The Flat Earth Society
Flat Earth Discussion Boards => Flat Earth Q&A => Topic started by: RoundEarthWinners on April 29, 2010, 08:35:10 PM
-
Ok, I have a question for flat earth people. In the FET, the Earth is moving upwards at 9.8 m/s^2.
But why? There has to be a force pushing on the Earth. That's just a little something for Flat Earthers to think about.
To be quite honest, there's only one reason I don't believe in the FET and that's because I don't think a conspiracy of this scale would happen, its something that i would have to see to believe.
I also don't think that there are 30-40,000 ice wall guards sitting there inbreeding with themselves, having been locked away from modern society for years. I honestly don't see where that comes from, =P i could come up with a better reason than that.
Have fun Discussing that why the FET earth moves upwards =P
-
Ok, I have a question for flat earth people. In the FET, the Earth is moving upwards at 9.8 m/s^2.
But why? There has to be a force pushing on the Earth. That's just a little something for Flat Earthers to think about.
We call it Universal Acceleration (or UA). Some believe it's caused by dark energy, others by dark matter. In either case it's really just a placeholder name for a force we can observe and define but don't really understand the mechanism behind.
I also don't think that there are 30-40,000 ice wall guards sitting there inbreeding with themselves, having been locked away from modern society for years. I honestly don't see where that comes from, =P i could come up with a better reason than that.
Most of us don't believe that either. It was a theory in the early days of the forums that has really just stuck around as a joke, I think.
-
[We call it Universal Acceleration (or UA). Some believe it's caused by dark energy, others by dark matter. In either case it's really just a placeholder name for a force we can observe and define but don't really understand the mechanism behind.
Why do we observe some places to have a stronger gravitational force between the same masses, then? If we're dealing with acceleration instead of gravity, then some places on the Earth must be accelerating with more jerk than others.
-
I also don't think that there are 30-40,000 ice wall guards sitting there inbreeding with themselves, having been locked away from modern society for years. I honestly don't see where that comes from, =P i could come up with a better reason than that.
Most of us don't believe that either. It was a theory in the early days of the forums that has really just stuck around as a joke, I think.
Maybe there should be labels in the FAQ: "Joke" and "Serious Business"
-
Why do we observe some places to have a stronger gravitational force between the same masses, then? If we're dealing with acceleration instead of gravity, then some places on the Earth must be accelerating with more jerk than others.
The two mots plausible explanations are:
Heavenly bodies exert a pull.
The Earth exerts a small, but existent, pull, and the "underneath" of the earth is inconsistent.
-
Why do we observe some places to have a stronger gravitational force between the same masses, then?
You'll need to be a little more specific, there.
-
To be quite honest, there's only one reason I don't believe in the FET and that's because I don't think a conspiracy of this scale would happen, its something that i would have to see to believe.
I am a little concerned that people like you do not see more reasons to accept that Earth is round.
Too many of our schools, in every country, fail to show what science is really about and let people learn that things are one way or another "because the experts say so". But science is really about giving everyone direct contact with evidence and with the process that made us reach these conclusions.
Lets see science of the most basic kind: we are sitting on an object (Earth) of an unknown shape, that is too big to see from any vantage point where a direct observation would be possible. What should we do?
First, we get reference points in which we can rely on. After a while, the stars seem the best option. Then we observe the stars from different places of the Earth and find that they do not move with respect to one another when we move around Earth. Now we have something we can do measures against. Now we have a way to measure something (Earth) that is too big to see in its entirety.
Navigators everywhere did the above since more than 600 years ago, and gave us what we need: every time you move 60 nautical miles North the stars move one degree South. This is a repeatable measurement that has worked flawlessly for centuries.
Now we can go back to the shape of the Earth: what shape of Earth fits the measurements?
-
Why do we observe some places to have a stronger gravitational force between the same masses, then?
You'll need to be a little more specific, there.
Masses = The Earth's and that of anything on its surface.
Places = Different locations on the Earth's surface.
Compare the equator to either pole for the most obvious difference.
-
Ok, I have a question for flat earth people. In the FET, the Earth is moving upwards at 9.8 m/s^2.
But why? There has to be a force pushing on the Earth. That's just a little something for Flat Earthers to think about.
We call it Universal Acceleration (or UA). Some believe it's caused by dark energy, others by dark matter. In either case it's really just a placeholder name for a force we can observe and define but don't really understand the mechanism behind.
So you're telling me nothing in the world falls? The Earth just comes up to us? And doesn't that mean that the Earth is rising all the time?
-
Ok, I have a question for flat earth people. In the FET, the Earth is moving upwards at 9.8 m/s^2.
But why? There has to be a force pushing on the Earth. That's just a little something for Flat Earthers to think about.
We call it Universal Acceleration (or UA). Some believe it's caused by dark energy, others by dark matter. In either case it's really just a placeholder name for a force we can observe and define but don't really understand the mechanism behind.
So you're telling me nothing in the world falls? The Earth just comes up to us? And doesn't that mean that the Earth is rising all the time?
Yes to all questions.
-
Ok, I have a question for flat earth people. In the FET, the Earth is moving upwards at 9.8 m/s^2.
But why? There has to be a force pushing on the Earth. That's just a little something for Flat Earthers to think about.
We call it Universal Acceleration (or UA). Some believe it's caused by dark energy, others by dark matter. In either case it's really just a placeholder name for a force we can observe and define but don't really understand the mechanism behind.
So you're telling me nothing in the world falls? The Earth just comes up to us? And doesn't that mean that the Earth is rising all the time?
Yes to all questions.
So how does pouring a glass of something work? Because the glass doesn't go up.
-
So how does pouring a glass of something work? Because the glass doesn't go up.
Yes, it does.
-
So how does pouring a glass of something work? Because the glass doesn't go up.
Yes, it does.
But when you pour it from the container, it curves. And the drink shouldn't even come out.
-
So how does pouring a glass of something work? Because the glass doesn't go up.
Yes, it does.
But when you pour it from the container, it curves. And the drink shouldn't even come out.
The container is moving up too. I suggest you read about Einstein's equivalency principle if you're having trouble understanding this.
-
So how does pouring a glass of something work? Because the glass doesn't go up.
Yes, it does.
But when you pour it from the container, it curves. And the drink shouldn't even come out.
The container is moving up too. I suggest you read about Einstein's equivalency principle if you're having trouble understanding this.
Then I'm moving up too. The liquid is too. And so is the glass. Dynamic Equilibrium.
-
So how does pouring a glass of something work? Because the glass doesn't go up.
Yes, it does.
But when you pour it from the container, it curves. And the drink shouldn't even come out.
The container is moving up too. I suggest you read about Einstein's equivalency principle if you're having trouble understanding this.
Then I'm moving up too. The liquid is too. And so is the glass. Dynamic Equilibrium.
You're moving up. The glass is moving up. The liquid is moving up until the glass is tilted, at which point it is suspended in mid-air and the Earth rushes to meet it. Again, I implore you to read about the equivalence principle because you seem to think that this principle (that acceleration and gravitation are locally indistinguishable) is something we came up with, and it's not.
-
So if there's no gravity, then how is there weight?
-
Roundy is right.
An object accelerating upwards will have the same effect as gravity pulling downwards.
Where it gets foggy is when you get past the Earth.
If it's always going upwards and everything is pushed upwards, why is the UA pushing the Earth(ground) and everything in space but not everything on the surface or the atmosphere.
-
Roundy is right.
An object accelerating upwards will have the same effect as gravity pulling downwards.
Where it gets foggy is when you get past the Earth.
If it's always going upwards and everything is pushed upwards, why is the UA pushing the Earth(ground) and everything in space but not everything on the surface or the atmosphere.
But when you pour something, it just feels like it would enter a glass differently in the "Earth rising" theory.
-
Roundy is right.
An object accelerating upwards will have the same effect as gravity pulling downwards.
Where it gets foggy is when you get past the Earth.
If it's always going upwards and everything is pushed upwards, why is the UA pushing the Earth(ground) and everything in space but not everything on the surface or the atmosphere.
