The Flat Earth Society
Flat Earth Discussion Boards => Flat Earth Q&A => Topic started by: Megaboz on June 20, 2006, 09:09:43 AM
-
Excuse me if these have been covered before in the forum - I was reading through the FAQ, and FE beliefs certainly are interesting, to say the least. I do have a few questions though, hopefully someone can help me understand FE theories better.
In the FAQ, it mentions that the Earth, and all stars, planets, moons, etc in the universe are accelerating 9.8 m/s^2, which gives the same effect as gravity.
What are they accelerating in reference to? You can only accelerate in reference to another object, but if the entire universe is moving, what is the reference point?
Also, it's been suggested that matter does not exert gravity. If this is true, how do we explain "Attraction of Mountains", when a plumb bob is slightly attracted by a large mass (ie a mountain)? Especially when the plumb bob is made of a material not affected by EMF (Cannot be explained by magnetism)?
Eager to discuss!
-
What are they accelerating in reference to? You can only accelerate in reference to another object.
I'm not sure I agree with this; gravity is acceleration without reference.
Also, it's been suggested that matter does not exert gravity. If this is true, how do we explain "Attraction of Mountains", when a plumb bob is slightly attracted by a large mass (ie a mountain)? Especially when the plumb bob is made of a material not affected by EMF (Cannot be explained by magnetism)?
The most obvious argument is that a plumbob is not attracted by mountains, and whoever thinks they are is crazy.
How exactly would you perform an experiment to demonstrate this phenomenon? As far as I know, the only way to measure a consistant referential "down" on earth is to use gravity, and assume that the point gravity is accelerating you towards is the center of the earth. How do you know the plumbob is skewed when you're next to the mountain if you have no other means of comparing it to "down"?
-
What are they accelerating in reference to? You can only accelerate in reference to another object.
I'm not sure I agree with this; gravity is acceleration without reference.
How so? If object1 is exerting a large amount of gravity and affecting object2, causing object2 to accelerate towards object1, then the acceleration of one object is in reference to the other object. Remember, in classic physics, gravity is a force, and force causes acceleration (F=MA), gravity itself is not acceleration.
If we're suggesting that the universe is accelerating due to and in reference to dark matter, are we suggesting dark matter is outside of the universe?
Also, it's been suggested that matter does not exert gravity. If this is true, how do we explain "Attraction of Mountains", when a plumb bob is slightly attracted by a large mass (ie a mountain)? Especially when the plumb bob is made of a material not affected by EMF (Cannot be explained by magnetism)?
The most obvious argument is that a plumbob is not attracted by mountains, and whoever thinks they are is crazy.
How exactly would you perform an experiment to demonstrate this phenomenon? As far as I know, the only way to measure a consistant referential "down" on earth is to use gravity, and assume that the point gravity is accelerating you towards is the center of the earth. How do you know the plumbob is skewed when you're next to the mountain if you have no other means of comparing it to "down"?
While there is much sensitive equipment these days that can detect gravity mappings and such, the classical experiment of Maskelyne does the job - and the important excerpt describing it:
"If you work it out you find that if a mountain the size of Schiehallion has the same average density as the rest of the earth its effect on a plumb-line hanging just beside it is to pull the plumb-line 1/360th. of a degree away from the vertical. If the plumb-line is six feet long that means the bob is pulled sideways about 4 thousandths of an inch. That’s not very much; and of course it's difficult to detect - you can’t take the mountain away and see whether the bob moves, and you can't find how much the Plumb-line is out of truth by hanging another one up beside it, because it’ll be affected the same way. But you can find the true vertical by observing the directions of the fixed stars"
You can google the entire article - but I don't believe FE theory discounts the ordered movement of stars nor the use of triangulation techniques. If you're a present day GPS user, you can see while climbing Everest that you'll get slightly different measurements from a plumb line than a GPS. There are countless articles online demonstrating the phenomenon though. I'm not sure where FE draws the line to and not to believe in Newtonian mechanics, but there must be some explanation of plumb-bob lines with mountains that is accepted within FE physics.
