The Flat Earth Society
Flat Earth Discussion Boards => Flat Earth Debate => Topic started by: Antaeus on March 09, 2009, 02:03:16 PM
-
This confuses me very much, and to be terribly honest the FAQs have only increased my confusion. I look forward to any help in understanding this somewhat murky aspect of the theory.
Dark Energy; what is it? Its effect appears to be a constant press made upon the flat Earth resulting in an acceleration of 9.8m/s2. (Corrected) If it's an acceleration, it must mean that the energy being applied to the Earth is ever increasing. If this acceleration is perpetual, then the energy increase must be as well, which I think would mean one of two things. Either one, the Earth's speed will eventually plateau as the energy expansion peaks, or there is literally an infinite amount of Dark Energy available, and so it will always expand.
So, effectively, it seems that the magic of Earth's gravity has been replaced by the magic of an infinite supply of Dark Energy. Or, to modify one signature I saw from an FE supporter, 'Earth + Magic (Dark Energy) = Perpetual Acceleration. Perpetual Acceleration + Inertia = The Illusion of Gravity.' Of course, I welcome any information on the exact nature of this Dark Energy, along with its source and a methodology for measuring it; since Gravity itself apparently cannot be measured or adequately defined, and is therefore inadmissable, Dark Energy must be fully studied and easily explained by now, right?
Another thing that strikes me as odd is that at least some FE supporters seem to argue that there can be no gravity, because it's 'magic' and inexplicable. And, yes, I've even read the Gravity thread.
Yet the FAQs speak about gravitation existing. Evidentially the moon and stars are capable of pulling very softly upon us (limiting the effects of gravity at higher altitudes,) but the (apparently) far larger planet Earth doesn't actually generate any pull of its own. Because Earth is 'special?' How is it special? Does this mean the moon and stars don't follow the atomic table, and are instead composed of a material unlike anything seen on Earth, even though it's within relatively easy reach? Is it this very element that produces this attraction that would be considered a gravitational pull?
The argument seems to be 'Well, yes, gravitation does sort of exist, just not here on Earth. The moon and stars can pull at you with gravitational force, but the Earth can't. The Earth needs acceleration, see?'
And one more thing, something I noticed in the asteroids thread; the answer given as to why asteroids impact the Earth is that they are moving at a relatively low acceleration rate. If this is the case, then the statement in the FAQ that 'Dark Energy accelerates the Earth and all celestial bodies in the universe at 9.8m/s2' would be false, correct? Unless the definition of celestial bodies only refers to the 'biggies.' Oh, wait, there are no biggies, the stars are only a small distance from the Earth, as are the sun and moon. So, by the looks of things, Dark Energy only seems to propel the Earth and its close friends. So what propels the asteroids? They are, presumably, accelerating as well, albeit at a slower rate than Earth, right?
Of course, I could be mistaken, or misreading what's presented. If so, I look forward to the correction of my peers. ^_^
-
Dark Energy; what is it? Its effect appears to be a constant press made upon the flat Earth resulting in an acceleration of 9.3 meters per second. If it's an acceleration, it must mean that the energy being applied to the Earth is ever increasing. If this acceleration is perpetual, then the energy increase must be as well, which I think would mean one of two things. Either one, the Earth's speed will eventually plateau as the energy expansion peaks, or there is literally an infinite amount of Dark Energy available, and so it will always expand.
So, effectively, it seems that the magic of Earth's gravity has been replaced by the magic of an infinite supply of Dark Energy. Or, to modify one signature I saw from an FE supporter, 'Earth + Magic (Dark Energy) = Perpetual Acceleration. Perpetual Acceleration + Inertia = The Illusion of Gravity.' Of course, I welcome any information on the exact nature of this Dark Energy, along with its source and a methodology for measuring it; since Gravity itself apparently cannot be measured or adequately defined, and is therefore inadmissable, Dark Energy must be fully studied and easily explained by now, right?
I want to help you with a few of these questions: first, the acceleration is 9.8 meters per second squared, not 9.3 meters per second. Next, the amount of energy, assuming that Earth is carrying the whatever that propels it, will reduce in time, not increase, as there is no known way to push Earth without the loss of mass. That said, imagine the energy required to do it: you would have to have at least a Hiroshima-sized explosion for every square meter of the Earth, every few hours, and that is assuming perfect conversion of mass to kinetic energy. And since Earth has been accelerating for billions of years, just the weight of all that fuel is unimaginable.
If the source of all this energy is external to Earth and at a standstill at the place where Earth started its acceleration, then the amount of energy is humongous and increasing by the nanosecond. Just think how we need enough energy for a small town to accelerate a few subatomic particles in a particle accelerator, and that is inside a closed circuit. And even then, we are unable to reach more than 99% or so of the speed of light, and Earth is moving at 99.999999999999999% of the speed of light, at least.
While these amounts of energy are more than enough to convert Earth into a star, be careful not to call them infinite.
And the words "dark energy" were just "borrowed" from true science but while in true science they are just used as a reminder of a big unexplained phenomenon, FE theorists use it as a legitimate source of acceleration of Earth. Maybe the logic is: "if nobody knows what it is, nobody can tell us we are totally wrong when we use it as we like". I can also pretend that I am making a fuel free car that uses dark energy to move. If you say I'm mad, I will tell you that you have to show me what dark energy is before contradicting me.
-
Dark Energy; what is it? Its effect appears to be a constant press made upon the flat Earth resulting in an acceleration of 9.3 meters per second. ...
I want to help you with a few of these questions...
This is the difference between a RE'er and FE'er.
-
Dark Energy; what is it? Its effect appears to be a constant press made upon the flat Earth resulting in an acceleration of 9.3 meters per second. If it's an acceleration, it must mean that the energy being applied to the Earth is ever increasing. If this acceleration is perpetual, then the energy increase must be as well, which I think would mean one of two things. Either one, the Earth's speed will eventually plateau as the energy expansion peaks, or there is literally an infinite amount of Dark Energy available, and so it will always expand.
So, effectively, it seems that the magic of Earth's gravity has been replaced by the magic of an infinite supply of Dark Energy. Or, to modify one signature I saw from an FE supporter, 'Earth + Magic (Dark Energy) = Perpetual Acceleration. Perpetual Acceleration + Inertia = The Illusion of Gravity.' Of course, I welcome any information on the exact nature of this Dark Energy, along with its source and a methodology for measuring it; since Gravity itself apparently cannot be measured or adequately defined, and is therefore inadmissable, Dark Energy must be fully studied and easily explained by now, right?
I want to help you with a few of these questions: first, the acceleration is 9.8 meters per second squared, not 9.3 meters per second. Next, the amount of energy, assuming that Earth is carrying the whatever that propels it, will reduce in time, not increase, as there is no known way to push Earth without the loss of mass. That said, imagine the energy required to do it: you would have to have at least a Hiroshima-sized explosion for every square meter of the Earth, every few hours, and that is assuming perfect conversion of mass to kinetic energy. And since Earth has been accelerating for billions of years, just the weight of all that fuel is unimaginable.
If the source of all this energy is external to Earth and at a standstill at the place where Earth started its acceleration, then the amount of energy is humongous and increasing by the nanosecond. Just think how we need enough energy for a small town to accelerate a few subatomic particles in a particle accelerator, and that is inside a closed circuit. And even then, we are unable to reach more than 99% or so of the speed of light, and Earth is moving at 99.999999999999999% of the speed of light, at least.
While these amounts of energy are more than enough to convert Earth into a star, be careful not to call them infinite.
And the words "dark energy" were just "borrowed" from true science but while in true science they are just used as a reminder of a big unexplained phenomenon, FE theorists use it as a legitimate source of acceleration of Earth. Maybe the logic is: "if nobody knows what it is, nobody can tell us we are totally wrong when we use it as we like". I can also pretend that I am making a fuel free car that uses dark energy to move. If you say I'm mad, I will tell you that you have to show me what dark energy is before contradicting me.
Apologies for the mis-quote on terms of the numbers, reading through so many threads is beginning to cross my eyes...
Anyway, I admit I'm still a little confused as to the theory. Does this mean, according to the theory, that if the energy is not infinite, and the Earth's acceleration is essentially doomed to slow and eventually halt? Or that less energy will be required to acheive the same amount of acceleration?
Also, couldn't I just wait and see if they actually made a fuel free car that used dark energy to move? Don't get me wrong, if they did that, I'd be much closer to becoming a believer, but just saying they will is... well, it's useless. I know you meant that as an analogy, but so did I; the gist of FE views seems to be that photographic or 'witness' evidence that supports RET is fabricated, but that the same conspiracy prevents the FE from getting their own photographic or 'witness' evidence, which somehow proves they're correct. They're saying that the competitor's (Round Earth Theory) car isn't really running off the source they claim it is, and that they want to trick you to make money. But the FE car seems to have barely gotten out of the proverbial carport, relying on scientific experiments that are somehow much harder to forge or falsify than what the Round Earth people, or even twist at the interpretations until they fit their existing beliefs.