But when you pour something, it just feels like it would enter a glass differently in the "Earth rising" theory.
You'd think that but the reality is that it wouldn't. You wouldn't notice a difference anyway.
-
Question:If you tied a rock to a string/rope,than lifted the rock (to a point where the string/rope curved) and it change postion and went down.Wouldn't this mean something is pulling it down?
-
Question:If you tied a rock to a string/rope,than lifted the rock (to a point where the string/rope curved) and it change postion and went down.Wouldn't this mean something is pulling it down?
If you lifted a rock with a string/rope attached to it and the rope curved, that means something is acting on the rope/string to curve it. Probably wind. As far as I know, a length of string will always point to the center of the Earth when there is no wind.
-
Question:If you tied a rock to a string/rope,than lifted the rock (to a point where the string/rope curved) and it change postion and went down.Wouldn't this mean something is pulling it down?
That's a good point. What makes the rope sag if there is no gravity pulling it down? It should just kind of bunch up, like it would if laid flat on a table.
-
Question:If you tied a rock to a string/rope,than lifted the rock (to a point where the string/rope curved) and it change postion and went down.Wouldn't this mean something is pulling it down?
That's a good point. What makes the rope sag if there is no gravity pulling it down? It should just kind of bunch up, like it would if laid flat on a table.
If I understand the UA hypothesis correctly, the rope would sag for the same reason things would "fall." Inertia.
-
Roundy is right.
An object accelerating upwards will have the same effect as gravity pulling downwards.
Where it gets foggy is when you get past the Earth.
If it's always going upwards and everything is pushed upwards, why is the UA pushing the Earth(ground) and everything in space but not everything on the surface or the atmosphere.
But when you pour something, it just feels like it would enter a glass differently in the "Earth rising" theory.
The fact that Universal Acceleration "just feels wrong" to the globular countenance is stark testament to the efficacy of the Conspiracy's brainwashing technique.
-
Roundy is right.
An object accelerating upwards will have the same effect as gravity pulling downwards.
Where it gets foggy is when you get past the Earth.
If it's always going upwards and everything is pushed upwards, why is the UA pushing the Earth(ground) and everything in space but not everything on the surface or the atmosphere.
But when you pour something, it just feels like it would enter a glass differently in the "Earth rising" theory.
The fact that Universal Acceleration "just feels wrong" to the globular countenance is stark testament to the efficacy of the Conspiracy's brainwashing technique.
Or the lack of plausibility of UA theory.
-
Roundy is right.
An object accelerating upwards will have the same effect as gravity pulling downwards.
Where it gets foggy is when you get past the Earth.
If it's always going upwards and everything is pushed upwards, why is the UA pushing the Earth(ground) and everything in space but not everything on the surface or the atmosphere.
But when you pour something, it just feels like it would enter a glass differently in the "Earth rising" theory.
The fact that Universal Acceleration "just feels wrong" to the globular countenance is stark testament to the efficacy of the Conspiracy's brainwashing technique.
Or the lack of plausibility of UA theory.
Whatever experiential features of Universal Acceleration would make it feel implausible would make gravitation feel equally implausible.
-
Roundy is right.
An object accelerating upwards will have the same effect as gravity pulling downwards.
Where it gets foggy is when you get past the Earth.
If it's always going upwards and everything is pushed upwards, why is the UA pushing the Earth(ground) and everything in space but not everything on the surface or the atmosphere.
But when you pour something, it just feels like it would enter a glass differently in the "Earth rising" theory.
The fact that Universal Acceleration "just feels wrong" to the globular countenance is stark testament to the efficacy of the Conspiracy's brainwashing technique.
Or the lack of plausibility of UA theory.
Whatever experiential features of Universal Acceleration would make it feel implausible would make gravitation feel equally implausible.
Except that gravity is governed by a specific set of laws and mathematical relationships, every one of which has to do with mass and has invaluable usefulness when accuracy is required of the application.
The UA has no such constraints.
-
According to GR, gravity and UA are governed by the same principle: there are no experiments that can differentiate gravity from acceleration in our frame of reference.
-
According to GR, gravity and UA are governed by the same principle: there are no experiments that can differentiate gravity from acceleration in our frame of reference.
Of course you can. The moon has markedly less mass than the earth. Therefore, it should have less positive acceleration. Thus it would be overtaken and crash into the earth.
The UA can't be both attractive and repulsive at the same time, can it?!
-
According to GR, gravity and UA are governed by the same principle: there are no experiments that can differentiate gravity from acceleration in our frame of reference.
Of course you can. The moon has markedly less mass than the earth. Therefore, it should have less positive acceleration. Thus it would be overtaken and crash into the earth.
Gravity can't be both attractive and repulsive at the same time, can it?!
The Moon is aloft over the Earth because of its photoelectric interaction with the Earth's core. It accelerates at the same rate as the Earth.
-
According to GR, gravity and UA are governed by the same principle: there are no experiments that can differentiate gravity from acceleration in our frame of reference.
Except the Cavendish Experiment. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cavendish_experiment)
-
According to GR, gravity and UA are governed by the same principle: there are no experiments that can differentiate gravity from acceleration in our frame of reference.
Of course you can. The moon has markedly less mass than the earth. Therefore, it should have less positive acceleration. Thus it would be overtaken and crash into the earth.
Gravity can't be both attractive and repulsive at the same time, can it?!
The Moon is aloft over the Earth because of its photoelectric interaction with the Earth's core. It accelerates at the same rate as the Earth.
Photoelectric...
James, you are truly delusional and I pity you.
-
According to GR, gravity and UA are governed by the same principle: there are no experiments that can differentiate gravity from acceleration in our frame of reference.
Of course you can. The moon has markedly less mass than the earth. Therefore, it should have less positive acceleration. Thus it would be overtaken and crash into the earth.
Gravity can't be both attractive and repulsive at the same time, can it?!
The Moon is aloft over the Earth because of its photoelectric interaction with the Earth's core. It accelerates at the same rate as the Earth.
You just created another problem. The Sun has a much greater induced photoelectric output than the moon -- greater electromagnetic output = more kicked electrons. Yet it remains at a similar altitude. The distance should be vastly greater than it is if you're going to accept that premise.
Also, please show a calculation that demonstrates how much energy is required to suspend an object that massive above the earth. If you bother to do the math, you'll see that it should crash in no time at all.
-
Of course you can. The moon has markedly less mass than the earth. Therefore, it should have less positive acceleration. Thus it would be overtaken and crash into the earth.
The UA can't be both attractive and repulsive at the same time, can it?!
You may want to look up the equivalence principle.
Except the Cavendish Experiment. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cavendish_experiment)
What about it?
-
The UA can't be both attractive and repulsive at the same time, can it?!
You may want to look up the equivalence principle.
How does the local temporal equivalence between acceleration and gravity explain anything Deceiver asked?
-
Despite the fact that I quoted his post, I was not addressing that particular question. I never said anything about gravity being attractive and repulsive at the same time.
-
I never said anything about gravity being attractive and repulsive at the same time.
No. But Deceiver did. In his question.
So how and why is the UA able to lock the moon in position above us?
-
Despite the fact that I quoted his post, I was not addressing that particular question. I never said anything about gravity being attractive and repulsive at the same time.
You did actually, though not blatantly. You said that the UA and Gravity are governed by the same principle when clearly they aren't. The only line of similarity is that they both have a vector value of 9.81m/sec on the surface of the earth, which isn't even constant throughout. Something, ie the UA, is pushing against the earth from below, the earth is not pushing itself upwards! Because if it was, then the earth would fly apart like a round from a shotgun, regardless of flatness or roundness! Simultaneously under your statement, the earth should somehow hold itself together because it's mass is attractive, it keeps it from becoming increasingly thin (the disk would thin but increase in diameter). See how your assertion makes zero sense now? The UA is both accelerating the earth upwards, yet at the same time it pulls objects together (the Cavendish effect). The two can't be the same thing, and they certainly can't be governed by the same thing.
-
Despite the fact that I quoted his post, I was not addressing that particular question. I never said anything about gravity being attractive and repulsive at the same time.
