The Flat Earth Society
Flat Earth Discussion Boards => Flat Earth Q&A => Topic started by: azz1844 on May 26, 2006, 08:16:09 AM
-
The counter-arguments that any flat-earthers seem to give against logical arguments put forward by "round-earther", seem to consist (for the most part) of asking people to "better define" what they mean about something. For example "please define what you mean by 'travel in a straight line'", or "please explain better what you mean by 'travelling in a cricle'", etc. I.e. these people frequently do not HAVE a good counter-argument, but are merely using the fact that language is an imperfect form of communication to their advantage, which is frustrating and childish.
A similar note can be made on the "photos are faked" idea, which is that none of the flat-earthers can come up with a rational reason why the governments would go to so much trouble to create fake photographs and cover up the "truth". The "it is fake" theory could be said about absolutely anything, without the need for any proof. If someone took a photo that "proved" the Earth was Flat, the flat-earthers would claim it was real without any hesitation, where as it could just as easily be a fake itself (which of course it would be, because the earth is round :) ). It is a very shallow argument.
Also, another argument I found extremely amusing was the fact that if you have a round earth, why do people on the bottom not fall off? On the Flat Earth website, this argument is used as if to say "Ha, you didn't think of that, did you, Round Earthers?". I find this very amusing, seeing as they are quite clearly ignoring a very well known fundamental basic of gravity, which is that any mass in space exerts a pull of gravity, from it's CENTRE of gravity. No "round earther" has every suggested that the pull of gravity comes from BELOW the globe that is the Earth (not that there IS a "below" in space, it is just how we have come to perceive the world we live on).
The arguments of flat earthers are consistently shallow, missing out fundamental basics that one might expect from a small child when asking questions about "how the earth can possibly be round".
However... I am still not 100% convinced that this isn't all a very elaborate joke on the part of the "flat earthers". Something to get people stirred up, with the "flat earthers" laughing at how we genuinely think they can believe the Earth is flat. If this IS the case, then I must congratulate those who set it up. I am frequently doing things to get people worked up and to get controversy flowing, so I would personally find it very amusing :) . So if this is the case, well done! If not, please refer to the earlier part of this post.
-
The counter-arguments that any flat-earthers seem to give against logical arguments put forward by "round-earther", seem to consist (for the most part) of asking people to "better define" what they mean about something. For example "please define what you mean by 'travel in a straight line'", or "please explain better what you mean by 'travelling in a cricle'", etc. I.e. these people frequently do not HAVE a good counter-argument, but are merely using the fact that language is an imperfect form of communication to their advantage, which is frustrating and childish.
I could say, in full confidence and totally honestly, the following:
"On the flat earth, If I take off in an airplane from New York and fly in a straight line, I will end up back in New York."
In this case, "straight line" means that I follow the same compass bearing the whole time. In "reality" I'm going to be traveling in a big circle/ellipse, but I discount that since it is just a byproduct of the shape of the earth.
This is why, in the "Straight line" example, it is important to get our definitions straight. An RE'er might say "In real life you can fly in a straight line and end up back where you started, so that proves the earth is round." According to my definition of "Straight", however, the same thing would happen on the flat earth. And obviously the RE definition of "straight" takes into account the shape of the earth too, so our definitions really aren't that different.
The poiint is, it is very important to know exactly what you're talking about in any discussion, but even moreso in a debate such as this where any mistakes or shortcomings would be taken as a victory (whatever that means) by the other side.
-
The definition of a straight line seems fairly clear, in that you attempt to travel in one direction, without any attempts to turn left, or right. It is also a perfectly obvious fact (which I can prove myself by cutting out a circle on a piece of paper, and holding a bloody ruler against it) that if you start in the middle of a circle, and move in a straight line, you will arrive at the edge of the circle. If the Earth was flat, and someone flew a plane from it's centre in a straight line, they would reach the edge. This does not happen.
-
Sorry, I might also add that nit-picking about things like "well it wouldn't be a straight line if it was on a round earth, because you would be flying in a curved line" is pedantic and unnecessary, because you know full well what people mean by it, and I clarified that in my description of making no attempt to move/steer left or right.
-
"On the flat earth, If I take off in an airplane from New York and fly in a straight line, I will end up back in New York."
In this case, "straight line" means that I follow the same compass bearing the whole time. In "reality" I'm going to be traveling in a big circle/ellipse, but I discount that since it is just a byproduct of the shape of the earth.
The poiint is, it is very important to know exactly what you're talking about in any discussion, but even moreso in a debate such as this where any mistakes or shortcomings would be taken as a victory (whatever that means) by the other side.
Nice idea, and I agree with the clarification of straight line, but most aircraft use gyroscopic compasses and now GPS, not magnetic. Less problems with electical storms, and confusion because the magnetic north pole is not at the rotational north pole.