-
In the FAQ, it mentions that the Earth, and all stars, planets, moons, etc in the universe are accelerating 9.8 m/s^2, which gives the same effect as gravity.
What are they accelerating in reference to? You can only accelerate in reference to another object, but if the entire universe is moving, what is the reference point?
The only reason we say the rest of the universe is accelerating is because if the earth is accelerating at 9.8 m/s^2, and we aren't getting any closer the stars, other planets, and galaxies. They must be accelerating too.
-
In the FAQ, it mentions that the Earth, and all stars, planets, moons, etc in the universe are accelerating 9.8 m/s^2, which gives the same effect as gravity.
What are they accelerating in reference to? You can only accelerate in reference to another object, but if the entire universe is moving, what is the reference point?
The only reason we say the rest of the universe is accelerating is because if the earth is accelerating at 9.8 m/s^2, and we aren't getting any closer the stars, other planets, and galaxies. They must be accelerating too.
Well, if they're all accelerating - what are they all accelerating in reference to?
-
Well, if they're all accelerating - what are they all accelerating in reference to?
Us.
-
If we're standing on the planet, and the planet is accelerating, then we are also accelerating, hence we can't be the frame of reference, the frame of reference must be something that appears to be "moving away from us", to use laymen's terms.
-
How exactly would you perform an experiment to demonstrate this phenomenon? As far as I know, the only way to measure a consistant referential "down" on earth is to use gravity, and assume that the point gravity is accelerating you towards is the center of the earth. How do you know the plumbob is skewed when you're next to the mountain if you have no other means of comparing it to "down"?
Here you go Unimportant, it's called the Cavendish experiment.
http://www.juliantrubin.com/bigten/cavendishg.html
-
If we're standing on the planet, and the planet is accelerating, then we are also accelerating, hence we can't be the frame of reference, the frame of reference must be something that appears to be "moving away from us", to use laymen's terms.[/quote
Right. But since we know we are accelerating, and we can't measure our acceleration relative to them, they must be accelerating as well.
When i said "Us", I didn't actually mean their acceleration was relative to us. I meant their acceleration was relative to the same frame of reference our acceleration is relative to.
-
Right. But since we know we are accelerating, and we can't measure our acceleration relative to them, they must be accelerating as well.
Sorry, I might have missed this one - how do we know we're accelerating (not due to gravity)?
-
When I jump up, I land back on the ground.
-
I'll answer that for the FE'ers, even though im RE
The FE proof that we are accelerating is what RE'ers call gravity. Basically the earth disc accelerating "up" (towards the side that people live on)
-
You guys may have not seen the edit as I wasn't clear with my question - I changed it to: "how do we know we're accelerating (not due to gravity)?"
-
You guys may have not seen the edit as I wasn't clear with my question - I changed it to: "how do we know we're accelerating (not due to gravity)?"
The closest answer I've seen to this is because it's contrary to FE's beliefs.
Please correct me, but as far as I can derive from readings here and elsewhere, in order for us to have gravity (or its effects) on our planet, a sustained force of accelleration must exist considering the Earth does not provide mass-based gravity to keep us grounded (source: FE'ers popular belief).
What Megaboz and I (and others, I'm sure) would like to know though is: what scientific data supports this concept? Minus a reasonable conclusion that "if X, thus Y", there is nothing further that indicates actual accelleration through the cosmos, so please provide some reference for us?
-
What Megaboz and I (and others, I'm sure) would like to know though is: what scientific data supports this concept?
Newton's Laws of motion.
-
OK THIS IS EXACTLY WHAT I'VE BEEN WAITING FOR
Ok so if you are using newtons laws to prove your own theory you must believe they are right. My first point is that Newton himself believed in gravity....remember the apple?