You did actually, though not blatantly. You said that the UA and Gravity are governed by the same principle when clearly they aren't. The only line of similarity is that they both have a vector value of 9.81m/sec on the surface of the earth, which isn't even constant throughout. Something, ie the UA, is pushing against the earth from below, the earth is not pushing itself upwards! Because if it was, then the earth would fly apart like a round from a shotgun, regardless of flatness or roundness! Simultaneously under your statement, the earth should somehow hold itself together because it's mass keeps it from becoming increasingly thin (the disk would thin but increase in diameter). See how your assertion makes zero sense now?
I believe it is explained in two theories.
A)The heavenly bodies exert a slight pull
B)The earth exerts a slight pull(and since mass is inconsistent or w/e,gravity varies.)
-
Despite the fact that I quoted his post, I was not addressing that particular question. I never said anything about gravity being attractive and repulsive at the same time.
You did actually, though not blatantly. You said that the UA and Gravity are governed by the same principle when clearly they aren't. The only line of similarity is that they both have a vector value of 9.81m/sec on the surface of the earth, which isn't even constant throughout. Something, ie the UA, is pushing against the earth from below, the earth is not pushing itself upwards! Because if it was, then the earth would fly apart like a round from a shotgun, regardless of flatness or roundness! Simultaneously under your statement, the earth should somehow hold itself together because it's mass keeps it from becoming increasingly thin (the disk would thin but increase in diameter). See how your assertion makes zero sense now?
I believe it is explained in two theories.
A)The heavenly bodies exert a slight pull
B)The earth exerts a slight pull(and since mass is inconsistent or w/e,gravity varies.)
That doesn't work. The UA is a positive vertical force (keeps the earth/moon/sun disks at an equal distance apart by accelerating everything upwards, that is, not moving them closer together) and also manages to be a compressional force (ie negative), as it keeps the same disks from disintegrating/dispersing. These are not compatible. In one case it keeps things apart, in the other it holds things together. Hopefully that's more clear.
-
You said that the UA and Gravity are governed by the same principle when clearly they aren't.
They are. Perhaps you are trying to challenge General Relativity?
The only line of similarity is that they both have a vector value of 9.81m/sec on the surface of the earth, which isn't even constant throughout. Something, ie the UA, is pushing against the earth from below, the earth is not pushing itself upwards! Because if it was, then the earth would fly apart like a round from a shotgun, regardless of flatness or roundness! Simultaneously under your statement, the earth should somehow hold itself together because it's mass is attractive, it keeps it from becoming increasingly thin (the disk would thin but increase in diameter). See how your assertion makes zero sense now? The UA is both accelerating the earth upwards, yet at the same time it pulls objects together (the Cavendish effect).
The UA accelerates the Earth upwards to mimic the effects of gravitation in our reference frame. The Earth does not exert its own gravitational field.
The two can't be the same thing, and they certainly can't be governed by the same thing.
Tell Einstein about it.
-
The Moon is aloft over the Earth because of its photoelectric interaction with the Earth's core.
James, you keeps saying that as if you've provided any evidence that such a photoelectric interaction has been shown to be plausible. Yes, photoelectric suspension may theoretically be possible, however you have yet to provide any evidence that the moon's bio-luminescence is sufficient to produce such an effect. I request that you cease using this claim until such time as you can provide, for peer review, a mathematical model that demonstrates the plausibility of the photoelectric effect being able to suspend a Flat Earth accelerating at 9.8m/s2. Until then, your claim is merely an unsupported hypothesis, no better than those of the globurists that you despise so much.
-
You said that the UA and Gravity are governed by the same principle when clearly they aren't.
They are. Perhaps you are trying to challenge General Relativity?
I don't recall ever encountering something called the Universal Accelerator.
... but I do remember a cosmological constant... which I dearly hope you aren't referring to as that would indicate a severe lack of understanding. :-\
-
Except the Cavendish Experiment. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cavendish_experiment)
What about it?
It something the UA and Gravity don't have in common. The UA can't make two objects of no magnetic or electrical charge attract one another.
It also proves that gravity exists and it functions by the equations given.
And if we say that all matter produces gravity then the Earth, which is made of matter, must therefore produce Gravity as well.
-
Perhaps you are trying to challenge General Relativity?
Actually your theory of Universal Acceleration challenges GR by denying the mass -> distortion of spacetime -> spacial movement.
According to general relativity the moon and other celestial objects (which according to FET are extremely close) would be drawn to the earth. (Or, relatively speaking, the earth is also drawn to them)
Strange huh?
-
If you drop a ball inside of a ball the one in the center moves around. If the earth was accelerating toward them wouldn't the center ball remain stationary?
-
If you drop a ball inside of a ball the one in the center moves around. If the earth was accelerating toward them wouldn't the center ball remain stationary?
Galileo wants a word with you. Meet him at the leaning tower of Pisa.
-
Galileo's experiment was to drop two separate balls of the same material but of different masses. It was to show that descent was independent of mass. Meaning that heavy objects to not fall faster than lighter ones. I don't see a conflict.
What I am talking about is having one ball inside of the other. While holding the larger one both appear to be stationary. If we release it the interior ball should not move because it has not moved but the earth has accelerated toward it. correct?
-
Galileo's experiment was to drop two separate balls of the same material but of different masses. It was to show that descent was independent of mass. Meaning that heavy objects to not fall faster than lighter ones. I don't see a conflict.
What I am talking about is having one ball inside of the other. While holding the larger one both appear to be stationary. If we release it the interior ball should not move because it has not moved but the earth has accelerated toward it. correct?
No. There is no functional difference between having an object accelerate up and having another accelerate down towards the first object.
And in actuality if there is gravity (which there is) then the inner ball wouldn't move when dropped anyway. The two balls will drop at the same acceleration. The outer one would be slowed by air resistance but the inner one will still be moving WITH the other ball.
It would be the same with the UA. But instead the Earth would be pushed up. The ball wouldn't suddenly jump around until it suddenly stopped (ie. hit the ground)
-
That is a good response. Thank you
-
I don't recall ever encountering something called the Universal Accelerator.
... but I do remember a cosmological constant... which I dearly hope you aren't referring to as that would indicate a severe lack of understanding. :-\
Do you recall encountering something called the Principle of Equivalence from General Relativity?
It something the UA and Gravity don't have in common. The UA can't make two objects of no magnetic or electrical charge attract one another.
It also proves that gravity exists and it functions by the equations given.
And if we say that all matter produces gravity then the Earth, which is made of matter, must therefore produce Gravity as well.
UA is merely a form of acceleration. In no way does the Cavendish experiment differentiate gravity from acceleration in our frame of reference.
-
In no way does the Cavendish experiment differentiate gravity from acceleration in our frame of reference.
Since when do things spontaneously accelerate sideways with no force applied to them?
-
In no way does the Cavendish experiment differentiate gravity from acceleration in our frame of reference.
Since when do things spontaneously accelerate sideways with no force applied to them?
Pretty much what I was thinking.
Since the Cavendish experiment shows that gravity exists and can cause objects to accelerate towards each other on a horizontal plane (not just vertical) than mass MUST cause gravity. And if mass causes gravity than the Earth MUST have gravity.
-
I don't recall ever encountering something called the Universal Accelerator.
... but I do remember a cosmological constant... which I dearly hope you aren't referring to as that would indicate a severe lack of understanding. :-\
Do you recall encountering something called the Principle of Equivalence from General Relativity?
Yes. It only applies under specific conditions, such as when tidal forces can ignored.
-
Yes. It only applies under specific conditions, such as when tidal forces can ignored.
And?
Since when do things spontaneously accelerate sideways with no force applied to them?
You may want to pay attention to the thread, as that is completely irrelevant to what I have said so far.
Since the Cavendish experiment shows that gravity exists and can cause objects to accelerate towards each other on a horizontal plane (not just vertical) than mass MUST cause gravity. And if mass causes gravity than the Earth MUST have gravity.