-
Well you have to remember that GPS is a manmade system, and so is made to work with the "real" shape of the earth. If the earth is flat, GPS will work accordingly.
As for gyroscopic compasses, I'm not sure. I've never actually used one, so I don't know how they would be affected by the flat earth.
-
Another flat, shallow, evidence-lacking argument on the part of the flat-earthers.
-
Another abusive, inflammatory, and quite pointless post by the round earthers.
I find these insights particularly interesting coming from a person - you, azz1844 - who has not offered any arguments at all, only nonsensical quasi-criticisms of generalized debate strategies you've seen employed.
So far your postings have consisted of the following:
"Talking about straight lines? That's silly! Photos are faked? Crazy! People would fall off? LOL!"
Where, may I ask, is the substance?
-
My post is not about substance. I would simply be re-iterating a large number of Round-Earth arguments that have been previously posted. My primary objective initially was to point out that where ever there is a logical and reasonable Round Earth argument, there is quite frequently a pedantic, irrelevant, and shallow counter-argument put forward by the opposing Flat Earthers.
So for my own evidence and reasoning, I would simply like to refer you to all the other posted Round-Earth arguments that have not been answered or counter-argued satisfactorily, of which there are many.
(That actually includes the "travelling from the centre of a circle in a straight line" argument which I put forward in this very thread, which has yet to be opposed reasonably or satisfactorily).
-
If the Earth was flat, and someone flew a plane from it's centre in a straight line, they would reach the edge. This does not happen.
You're right. This does not happen. Planes do not do this. There are no airports in the north pole. Planes do not start out at the north pole and fly in a straight line until they can't fly any more.
They don't do this because there is no reason to.
Your claim that this is proof of the round earth is, quite simply, incorrect.
Here is your argument:
You: "If you flew in a straight line from the north pole you wouldn't ever hit the ice wall."
Me: "How do you know?"
You: "Because the earth isn't flat."
The reason you believe the "center of the circle flying straight" premise is because you believe the earth to be round.
I assert that if you flew in a straight line from the north pole, you would fly off the edge of the earth.
You cannot disprove my assertion by simply stating "no that won't happen because the earth is round."
-
It was not a proof that the world was round, it was more a disproof of a previous Flat-Earth post which stated "if I was to leave New York on a flat Earth and travel in a straight line, I would arrive back in New York". This is certainly not the case if you use a true and obvious definition of a straight line, which I and you can prove by aligning a ruler on a circular object from the centre to the edge. So in that way, the purpose of my comment was served, and served correctly. Other Round Earth evidences can be seen all over this forum, and I refer you to those. The point I made in this thread (see previous post) has been made, and is clear.
The arguments of Flat-Earthers are far less convincing, and are way to full of holes to be credible in any sense or form.
Q. Why do the governments say the earth is round?
A. It's a conspiracy
Q. Why? What is the conspiracy?
A. Unknown.
Unknown??? So what you're admitting is... you don't HAVE an answer?
Q. How could the governments keep this under wraps if they are so disorganised?
A. They only appear disorganised to maintain the illusion that the Earth is round.
WHAT!? So basically, Palestinians and Israelis are killing each other, Iraq is in turmoil over the USA, so many wars and international disputes are being made... and it's all to keep the illusion that the Earth is flat? If this were written as a fictional story, it would be slammed as being too way out and unrealistic. Which it is, because the idea is ludicrous.
(The questions and answers are paraphrased from the FAQ thread on this forum).
-
It was not a proof that the world was round, it was more a disproof of a previous Flat-Earth post which stated "if I was to leave New York on a flat Earth and travel in a straight line, I would arrive back in New York". This is certainly not the case if you use a true and obvious definition of a straight line, which I and you can prove by aligning a ruler on a circular object from the centre to the edge. So in that way, the purpose of my comment was served, and served correctly.
And if I used the same "true and obvious" definition of "Straight", then all aircraft on a spheroid earth would fly tangentially off into outer space.
Your response will be "Well obviously they follow the curve of the earth".
So if your definition of "Straight" can take into account the shape of the earth, why can't mine?
-
Because your theory of the Earth doesn't have a curve. It is flat. :?
-
Because your theory of the Earth doesn't have a curve. It is flat. :?
No, but it has a shape.
So far you have been not-very-deftly dodging the made claim that if one were to travel in a straight line on a flat Earth, one would hit the ice wall. Do you have evidence against this?
-
Because your theory of the Earth doesn't have a curve. It is flat. :?
No, but it has a shape.
So far you have been not-very-deftly dodging the made claim that if one were to travel in a straight line on a flat Earth, one would hit the ice wall. Do you have evidence against this?
uh yeah planes fly about 20,000 feet off the ground, the ice wall is ~150 feet high
-
They don't fly that high near the ice wall, presumably, being that there can't be much air above the wall.