-
Anyway, I admit I'm still a little confused as to the theory. Does this mean, according to the theory, that if the energy is not infinite, and the Earth's acceleration is essentially doomed to slow and eventually halt? Or that less energy will be required to acheive the same amount of acceleration?
Any model you define in "FE" will have lots of problems. In FE or real science it is acceptable to assume Earth will eventually stop accelerating. There is some evidence that the real universe is expanding and that the expansion is accelerating, but we still know very little to know if and when that acceleration will stop or even revert. On the other hand, there are no "FE" models that can explain how the Earth has been accelerated so hard for so long without destroying the Earth in the process. Remember, a Saturn V rocket accelerates a few tons of payload a little bit more than the equivalent of a 9.8 m/s/s acceleration for a few minutes, and it is a moving skyscraper filled with fuel. If it were to continue pushing for 15 minutes it would have to be the size of the Empire State Building. Just imagine the size it would have if it were to work for a billion years.
-
Anyway, I admit I'm still a little confused as to the theory. Does this mean, according to the theory, that if the energy is not infinite, and the Earth's acceleration is essentially doomed to slow and eventually halt? Or that less energy will be required to acheive the same amount of acceleration?
By the Cambridge model, yes.
Energy is infinite though - Gravity works like we think it does.
The earth is an infinit mas, extending horizontally; It doesn't accellerate upwards, there is a finite pull downwards.
If you take the cambridge model, you can say the earth will slow down - or that it is due th aethetic drag. WE are on the flip side of the earth. One huge massive push started us off and we are slowly decellering (beyond our capable measures) until we stop.
This of course is silly though due to our experiments that verify mass causes gravitational pull, even if it does not cause some of the effects and affects that NASA claims it to have.
-
By the Cambridge model, yes.
Energy is infinite though - Gravity works like we think it does.
The earth is an infinit mas, extending horizontally; It doesn't accellerate upwards, there is a finite pull downwards.
If you take the cambridge model, you can say the earth will slow down - or that it is due th aethetic drag. WE are on the flip side of the earth. One huge massive push started us off and we are slowly decellering (beyond our capable measures) until we stop.
This of course is silly though due to our experiments that verify mass causes gravitational pull, even if it does not cause some of the effects and affects that NASA claims it to have.
So now we are decelerating. We started (I assume) at almost the speed of light and decelerate since then without ever reaching zero. And I thought I had heard it all.
Stopping from the speed of light to zero takes a bit less than a year. In a bit less than two years we will "decelerate" back to our original position, crashing into whatever propelled us, or miss it somehow and continue "decelerating" faster and faster, almost reaching the speed of light in the opposite direction. Nice.
-
...ironically, the deceleration theory makes more sense to me than the acceleration one. Not to say it's quite made me a believer, but the idea that the Earth has been slowing down, as opposed to speeding up, would rather handily hop over the hurdles and natural resistance that Dark Energy brings up, even though it brings up problems of its own.
Also, willing to bet that those experiments you mentioned are part of the Round Earth Conspiracy, Mr. Davis. *regretful sigh* I mean, if they weren't, then it'd be proving that mass causes gravity, and that the Earth wouldn't particularly need acceleration or deceleration to generate gravitational pull, which would mean a round, orbiting Earth could still generate the pull to drag us to Earth, and we couldn't possibly have that.
One of the ironies about this debate is there's surprisingly little Round Earth scientific data about the Earth being round, specifically because most of the scientific population thinks it to be pretty pointless. It'd be like trying to extensively test an orange to see if it is an orange.
In fact, I can't help but wonder if the current Flat Earth theory came after the discovery of this Conspiracy, or the Conspiracy is just the current tool to explain why they can be right, even when it seems ninety-five percent certain that they're wrong... if it's the latter, then the argument will truly never end. Even sending a spaceship up with a FE believer wouldn't work, because even if they did see that the Earth was round, came down, and told his/her compatriots, he/she would immediately be shunned by them as being a Conspirator, probably even a mole or a spy from the very beginning.
-
What is the metric that the FE model puts forward for this? Obviously theres far too much matter for it to be dark energy as it currently is in physics.
-
What I'd like to know is the reason why they think it's dark energy. How do they know?
They say you can't get to the other side so what observations/measurements have they made to put together this theory?
-
What I'd like to know is the reason why they think it's dark energy. How do they know?
They say you can't get to the other side so what observations/measurements have they made to put together this theory?
"Dark energy" is simply a placeholder name for the mechanism accelerating us upwards. We don't claim to know what it actually is. We know we're accelerating upwards, and something is causing that, and we gave that something the name "dark energy".
-
Isn't that sort of the critique that's given about the concept of Earth giving off a gravitational pull? I've seen plenty of Flat Earth supporters telling REers 'Define gravity, then.' Then they say that since the REers can't define what keeps us on the ground adequately, the FEers must be correct, because acceleration would account for us not floating off.
But admitting they don't actually know what accelerates the Earth...?
-
Isn't that sort of the critique that's given about the concept of Earth giving off a gravitational pull? I've seen plenty of Flat Earth supporters telling REers 'Define gravity, then.' Then they say that since the REers can't define what keeps us on the ground adequately, the FEers must be correct, because acceleration would account for us not floating off.
No, that's usually in response to criticism of our theory. It's not meant to imply that FEers must be correct. Our proof of a flat Earth has nothing to do with gravity or dark energy.
-
So, wait, what's the position on it, then? Do only the moon and stars generate a gravitational pull, or would the Flat Earth as well? Or is it undecided/something that's debated about amongst FEers?
-
The main consensus is that the Earth does not generate a gravitational pull. Those that say it does also believe the Earth is infinite to even out the pull along the surface. I don't know for sure one way or another but I lean towards the former because an infinite Earth seems unlikely to me.
-
So would the essential thought process be...
Problem: Earth Doesn't Have Gravitational Pull, but We Aren't Floating
Solution: Acceleration Simulates The 'Gravitational Pull' Effect.
Problem: Acceleration Requires Mechanism/Force.
Solution: Introduce Concept Of Dark Energy As A Theoretical Mechanism For Acceleration.
-
So would the essential thought process be...
Problem: Earth Doesn't Have Gravitational Pull, but We Aren't Floating
Solution: Acceleration Simulates The 'Gravitational Pull' Effect.
Problem: Acceleration Requires Mechanism/Force.
Solution: Introduce Concept Of Dark Energy As A Theoretical Mechanism For Acceleration.
That's pretty much it, yes.
-
Ah.
This must be one of those 'agree to disagree' moments, eh? ^_^;
-
The main consensus is that the Earth does not generate a gravitational pull. Those that say it does also believe the Earth is infinite to even out the pull along the surface. I don't know for sure one way or another but I lean towards the former because an infinite Earth seems unlikely to me.
Just curious as to why earth shouldn't generate a gravitational pull. If gravitation is caused by mass distorting spacetime, then if the mass of the earth distorts spacetime shouldn't it generate a gravitational pull? Or is it the assertion that the earth has no mass, or that - for reasons that are unknown - it doesn't distort spacetime?
-
The main consensus is that the Earth does not generate a gravitational pull. Those that say it does also believe the Earth is infinite to even out the pull along the surface. I don't know for sure one way or another but I lean towards the former because an infinite Earth seems unlikely to me.
Just curious as to why earth shouldn't generate a gravitational pull. If gravitation is caused by mass distorting spacetime, then if the mass of the earth distorts spacetime shouldn't it generate a gravitational pull? Or is it the assertion that the earth has no mass, or that - for reasons that are unknown - it doesn't distort spacetime?
It's my position that it's not mass that distorts spacetime but a particle we've never observed but can assume exist called "gravitons", which the heavenly bodies possess but the Earth doesn't. It is the gravitons that cause an object to distort spacetime, while the object's mass dictates how much it distorts spacetime.
-
The main consensus is that the Earth does not generate a gravitational pull. Those that say it does also believe the Earth is infinite to even out the pull along the surface. I don't know for sure one way or another but I lean towards the former because an infinite Earth seems unlikely to me.
Just curious as to why earth shouldn't generate a gravitational pull. If gravitation is caused by mass distorting spacetime, then if the mass of the earth distorts spacetime shouldn't it generate a gravitational pull? Or is it the assertion that the earth has no mass, or that - for reasons that are unknown - it doesn't distort spacetime?
It's my position that it's not mass that distorts spacetime but a particle we've never observed but can assume exist called "gravitons", which the heavenly bodies possess but the Earth doesn't. It is the gravitons that cause an object to distort spacetime, while the object's mass dictates how much it distorts spacetime.