Non-sequitur. Please show how the Cavendish experiment, which was merely an attempt to measure the Earth's density, can distinguish between a downward pull of gravity and an upward acceleration of 9.8m/s2 in our reference frame, thereby contradicting Einstein's equivalence principle.
-
Please show how the Cavendish experiment, which was merely an attempt to measure the Earth's density, can distinguish between a downward pull of gravity and an upward acceleration of 9.8m/s2 in our reference frame, thereby contradicting Einstein's equivalence principle.
It distinguishes between the earths gravity and the gravity of the test weights by having the test weights placed on equal horizontal planes, removing any of the earths gravitational effect.
Without the gravitational attraction between the masses, there would be no resulting measurement of the earth's density.
Yous should know this really.
-
And how does that distinguish between the observed effects of a downward gravitational pull and an upward acceleration at 9.8m/s2 in our reference frame?
-
And how does that distinguish between the observed effects of a downward gravitational pull and an upward acceleration at 9.8m/s2 in our reference frame?
It distinguishes between the earths gravity and the gravity of the test weights by having the test weights placed on equal horizontal planes, removing any of the earths gravitational effect.
-
No, distinguishing between the Earth's gravity and the test weights' gravity has nothing to do with disproving the equivalence between dropping a ball inside an accelerating frame and dropping a ball under the influence of the gravitational force. Please give me a source that states that the Cavendish experiment disproves the equivalence principle.
-
Please give me a source that states that the Cavendish experiment disproves the equivalence principle.
No one suggested that that's what it did, or should do. Nice straw man.
The equivalence principle is a fairly simple bit of science. I can never understand why you get so excited about it.
What the Cavendish experiment does do is show that there exists a force of attraction between all matter.
If you want to insist that we're accelerating, then you're free to do so, but you need to figure out a way to oppose this force that we know exists.
-
No, distinguishing between the earth's gravity and the gravity of the test weights has nothing to do with disproving the equivalence between dropping a ball inside an accelerating frame and dropping ball under the influence of the gravitational force.
Apparently it's you who doesn't understand the problem, as no one is contesting the bolded statement. You also failed to answer my question.
What the experiment demonstrated was that things with mass experience a force that accelerates them towards other things with mass. You agree that the test weights have their own gravity, however slight, thanks to having mass--so you must then admit that the Earth, having mass, must exhibit its own gravity as well. THAT'S what's being said here and THAT'S the admission we want you to make.
-
I'm still waiting on a good explanation on why the wires on the power poles sag. I mean if an object is simply floating in the air, and the Earth is moving up toward it, would the wire just float in the air?
-
No one suggested that that's what it did, or should do. Nice straw man.
Then why are you responding to my comments? You know very well that I was talking about the equivalence between gravity and acceleration the whole time.
Apparently it's you who doesn't understand the problem, as no one is contesting the bolded statement. You also failed to answer my question.
What the experiment demonstrated was that things with mass experience a force that accelerates them towards other things with mass. You agree that the test weights have their own gravity, however slight, thanks to having mass--so you must then admit that the Earth, having mass, must exhibit its own gravity as well. THAT'S what's being said here and THAT'S the admission we want you to make.
It is well known within the scientific community that the purpose of the Cavendish experiment was to measure the density of the Earth, and that does not contradict what I said in the very beginning. I said that the UA follows from the equivalence principle, since it merely mimics the effects of gravity in our local frame by accelerating the Earth at 9.8m/s2. Thus, since there are no fundamental differences between gravity and acceleration in our local frame, I said that they are governed by the same principle. I did not answer your question because it is completely irrelevant.
I made this claim:
According to GR, gravity and UA are governed by the same principle: there are no experiments that can differentiate gravity from acceleration in our frame of reference.
Lorddave replied with this claim:
According to GR, gravity and UA are governed by the same principle: there are no experiments that can differentiate gravity from acceleration in our frame of reference.
Except the Cavendish Experiment. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cavendish_experiment)
The Cavendish experiment does not differentiate gravity from acceleration in our reference frame. In fact, the experiment has nothing to do with it. Lorddave's claim is the claim I am addressing. As I suggested before, pay attention.
-
"...and that does not contradict what I said in the very beginning."
Again, and this time try to really read it: NO ONE IS TRYING TO CONTRADICT THE EQUIVALENCE PRINCIPLE. I'm pretty sure the reason you refused twice to respond to my point is because it forces you into a major admission; if you accept that gravity causes acceleration between masses, and that the Earth (and you as an observer) have mass, then you must admit that there is a gravitational force between you and the Earth.
...and I don't think that's something you want to do. Your avoidance, anyway, indicates as much.
-
Again, and this time try to really read it: NO ONE IS TRYING TO CONTRADICT THE EQUIVALENCE PRINCIPLE.
This statement
there are no experiments that can differentiate gravity from acceleration in our frame of reference.
is the very definition of the Equivalence Principle. Lorddave responded with the Cavendish experiment, which means he is contesting that statement. Thus, he is trying to contradict the equivalence principle. How can you not understand this?
I'm pretty sure the reason you refused twice to respond to my point is because it forces you into a major admission; if you accept that gravity causes acceleration between masses, and that the Earth (and you as an observer) have mass, then you must admit that there is a gravitational force between you and the Earth.
Non-sequitur. I do not contest the idea that mass distorts space-time. In the other thread, I argued that the Earth must possess something that negates its ability to exert gravitational influence, since its disc shape would eventually collapse on itself if it does. As I said before, I did not address your question because it is completely irrelevant to what I said in this thread.
-
Since the Cavendish experiment shows that gravity exists and can cause objects to accelerate towards each other on a horizontal plane (not just vertical) than mass MUST cause gravity. And if mass causes gravity than the Earth MUST have gravity.
Non-sequitur. Please show how the Cavendish experiment, which was merely an attempt to measure the Earth's density, can distinguish between a downward pull of gravity and an upward acceleration of 9.8m/s2 in our reference frame, thereby contradicting Einstein's equivalence principle.
The Cavendish experiment does not differentiate gravity from acceleration in our reference frame. In fact, the experiment has nothing to do with it. Lorddave's claim is the claim I am addressing. As I suggested before, pay attention.
It doesn't. Why would it?
There is no way, from our frame of reference, to distinguish an upwards acceleration or a downwards gravitational pull.
So, what we need to do is figure out if Gravity exists or not.
With me so far?
-
It doesn't. Why would it?
There is no way, from our frame of reference, to distinguish an upwards acceleration or a downwards gravitational pull.
So the only thing we can do is figure out if gravity exists or not.
With me so far?
Then why did you make this claim?
According to GR, gravity and UA are governed by the same principle: there are no experiments that can differentiate gravity from acceleration in our frame of reference.
Except the Cavendish Experiment. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cavendish_experiment)
-
I argued that the Earth must possess something that negates its ability to exert gravitational influence, since its disc shape would eventually collapse on itself if it does.
Find that something and you've just won the Nobel prize.
-
It doesn't. Why would it?
There is no way, from our frame of reference, to distinguish an upwards acceleration or a downwards gravitational pull.
So the only thing we can do is figure out if gravity exists or not.
With me so far?
Then why did you make this claim?
According to GR, gravity and UA are governed by the same principle: there are no experiments that can differentiate gravity from acceleration in our frame of reference.
Except the Cavendish Experiment. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cavendish_experiment)
Sorry, edited my previous post a bit:
Well, I made that claim because gravity accelerates two masses together regardless of direction. Your UA is direction specific. Thus, the UA and Gravity are not the same thing and don't govern based on the same principal (one moves the Earth in a constant direction the other attracts masses together).
See? Very different principals.
Oh and one more thing...
In the other thread, I argued that the Earth must possess something that negates its ability to exert gravitational influence, since its disc shape would eventually collapse on itself if it does.
If the Earth negates it's gravity, the Cavendish experiment shouldn't work.
-
there are no experiments that can differentiate gravity from acceleration in our frame of reference.
is the very definition of the Equivalence Principle. Lorddave responded with the Cavendish experiment, which means he is contesting that statement. Thus, he is trying to contradict the equivalence principle. How can you not understand this?