-
The claim originally put forward by a Flat-Earther was that if you travelled in a STRAIGHT LINE from the centre of what is a FLAT SURFACE you would end up in the same place. This is absolutely, 100% not correct, because anyone with eyes and half a brain can see this. If you do not believe me, take a piece of paper, draw a circle. put a ruler against the middle, and see where the end of that ruler takes you. It takes you to the edge. YES, IT DOES.
And you are still overlooking the reason of this thread which was originally to point out how shallow posts all over this forum have been on the side of Flat-Earthers:
Photos and evidence of round earth are faked. Why? We don't know.
This could be said about anything. And then you say "Well, prove that Earth is round by flying around it." Ok, prove to me that jumping off a cliff and landing on your head will not kill you, or at least severely injure you. You can't. You just keep asking people to do things that you know is beyond their abilities, and then claiming anyone who HAS performed these tests are lying, but you cannot think of a good reason why they would do so.
It is almost impossible for ANYONE to prove ANYTHING. You cannot even prove that you are alive right now. Proof is about putting together evidences to such an extent that you are sure without any reasonable doubt. Intelligent, rational people are sure that the Earth is round without any reasonable doubt, because there is so much evidence. Flat-Earthers have no reasonable evidence that comes anywhere near to what Round-Earthers have. If you brought this evidence to a court and you were against a Round-Earth organisation, AND the judge was 100% impartial, you would be told to f*** off, straight away.
-
The claim originally put forward by a Flat-Earther was that if you travelled in a STRAIGHT LINE from the centre of what is a FLAT SURFACE you would end up in the same place. This is absolutely, 100% not correct, because anyone with eyes and half a brain can see this. If you do not believe me, take a piece of paper, draw a circle. put a ruler against the middle, and see where the end of that ruler takes you. It takes you to the edge. YES, IT DOES.
And you are still overlooking the reason of this thread which was originally to point out how shallow posts all over this forum have been on the side of Flat-Earthers:
Photos and evidence of round earth are faked. Why? We don't know.
This could be said about anything. And then you say "Well, prove that Earth is round by flying around it." Ok, prove to me that jumping off a cliff and landing on your head will not kill you, or at least severely injure you. ...
Flat-Earthers do not say that jumping off a cliff will not kill you, they say that the cliff is not actually a cliff.
And anyway you can use science to prove that, take the mass of the person falling, the kind of rock at the bottom of the cliff, the air resistance on the person and the height of the cliff to work out the force applied to th e person. From there you can work out what kind of injuries they would have.
-
Nope, all science regarding mass, rock types, and wind resistance has been faked. You cannot prove to me otherwise.
-
Nope, all science regarding mass, rock types, and wind resistance has been faked. You cannot prove to me otherwise.
Photographs can be easily faked, years of scientific knowledge cannot be easily faked.
You seem to think that FE's use photo's as proof, they don't. They merely say photos cannot be used as sole proof for either side.
If you are going to say science is 'faked' then how you would you be able to prove or disprove that statement?
-
My post about the science being faked was to indicate what a vast number of Flat-Earth responses are to Round-Earth evidences (that they are simply "faked"), which you just admitted was an unreasonable argument, thus proving my point in it's entirity.
There have been many Round-Earth evidences pointed out on this forum based on SCIENTIFIC EXPERIMENTS proving the Earth is round and on the subject of gravity, etc. (please refer to them yourselves). Many of you would claim that these were "made up", just like the photos. This is my point, and again it has been made with abundant clarity.
-
"Cheesejoff" says:
Photographs can be easily faked, years of scientific knowledge cannot be easily faked.
Do you mean for example that hundreds of years of scientific knowledge about gravity being a central-force motion exerting equal and opposite forces on any two objects in space along a line passing through both their centres of mass COULD NOT be faked?
Do you mean that THOUSANDS of years of sailors NOT being able to see over the horizon no matter what sort of telescope they used could not be faked?
Additionally if gravity is a uniform vector field which rather than pulling towards the centre of the earth simply pulls in the direction of your (assumed) universal "down" direction towards which all things try to fall then must we assume that the moon is either fixed by some structure, or simply fake?
Is the moon flat as well?
Is the sun a flat nuclear or chemical reaction of some sort? If you think so, try creating a vigorous chemical or nuclear reaction here as an experiment... fairly hard to keep it flat...
Is the sun restrained in some way...? Perhaps some celestial equivalent of the "ice-wall" which would somehow let the chemicals in the sun fuse/react/whatever you believe they do without forming into the round or roundish shape you will witness if you cause an explosion… Now after you’ve finished making something up, tell me how best to observe this solar version of the “ice-wall” unless perhaps the moon and sun are both spheroid after all and the earth lives in its own little universe where everything is different.
-
Do you mean for example that hundreds of years of scientific knowledge about gravity being a central-force motion exerting equal and opposite forces on any two objects in space along a line passing through both their centres of mass COULD NOT be faked?