Second point is basically me reposting my experiment from earlier which prooves gravity exits
http://www.juliantrubin.com/bigten/cavendishg.html
-
What Megaboz and I (and others, I'm sure) would like to know though is: what scientific data supports this concept?
Newton's Laws of motion.
Not really. A physics rule supporting a possibility does not provide data that that rule is in effect. Where is the actual data uses those laws?
Also noteworthy: why accept some laws and not others, such as mass and gravity? Is there a reason to specificly deny that the Earth (and other bodies, both on earth such as mountains, and in space) do not generate gravity fields directly relating to their mass and distance?
-
What Megaboz and I (and others, I'm sure) would like to know though is: what scientific data supports this concept?
Newton's Laws of motion.
I appreciate these short, concise answers, but they aren't answering the question. Newtonian mechanics is the basis of my question - the FE FAQ stipulates that we "stick" to the earth due to the Earth accelerating and not due to gravity. The quesiton is not, "is F=MA correct?" - it obviously is. The question is, why do we think the force exerted upon us is due to the Earth accelerating and not to gravity?
Both create force, however, while gravity created by matter has been "proven" in different experiments, its virtually impossible to prove the "entire universe is accelerating", not to mention logically impossible. With this in mind, how can you support the latter over the first?
-
Newton's laws apply exactly the same way whether we are talking about RE/gravity or FE/acceleration.
-
Newton's laws apply exactly the same way whether we are talking about RE/gravity or FE/acceleration.
This statement does not contribute to the debate. FE'ers and sympathizers, please respond to the question at hand regarding both (a) data/evidence supporting accelleration as opposed to mass and gravity and (b) selective laws of physics.
-
Newton's laws apply exactly the same way whether we are talking about RE/gravity or FE/acceleration.
I agree completely. Like I said in my previous post, both work - however, it is possible and has been shown that matter exerts gravity, as can be shown with a plumb bob. It is impossible for the entire Universe to be accelerating with no reference - not only because the physics don't work, but simply because it doesn't even make sense. The universe is defined by what exists. If everything that exists is accelerating on the same vector, then what is it accelerating in reference to? It doesn't make any sense, whereas gravity makes perfect sense and has been demonstrated.
-
This statement does not contribute to the debate. FE'ers and sympathizers, please respond to the question at hand regarding both (a) data/evidence supporting accelleration as opposed to mass and gravity and
Want evidence? Take whatever you have near your computer and hold it in your hand. Now drop it. Did it fall to the ground? There you go - acceleration.
-
Newton's laws apply exactly the same way whether we are talking about RE/gravity or FE/acceleration.
I agree completely. Like I said in my previous post, both work - however, it is possible and has been shown that matter exerts gravity, as can be shown with a plumb bob. It is impossible for the entire Universe to be accelerating with no reference - not only because the physics don't work, but simply because it doesn't even make sense. The universe is defined by what exists. If everything that exists is accelerating on the same vector, then what is it accelerating in reference to? It doesn't make any sense, whereas gravity makes perfect sense and has been demonstrated.
I am not a FE supporter, but all this debate about a reference frame for acceleration can be dissolved easily if you consider that everything is accelerating away from a point of origin, such as an explosion ("Big Bang") and will continue to drift at the same rate in the vacuum of space. For that matter, calling it acceleration is misleading because by definition, it is not -- it is maintaining the same velocity without friction or other forces acting to slow or change the Earth's trajectory. It's the possibility of this motion/velocity that FE'ers believe provides the Earth with the gravity-like force that keeps us pinned to its surface.
Back to the subject at hand, though, where is data that supports that these kinds of physics are actually employed here?
-
I am not a FE supporter, but all this debate about a reference frame for acceleration can be dissolved easily if you consider that everything is accelerating away from a point of origin, such as an explosion ("Big Bang") and will continue to drift at the same rate in the vacuum of space. For that matter, calling it acceleration is misleading because by definition, it is not -- it is maintaining the same velocity without friction or other forces acting to slow or change the Earth's trajectory. It's the possibility of this motion/velocity that FE'ers believe provides the Earth with the gravity-like force that keeps us pinned to its surface.