The number of "gravitons" would have to be directly proportional to the mass in order for that to work then as I see it, otherwise if there were two objects with identical mass but a different quantity of "gravitons" then they would have different gravitational properties, or have I missed something?
-
The main consensus is that the Earth does not generate a gravitational pull. Those that say it does also believe the Earth is infinite to even out the pull along the surface. I don't know for sure one way or another but I lean towards the former because an infinite Earth seems unlikely to me.
Just curious as to why earth shouldn't generate a gravitational pull. If gravitation is caused by mass distorting spacetime, then if the mass of the earth distorts spacetime shouldn't it generate a gravitational pull? Or is it the assertion that the earth has no mass, or that - for reasons that are unknown - it doesn't distort spacetime?
It's my position that it's not mass that distorts spacetime but a particle we've never observed but can assume exist called "gravitons", which the heavenly bodies possess but the Earth doesn't. It is the gravitons that cause an object to distort spacetime, while the object's mass dictates how much it distorts spacetime.
Alright, but once again the same question arises; why not Earth? The existence of gravitons wouldn't disprove the Earth having a gravitation pull on their own. If anything, it would also replace the idea of acceleration via Dark Energy, even though we'd be replacing one unobserved, theoretical substance for another. Why would gravitons exist in these others entities, but be void on this world?
Yes, the going theory seems to be 'Earth is Special.' That explanation is so vague it makes Dark Energy look like a thoroughly explained, fully defined, inalienable fact.
...for that matter, why would gravitons fit in a flat Earth theory, but not a round Earth one? It sounds as if they'd pull something towards the surface generating/possessing it, so a round Earth could just be drawing things towards its round surface.
-
The main consensus is that the Earth does not generate a gravitational pull. Those that say it does also believe the Earth is infinite to even out the pull along the surface. I don't know for sure one way or another but I lean towards the former because an infinite Earth seems unlikely to me.
Just curious as to why earth shouldn't generate a gravitational pull. If gravitation is caused by mass distorting spacetime, then if the mass of the earth distorts spacetime shouldn't it generate a gravitational pull? Or is it the assertion that the earth has no mass, or that - for reasons that are unknown - it doesn't distort spacetime?
It's my position that it's not mass that distorts spacetime but a particle we've never observed but can assume exist called "gravitons", which the heavenly bodies possess but the Earth doesn't. It is the gravitons that cause an object to distort spacetime, while the object's mass dictates how much it distorts spacetime.
The number of "gravitons" would have to be directly proportional to the mass in order for that to work then as I see it, otherwise if there were two objects with identical mass but a different quantity of "gravitons" then they would have different gravitational properties, or have I missed something?
You're correct, each unit of mass has an associated number of gravitons. We can call this "mass-graviton equivalence". But the Earth is different from the heavenly bodies, it doesn't have these particles.
Alright, but once again the same question arises; why not Earth? The existence of gravitons wouldn't disprove the Earth having a gravitation pull on their own. If anything, it would also replace the idea of acceleration via Dark Energy, even though we'd be replacing one unobserved, theoretical substance for another. Why would gravitons exist in these others entities, but be void on this world?
That is unknown. I think our massive DEF might have something to do with it. I'm guessing that the gravitons burn up as they travel through our atmosphere. Our DEF must be much stronger than that of any heavenly body because the Earth is so much larger.
Yes, the going theory seems to be 'Earth is Special.' That explanation is so vague it makes Dark Energy look like a thoroughly explained, fully defined, inalienable fact.
I don't like the implication that it's "special". It's merely different. It's also the only body observed to contain life in either model. Doesn't that make the Earth special in RE as well?
...for that matter, why would gravitons fit in a flat Earth theory, but not a round Earth one? It sounds as if they'd pull something towards the surface generating/possessing it, so a round Earth could just be drawing things towards its round surface.
Well, gravitons do exist in RE. And they're even exactly as I described, except that in RE everything is believed to be possessed of them (even though they've never been observed and are entirely theoretical). I simply modified the going theory of gravity to suit the FE model.
-
That is unknown. I think our massive DEF might have something to do with it. I'm guessing that the gravitons burn up as they travel through our atmosphere. Our DEF must be much stronger than that of any heavenly body because the Earth is so much larger.
So now the thereby undetected particles can burn up? Into what? Are they matter, energy, something in between? Something burns up in the atmosphere, it doesn't just vanish, it breaks up into smaller bits that can travel through the atmosphere without creating enough friction on the substance to generate a damaging level of heat. For these particles to burn up due to friction, the units called a 'graviton' would have to be a complex structure larger than the atomic, or even molecular level, and if they are, then would they be matter?
I don't like the implication that it's "special". It's merely different. It's also the only body observed to contain life in either model. Doesn't that make the Earth special in RE as well?
The difference being that we've observed life here, but haven't found it anywhere else yet. The current theory, among most scientific circles anyway, is not that we will never ever find any life anywhere in the entire universe because it only happens right here on our planet. The RE theory is that the universe is vast, and that we haven't explored every spot in it, so there's plenty out there we couldn't define right now. It is the beginning of an answer to the question about our Universe.
But the FE theory, it seems to be the end product, the end of the question, and so the end of curiosity. With the statement that all the celestial bodies, including the moon, sun and stars are within our neighborhood, apparently leaving nothing else but the occasional chunk of rock we slam into during our journey... it seems to say 'Yep, we know everything about what's out there. Trust us, we're the only interesting thing in the Universe.' The very theory also scorns the idea of sustained space flight ever occurring in a million years, so it also tells us we shouldn't even bother questioning the FE view on the universe, or trying to develop a method of seeing it for ourselves.
Also, I quoted 'Earth is special' from the FAQ section.
Well, gravitons do exist in RE. And they're even exactly as I described, except that in RE everything is believed to be possessed of them (even though they've never been observed and are entirely theoretical). I simply modified the going theory of gravity to suit the FE model.
Well, if it's viable in the FE model, then one would think it's viable in the RE model. Your assumption seems to be that since we haven't been able to find gravitons yet, they must not exist here, because human beings couldn't possibly not be able to find them if they were there, given how incredibly advanced we are now.
It would be the equivalent of saying that ionizing radiation doesn't exist if we don't have any Geiger counters available to spot it. Sure, our skin burns away when we're around radioactive substances, but that could be anything!
-
The main consensus is that the Earth does not generate a gravitational pull. Those that say it does also believe the Earth is infinite to even out the pull along the surface. I don't know for sure one way or another but I lean towards the former because an infinite Earth seems unlikely to me.
Just curious as to why earth shouldn't generate a gravitational pull. If gravitation is caused by mass distorting spacetime, then if the mass of the earth distorts spacetime shouldn't it generate a gravitational pull? Or is it the assertion that the earth has no mass, or that - for reasons that are unknown - it doesn't distort spacetime?
It's my position that it's not mass that distorts spacetime but a particle we've never observed but can assume exist called "gravitons", which the heavenly bodies possess but the Earth doesn't. It is the gravitons that cause an object to distort spacetime, while the object's mass dictates how much it distorts spacetime.
The number of "gravitons" would have to be directly proportional to the mass in order for that to work then as I see it, otherwise if there were two objects with identical mass but a different quantity of "gravitons" then they would have different gravitational properties, or have I missed something?
You're correct, each unit of mass has an associated number of gravitons. We can call this "mass-graviton equivalence". But the Earth is different from the heavenly bodies, it doesn't have these particles.
Why though? This is the part I'm struggling to accept, why would the earth be the only body in the entire universe that wouldn't have gravitons -- if indeed they exist?
-
The main consensus is that the Earth does not generate a gravitational pull. Those that say it does also believe the Earth is infinite to even out the pull along the surface. I don't know for sure one way or another but I lean towards the former because an infinite Earth seems unlikely to me.
Just curious as to why earth shouldn't generate a gravitational pull. If gravitation is caused by mass distorting spacetime, then if the mass of the earth distorts spacetime shouldn't it generate a gravitational pull? Or is it the assertion that the earth has no mass, or that - for reasons that are unknown - it doesn't distort spacetime?
It's my position that it's not mass that distorts spacetime but a particle we've never observed but can assume exist called "gravitons", which the heavenly bodies possess but the Earth doesn't. It is the gravitons that cause an object to distort spacetime, while the object's mass dictates how much it distorts spacetime.
I see you've been told many times. Cavendish proved that Earth's mass generates 'gravity' and measured it very precisely for the time. So we know that your claim has been falsified.
-
Why though? This is the part I'm struggling to accept, why would the earth be the only body in the entire universe that wouldn't have gravitons -- if indeed they exist?
I don't know. Why is the Earth so much larger than everything else in the entire universe? Why is the Earth apparently the only body to support life in the entire universe? Maybe they have something to do with the lack of gravitons. The point is, the Earth is demonstrably different from any other body in the universe in FET in a number of ways, so it would be foolish to think there aren't other ways it's different that we haven't yet observed as well.