Do you mean that THOUSANDS of years of sailors NOT being able to see over the horizon no matter what sort of telescope they used could not be faked?...
No I don't. Those are all valid arguments. The point is that you can't prove anything with photos.
-
Do you mean for example that hundreds of years of scientific knowledge about gravity being a central-force motion exerting equal and opposite forces on any two objects in space along a line passing through both their centres of mass COULD NOT be faked?
Do you mean that THOUSANDS of years of sailors NOT being able to see over the horizon no matter what sort of telescope they used could not be faked?...
No I don't. Those are all valid arguments. The point is that you can't prove anything with photos.
but you can with common sense, the FE theory does not explain why the moon doesnt crash down onto the earth
-
The claim originally put forward by a Flat-Earther was that if you travelled in a STRAIGHT LINE from the centre of what is a FLAT SURFACE you would end up in the same place. This is absolutely, 100% not correct, because anyone with eyes and half a brain can see this. If you do not believe me, take a piece of paper, draw a circle. put a ruler against the middle, and see where the end of that ruler takes you. It takes you to the edge. YES, IT DOES.
No.
The claim was that I can define "straight" as meaning different things, and if I defien "straight" as being defined by a constant magnetic compass bearing, then yes you will end up back in the same place.
You are either ignoring or simply fail to grasp this point, and so I don't think discussing it further will make a difference.
-
Firstly, one of the points of this thread, which was to point out the pedantic nature of FE arguments, has again been proven by your constant questioning of the term straight line.
Perhaps a more appropriate term which would apply for both FE and RE is a straight line ALONG THE SURFACE. The point is, that one is assuming COMMON SENSE when using the term "straight line". If I were to say to most sensible, intelligent thinking "imagine a straight line on a round earth" or perhaps even better "imagine a straight line on the SURFACE of a round earth", they would know exactly what I meant. That straight line would not "go off into space", because people are using their common sense and knowledge to take into account gravity, which provided one makes no attempt to increase height, means a plane will stay at the same height above the Earth's surface.
FE's arguments are often "Well, a straight line on a sphere would make the plane fly off into space"... Well of COURSE NOT if you use your brains and stop being needlessly pedantic, because you are ignoring gravity, which is always a part of round earth theory. FE'ers often ignore many parts of round earth theory in order to argue against a single point.
On their own, single points can be argued again satisfactorily. For example, if we had no knowledge of anything else, and we just wanted to explain the horizon thing, RE's would say it was curvature of the Earth, FE's would say it is due to mirages and light refraction due to haze from the water (or something like that). That's fine, this makes both sides of the argument equal (although there are probably some physicists who can prove it isn't due to light refraction, I just don't know enough about it).
But when you weigh up ALL the RE arguments against ALL the FE arguments, RE has a lot more credibility, where as FE has a vast number of inconsistencies, contradictions, and holes which cannot be explained because each point has been argued individually, without analysing the whole argument. This can be seen all over this forum.
Again I remind you that I started this thread not to talk about direct substance, there is enough of that elsewhere on these forums. The point, which has been proved numerous times now thanks to the flat earthers that have contributed to this thread, was a pedantic, shallow, and narrow-minded arguing tactic in regards to the subject.
-
Unfortunately terms like "Common Sense" aren't valid for use in discussions such as these. I could claim that "Common Sense" implies that gravity doesn't exist; after all, I'm quite certain no common person has personally experienced it.
You can claim what you think, or even what the majority of people might think, but neither of those things make your claim fact.
-
No, you're not listening, I did not imply "common sense" meant the certain knowledge of gravity, I implied that when referring to Round Earth theory you have to take gravity into account, because common knowledge is that gravity applies in a Round Earth theory, and thus common SENSE would be taking that into account when trying to argue against it.
-
This is pitiful...
You guys only hear what you want to hear and stick your heads in the sand about all the "unknowns".
This "unimportant" chap especially... this compass of yours points towards the centre of your flat plate right? So surely you're actively "turning"... everybody KNOWS that you will come back to where you came from if you constantly turn right at a constant rate. ((yes, left as well before you say anything)).... flat earth / round earth doesn't matter... the POINT is, if you DON'T turn left or right and just set off in a direction one finds oneself back where one was.
Yes, one does.... NO.. I HAVEN'T done it... (( see numerous "jumping off cliff to see if you die" arguments )) but it's been done.
Also, I am fed up with people talking about aeroplane routes and things... there are reasons why planes won't fly over certain areas because of various safety considerations.
Oh yeah... that's all made up... sorry my bad. All the evidence against you... ie reality itself... well that's all made up... listen to us, we have an old book, written by man, and attributed to a good bloke called Jesus who many believe was divinely inspired, which has been subsequently changed by clerics to suit their ideas, and which results in burning old ladies.
Nice one Cyril.