Uh, no. Constant velocity = no acceleration. Therefore, no gravity-like force.
-
This statement does not contribute to the debate. FE'ers and sympathizers, please respond to the question at hand regarding both (a) data/evidence supporting accelleration as opposed to mass and gravity and
Want evidence? Take whatever you have near your computer and hold it in your hand. Now drop it. Did it fall to the ground? There you go - acceleration.
It's possible that the item that fell to the ground either did so because the ground's velocity moved up to meet it (TE's accelleration) or because the mass of the ground under the item pulled it down (RE's gravity). That's not evidence, TheEngineer.
-
When I jump up, I land back on the ground.
Actually, you jump and the Earth crashes into your feet.
-
This statement does not contribute to the debate. FE'ers and sympathizers, please respond to the question at hand regarding both (a) data/evidence supporting accelleration as opposed to mass and gravity and
Want evidence? Take whatever you have near your computer and hold it in your hand. Now drop it. Did it fall to the ground? There you go - acceleration.
It's possible that the item that fell to the ground either did so because the ground's velocity moved up to meet it (TE's accelleration) or because the mass of the ground under the item pulled it down (RE's gravity)..
This is exactly my point! GRAVITY AND ACCELERATION are locally indistinguishable.
-
Newton's laws apply exactly the same way whether we are talking about RE/gravity or FE/acceleration.
I agree completely. Like I said in my previous post, both work - however, it is possible and has been shown that matter exerts gravity, as can be shown with a plumb bob. It is impossible for the entire Universe to be accelerating with no reference - not only because the physics don't work, but simply because it doesn't even make sense. The universe is defined by what exists. If everything that exists is accelerating on the same vector, then what is it accelerating in reference to? It doesn't make any sense, whereas gravity makes perfect sense and has been demonstrated.
I am not a FE supporter, but all this debate about a reference frame for acceleration can be dissolved easily if you consider that everything is accelerating away from a point of origin, such as an explosion ("Big Bang") and will continue to drift at the same rate in the vacuum of space. For that matter, calling it acceleration is misleading because by definition, it is not -- it is maintaining the same velocity without friction or other forces acting to slow or change the Earth's trajectory. It's the possibility of this motion/velocity that FE'ers believe provides the Earth with the gravity-like force that keeps us pinned to its surface.
That's the issue though - the FAQ does not say that the universe is accelerating away from the center of the universe is a spherical pattern - that would be fine. They're saying the entire universe is accelerating in one direction, seeming away from "nothing", which makes no sense.
The universe is indeed expanding at a growing rate - eg accelerating, the is correct usage of terms and due to red shift and other cosmological phenomena quite sound. But a universal, singular vector for acceleration doesn't make any sense.
-
This statement does not contribute to the debate. FE'ers and sympathizers, please respond to the question at hand regarding both (a) data/evidence supporting accelleration as opposed to mass and gravity and
Want evidence? Take whatever you have near your computer and hold it in your hand. Now drop it. Did it fall to the ground? There you go - acceleration.
It's possible that the item that fell to the ground either did so because the ground's velocity moved up to meet it (TE's accelleration) or because the mass of the ground under the item pulled it down (RE's gravity)..
This is exactly my point! GRAVITY AND ACCELERATION are locally indistinguishable.
But, they are. And have been (active thread right now regarding/referencing plumb bobs and mountains). Even if that were the case and the two were not distinguishable (locally, as you put it), that still does not submit proof one way or the other. It's still a wash; on the fence. And the challenge to submit evidence/proof/data maintains.
-
When I jump up, I land back on the ground.
Actually, you jump and the Earth crashes into your feet.