I see you've been told many times. Cavendish proved that Earth's mass generates 'gravity' and measured it very precisely for the time.
No he didn't.
-
I see you've been told many times. Cavendish proved that Earth's mass generates 'gravity' and measured it very precisely for the time.
No he didn't.
Again, you're using that poor debate technique. Just denying the evidence or the conclusion fails you.
-
I see you've been told many times. Cavendish proved that Earth's mass generates 'gravity' and measured it very precisely for the time.
No he didn't.
Again, you're using that poor debate technique. Just denying the evidence or the conclusion fails you.
Cavendish never measured the Earth's gravity. Try doing some research before making such outrageous claims. In fact, Cavendish's result purported to show the density of the Earth, but it was assuming that the Earth generates gravity in the first place. Oooh, that bias!
-
I see you've been told many times. Cavendish proved that Earth's mass generates 'gravity' and measured it very precisely for the time.
No he didn't.
Again, you're using that poor debate technique. Just denying the evidence or the conclusion fails you.
Cavendish never measured the Earth's gravity. Try doing some research before making such outrageous claims. In fact, Cavendish's result purported to show the density of the Earth, but it was assuming that the Earth generates gravity in the first place. Oooh, that bias!
I never said Cavendish measured the Earth's gravity. Attacking a strawman is another poor debating technique.
Cavendish showed that mass from the Earth mutually exerted 'gravity' on another mass from the Earth, simply, elegantly, and for the time accurately. He made absolutely no assumption about the Earth generating 'gravity' in the first place in that famous experiment.
-
I see you've been told many times. Cavendish proved that Earth's mass generates 'gravity' and measured it very precisely for the time.
No he didn't.
Again, you're using that poor debate technique. Just denying the evidence or the conclusion fails you.
Cavendish never measured the Earth's gravity. Try doing some research before making such outrageous claims. In fact, Cavendish's result purported to show the density of the Earth, but it was assuming that the Earth generates gravity in the first place. Oooh, that bias!
I never said Cavendish measured the Earth's gravity. Attacking a strawman is another poor debating technique.
Cavendish showed that mass from the Earth mutually exerted 'gravity' on another mass from the Earth, simply, elegantly, and for the time accurately. He made absolutely no assumption about the Earth generating 'gravity' in the first place in that famous experiment.
I wasn't attacking a strawman. If I misunderstood what you were saying I apologize, but it looks an awful lot like you say Cavendish measured the Earth's gravity. He didn't, nor did he measure the Earth's mass, so one way or another you were incorrect in what you stated.
His assumption was that gravity was responsible for the apparent attraction between masses. I know you'll argue the point but I think that was a leap of faith.
-
I see you've been told many times. Cavendish proved that Earth's mass generates 'gravity' and measured it very precisely for the time.
No he didn't.
Again, you're using that poor debate technique. Just denying the evidence or the conclusion fails you.
Cavendish never measured the Earth's gravity. Try doing some research before making such outrageous claims. In fact, Cavendish's result purported to show the density of the Earth, but it was assuming that the Earth generates gravity in the first place. Oooh, that bias!
I never said Cavendish measured the Earth's gravity. Attacking a strawman is another poor debating technique.
Cavendish showed that mass from the Earth mutually exerted 'gravity' on another mass from the Earth, simply, elegantly, and for the time accurately. He made absolutely no assumption about the Earth generating 'gravity' in the first place in that famous experiment.
I wasn't attacking a strawman. If I misunderstood what you were saying I apologize, but it looks an awful lot like you say Cavendish measured the Earth's gravity. He didn't, nor did he measure the Earth's mass, so one way or another you were incorrect in what you stated.
His assumption was that gravity was responsible for the apparent attraction between masses. I know you'll argue the point but I think that was a leap of faith.
I was precise. I said that he showed that Earth's mass produced 'gravity'. He measured "G", not "g".
I'm sorry, but I have to challenge you... Cavendish never made any assumption of the sort in the experiment. He simply showed the attraction and measured it. He made the conclusion, not assumption, that 'gravity' as seen in the Heavens, as seen in falling objects on Earth, as seen in the rising of the tides, and so forth, could be applied to his results with a simplicity of a genius.
-
His assumption was that gravity was responsible for the apparent attraction between masses. I know you'll argue the point but I think that was a leap of faith.
Isn't that exactly what Dark Energy is? And the spotlight sun and moon? And the Shadow Object? Maybe I misread our last exchange on the matter, but you yourself seemed to say that at least the first one was a 'it's probably because of...' placeholder.
So wouldn't that, bare minimum, put both theories on equal footing with regards to this specific issue, i.e. FE vs. RE concepts of Earthly gravitational pulls and its causes?
What might tip that balance is that the FE model does actually have the idea of a gravitational pull in its own model as well, just claiming it shouldn't really influence Earth because, since we don't currently have the means to detect whatever might cause this gravitational pull, it couldn't possibly exist here.
Keeping that in mind, shouldn't 'cold light' and 'Dark Energy' and 'gravitons' also be considered null and void? It seems to be the RE theory's undetected atomic or sub-atomic cause for a pull towards something, plus at least two other hypothetical models, and it also raises more questions about FE's own version of gravity like, again, the specifics as to why certain celestial bodies would generate gravity, or have gravitons, but Earth wouldn't.
If your guess is that they burn up in the atmosphere upon re-entry, you'd be suggesting that 1) a gravitational pull is somehow caused by matter, and matter large enough to generate heat from friction upon atmospheric re-entry, and 2) that gravitons, and so a gravitational pull, aren't generated by the celestial bodies themselves, and so should be present everywhere else in the universe, although God knows where they would be pulling.
Unless you're saying that the stars and moon would somehow generate or emit these particles, and they would just fail to reach the Earth, in which case I repeat; why not Earth? The idea that they burn up in the atmosphere would only be remotely viable if the assumption is that they would have to come from an outside source.
So the leap made here is that either the Earth couldn't just generate its own gravitons, or that gravitons are something found throughout the universe, that the moon and stars have absolutely nothing to do with them, so being pulled towards these objects might be pure coincidence. The tides might cast some doubt on that theory, since having water levels shift according to lunar cycles would seem to be a fairly colossal coincidence.
As for the former, that Earth is the exception to the 'Graviton' rule... why? Which of the experiments carried out by Flat Earth supporters proved beyond a shadow of a doubt that a gravitational pull could not possibly influence the Earth, but was still viable for the other celestial bodies?
-
I was precise. I said that he showed that Earth's mass produced 'gravity'. He measured "G", not "g".
No, he didn't, although I guess I can't fault you for thinking he did. It's a popular misconception.
His assumption was that gravity was responsible for the apparent attraction between masses. I know you'll argue the point but I think that was a leap of faith.
Isn't that exactly what Dark Energy is? And the spotlight sun and moon? And the Shadow Object? Maybe I misread our last exchange on the matter, but you yourself seemed to say that at least the first one was a 'it's probably because of...' placeholder.
I don't deny that all of these things are theoretical, and in fact I don't claim to know one way or another, for example, if the Shadow Object exists. I also don't think the sun and moon are literally spotlights (I think they only act as spotlights due to the limits imposed by the atmosphere) or that the moon radiates "cold light" (I feel it just reflects the light of the sun, as you do). These types of things are merely the best way we have of explaining the phenomena we observe (eclipses, day and night, gravitation, etc). They may well be replaced by better theories later on, as has happened repeatedly in the past.
The Cavendish Experiment on the other hand purports to prove the existence of gravity; this result is accepted by modern scientists without reservation. I just think the notion that something else might be influencing those weights has been completely overlooked by the general scientific community in favor of the bigger picture from their point of view, which is that their theories need all the support they can get if they are to be accepted by the general public. The scientific community is not immune to the workings of politics.
And it's not only FE theorists who have reservations about the Cavendish Experiment. Here's an example. (http://thinkers.net/magazine/Learning/Research/physics.html)
-
I was precise. I said that he showed that Earth's mass produced 'gravity'. He measured "G", not "g".
No, he didn't, although I guess I can't fault you for thinking he did. It's a popular misconception.
His assumption was that gravity was responsible for the apparent attraction between masses. I know you'll argue the point but I think that was a leap of faith.
Isn't that exactly what Dark Energy is? And the spotlight sun and moon? And the Shadow Object? Maybe I misread our last exchange on the matter, but you yourself seemed to say that at least the first one was a 'it's probably because of...' placeholder.