-
This "unimportant" chap especially... this compass of yours points towards the centre of your flat plate right? So surely you're actively "turning"... everybody KNOWS that you will come back to where you came from if you constantly turn right at a constant rate. ((yes, left as well before you say anything)).... flat earth / round earth doesn't matter... the POINT is, if you DON'T turn left or right and just set off in a direction one finds oneself back where one was.
So your argument is "Unimportant, you are wrong. Why? Because you are wrong. Any intelligent person would see you are wrong, because you're wrong. Don't you see?"
Unfortunately, that seems to be all ypu've got. I'm not "actively turning" any more than you are on a round earth. That is to say, I am actively turning, but so are you. None of that is really important, though, because it is a semantic argument. I am right, because my definition of "straight" is personal to myself, and it works.
The more significant claim is that, in "real life", if you flew in a dead-reckoning straight line, you'd fly off the edge of the earth, and this claim cannot be disproven by anyone here.
-
No, you're not listening, I did not imply "common sense" meant the certain knowledge of gravity, I implied that when referring to Round Earth theory you have to take gravity into account, because common knowledge is that gravity applies in a Round Earth theory, and thus common SENSE would be taking that into account when trying to argue against it.
Besides who would be stupid enough to believe in a place where trees grow downwards and rain falls upwards exept for believers in a spherical earth as illogical and unscientific as it is in denial of all common sense?
Are Unimportant and I the only ones who see some problems in relying on so-called "common" sense?
-
No, you appear to be the only ones who are not correctly grasping the concept despite my attempts to explain.
-
No you are amongst the only people who have no common sense, that is, a basic grasp of for example what it means to test the shape of an object in space by gathering information and observations about its surface.
Saying I'm right cos I am is your field of expertise, not mine, even if I laid out step by step how to prove these things, you would merely redefine terms like "light" "speed" and "line" in some convoluted attempt to confuse people, blindsiding the dumbest into following you.
That's ok though, this site provides many good jokes to share with my equally deluded "RE" buddies...
-
No, you appear to be the only ones who are not correctly grasping the concept despite my attempts to explain.
No you are amongst the only people who have no common sense, that is, a basic grasp of for example what it means to test the shape of an object in space by gathering information and observations about its surface.
Did you two Nobel-prize laureates read both quotes or just the first one?
-
I read them both. The second was of no importance to me, and uses the term "common sense" differently to mine. Mine was referring to "common knowledge" of round earth theory, and the fact that it needs to be known and referred to if attempting to argue against it (which is would be commonly thought of as a sensible thing to do). The "common sense" referred to by Dionysios was that it seems non-sensicle for trees to be able to grow "downwards" and rain to be able to fall "downwards", which is accounted for by gravity theory.
-
This could go round in circles forever...
My only addition is I think this:
Relying on "common-sense" is a bit weak, but often it is intended to mean "understanding what is clearly intended by a statement.
Sometimes what you mean can be LESS obvious to us, just because we're not as used to hearing it, and working with it.
Relying on calling the entire world a conspiracy and relying on calling practically everything humanity knows as "fake" is in my opinion weaker, and rather harder to defend. As you demonstrate in fact by very rarely defending it... rather you use defensive argumentation to say something like.
"You don't know everything and you haven't been everywhere so we're right cos we disagree with you."
-
Relying on calling the entire world a conspiracy and relying on calling practically everything humanity knows as "fake" is in my opinion weaker, and rather harder to defend.
Actually I think we condemn very little of what humanity "knows" as fake... I mean, our theory of gravity is the same as yours, for example. Obviously we consider lots of modern physics to be true. It's just that it's hard to tell when so much of it is beyond the grasp of the "common man".
-Erasmus
-
Your theory of gravity has WHAT in common with RE?
Especially given that there are two schools of thought equally common on this site?
i.) Unidirectional "universal down" gravity
ii.) Constant acceleration idea (exposed as wrong on numerous occasions but explanation ignored)
-
Your theory of gravity has WHAT in common with RE?
Especially given that there are two schools of thought equally common on this site?
i.) Unidirectional "universal down" gravity
ii.) Constant acceleration idea (exposed as wrong on numerous occasions but explanation ignored)
Man it's about time somebody called me on this one.
So here it is. Objects unaffected by any force are in an inertial state. They travel along geodesics. If the Earth were a black hole of the same mass, then objects on geodesics would have a mutual acceleration with the centre. The only reason inertial objects do not fall to the centre of the Earth is that the Earth is not a black hole but has a solid surface; it gets in their way.
Thus, objects on the Earth's surface must be in accelerated frames of reference (since they are not travelling on spacetime geodesics). The source of this acceleration must be a parallel force (says Newton) -- you can feel it as the force of the Earth pushing up on your feet. Thus, the Earth must be accelerating upward -- this is the only possible explanation for the sensation of gravity on a round Earth, and, interestingly, is the same explanation for the sensation of gravity on a flat Earth.
