acceleration started because it would take an infinite amount of time to reach that. However, relative to the inertial reference frame outside of our own we would be traveling at some percentage of c that would be impossible to calculate.
-
You are right in the sense that we are no closer to reaching the speed of light than we were when said acceleration started because it would take an infinite amount of time to reach that. However, relative to the inertial reference frame outside of our own we would be traveling at some percentage of c that would be impossible to calculate.
Seem to me that would create a lot of problems if the relativistic effects were that observable. This would imply that the passenger on Einstein's cosmic elevator ride would be able to observe the effects of the velocity of the elevator. Doesn't that make the Equivalence Principle that UA would be indistinguishable from Einsteinian gravity wrong?
-
No, that would make it completely correct. We can do the same expirement in a gravitational field and recieve the same results. A clock on an airplane in flight has a measurable difference in rate than one on the ground. That's the beauty of the equivalence principle.
-
No, that would make it completely correct. We can do the same expirement in a gravitational field and recieve the same results. A clock on an airplane in flight has a measurable difference in rate than one on the ground. That's the beauty of the equivalence principle.
Yes, but the noticeable difference in rate won't show near relativistic speeds.
-
Sure it would. Why do you say otherwise?
-
Sure it would. Why do you say otherwise?
I am not sure. This must be one of those spots where logic doesn't necessarily apply to relativity, and why it gets so confusing to a majority of people.
-
The gravitation may be because the moon "orbits" (actually moves) in a circle around the north pole and the moons gravitation or EM field attracts visitors to the north pole slightly upward. Of course this cannot be proven because NASA denies us the rights.
-
Sure it would. Why do you say otherwise?
I am not sure. This must be one of those spots where logic doesn't necessarily apply to relativity, and why it gets so confusing to a majority of people.
Possibly. Keep in mind that only relative velocity is meaningful. To us, nothing at all would change in our frame of refence regardless of our velocity, which is manifested in the form of the speed of light being constant. Only a change in acceleration would cause an observable change. Here is a pretty good expanation of what I am talking about if you want to look at it. It's fairly concise and gets the point across graphically: http://casa.colorado.edu/~ajsh/sr/postulate.html (http://casa.colorado.edu/~ajsh/sr/postulate.html)