I don't deny that all of these things are theoretical, and in fact I don't claim to know one way or another, for example, if the Shadow Object exists. I also don't think the sun and moon are literally spotlights (I think they only act as spotlights due to the limits imposed by the atmosphere) or that the moon radiates "cold light" (I feel it just reflects the light of the sun, as you do). These types of things are merely the best way we have of explaining the phenomena we observe (eclipses, day and night, gravitation, etc). They may well be replaced by better theories later on, as has happened repeatedly in the past.
The Cavendish Experiment on the other hand purports to prove the existence of gravity; this result is accepted by modern scientists without reservation. I just think the notion that something else might be influencing those weights has been completely overlooked by the general scientific community in favor of the bigger picture from their point of view, which is that their theories need all the support they can get if they are to be accepted by the general public. The scientific community is not immune to the workings of politics.
And it's not only FE theorists who have reservations about the Cavendish Experiment. Here's an example. (http://thinkers.net/magazine/Learning/Research/physics.html)
There's making a theory up and guessing what causes an effect. Then there's making a theory that encompasses past experimental results and proven theories. When a theory is put forward it stands on the shoulder of others.
Guessing about a theory is not the same as making an informed choice about one.
It's like computer modelling. We are guessing the answer to real life from equations of state and solver techniques.
There is a difference.
-
I was precise. I said that he showed that Earth's mass produced 'gravity'. He measured "G", not "g".
No, he didn't, although I guess I can't fault you for thinking he did. It's a popular misconception.
His assumption was that gravity was responsible for the apparent attraction between masses. I know you'll argue the point but I think that was a leap of faith.
Isn't that exactly what Dark Energy is? And the spotlight sun and moon? And the Shadow Object? Maybe I misread our last exchange on the matter, but you yourself seemed to say that at least the first one was a 'it's probably because of...' placeholder.
I don't deny that all of these things are theoretical, and in fact I don't claim to know one way or another, for example, if the Shadow Object exists. I also don't think the sun and moon are literally spotlights (I think they only act as spotlights due to the limits imposed by the atmosphere) or that the moon radiates "cold light" (I feel it just reflects the light of the sun, as you do). These types of things are merely the best way we have of explaining the phenomena we observe (eclipses, day and night, gravitation, etc). They may well be replaced by better theories later on, as has happened repeatedly in the past.
The Cavendish Experiment on the other hand purports to prove the existence of gravity; this result is accepted by modern scientists without reservation. I just think the notion that something else might be influencing those weights has been completely overlooked by the general scientific community in favor of the bigger picture from their point of view, which is that their theories need all the support they can get if they are to be accepted by the general public. The scientific community is not immune to the workings of politics.
And it's not only FE theorists who have reservations about the Cavendish Experiment. Here's an example. (http://thinkers.net/magazine/Learning/Research/physics.html)
Fair enough, but typically theories have a reason for existing, some observation that casts doubt on a current theory, but also directly supports the theory you form to replace it. Otherwise you're pretty much grasping at straws, only this form results in one inevitably clinging jealously to a single straw and announcing that it is the finest of all the other straws, because it's their straw. While the article certainly would act to disprove the current theory as to the cause of gravity, (as you said, theories are meant to eventually be tossed aside; the reactions of the future head of Cavendish Laboratory do sound childish, as they're depicted, at least,) I can't find anything that states that any other celestial body would be the exception and possess a gravitational pull, for whatever reason. His argument seems to be that the current theory as to why an object draws in other objects is fundamentally flawed, not that the pull itself doesn't exist.
I say 'I can't find' because I fully admit that I needed to read through it at about a quarter of my usual speed to absorb it properly, and there's always the possibility I missed the appropriate passage anyway. Unfortunately, science isn't my background of choice, so I'm admittedly a layman trying to wrap my head around the theories provided. It's mostly the fact that I'm a Psych major and Political Sciences minor that makes the idea of a massive conspiracy more than a little hard to believe, and studies in Philosophy and Rationality minor help me at least hold my own in the terms of analyzing and breaking down a provided argument.
My primary trip-up with the FE theory is that they use the concept of a gravitational pull at all, and an even more vague version at that. This isn't helped by the fact that the way they explain why one can have gravity and the other cannot is that, again, 'Earth is Special,' (still quoted from the FAQ,) which almost looks like free license to insist that, any time one of the 'rules' look to be in danger of contradicting the Flat Earth theory, Earth is just the exception, and so the argument is completely invalid.
For example, to my 'wouldn't gravitons have to be matter of sufficient size to generate friction if they were to burn up in the atmosphere,' the answer could be 'Gravitons Are Special.' Since it's a theoretical discussion, the other side couldn't say, 'No They're Not,' because then the first side would just say 'Prove It,' and then sit back happily, even if they themselves couldn't prove that the Earth/Gravitons were special.
Still, I have to admit I'm slightly relieved that you don't believe in the 'cold light' theory. Some of the ideas seem so far beyond the bounds of any conventional science, it would be virtually impossible to debate them because there's little frame of reference to rely upon. Out of curiosity, specifically which person, or which group of people, do the answers in the FAQ reflect? I notice that a few times I've made points, based on stuff in the FAQ everyone wants newcomers to read, the answer is, 'well, I don't really believe that stuff.'
-
There's making a theory up and guessing what causes an effect. Then there's making a theory that encompasses past experimental results and proven theories. When a theory is put forward it stands on the shoulder of others.
Guessing about a theory is not the same as making an informed choice about one.
It's like computer modelling. We are guessing the answer to real life from equations of state and solver techniques.
There is a difference.
Well, scientifically all theories start with a guess. That's what a hypothesis is. But as a zetetic I tend to reject what I can't see for my own eyes without further evidence. Thus, I only accept the existence of the Shadow Object because it's the best explanation I've seen produced thus far; that doesn't mean I give any real weight to it. If it's ever disproven, or a better, more accurate theory takes its place, I will accept that without reservation. But that doesn't mean I can't speculate freely about its existence and properties. That's what this forum is all about.
Fair enough, but typically theories have a reason for existing, some observation that casts doubt on a current theory, but also directly supports the theory you form to replace it. Otherwise you're pretty much grasping at straws, only this form results in one inevitably clinging jealously to a single straw and announcing that it is the finest of all the other straws, because it's their straw. While the article certainly would act to disprove the current theory as to the cause of gravity, (as you said, theories are meant to eventually be tossed aside; the reactions of the future head of Cavendish Laboratory do sound childish, as they're depicted, at least,) I can't find anything that states that any other celestial body would be the exception and possess a gravitational pull, for whatever reason. His argument seems to be that the current theory as to why an object draws in other objects is fundamentally flawed, not that the pull itself doesn't exist.
I say 'I can't find' because I fully admit that I needed to read through it at about a quarter of my usual speed to absorb it properly, and there's always the possibility I missed the appropriate passage anyway. Unfortunately, science isn't my background of choice, so I'm admittedly a layman trying to wrap my head around the theories provided. It's mostly the fact that I'm a Psych major and Political Sciences minor that makes the idea of a massive conspiracy more than a little hard to believe, and studies in Philosophy and Rationality minor help me at least hold my own in the terms of analyzing and breaking down a provided argument.
My primary trip-up with the FE theory is that they use the concept of a gravitational pull at all, and an even more vague version at that. This isn't helped by the fact that the way they explain why one can have gravity and the other cannot is that, again, 'Earth is Special,' (still quoted from the FAQ,) which almost looks like free license to insist that, any time one of the 'rules' look to be in danger of contradicting the Flat Earth theory, Earth is just the exception, and so the argument is completely invalid.
For example, to my 'wouldn't gravitons have to be matter of sufficient size to generate friction if they were to burn up in the atmosphere,' the answer could be 'Gravitons Are Special.' Since it's a theoretical discussion, the other side couldn't say, 'No They're Not,' because then the first side would just say 'Prove It,' and then sit back happily, even if they themselves couldn't prove that the Earth/Gravitons were special.
Still, I have to admit I'm slightly relieved that you don't believe in the 'cold light' theory. Some of the ideas seem so far beyond the bounds of any conventional science, it would be virtually impossible to debate them because there's little frame of reference to rely upon. Out of curiosity, specifically which person, or which group of people, do the answers in the FAQ reflect? I notice that a few times I've made points, based on stuff in the FAQ everyone wants newcomers to read, the answer is, 'well, I don't really believe that stuff.'
The thing is that if you can accept that it might be flawed in any way, you can argue that it may be flawed in every way. Obviously something is causing the apparent attraction between the masses. But there's no concrete evidence that that something is the same force that causes the sun to form in the shape of a ball, or Mercury to orbit the sun. That's where the leap of faith comes in; over the past several centuries scientists have leaned toward the theory that everything in the universe exhibits the same basic properties, so Cavendish and heavenly bodies must be connected. I feel this is short-sighted. Why completely discount the possibility that the Earth is just different? It's inherently every bit as irrational to assume it's not different from the other bodies in the observable universe as it is to assume it is.