QED.
-
You've used some language I find it hard to follow, so sorry about that, but this stuff about the Earth accelerating just doesn't follow at all,
As it happens the Earth is an accelerating reference frame because it orbits the sun and is thus also under going a central force motion.
Incidentally the Earth DOES follow a "space-time geodesic" (as I understand it... which might be flawed) because those so-called geodesics refer to the space-time warped by gravity...
So an object accelerated by gravity follows one of these "generalised straight lines in curved-space" the generalised line being a bit like a generalised distance when we deal with Lagrangian Mechanics.
Also, the Earth's surface accelerates, but (obviously) towards the centre of the Earth's axial rotation as this is also a central force motion, this time due to the reaction force of the Earth's substance against the tendency of its components to continue in different straight lines.
The explanation of people sticking to the surface is that of the body-force gravity pulling them towards the Earth's centre of mass. The soil and rocks have gone as far as they can, and thus are compressed when the gravity tries to force us through them, hence the normal reaction force.
I SUSPECT you are using flowery language to obfuscate again, and I suspect your statement about "only explanation" is a serious non-sequitur...
Feel free to tell me that I don't understand and don't really exist anyway though.
-
You've used some language I find it hard to follow,
Yeah I was a bit worried about that.
As it happens the Earth is an accelerating reference frame because it orbits the sun
This is not the motion I'm referring to. For the sake of this discussion, I'm only describing the effects of a single large body and a single small one.
Also, the Earth's surface accelerates, but (obviously) towards the centre of the Earth's axial rotation as this is also a central force motion, this time due to the reaction force of the Earth's substance against the tendency of its components to continue in different straight lines.
This is also not the motion I'm referring to. Again, for the sake of this discussion, consider the larger body to be nonrotating.
The explanation of people sticking to the surface is that of the body-force gravity pulling them towards the Earth's centre of mass.
That's just the problem. Gravitational attraction is not a force, according to general relativity. In GR, being in freefall is being subject to no forces at all. So if you're not in freefall, you must be subject to some force. If the force is an upward one, it must correspond to an upward acceleration.
The only differences between FE gravity and RE gravity are the geometry of spacetime and the fact that some masses do not warp space in the FE theory.
I SUSPECT you are using flowery language to obfuscate again, and I suspect your statement about "only explanation" is a serious non-sequitur...
No, really, I'm serious about this, FE BS aside. It's the way gravity "really" works.
-Erasmus
-
The disagreement here is whether GR defines gravity as a force or not.
I haven't read enough about it to dispute your claim, but IF you rely on GR, which in saying Gravity isnt a force contradicts newtonian mechanics, you can't then go on to rely on Newtonian mechanics.
I know you weren't referring to the motions I talked about but I've had too much experience on this site of people picking up on small inaccuracies and capitalising on them to insult my intelligence. So sorry for those bits.
I think that anything that makes you start moving faster and faster when you were standing still has to be considered "a force" in newtonian physics... if you don't do that, then it obviously won't work. It's kinda the definition of forces... if I drop something and it accelerates downwards, there IS some FORCE there... by definition.
Now if you play with that definition nothing works anymore, just like if I allow straight lines to be curved I can wreck the discussion. As you I think pointed out too these thinsg eventually rely on certain axioms, and being aware that there is still SOME doubt as to the validity of those axioms especially under EXTREME circumstances is important...
For example I was reading something about gravity and they'd written that they were certain that there was no deviation from the "inverse square law" up to at least a certain point, at least under certain conditions.
They included a very REAL doubt, about there POSSIBLY being an inverse exponential term in the gravity that we just didnt have the means to observe yet... scientists largely really DO know that things have inherent doubt associated with them...
I'm sorry I really am for this not being entirely on-topic, but frankly I think this amounts to fiddling around with definitions again... I mean... the world is dark if sunlight doesn't "count" as light... That's not clever...
This space-time geodesics thing I thought, was just there to help explain how with BODY forces one can't TELL one is being "pulled"... I don't think it discounts it as a FORCE... you standing on the earth is a BODY force... acting on ALL mass equally, being balanced by a SURFACE force... something that acts only ona boundary and therefore causes deformation which one FEELS...
But the point is... if GR really redefines gravity, then likely it redefines other things too.. one can't just theory-hop.
-
IF you rely on GR, which in saying Gravity isnt a force contradicts newtonian mechanics, you can't then go on to rely on Newtonian mechanics.
Why not? Newton's Laws of Motion are distinct from his Law of Universal Gravitation. I can accept the former yet refuse to accept the latter.
I think that anything that makes you start moving faster and faster when you were standing still has to be considered "a force" in newtonian physics...
Yeah that's okay. While you're in freefall, you're not going faster and faster (in GR). Your speed is constant -- you're travelling at the speed of light.