You say it does. I say it doesn't. I don't want to spend my time going "yes it does" / "no it doesn't" with you, but am genuinely interested in data supporting your/FE'ers theories.
-
When I jump up, I land back on the ground.
Actually, you jump and the Earth crashes into your feet.
You say it does. I say it doesn't. I don't want to spend my time going "yes it does" / "no it doesn't" with you, but am genuinely interested in data supporting your/FE'ers theories.
Didn't I just give a simple experiment you could do at your computer?
-
When I jump up, I land back on the ground.
Actually, you jump and the Earth crashes into your feet.
You say it does. I say it doesn't. I don't want to spend my time going "yes it does" / "no it doesn't" with you, but am genuinely interested in data supporting your/FE'ers theories.
Didn't I just give a simple experiment you could do at your computer?
Yes you did. And didn't I just prove beyond a doubt that the experiment's findings are inconclusive because they do not prove that any one possibility was more favorable than the other? And furthermore, did you not just agree that the findings are inconclusive based on the idea that neither RE/gravity nor TE/velocity could be locally distinguishable?
So having again established that the simple experiment proved to show no data that explicitly supports TE/velocity, I'm asking... again... for someone to provide some. Thank you.
-
When I jump up, I land back on the ground.
Actually, you jump and the Earth crashes into your feet.
You say it does. I say it doesn't. I don't want to spend my time going "yes it does" / "no it doesn't" with you, but am genuinely interested in data supporting your/FE'ers theories.
Didn't I just give a simple experiment you could do at your computer?
I think most contributors to this thread are looking for a more robust and thoughtful explanation than what you are providing. Your reasoning works assuming your original assertions are indeed axiomatic, but the problem is you're starting out with a false, or at least extremely unscientific, basis.
-
I'd like to jump in for a moment here. If the entire Earth is accelerating, then we would be accelerating at the same exact speed. If I dropped an apple, it wouldn't crash down into the earth, it would float around for a little bit before dropping. Its like if you're on a train and you jump. You don't go splat into the back of the train because you're moving at the same speed as the train, you move along with the train.
-
I'd like to jump in for a moment here. If the entire Earth is accelerating, then we would be accelerating at the same exact speed. If I dropped an apple, it wouldn't crash down into the earth, it would float around for a little bit before dropping. Its like if you're on a train and you jump. You don't go splat into the back of the train because you're moving at the same speed as the train, you move along with the train.
That's if there was no acceleration, only velocity. EG if you're on a subway, when its first starting up and accelerating, you are indeed pushed back. But once you're the same velocity as the train, it's no longer accelerating, you can jump up, and you're traveling forward at the same speed as the train, thats why you dont splat up in the back.
-
Oh, you're right. My physics lessons have failed me. I'm leaving this place it's giving me a headache. See ya back at krap.
-
OK THIS IS EXACTLY WHAT I'VE BEEN WAITING FOR
Ok so if you are using newtons laws to prove your own theory you must believe they are right. My first point is that Newton himself believed in gravity....remember the apple?
Newton's Law of Universal Gravitation is not one of his Laws of Motion. One can accept the latter but refuse the former.
Newton himself was not happy with the notion of a universal gravitational force as it implied "action at a distance".
-
So, I think the answer to the original question is as follows:
If Universal Graviation is correct then objects far from the centre of the Earth should be attracted less strongly to the centre of the Earth than objects near the centre. On a round Earth this is not a problem since for the most part all objects are about the same distance from the centre.
On a thin flat Earth, however, rimward objects are much farther from the centre than hubwards objects, so the weights of things should drop drastically as they move rimwards.
However, the weights of objects do not drop drastically as they move rimwards, so either universal gravity is false, or the Earth is round.
So, if you believe the EArth is flat then universal gravity must be wrong.
-
So, I think the answer to the original question is as follows:
If Universal Graviation is correct then objects far from the centre of the Earth should be attracted less strongly to the centre of the Earth than objects near the centre. On a round Earth this is not a problem since for the most part all objects are about the same distance from the centre.