-
There's making a theory up and guessing what causes an effect. Then there's making a theory that encompasses past experimental results and proven theories. When a theory is put forward it stands on the shoulder of others.
Guessing about a theory is not the same as making an informed choice about one.
It's like computer modelling. We are guessing the answer to real life from equations of state and solver techniques.
There is a difference.
Well, scientifically all theories start with a guess. That's what a hypothesis is. But as a zetetic I tend to reject what I can't see for my own eyes without further evidence. Thus, I only accept the existence of the Shadow Object because it's the best explanation I've seen produced thus far; that doesn't mean I give any real weight to it. If it's ever disproven, or a better, more accurate theory takes its place, I will accept that without reservation. But that doesn't mean I can't speculate freely about its existence and properties. That's what this forum is all about.
Fair enough, but typically theories have a reason for existing, some observation that casts doubt on a current theory, but also directly supports the theory you form to replace it. Otherwise you're pretty much grasping at straws, only this form results in one inevitably clinging jealously to a single straw and announcing that it is the finest of all the other straws, because it's their straw. While the article certainly would act to disprove the current theory as to the cause of gravity, (as you said, theories are meant to eventually be tossed aside; the reactions of the future head of Cavendish Laboratory do sound childish, as they're depicted, at least,) I can't find anything that states that any other celestial body would be the exception and possess a gravitational pull, for whatever reason. His argument seems to be that the current theory as to why an object draws in other objects is fundamentally flawed, not that the pull itself doesn't exist.
I say 'I can't find' because I fully admit that I needed to read through it at about a quarter of my usual speed to absorb it properly, and there's always the possibility I missed the appropriate passage anyway. Unfortunately, science isn't my background of choice, so I'm admittedly a layman trying to wrap my head around the theories provided. It's mostly the fact that I'm a Psych major and Political Sciences minor that makes the idea of a massive conspiracy more than a little hard to believe, and studies in Philosophy and Rationality minor help me at least hold my own in the terms of analyzing and breaking down a provided argument.
My primary trip-up with the FE theory is that they use the concept of a gravitational pull at all, and an even more vague version at that. This isn't helped by the fact that the way they explain why one can have gravity and the other cannot is that, again, 'Earth is Special,' (still quoted from the FAQ,) which almost looks like free license to insist that, any time one of the 'rules' look to be in danger of contradicting the Flat Earth theory, Earth is just the exception, and so the argument is completely invalid.
For example, to my 'wouldn't gravitons have to be matter of sufficient size to generate friction if they were to burn up in the atmosphere,' the answer could be 'Gravitons Are Special.' Since it's a theoretical discussion, the other side couldn't say, 'No They're Not,' because then the first side would just say 'Prove It,' and then sit back happily, even if they themselves couldn't prove that the Earth/Gravitons were special.
Still, I have to admit I'm slightly relieved that you don't believe in the 'cold light' theory. Some of the ideas seem so far beyond the bounds of any conventional science, it would be virtually impossible to debate them because there's little frame of reference to rely upon. Out of curiosity, specifically which person, or which group of people, do the answers in the FAQ reflect? I notice that a few times I've made points, based on stuff in the FAQ everyone wants newcomers to read, the answer is, 'well, I don't really believe that stuff.'
The thing is that if you can accept that it might be flawed in any way, you can argue that it may be flawed in every way. Obviously something is causing the apparent attraction between the masses. But there's no concrete evidence that that something is the same force that causes the sun to form in the shape of a ball, or Mercury to orbit the sun. That's where the leap of faith comes in; over the past several centuries scientists have leaned toward the theory that everything in the universe exhibits the same basic properties, so Cavendish and heavenly bodies must be connected. I feel this is short-sighted. Why completely discount the possibility that the Earth is just different? It's inherently every bit as irrational to assume it's not different from the other bodies in the observable universe as it is to assume it is.
There's making a guess and then there's making an informed judgement. The two are different. An hypothesis is not the same as a guess. It uses reasoned judgement.
Humanity believed the earth to be flat hundreds of years ago (that was an hypothesis since the earth was percieved to be flat in the local point of view).
Making something up without knowing the previous theories contains a great deal of scientific risk. Something that a good scientists knows how to assess.
For instance your guess about gravitons disintegrating in the atmosphere makes no sense based on our current scientific understanding of force mediating particles.
-
There's making a guess and then there's making an informed judgement. The two are different. An hypothesis is not the same as a guess. It uses reasoned judgement.
We do use reasoned judgment. We're certainly not blindly guessing.
Humanity believed the earth to be flat hundreds of years ago (that was an hypothesis since the earth was percieved to be flat in the local point of view).
Well, technically you have to go back thousands of years before you come to humanity in general believing the Earth to be flat.
Making something up without knowing the previous theories contains a great deal of scientific risk. Something that a good scientists knows how to assess.
For instance your guess about gravitons disintegrating in the atmosphere makes no sense based on our current scientific understanding of force mediating particles.
Considering that I'm proposing an entirely different kind of particle, I don't see how.
-
There's making a guess and then there's making an informed judgement. The two are different. An hypothesis is not the same as a guess. It uses reasoned judgement.
We do use reasoned judgment. We're certainly not blindly guessing.
Humanity believed the earth to be flat hundreds of years ago (that was an hypothesis since the earth was percieved to be flat in the local point of view).
Well, technically you have to go back thousands of years before you come to humanity in general believing the Earth to be flat.
Making something up without knowing the previous theories contains a great deal of scientific risk. Something that a good scientists knows how to assess.
For instance your guess about gravitons disintegrating in the atmosphere makes no sense based on our current scientific understanding of force mediating particles.
Considering that I'm proposing an entirely different kind of particle, I don't see how.
Ok so what is this graviton you speak of?
How big is it?
-
There's making a guess and then there's making an informed judgement. The two are different. An hypothesis is not the same as a guess. It uses reasoned judgement.
We do use reasoned judgment. We're certainly not blindly guessing.
Humanity believed the earth to be flat hundreds of years ago (that was an hypothesis since the earth was percieved to be flat in the local point of view).
Well, technically you have to go back thousands of years before you come to humanity in general believing the Earth to be flat.
Making something up without knowing the previous theories contains a great deal of scientific risk. Something that a good scientists knows how to assess.
For instance your guess about gravitons disintegrating in the atmosphere makes no sense based on our current scientific understanding of force mediating particles.
Considering that I'm proposing an entirely different kind of particle, I don't see how.
Ok so what is this graviton you speak of?
How big is it?
We've never observed it, only its affects, so these questions remain unanswered. :(
-
There's making a guess and then there's making an informed judgement. The two are different. An hypothesis is not the same as a guess. It uses reasoned judgement.
We do use reasoned judgment. We're certainly not blindly guessing.
Humanity believed the earth to be flat hundreds of years ago (that was an hypothesis since the earth was percieved to be flat in the local point of view).
Well, technically you have to go back thousands of years before you come to humanity in general believing the Earth to be flat.
Making something up without knowing the previous theories contains a great deal of scientific risk. Something that a good scientists knows how to assess.
For instance your guess about gravitons disintegrating in the atmosphere makes no sense based on our current scientific understanding of force mediating particles.
Considering that I'm proposing an entirely different kind of particle, I don't see how.
Ok so what is this graviton you speak of?
How big is it?
We've never observed it, only its affects, so these questions remain unanswered. :(
So you're making something up without any reasoned judgement to it's existance?
-
There's making a guess and then there's making an informed judgement. The two are different. An hypothesis is not the same as a guess. It uses reasoned judgement.
We do use reasoned judgment. We're certainly not blindly guessing.
Humanity believed the earth to be flat hundreds of years ago (that was an hypothesis since the earth was percieved to be flat in the local point of view).
Well, technically you have to go back thousands of years before you come to humanity in general believing the Earth to be flat.
Making something up without knowing the previous theories contains a great deal of scientific risk. Something that a good scientists knows how to assess.
For instance your guess about gravitons disintegrating in the atmosphere makes no sense based on our current scientific understanding of force mediating particles.
Considering that I'm proposing an entirely different kind of particle, I don't see how.
Ok so what is this graviton you speak of?
How big is it?
We've never observed it, only its affects, so these questions remain unanswered. :(
So you're making something up without any reasoned judgement to it's existance?
No...
-
There's making a guess and then there's making an informed judgement. The two are different. An hypothesis is not the same as a guess. It uses reasoned judgement.
We do use reasoned judgment. We're certainly not blindly guessing.
Humanity believed the earth to be flat hundreds of years ago (that was an hypothesis since the earth was percieved to be flat in the local point of view).
Well, technically you have to go back thousands of years before you come to humanity in general believing the Earth to be flat.
Making something up without knowing the previous theories contains a great deal of scientific risk. Something that a good scientists knows how to assess.
For instance your guess about gravitons disintegrating in the atmosphere makes no sense based on our current scientific understanding of force mediating particles.