This space-time geodesics thing I thought, was just there to help explain how with BODY forces one can't TELL one is being "pulled"... I don't think it discounts it as a FORCE...
You're right. It's not a force, in GR. But it's not supposed to be an explanatory aid, either. Rather, it's a description of the way things "really are".
But the point is... if GR really redefines gravity, then likely it redefines other things too.. one can't just theory-hop.
Hmm... I'm not sure in what way I'm theory-hopping. FE <--> RE, certainly, but I maintain GR in either case.
GR is based on three assmptions: that the laws of physics are the same to all observers, that the speed of light is independent of the speed of the light source, and that gravity is locally indistinguishable from acceleration. It doesn't "redefine" anything else.
-Erasmus
-
1.) You don't have to accept universal gravitation to observe that the thing pulling you down IS a force because it accelerates you. The laws of motion (the way I always figured) assume anything that does accelerate you is a force. Universal gravitation isn't that relevant to this is it?
2.) OK I stated that too simply. Freefall is an acceleration, at least under Newtonian mechanics, also note that the origin of the force causing one to free-fall in circles around a body could be anything... electronmagnetic for example, or any other body-force.
According to you no body-force IS a force... (for clarity)?
3.) If space-time had been warped such that no "force" was exerted I think that the same warping would prevent any measurement of the results of the non-force too. Also there ARE gravity gradients, so things can even be torn apart by massive objects nearby, SURELY that has to be accepted as a "force"?
4.) Theory hopping meant that I suspect you of taking aspects of different "theory-universes" and cherry picking quotes you like... I'm not qualified to say that though really.
-
1.) You don't have to accept universal gravitation to observe that the thing pulling you down IS a force because it accelerates you. The laws of motion (the way I always figured) assume anything that does accelerate you is a force. Universal gravitation isn't that relevant to this is it?
Hm. I simultaneously want to say, "Not all accelerations are the same" and "All accelerations are indistinguishable", so I won't say either.
You can talk about acceleration "locally", like, I was travelling along the x-axis at 1/s; or you can talk about it "remotely" like, it appeared that these two objects which at some point were moving together now have different relative velocities than they did before.
Gravity is stretching and bending of the x-axis, so the first notion of acceleration doesn't apply to it. As you "accelerate" in a gravitation field, your speed never changes. But the x-axis next to you and the x-axis where the Earth is are not stretched and bent in precisely the same way, so you get observe a mutual acceleration.
According to you no body-force IS a force... (for clarity)?
No... only gravity is not a force.
3.) If space-time had been warped such that no "force" was exerted I think that the same warping would prevent any measurement of the results of the non-force too. Also there ARE gravity gradients, so things can even be torn apart by massive objects nearby, SURELY that has to be accepted as a "force"?
It's not a force. It's just the components of the things moving at destructively different rates in the relevant directions. The forces involved are the attractive ones that would otherwise keep these components from travelling along geodesics.
In other words, a cloud of noninteracting dust particles would separate in a gravitational field.
4.) Theory hopping meant that I suspect you of taking aspects of different "theory-universes" and cherry picking quotes you like... I'm not qualified to say that though really.
If I want to pretend not to believe in GR, I'll probably make a note of it in the post.
In general, you can assume that I'm not going to try to argue that any theories of physics (as opposed to theories of geography) are wrong, but I fully expect to have to retract that assurance later :)
-Erasmus
-
Well, I feel like I understand the idea of warped space fairly well, like your X axis thing makes perfect sense to me and has done for a fairly long while... I'm not as "into" it as you seem to be, but the concepts always seemed cool to me.
I really can't accept the idea that gravity is NOT a force but say electromagnetism... I think that Einsteins messing around addressed gravity, but nowadays I had thought people were applying the same principle to all forces, after all, at the lowest level all forces are related to one or more of the four fundamental forces, and those are ALL body forces exhibiting similar "free-falling" patterns as macroscopic objects in gravity.
I think the fact that Einstein thought mainly on gravity was an accident... EM is to Charge more or less as Gravity is to mass... and I'm afraid I'm convinced it's unreasonable to claim one of these things "isn't" a force when others are... do you think I'm really dumb for saying that? Seriously?
Look, also those "internal forces" are reaction forces, one can see this because there's no source of energy internally to do the work, some outside influence must be affecting the parts of the object differently, forcing it to react... agin if we use newtonian stuff, then by the equal reaction idea this seems like the right outlook? ....?
-
after all, at the lowest level all forces are related to one or more of the four fundamental forces, and those are ALL body forces exhibiting similar "free-falling" patterns as macroscopic objects in gravity.
Actually, it's on exactly those levels where GR and nonrelativistic theories start disagreeing with each other.