Ah, I see your mix-up.
By our frame of reference (as a point on the Earth), we can't tell if the Earth is accelerating or if we're feeling a gravitational force. By the other frame of reference (a point on the weight in the experiment) we can't tell if we're being turned by gravity or if the mechanism itself is turning us. What you're missing is that both of these phenomena are observed to be happening at the same time and in perpendicular directions. From one reference frame, we can view the other. The equivalence principle relies only on a single reference frame. You're overextending the idea.
-
Sorry, edited my previous post a bit:
Well, I made that claim because gravity accelerates two masses together regardless of direction. Your UA is direction specific. Thus, the UA and Gravity are not the same thing and don't govern based on the same principal (one moves the Earth in a constant direction the other attracts masses together).
See? Very different principals.
Therefore, my statement that "there are no experiments that can differentiate gravity from acceleration in our frame of reference" stands correct. I honestly do not understand why you used the Cavendish experiment as a response to that statement.
Ah, I see your mix-up.
By our frame of reference (as a point on the Earth), we can't tell if the Earth is accelerating or if we're feeling a gravitational force. By the other frame of reference (a point on the weight in the experiment) we can't tell if we're being turned by gravity or if the mechanism itself is turning us. What you're missing is that both of these phenomena are observed to be happening at the same time and in perpendicular directions. From one reference frame, we can view the other. The equivalence principle relies only on a single reference frame. You're overextending the idea.
That is why I wrote "in our frame of reference" in my statement.
-
If I'm reading that and the previous posts correctly, gravity does exist between all masses in the universe...except Earth's. Well, aren't we special? ::) When you get some data to back these claims up, I'll be mighty impressed! Godspeed, sir.
-
Oh and one more thing...
In the other thread, I argued that the Earth must possess something that negates its ability to exert gravitational influence, since its disc shape would eventually collapse on itself if it does.
If the Earth negates it's gravity, the Cavendish experiment shouldn't work.
I said something is negating the Earth's ability to exert gravitational influence, not that the Earth is negating its own ability to do so.
-
Sorry, edited my previous post a bit:
Well, I made that claim because gravity accelerates two masses together regardless of direction. Your UA is direction specific. Thus, the UA and Gravity are not the same thing and don't govern based on the same principal (one moves the Earth in a constant direction the other attracts masses together).
See? Very different principals.
Therefore, my statement that "there are no experiments that can differentiate gravity from acceleration in our frame of reference" stands correct. I honestly do not understand why you used the Cavendish experiment as a response to that statement.
Actually I was responding to your claim that both UA and Gravity operate on the same principal, which was poorly worded on my part, but this works too.
See, while you can't show that there is a difference between gravity and acceleration (because gravity causes acceleration) you CAN show that there is a constant acceleration (or attempted acceleration) between mass. Because the UA is a single vector acceleration, any acceleration between mass that is not in the vertical position MUST be caused by something other than the UA.
Oh and one more thing...
In the other thread, I argued that the Earth must possess something that negates its ability to exert gravitational influence, since its disc shape would eventually collapse on itself if it does.
If the Earth negates it's gravity, the Cavendish experiment shouldn't work.
I said something is negating the Earth's ability to exert gravitational influence, not that the Earth is negating its own ability to do so.
Which shouldn't make a bit of difference should it? If I'm ON the Earth and I take PART of the Earth out, should that be negated too by whatever force is negating the gravity of the mass below my feet?
Or is this "force" negating only the gravity of the ground and not anything above said ground?
-
Actually I was responding to your claim that both UA and Gravity operate on the same principal, which was poorly worded on my part, but this works too.
The principle I was referring to is quite obviously the Principle of Equivalence.
See, while you can't show that there is a difference between gravity and acceleration (because gravity causes acceleration) you CAN show that there is a constant acceleration (or attempted acceleration) between mass. Because the UA is a single vector acceleration, any acceleration between mass that is not in the vertical position MUST be caused by something other than the UA.
Local masses that are independent of the Earth should still be able to exert gravitational influence on each other.
Which shouldn't make a bit of difference should it? If I'm ON the Earth and I take PART of the Earth out, should that be negated too by whatever force is negating the gravity of the mass below my feet?
Or is this "force" negating only the gravity of the ground and not anything above said ground?
The negator should only negate the gravitation of the Earth's surface and below just so that the Earth does not collapse on itself.
-
So gravity affects all mass in the universe except for just below the Earth's surface, where it must be negated somehow, because--as you say--otherwise the disc of the Earth would collapse. Alright, let's play this out in our heads. I'll give you three guesses what shape the planet would collapse to, but you'll only need one.
Side note: this is exactly the kind of FE stuff I mention in other threads. A bunch of superfluous ideas and unknown negating forces have to be made up that inexplicably affect only certain things at certain times to explain phenomena that, in RET, make perfect sense with a handful of simple laws.
-
It is not a matter of what I say. If the disc is massive enough and is generating a gravitational field, it would eventually collapse so that it reaches hydrostatic equilibrium and its gravitational strength is distributed as evenly as possible across its surface. It would eventually become more or less spherical in shape.
-
If you are in a train and you jump, wouldn't the UA cause you to move slightly to the back of the train?
-
What if the Cavendish experiment were to be performed in an underground cave? Would gravity still somehow stop at the cave walls but somehow leave everything that is "above the surface" affected by gravity?
Which leads me to another question: We can measure a reduction in gravitational acceleration if we go deep underground. This is explained perfectly well in RE by the matter above you pulling up and slightly reducing the pull downwards. How is this explained in FE?
-
No one suggested that that's what it did, or should do. Nice straw man.
Then why are you responding to my comments?
Because you're either very confused or are deliberately confusing two issues.
The Cavendish experiment does not disprove the equivalence principle. It never intended to, nor should it. It does however establish by experimentation that a force of attraction exists between all matter.
From this fact we can deduce that there is a force of attraction between the earth and ourselves.
While we might not be able to measurably distinguish the forces, we must recognise that a proportion (if not all) of any force felt is attributable to gravity. (This raises interesting holes in FET that I've noticed you're deftly sidestepping)
If you want to insist that you're confused and can't make this distinction, then that's OK.
-
What if the Cavendish experiment were to be performed in an underground cave? Would gravity still somehow stop at the cave walls but somehow leave everything that is "above the surface" affected by gravity?
Which leads me to another question: We can measure a reduction in gravitational acceleration if we go deep underground. This is explained perfectly well in RE by the matter above you pulling up and slightly reducing the pull downwards. How is this explained in FE?
Since the deepest human excavations, even based on the claims of globularists, barely exceed seven kilometers, how do you know this exactly?
-
You could just dismiss any evidence I posted as being "part of the conspiracy" so why bother?
I learned that when calculating the gravitational force on an object, you only include the mass out from the center of the planet to a radius of where the object is. In fact one of the more painful problems I had on a final exam in advanced mechanics was to calculate the path of an object dropped through a chord drilled straight through a planet. You had to include differential gravitation and everything, it was tough.
So would I be correct in saying that FE'ers deny that your acceleration goes down as you descend into the earth?
-
It is not a matter of what I say. If the disc is massive enough and is generating a gravitational field, it would eventually collapse so that it reaches hydrostatic equilibrium and its gravitational strength is distributed as evenly as possible across its surface. It would eventually become more or less spherical in shape.
This is what's wrong with FET.
You always start with the assumption that the Earth is flat then build around it. Just to disprove me you had to say that there is something, though you don't know what, can't prove it exists, and have no model for it, tha negates gavity only below the surface enough to be undetectable but do exactly what you need it to in order to keep the Earth a disk AND allow for gravity to exist above the surface.
This isn't science, it's religion.
-
Since the deepest human excavations, even based on the claims of globularists, barely exceed seven kilometers, how do you know this exactly?
Know what?!
That gravity doesn't stop underground? Take a tube ride and find out.
-
Since the deepest human excavations, even based on the claims of globularists, barely exceed seven kilometers, how do you know this exactly?
If you're going to throw out facts, at least keep up to date.