On a thin flat Earth, however, rimward objects are much farther from the centre than hubwards objects, so the weights of things should drop drastically as they move rimwards.
However, the weights of objects do not drop drastically as they move rimwards, so either universal gravity is false, or the Earth is round.
So, if you believe the EArth is flat then universal gravity must be wrong.
Well, that was the purpose of my questions, why the FE theory doesn't seem to make sense when taking into account gravity. If you were at the edge of the "disc", so to speak, a plumb bob would hang not straight down, but at an angle towards the center of the disc Earth, since most of the mass is there. This obviously doesn't happen.
So, as you say, we're presented with the choice, either 1) Pick traditional gravity with a sphere Earth or 2) Pick no gravity with a Flat Earth. When presented with those two choices, if we do not let our bias guide us and rely strictly on observation and the scientific method, (and common sense), we see, from such experiments as Maskelynes, that we can show situations where gravity, and not an accelerating Earth, explain observed phenomena.
It's one thing to quest for the truth, it's another to ignore the obvious.
-
you disagree with newtons gravity, but how about Einsteins?
he showed that light could be bent by gravity and it was shown by one of the planets passing infront of the sun (i beleive it was venus)
considering ya'll consider them to be spot lights n'all - how does that happen in your nice little flat cozy world?
-
quick question relating to this:
Q: "Why does gravity vary with altitiude?"
A: The moon and stars have a slight gravitational pull.
if the moon and the stars have a slight gravitational pull, why doesn't the earth?
-
you disagree with newtons gravity, but how about Einsteins?
I think Einstein was a fine chap. It was his theories on relativity that specified the reality of acceleration without reference, or any change in coordinate velocity.
I believe he was also the one who claimed acceleration and gravity are locally indistinguishable.
-
you disagree with newtons gravity, but how about Einsteins?
I think Einstein was a fine chap. It was his theories on relativity that specified the reality of acceleration without reference, or any change in coordinate velocity.
Not to contradict your knowledge of Einstein, but I think you're mistaken. The theory you're refering to in general relativity is that of geodesic motion, in which objects move along curvature in spacetime. However, geodesic deviation requires the use of two geodesics via a Riemann curvature tensor, which still means that you're filling two indices with a respective geodesic, you can't just have one, you need to compare it to something. Not to mention, the curvature of spacetime is a physical aspect of the universe itself - not outside the universe. To indicate the universe itself is moving along a spacetime curvature would indicate there is some larger super-universe that contains our universe as a subset.
This all sounds silly and nonscientific because the idea of the entire universe accelerating doesn't logically make any sense - the idea of gravity is a little more plausible (and required for the geodesic motion you support) than an "accelerating" universe in reference to nothing.
-
That sounds like something Erasmus would say, so it must be right! This is why I'm an EE/CpE, by the way, and not a physics major.
But we agree that, in GR, you can be experiencing acceleration without a change in coordinate velocity, right?
-
if the moon and the stars have a slight gravitational pull, why doesn't the earth?
Obviously, the Earth must have some preferred place in the universe.
Either that, or, since we're already throwing out universal gravitation, maybe it just has a neutral gravitational "charge" the way neutrons have a neutral electrical charge. This would imply that it's made of different stuff from the stars and planets.
-
But we agree that, in GR, you can be experiencing acceleration without a change in coordinate velocity, right?
What exactly do you mean by a change in coordinate velocity?
I think that you can diverge from / converge to some other object at an increasing rate while still being in an inertial reference frame -- that's gravity in GR. It looks like you're accelerating relative to that object.
Also, it's clear that being "at rest" on the surface of the Earth is not an inertial reference frame in GR, since if you were in a state of inertial motion you would be continuing in freefall. Thus you feel "gravity" on a round Earth because the round Earth is accelerating upwards (i.e. away from the centre).