I think the fact that Einstein thought mainly on gravity was an accident... EM is to Charge more or less as Gravity is to mass... and I'm afraid I'm convinced it's unreasonable to claim one of these things "isn't" a force when others are... do you think I'm really dumb for saying that? Seriously?
No, I don't think you're dumb, just in disagreement. The issue is that gravity is universal, whereas some particles are uncharged. Also, it's universally attractive, whereas electromagnetism can be attractive or repulsive. There are also very different qualities to the fields themselves -- I'm pretty sure electromagnetism isn't conservative. Also there's this really odd coincidence that inertial mass (the m in F=ma) and gravitational mass (the m in F=Gm1m2/r^2) are the same -- GR resolves that.
The great thing about GR is that in throwing out gravity as a force, you get one more physical phenomena explained as, "It's not magical, it's just things moving in relation to one another, that's all." That's really a nice feature because otherwise we're left with the nagging question, "Okay, so, what exactly is a force? How does it work?"
Look, also those "internal forces" are reaction forces, one can see this because there's no source of energy internally to do the work, some outside influence must be affecting the parts of the object differently, forcing it to react... agin if we use newtonian stuff, then by the equal reaction idea this seems like the right outlook? ....?
Sure, the internal forces are forces. But they're acting to resist an object inertia. They're the same thing as the force you feel on your arm when you swing a bucket of water around. The bucket wants to go off on a straight line, but the internal forces in your arm act to keep your arm in one piece.
-Erasmus
-
1.) No dude I get that quantum level has some odd rules, although I'm not that familiar with them, I meant to point out that they're all body-forces... ones that would pull on all of an object equally, (neglecting the objects size) rather than acting on one of its surfaces, if such a concept can even be imagined at that size.
2.) Well.. aren't the nuclear forces always attractive too? I think you're right about EM not being conservative, but it usually is. People can make ones that aren't though... which we can't do on gravity... which is a shame :)
I have a suspicion that there are likely to be a couple of equations, one of which describes the attraction of two objects of opposite charge, and another which says something about the the relationship between field-strength, charge, and current... or rate of change of current, or somesuch, that might be considered analogous. I'm guessing a bit though, and anyway there are going to be differences like the one you mentioned about conservative-ness.
Anyway, that all sounds cool, gravity is then some illusory effect caused by relative motion? Fun stuff, bit deep for me though, can only speculate.
3.) When you swing the bucket you force it to change direction, that is acceleration, and F=ma holds. The F isn't a reaction... there are raection forces in your arm, internal ones, but there is also a resultant on the bucket.
A force is conducted through the arm to the bucket.
When the person stands on the ground the person "tries" to accelerate, but in so doing also "tries" to deform the ground, which deforms slightly and reaches an equilibrium as the internal forces change.
If the bucket was hanging from your arm or rocketting away and being held back by your arm, then it'd be the same idea. As it is, the person standing on the surface isn't changing direction or speed (neglecting earth rotation etc.) so it can't be the same...
there
-
It's been a little while since I've looked at this thread, and at the moment I only feel prepared to address one of your points... apologies in advance :)
When the person stands on the ground the person "tries" to accelerate, but in so doing also "tries" to deform the ground, which deforms slightly and reaches an equilibrium as the internal forces change.
If the bucket was hanging from your arm or rocketting away and being held back by your arm, then it'd be the same idea. As it is, the person standing on the surface isn't changing direction or speed (neglecting earth rotation etc.) so it can't be the same...
Ah, but they are changing direction. If you're moving at a constant speed and yet remaining a constant distance from a point, it sounds like you're travelling in a circle, right? Well, locally at least, you are.
Don't forget: space is curved near massive objects so that other objects travelling locally along straight lines will get close to the massive object. If something gets in the traveller's way, turning him aside, then it's forcing him away from his straight-line trajectory. He's not travelling on a straight-line path anymore -- he's accelerating.
-
I tried to follow along the best i could but i got lost somewhere in the mix. But let me get this straight (and this is something that i dont understand with RE or FE) if we are constantly moving up (or whatever) then will we someday hit the end, to where we cannot move no more?
Please dont take my words and twist them, changing meanings or whatever. I meant them only simply and if i am completely lost and this is not part of the FE's theory whatsoever just tell me. My head hurts now. Quantam Physics =Headache
-
I tried to follow along the best i could but i got lost somewhere in the mix. But let me get this straight (and this is something that i dont understand with RE or FE) if we are constantly moving up (or whatever) then will we someday hit the end, to where we cannot move no more?
Please dont take my words and twist them, changing meanings or whatever. I meant them only simply and if i am completely lost and this is not part of the FE's theory whatsoever just tell me. My head hurts now. Quantam Physics =Headache
The universe in the RE and FE model is infinite and constantly expanding, therefore, in the FE model, the Earth will never reach the "ceiling."
In the RE model, objects are moving relative to each other, so even if the universe were finite, Earth's orbit could never "hit the end".