Barely seven kilometers? In 1989 we reached depths beyond 12km !
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kola_Superdeep_Borehole
Came complete with loads of new geophysical and geochemical data!
Science progresses every day, often with modern discoveries confirming old predictions...
-
You could just dismiss any evidence I posted as being "part of the conspiracy" so why bother?
I learned that when calculating the gravitational force on an object, you only include the mass out from the center of the planet to a radius of where the object is. In fact one of the more painful problems I had on a final exam in advanced mechanics was to calculate the path of an object dropped through a chord drilled straight through a planet. You had to include differential gravitation and everything, it was tough.
So would I be correct in saying that FE'ers deny that your acceleration goes down as you descend into the earth?
So the sum total of your evidence for the previous claim is that you were told so by globularist academics? What's more, what you were told was openly presented as the result of a purely hypothetical thought-experiment which presupposes the existence of gravity? Why do you expect anybody to find this convincing?
-
Because you're either very confused or are deliberately confusing two issues.
There was confusion on both sides. When I first stated that UA and gravity follow the same principle in that there are no experiments capable of differentiating gravity from acceleration in our reference frame, Lorddave responded with the Cavendish experiment. Either he was confused with my statement or he tried to argue that there is an experiment that can distinguish between gravity and acceleration. Anyone who has seen General Relativity would notice that there is no falsehood in my statement, so I thought he was confused. However, when I made the statement "in no way does the Cavendish experiment differentiate gravity from acceleration in our frame of reference," he and Ellipsis replied against it.
Fine. I asked him how does the experiment distinguish between the two, and you came with [this post] (http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=38640.msg963507#msg963507) as a response. Thus, I asked you too, and you replied with your interpretation of the experiment. There could be three reasons for this: you were confused with what I was saying, you knew what I was saying but you intended to contest my claim just to be a nuisance, or you simply failed to clarify that you were not contesting my claim but merely trying to make a distinction between the Equivalence Principle and the Cavendish experiment.
-
There was confusion on both sides.
Not really. The Cavendish experiment establishes that a force due to gravitational attraction between masses exists.
It also enables the density of the earth to be calculated.
Therefore any force experienced while falling is in part or wholly (depending on the level of fanatical adherance to FET) due to this attraction.
Given this fact, the "accelerating earth" in FET becomes largely irrelevant. What FET now needs to do is counter the gravitational force with some kind of anti-gravity in order to maintain the hovering position of the moon, sun, stars etc.
PS. There are experiments which can distinguish gravity and acceleration, as you know. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Earth%27s_gravity#Variation_in_gravity_and_apparent_gravity)
-
You could just dismiss any evidence I posted as being "part of the conspiracy" so why bother?
I learned that when calculating the gravitational force on an object, you only include the mass out from the center of the planet to a radius of where the object is. In fact one of the more painful problems I had on a final exam in advanced mechanics was to calculate the path of an object dropped through a chord drilled straight through a planet. You had to include differential gravitation and everything, it was tough.
So would I be correct in saying that FE'ers deny that your acceleration goes down as you descend into the earth?
So the sum total of your evidence for the previous claim is that you were told so by globularist academics? What's more, what you were told was openly presented as the result of a purely hypothetical thought-experiment which presupposes the existence of gravity? Why do you expect anybody to find this convincing?
Wasn't trying to be convincing. I haven't performed any underground gravity measurements myself, so I doubt you would believe anything I said anyway.
In fact, I was kind of hoping that Deceiver who seems to be the guru of all things underground could help me out in that area.
So just for the record, do you deny that there would be any changes in acceleration (gravity or UA) measured deep underground?
-
Because you're either very confused or are deliberately confusing two issues.
There was confusion on both sides. When I first stated that UA and gravity follow the same principle in that there are no experiments capable of differentiating gravity from acceleration in our reference frame, Lorddave responded with the Cavendish experiment. Either he was confused with my statement or he tried to argue that there is an experiment that can distinguish between gravity and acceleration. Anyone who has seen General Relativity would notice that there is no falsehood in my statement, so I thought he was confused. However, when I made the statement "in no way does the Cavendish experiment differentiate gravity from acceleration in our frame of reference," he and Ellipsis replied against it.
Fine. I asked him how does the experiment distinguish between the two, and you came with [this post] (http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=38640.msg963507#msg963507) as a response. Thus, I asked you too, and you replied with your interpretation of the experiment. There could be three reasons for this: you were confused with what I was saying, you knew what I was saying but you intended to contest my claim just to be a nuisance, or you simply failed to clarify that you were not contesting my claim but merely trying to make a distinction between the Equivalence Principle and the Cavendish experiment.
How would acceleration explain this? If you tie a string between two points and pull it tight, the string is level. However, move the points closer together, and the string sags in the middle. If it's the ground moving up to meet a NON-MOVING object, why does the string sag and not stay at the same level? Even if the string is being forced against itself, what stops it from moving sideways?
Here's an image for reference.
(http://i113.photobucket.com/albums/n237/mkrolfe/Candlestick.jpg)
-
You could just dismiss any evidence I posted as being "part of the conspiracy" so why bother?
I learned that when calculating the gravitational force on an object, you only include the mass out from the center of the planet to a radius of where the object is. In fact one of the more painful problems I had on a final exam in advanced mechanics was to calculate the path of an object dropped through a chord drilled straight through a planet. You had to include differential gravitation and everything, it was tough.
So would I be correct in saying that FE'ers deny that your acceleration goes down as you descend into the earth?
So the sum total of your evidence for the previous claim is that you were told so by globularist academics? What's more, what you were told was openly presented as the result of a purely hypothetical thought-experiment which presupposes the existence of gravity? Why do you expect anybody to find this convincing?
Wasn't trying to be convincing. I haven't performed any underground gravity measurements myself, so I doubt you would believe anything I said anyway.
In fact, I was kind of hoping that Deceiver who seems to be the guru of all things underground could help me out in that area.
So just for the record, do you deny that there would be any changes in acceleration (gravity or UA) measured deep underground?
Honestly, I can't tell you from personal experience. Senior year of my undergrad, I did a homework set that dealt with this (and I hated it). Haven't touched the equations since then. But according to our textbooks and theory, sure. The problem though (which we ended up finding in the problem set) is that you have to dig very deep to notice anything measurable. Even a depth of 10km below the surface (the radius of the earth is roughly 6,200km) would yield a change of much less than one percent, which due to topography variances, and especially uneven densities and regional differences in earth materials, makes any sort of interpretation about the gravity value and the earth near useless.
Things get excruciatingly complicated when you factor in the densities of the core, outer core, lower mantle... upper mantle... widespread thermal anomalies and an overall poorly behaving earth!
A geophysicist might say differently, or perhaps there have been improvements in ability to measure, model, and interpret such things, but since I mostly deal with geochemistry, can't add much more than that. Not helpful, I know, so here's a fun picture I found!
(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/4/43/Earth-G-force.png)
-
Because you're either very confused or are deliberately confusing two issues.
There was confusion on both sides. When I first stated that UA and gravity follow the same principle in that there are no experiments capable of differentiating gravity from acceleration in our reference frame, Lorddave responded with the Cavendish experiment. Either he was confused with my statement or he tried to argue that there is an experiment that can distinguish between gravity and acceleration. Anyone who has seen General Relativity would notice that there is no falsehood in my statement, so I thought he was confused. However, when I made the statement "in no way does the Cavendish experiment differentiate gravity from acceleration in our frame of reference," he and Ellipsis replied against it.
Fine. I asked him how does the experiment distinguish between the two, and you came with [this post] (http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=38640.msg963507#msg963507) as a response. Thus, I asked you too, and you replied with your interpretation of the experiment. There could be three reasons for this: you were confused with what I was saying, you knew what I was saying but you intended to contest my claim just to be a nuisance, or you simply failed to clarify that you were not contesting my claim but merely trying to make a distinction between the Equivalence Principle and the Cavendish experiment.