Considering that I'm proposing an entirely different kind of particle, I don't see how.
Ok so what is this graviton you speak of?
How big is it?
We've never observed it, only its affects, so these questions remain unanswered. :(
So you're making something up without any reasoned judgement to it's existance?
No...
Ok so what's your reasoned judgement to it's existance?
-
There's making a guess and then there's making an informed judgement. The two are different. An hypothesis is not the same as a guess. It uses reasoned judgement.
We do use reasoned judgment. We're certainly not blindly guessing.
Humanity believed the earth to be flat hundreds of years ago (that was an hypothesis since the earth was percieved to be flat in the local point of view).
Well, technically you have to go back thousands of years before you come to humanity in general believing the Earth to be flat.
Making something up without knowing the previous theories contains a great deal of scientific risk. Something that a good scientists knows how to assess.
For instance your guess about gravitons disintegrating in the atmosphere makes no sense based on our current scientific understanding of force mediating particles.
Considering that I'm proposing an entirely different kind of particle, I don't see how.
Ok so what is this graviton you speak of?
How big is it?
We've never observed it, only its affects, so these questions remain unanswered. :(
So you're making something up without any reasoned judgement to it's existance?
No...
Ok so what's your reasoned judgement to it's existance?
The orbits of the heavenly bodies.
-
There's making a guess and then there's making an informed judgement. The two are different. An hypothesis is not the same as a guess. It uses reasoned judgement.
We do use reasoned judgment. We're certainly not blindly guessing.
Humanity believed the earth to be flat hundreds of years ago (that was an hypothesis since the earth was percieved to be flat in the local point of view).
Well, technically you have to go back thousands of years before you come to humanity in general believing the Earth to be flat.
Making something up without knowing the previous theories contains a great deal of scientific risk. Something that a good scientists knows how to assess.
For instance your guess about gravitons disintegrating in the atmosphere makes no sense based on our current scientific understanding of force mediating particles.
Considering that I'm proposing an entirely different kind of particle, I don't see how.
Ok so what is this graviton you speak of?
How big is it?
We've never observed it, only its affects, so these questions remain unanswered. :(
So you're making something up without any reasoned judgement to it's existance?
No...
Ok so what's your reasoned judgement to it's existance?
The orbits of the heavenly bodies.
Ok I can see this is going to take a long time.
So how did you come to the conclusion of a graviton from the orbits of the heavenly bodies?
-
I would argue that this goes beyond 'seeing is believing'. I have never seen a polar bear yet I believe they exist and I suspect that most people would agree with me. So am I insane? Probably, but not because I believe Polar bears exist, I have seen many pictures, many zoos claim to have them and presumably those zoos have many visitors. Not to mention there is a considerable amount of data on polar bears. Actually I never realized quite how much; I just did a quick literature search to see what is out there. I may know someone who has seen one for real, or at least a hair dyed Grizzly bear, I can't say I've asked. So on the balance of probability I decide that although I have not seen a polar bear they probably exist. This is a belief, one I assign a high degree of probability to.
What about the shape of the Earth then. Well like Polar Bears i've not seen the whole Earth but also like Polar bears I have seen many pictures. So what do I see. I see the sky as blue, fairly uniformly. If the sun was close compared to the dimensions of the atmosphere then it should not be such a uniform colour. Also the size of the sun does not change throughout the day again implying it is far compared to any relative movement between me and the sun. Trivially from eclipses the sun is further than the moon and occupies the same solid angle in the sky. I would say I have happy that the distance to the sun is large compared to the day to day relative movements of the Earth without any precise scientific data. If the sun is far from the Earth then at night the Sun has to pass over the horizon, although obviously this could be round the back of a flat Earth. Though having flown for 12 hours on a plane and had it be lunch the entire time this view becomes less sustainable. From my own personal experience with no secondary evidence I would say that the inhabited surface is 3D. Though admittedly I would say I do not have enough personal experience to say that its spherical.
Theres a wealth of scientific data:
Spectral studies of the sun - Nuclear Fusion
Magnetic Poles - Souther Ocean - magnetic navigation in the southern hemisphere, while possible would not be the same
Field Generation - ? New physics required magnetohydrodynamics gives wrong answers.
Neutrinos - My personal favorite as the Earth is transparent to them.
All satellite based astrophysics and climate physics - Where does their data come from
Winds - Why do trade winds all go West to East?
Solar Wind - If the sun is so close why is there a large time delay between a solar flare being observed and the particles reaching the Earth.
Causal (not strictly) contact - Airliners between South America and Australia are not supersonic.
Gravitational - A disc has a different shaped field to a sphere, if one were to fall we would not quite fall vertically compared to the ground, don't know how sensitive you would have to be for this
High energy Cosmic Rays - One would not find life close to any body giving these off.
I would say that without inducing a conspiracy including much of the modern scientific community then the geometry of the world is now very well constrained. Without every having taken a photo of the Earth. I agree that it is not irrational to start with a hypothesis and then try to falsify it. What I think is irrational is to assume that centuries worth of data is part of a conspiracy just because you don't like the solution. If one is to assume that the Earth is a sphere with a mass of the same type as all other bodies then gravitation describes the situation well. All things considered I fundamentally disagree with your thesis you are not drawing a conclusion from data. You are making a decision and making data fit it or declaring things unique or conspiracies as necessary.
Finally the graviton is meaningless for this debate. The graviton is a hypothetical spin 2 boson that carries the gravitational force. Its range would be infinite and it couples to the gravitational mass of a body. However while it may ultimately be responsible for gravitation it is not also important to note that for this discussion it is not important as we are working in the very low energy/mass regime. That was an addendum as there have been 9 new posts while I was ranting.
-
Finally the graviton is meaningless for this debate. The graviton is a hypothetical spin 2 boson that carries the gravitational force. Its range would be infinite and it couples to the gravitational mass of a body. However while it may ultimately be responsible for gravitation it is not also important to note that for this discussion it is not important as we are working in the very low energy/mass regime. That was an addendum as there have been 9 new posts while I was ranting.
You're right which is why I'm trying to establish what truth roundysomething means by a graviton. He say's it can interact with the atmosphere and disintegrate :P
-
Why would it do that? We're getting into pretty hardcore QFT here, potentially. Maybe optimistic.
-
Why would it do that? We're getting into pretty hardcore QFT here, potentially. Maybe optimistic.
I know which is why I don't think he knows what a graviton in the theoretical sense means :P
-
Be funny if we get hustled. Because I have to say not sure I can't go far past the basics on this one.
-
Be funny if we get hustled. Because I have to say not sure I can't go far past the basics on this one.
I like a challenge ;)
-
I was precise. I said that he showed that Earth's mass produced 'gravity'. He measured "G", not "g".
No, he didn't, although I guess I can't fault you for thinking he did. It's a popular misconception.
False charity is yet another poor debating technique. Just how many of these faulty tools do you have in your toolbox?
The Cavendish experiment, done in 1797 ? 1798 by Henry Cavendish, was the first experiment to measure the force of gravity between masses in the laboratory,[1] and the first to yield accurate values for the gravitational constant and the mass of the Earth.[2][3]
-
There's making a guess and then there's making an informed judgement. The two are different. An hypothesis is not the same as a guess. It uses reasoned judgement.
We do use reasoned judgment. We're certainly not blindly guessing.
Humanity believed the earth to be flat hundreds of years ago (that was an hypothesis since the earth was percieved to be flat in the local point of view).
Well, technically you have to go back thousands of years before you come to humanity in general believing the Earth to be flat.
Making something up without knowing the previous theories contains a great deal of scientific risk. Something that a good scientists knows how to assess.
For instance your guess about gravitons disintegrating in the atmosphere makes no sense based on our current scientific understanding of force mediating particles.
Considering that I'm proposing an entirely different kind of particle, I don't see how.
Ok so what is this graviton you speak of?
How big is it?
We've never observed it, only its affects, so these questions remain unanswered. :(
So you're making something up without any reasoned judgement to it's existance?
No...
Ok so what's your reasoned judgement to it's existance?
The orbits of the heavenly bodies.
Ok I can see this is going to take a long time.
So how did you come to the conclusion of a graviton from the orbits of the heavenly bodies?
It's the name I gave to the substance causing the heavenly bodies to orbit like they do. I feel like we're going around in circles.
Why would it do that? We're getting into pretty hardcore QFT here, potentially. Maybe optimistic.
I know which is why I don't think he knows what a graviton in the theoretical sense means :P
I know exactly what I mean when I talk about gravitons, and as pointed out, it's not the same as what you're talking about.
-
There's making a guess and then there's making an informed judgement. The two are different. An hypothesis is not the same as a guess. It uses reasoned judgement.
We do use reasoned judgment. We're certainly not blindly guessing.