How would acceleration explain this? If you tie a string between two points and pull it tight, the string is level. However, move the points closer together, and the string sags in the middle. If it's the ground moving up to meet a NON-MOVING object, why does the string sag and not stay at the same level? Even if the string is being forced against itself, what stops it from moving sideways?
Here's an image for reference.
(http://i113.photobucket.com/albums/n237/mkrolfe/Candlestick.jpg)
Because the object is moving the whole time. Everything is moving "up" at the same rate. Why does the string sag?
Air pressure mixed with the fact that the posts were moving upwards miliseconds prior to the string (since the posts have a direct line to the ground and the string relies on the air pushing it down).
Best bet is to prove gravity exists (like I did) and have FEers invent the "gravity nullifying field".
-
Yes, everything which is firmly attached to the Earth is moving upwards at all times. Sagging is caused when something becomes less firmly attached to something which is firmly attached to the Earth.
-
Yes, everything which is firmly attached to the Earth is moving upwards at all times. Sagging is caused when something becomes less firmly attached to something which is firmly attached to the Earth.
It certainly couldn't be an unseen force pulling it down, could it?
-
Yes, everything which is firmly attached to the Earth is moving upwards at all times. Sagging is caused when something becomes less firmly attached to something which is firmly attached to the Earth.
It certainly couldn't be an unseen force pulling it down, could it?
As Jack said, since there's no way to distinguish an acceleration due to a force upwards due to UA and an acceleration downwards due to gravity from this frame of reference, it very well could be.
Assuming, of course, you start off with the neutral standpoint that the shape of the Earth is unknown.
-
PS. There are experiments which can distinguish gravity and acceleration, as you know. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Earth%27s_gravity#Variation_in_gravity_and_apparent_gravity)
This.
"the strength of Earth's apparent gravity varies with latitude, altitude, local topography and geology"
It makes zero sense that Earth can experience uneven acceleration at ground level. UA is dead. Move along folks, nothing to see here.
-
"a force due to gravitational attraction between masses exists."
"Therefore any force experienced while falling is in part or wholly due to this attraction."
Look up General Relativity and you will notice that these two statements are not necessarily true.
Given this fact, the "accelerating earth" in FET becomes largely irrelevant. What FET now needs to do is counter the gravitational force with some kind of anti-gravity in order to maintain the hovering position of the moon, sun, stars etc.
It does not need to. The Earth does not exert its own gravitational field; it is only accelerated upward by UA. The UA keeps the celestial bodies above the Earth by accelerating them at the same rate.
PS. There are experiments which can distinguish gravity and acceleration, as you know. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Earth%27s_gravity#Variation_in_gravity_and_apparent_gravity)
Again, there are no experiments that can distinguish between gravity and acceleration in our frame of reference, where the gravitational field is uniform and tidal effects are neglected. There is no falsehood in this statement. In the macroscopic level where tidal effects are considered (non-uniform gravitational field), there will be a noticeable distinction between the two.
How would acceleration explain this? If you tie a string between two points and pull it tight, the string is level. However, move the points closer together, and the string sags in the middle. If it's the ground moving up to meet a NON-MOVING object, why does the string sag and not stay at the same level? Even if the string is being forced against itself, what stops it from moving sideways?
The string sags by inertia, in the same way you get pushed back toward your seat by inertia when hitting the accelerator. When the string is pulled tight, it accelerates upward along with the posts due to tension support. When you move the posts closer to each other, the string loses tension support and gets overwhelmed by inertia relative to the accelerating posts.
"the strength of Earth's apparent gravity varies with latitude, altitude, local topography and geology"
It makes zero sense that Earth can experience uneven acceleration at ground level. UA is dead.
The gravitational field of the stars causes uneven acceleration. Since the variations are barely noticeable in our local frame of reference, they do not contradict UA. You should know that this wiki quote is considered at the macroscopic level (for instance, when you drop two objects on opposite sides of the RE).
-
Why do the gravitational variations remain in the same places when the stars move?
-
"a force due to gravitational attraction between masses exists."
"Therefore any force experienced while falling is in part or wholly due to this attraction."
Look up General Relativity and you will notice that these two statements are not necessarily true.
Given this fact, the "accelerating earth" in FET becomes largely irrelevant. What FET now needs to do is counter the gravitational force with some kind of anti-gravity in order to maintain the hovering position of the moon, sun, stars etc.
It does not need to. The Earth does not exert its own gravitational field; it is only accelerated upward by UA. The UA keeps the celestial bodies above the Earth by accelerating them at the same rate.
PS. There are experiments which can distinguish gravity and acceleration, as you know. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Earth%27s_gravity#Variation_in_gravity_and_apparent_gravity)
Again, there are no experiments that can distinguish between gravity and acceleration in our frame of reference, where the gravitational field is uniform and tidal effects are neglected. There is no falsehood in this statement. In the macroscopic level where tidal effects are considered (non-uniform gravitational field), there will be a noticeable distinction between the two.
How would acceleration explain this? If you tie a string between two points and pull it tight, the string is level. However, move the points closer together, and the string sags in the middle. If it's the ground moving up to meet a NON-MOVING object, why does the string sag and not stay at the same level? Even if the string is being forced against itself, what stops it from moving sideways?
The string sags by inertia, in the same way you get pushed back toward your seat by inertia when hitting the accelerator. When the string is pulled tight, it accelerates upward along with the posts due to tension support. When you move the posts closer to each other, the string loses tension support and gets overwhelmed by inertia relative to the accelerating posts.
"the strength of Earth's apparent gravity varies with latitude, altitude, local topography and geology"
It makes zero sense that Earth can experience uneven acceleration at ground level. UA is dead.
The gravitational field of the stars causes uneven acceleration. Since the variations are barely noticeable in our local frame of reference, they do not contradict UA. You should know that this wiki quote is considered at the macroscopic level (for instance, when you drop two objects on opposite sides of the RE).
If anything were to cause the UA to become uneven, the Earth would wobble, over time the wobble would get worse, and you can imagine what this would do. Do you see how hard it is to make all of the bullshit puzzle pieces fit together?
Also, just how much inertia are we talking about here? Because 9 m/s is only about 20.5 mph.
-
Hate to play devil's advocate here but according to them, we're traveling almost the speed of light. And the string example is kind of weak and doesn't really prove anything, you may as well drop it.
-
If anything were to cause the UA to become uneven, the Earth would wobble, over time the wobble would get worse, and you can imagine what this would do. Do you see how hard it is to make all of the bullshit puzzle pieces fit together?
Why would the UA become uneven?
-
Why would the UA become uneven?
It would have to in order to explain why gravity seems to be weaker at the equator than at the poles. Then again, Jack is trying to wave this away by saying the gravity of stars is creating an illusion.
The Earth does not exert its own gravitational field; it is only accelerated upward by UA. The UA keeps the celestial bodies above the Earth by accelerating them at the same rate.
Then why am I not weightless? Surely if UA affects things like the Earth, the sun, the moon, and every last one of those countless stars, why doesn't it affect us? What makes us special?
-
The Earth does not exert its own gravitational field; it is only accelerated upward by UA. The UA keeps the celestial bodies above the Earth by accelerating them at the same rate.
Then why am I not weightless? Surely if UA affects things like the Earth, the sun, the moon, and every last one of those countless stars, why doesn't it affect us? What makes us special?
As far as I understand, the UA doesn't affect anything on or near the Earth's surface (up to the edge of the atmosphere). This is to ensure that questions like that can be answered.
-
Look up General Relativity and you will notice that these two statements are not necessarily true.
No, not really. While a single mass accelerating alone can "feel" a force which is indistinguishable from gravity, if there is another mass involved then part of that force it feels can, and must, be attributable to gravitational attraction.
It does not need to. The Earth does not exert its own gravitational field; it is only accelerated upward by UA. The UA keeps the celestial bodies above the Earth by accelerating them at the same rate.
All mass exerts a gravitational field. You can't wish it away. It makes me worry when you insist people read Einstein while having yet to get to grips with more basic elements of physics yourself.
Again, there are no experiments that can distinguish between gravity and acceleration in our frame of reference, where the gravitational field is uniform and tidal effects are neglected.