Humanity believed the earth to be flat hundreds of years ago (that was an hypothesis since the earth was percieved to be flat in the local point of view).
Well, technically you have to go back thousands of years before you come to humanity in general believing the Earth to be flat.
Making something up without knowing the previous theories contains a great deal of scientific risk. Something that a good scientists knows how to assess.
For instance your guess about gravitons disintegrating in the atmosphere makes no sense based on our current scientific understanding of force mediating particles.
Considering that I'm proposing an entirely different kind of particle, I don't see how.
Ok so what is this graviton you speak of?
How big is it?
We've never observed it, only its affects, so these questions remain unanswered. :(
So you're making something up without any reasoned judgement to it's existance?
No...
Ok so what's your reasoned judgement to it's existance?
The orbits of the heavenly bodies.
Ok I can see this is going to take a long time.
So how did you come to the conclusion of a graviton from the orbits of the heavenly bodies?
It's the name I gave to the substance causing the heavenly bodies to orbit like they do. I feel like we're going around in circles.
Why would it do that? We're getting into pretty hardcore QFT here, potentially. Maybe optimistic.
I know which is why I don't think he knows what a graviton in the theoretical sense means :P
I know exactly what I mean when I talk about gravitons, and as pointed out, it's not the same as what you're talking about.
I don't think you realise.
I'm trying to establish why you think this particle exists. What is the reasoning based on your deduction?
I'm trying to ascertain whether you've just made up 'your' version of the graviton.
In simpler terms, I want to know where it comes from and why you think it comes from there. I also want to know what you think it does.
-
Well then what does it interact with? How does it shower in the atmosphere? What different interactions are we expecting different energies at? Im an experimentalist give me something to look for. I suspect you will need to formalize your graviton field. Like so many I suspect you main problem will be to have a strongly interacting particle (showering in the atmosphere) while maintaining current observations and the weakness of the gravitational field.
-
I don't think you realise.
I'm trying to establish why you think this particle exists. What is the reasoning based on your deduction?
I've explained this already.
I'm trying to ascertain whether you've just made up 'your' version of the graviton.
Of course I did, to explain the apparent attraction of the heavenly bodies.
In simpler terms, I want to know where it comes from and why you think it comes from there. I also want to know what you think it does.
Well, I would imagine it's a direct result of the origin of the universe, but I can't say for sure. I think it causes objects to warp spacetime around them to a degree relative to the object's mass.
-
Here's the thing. Scientists today don't even know what dark energy is. It's a very curious mystery, and it's not even proven to be real, although it's highly implied. The FET for some reason defines dark energy with no basis for the claim and just sounds stupid to hear.
-
Here's the thing. Scientists today don't even know what dark energy is. It's a very curious mystery, and it's not even proven to be real, although it's highly implied. The FET for some reason defines dark energy with no basis for the claim and just sounds stupid to hear.
Yes, that is correct. Scientists today theorize the existence of a type of energy that they have never observed directly, only its effects. Interesting that this is allowed in RE but I propose something similar in FE (not dark energy, the graviton) and I'm somehow just making shit up.
Dark energy in FET is acknowledgedly something different from dark energy in RET. I apologize if this is confusing, but I didn't give it its name. But we do have a basis for theorizing its existence: the upward acceleration of the Earth. Unless you think that's just magic.
-
Here's the thing. Scientists today don't even know what dark energy is. It's a very curious mystery, and it's not even proven to be real, although it's highly implied. The FET for some reason defines dark energy with no basis for the claim and just sounds stupid to hear.
Yes, that is correct. Scientists today theorize the existence of a type of energy that they have never observed directly, only its effects. Interesting that this is allowed in RE but I propose something similar in FE (not dark energy, the graviton) and I'm somehow just making shit up.
Dark energy in FET is acknowledgedly something different from dark energy in RET. I apologize if this is confusing, but I didn't give it its name. But we do have a basis for theorizing its existence: the upward acceleration of the Earth. Unless you think that's just magic.
No, I guess I didn't understand that you link the acceleration to dark energy just to give it a name (Which is highly unscientific and a bit silly when you think about it). Also, I don't think it's magic. I seriously doubt that there is a universal force acting upon the Earth alone and nothing else in the universe. I also know that the formation of a flat celestial body is incredibly unlikely, if it is even possible.
-
I seriously doubt that there is a universal force acting upon the Earth alone and nothing else in the universe.
Dark energy acts on everything in the universe not shielded by the DEF.
-
I seriously doubt that there is a universal force acting upon the Earth alone and nothing else in the universe.
Dark energy acts on everything in the universe not shielded by the DEF.
Roundy, I don't suppose that it would be possible for you to make and post a quick scale drawing of the FE, sun, moon and the celestial bodies showing the relationship between the dark energy and the DEF? It would make things so much more clear to some of us dense RE'ers.
-
I seriously doubt that there is a universal force acting upon the Earth alone and nothing else in the universe.
Dark energy acts on everything in the universe not shielded by the DEF.
Roundy, I don't suppose that it would be possible for you to make and post a quick scale drawing of the FE, sun, moon and the celestial bodies showing the relationship between the dark energy and the DEF? It would make things so much more clear to some of us dense RE'ers.
I'll see if I can make something up but to be honest I'm no good with drawings. I'd be surprised if someone hasn't done this already, anyway.
-
I seriously doubt that there is a universal force acting upon the Earth alone and nothing else in the universe.
Dark energy acts on everything in the universe not shielded by the DEF.
Roundy, I don't suppose that it would be possible for you to make and post a quick scale drawing of the FE, sun, moon and the celestial bodies showing the relationship between the dark energy and the DEF? It would make things so much more clear to some of us dense RE'ers.
I'll see if I can make something up but to be honest I'm no good with drawings. I'd be surprised if someone hasn't done this already, anyway.
I've made several requests in the past, but no FE'er has ever produced one.
-
I don't think you realise.
I'm trying to establish why you think this particle exists. What is the reasoning based on your deduction?
I've explained this already.
I'm trying to ascertain whether you've just made up 'your' version of the graviton.
Of course I did, to explain the apparent attraction of the heavenly bodies.
In simpler terms, I want to know where it comes from and why you think it comes from there. I also want to know what you think it does.
Well, I would imagine it's a direct result of the origin of the universe, but I can't say for sure. I think it causes objects to warp spacetime around them to a degree relative to the object's mass.
I want to know what past observations/theories you have used to come to the conclusions of a 'graviton' that disintegrates in the atmosphere.
The current scientific understanding of the graviton is extremly theoretical because of the infinities involved within the quantum mechanics. It becomes nonrenormalisable.
If your 'graviton' is produced and you say it bends space time then to all intents and purposes it is a form of a tensor field (vector/scaler field) which is why I'm confused as to your reasoning that it is able to interact with the atoms in the atmosphere and disapear.
-
I don't think you realise.
I'm trying to establish why you think this particle exists. What is the reasoning based on your deduction?
I've explained this already.
I'm trying to ascertain whether you've just made up 'your' version of the graviton.
Of course I did, to explain the apparent attraction of the heavenly bodies.
In simpler terms, I want to know where it comes from and why you think it comes from there. I also want to know what you think it does.
Well, I would imagine it's a direct result of the origin of the universe, but I can't say for sure. I think it causes objects to warp spacetime around them to a degree relative to the object's mass.
I want to know what past observations/theories you have used to come to the conclusions of a 'graviton' that disintegrates in the atmosphere.
I said that was a guess when I first proposed it. But I guess they don't necessarily have to be. It's not like anybody's ever tested a meteor for gravitons; they very well may still contain them.
-
What tests should we carry out? Seriously, i'm above average at particle physics, tell me what properties your graviton has. Infact low energy graviton searches is, not quite a hobby, but an interest slightly off my day to day work.
-
From the looks of this thread, here's the basic template of the FE argument:
1: RE: "If the earth is flat, then why (question A)?"
2: FE: "Because, (answer B)."
3: RE: "Why do you believe (answer B) to be true?"
4: FE: "Because, since the earth is flat, (answer B) must be true."
5. goto line 1
I always thought that it was impossible for a human to create a perfect circle...but I've been proven wrong by every FE that I've spoken to...
-
From the looks of this thread, here's the basic template of the FE argument:
1: RE: "If the earth is flat, then why (question A)?"
2: FE: "Because, (answer B)."
3: RE: "Why do you believe (answer B) to be true?"
4: FE: "Because, since the earth is flat, (answer B) must be true."
5. goto line 1
I always thought that it was impossible for a human to create a perfect circle...but I've been proven wrong by every FE that I've spoken to...
Except that we're not using (answer B) as evidence that the Earth is flat. We're using the fact that the Earth is flat as evidence of (answer B). The fact that the Earth is flat is supported by its own evidence. So there's nothing circular about our arguments.