By demanding a uniform gravitational field with zero tidal effects you are suppressing the evidence against your argument.
In the macroscopic level where tidal effects are considered (non-uniform gravitational field), there will be a noticeable distinction between the two.
Then there are experiments to distinguish the two. We got there in the end didn't we?
-
The Earth does not exert its own gravitational field; it is only accelerated upward by UA. The UA keeps the celestial bodies above the Earth by accelerating them at the same rate.
Then why am I not weightless? Surely if UA affects things like the Earth, the sun, the moon, and every last one of those countless stars, why doesn't it affect us? What makes us special?
As far as I understand, the UA doesn't affect anything on or near the Earth's surface (up to the edge of the atmosphere). This is to ensure that questions like that can be answered.
You have an absurdly misconceived notion of Universal Acceleration, which may explain why you have such difficulty accepting it. Saying that the UA doesn't affect things on the Earth's surface is like saying that if I have a table with a plate on it, and on that plate is a fried egg, the table is not affecting the egg. In one sense it's true-ish, but it's misleading. The egg is where it is because it's on the plate, and the plate is being held up by the table. To give you and understanding of why the UA doesn't affect things BEYOND the atmolayer either, ask yourself whether my kitchen table would affect a bird which was flying over it. The answer is no.
-
The Earth does not exert its own gravitational field; it is only accelerated upward by UA. The UA keeps the celestial bodies above the Earth by accelerating them at the same rate.
Then why am I not weightless? Surely if UA affects things like the Earth, the sun, the moon, and every last one of those countless stars, why doesn't it affect us? What makes us special?
As far as I understand, the UA doesn't affect anything on or near the Earth's surface (up to the edge of the atmosphere). This is to ensure that questions like that can be answered.
You have an absurdly misconceived notion of Universal Acceleration, which may explain why you have such difficulty accepting it. Saying that the UA doesn't affect things on the Earth's surface is like saying that if I have a table with a plate on it, and on that plate is a fried egg, the table is not affecting the egg. In one sense it's true-ish, but it's misleading. The egg is where it is because it's on the plate, and the plate is being held up by the table. To give you and understanding of why the UA doesn't affect things BEYOND the atmolayer either, ask yourself whether my kitchen table would affect a bird which was flying over it. The answer is no.
That's what I said. The UA doesn't directly push a table it only pushes the Earth. The Earth then pushes everything else. The UA then pushes the sun, moon, planets, and stars.
Which means that it stops at the Earth and starts again after the atmolayer. If it didn't then the UA wold directly accelerate people up at 9.8m/s
-
The Earth does not exert its own gravitational field; it is only accelerated upward by UA. The UA keeps the celestial bodies above the Earth by accelerating them at the same rate.
Then why am I not weightless? Surely if UA affects things like the Earth, the sun, the moon, and every last one of those countless stars, why doesn't it affect us? What makes us special?
As far as I understand, the UA doesn't affect anything on or near the Earth's surface (up to the edge of the atmosphere). This is to ensure that questions like that can be answered.
You have an absurdly misconceived notion of Universal Acceleration, which may explain why you have such difficulty accepting it. Saying that the UA doesn't affect things on the Earth's surface is like saying that if I have a table with a plate on it, and on that plate is a fried egg, the table is not affecting the egg. In one sense it's true-ish, but it's misleading. The egg is where it is because it's on the plate, and the plate is being held up by the table. To give you and understanding of why the UA doesn't affect things BEYOND the atmolayer either, ask yourself whether my kitchen table would affect a bird which was flying over it. The answer is no.
That's what I said. The UA doesn't directly push a table it only pushes the Earth. The Earth then pushes everything else. The UA then pushes the sun, moon, planets, and stars.
Which means that it stops at the Earth and starts again after the atmolayer. If it didn't then the UA wold directly accelerate people up at 9.8m/s
No, the UA pushes whatever is touching it, which is where my second example comes into its own. The UA does not function at a distance - it can no more push things which are above it that my table can keep birds flying.
-
To give you and understanding of why the UA doesn't affect things BEYOND the atmolayer either, ask yourself whether my kitchen table would affect a bird which was flying over it. The answer is no.
The answer is yes. Albeit in small way given the small mass of the table.
The UA does not function at a distance
Except it can, because it can "push" both the earth and the sun, moon, stars etc.
Strange.
-
The Earth does not exert its own gravitational field; it is only accelerated upward by UA. The UA keeps the celestial bodies above the Earth by accelerating them at the same rate.
Then why am I not weightless? Surely if UA affects things like the Earth, the sun, the moon, and every last one of those countless stars, why doesn't it affect us? What makes us special?
As far as I understand, the UA doesn't affect anything on or near the Earth's surface (up to the edge of the atmosphere). This is to ensure that questions like that can be answered.
You have an absurdly misconceived notion of Universal Acceleration, which may explain why you have such difficulty accepting it. Saying that the UA doesn't affect things on the Earth's surface is like saying that if I have a table with a plate on it, and on that plate is a fried egg, the table is not affecting the egg. In one sense it's true-ish, but it's misleading. The egg is where it is because it's on the plate, and the plate is being held up by the table. To give you and understanding of why the UA doesn't affect things BEYOND the atmolayer either, ask yourself whether my kitchen table would affect a bird which was flying over it. The answer is no.
That's what I said. The UA doesn't directly push a table it only pushes the Earth. The Earth then pushes everything else. The UA then pushes the sun, moon, planets, and stars.
Which means that it stops at the Earth and starts again after the atmolayer. If it didn't then the UA wold directly accelerate people up at 9.8m/s
No, the UA pushes whatever is touching it, which is where my second example comes into its own. The UA does not function at a distance - it can no more push things which are above it that my table can keep birds flying.
James,
Using your table analogy... why would the various parts of the table have less support than say, the middle, or edges? Stick a grain of sand anywhere on a real table... and it will have the exact same support regardless of location or leg placement.
Now.. applying this to the earth... why would the center of the earth (flat disk now) referring to the north pole region, consistently have less acceleration than the equatorial region. Likewise, why would the equatorial region have consistently greater acceleration than the outer rim?
If parts of the earth had gravity anomolies that fluctuated to a mean value of 9.8m/s then the UA idea would make sense... but the acceleration doesn't show any such fluctuations.
-
The Earth does not exert its own gravitational field; it is only accelerated upward by UA. The UA keeps the celestial bodies above the Earth by accelerating them at the same rate.
Then why am I not weightless? Surely if UA affects things like the Earth, the sun, the moon, and every last one of those countless stars, why doesn't it affect us? What makes us special?
As far as I understand, the UA doesn't affect anything on or near the Earth's surface (up to the edge of the atmosphere). This is to ensure that questions like that can be answered.
You have an absurdly misconceived notion of Universal Acceleration, which may explain why you have such difficulty accepting it. Saying that the UA doesn't affect things on the Earth's surface is like saying that if I have a table with a plate on it, and on that plate is a fried egg, the table is not affecting the egg. In one sense it's true-ish, but it's misleading. The egg is where it is because it's on the plate, and the plate is being held up by the table. To give you and understanding of why the UA doesn't affect things BEYOND the atmolayer either, ask yourself whether my kitchen table would affect a bird which was flying over it. The answer is no.
That's what I said. The UA doesn't directly push a table it only pushes the Earth. The Earth then pushes everything else. The UA then pushes the sun, moon, planets, and stars.
Which means that it stops at the Earth and starts again after the atmolayer. If it didn't then the UA wold directly accelerate people up at 9.8m/s
No, the UA pushes whatever is touching it, which is where my second example comes into its own. The UA does not function at a distance - it can no more push things which are above it that my table can keep birds flying.
So you're saying that the planets, moon, sun, and stars are moving by... what? What keeps them above us?
Then what p
-
So you're saying that the planets, moon, sun, and stars are moving by... what? What keeps them above us?
Then what p
Photoelectric suspension.
That's one of the things that makes it tricky debating FE'ers. Different FE'ers have different explanations for the same phenomena, such as UA/gravitation.
-
To give you and understanding of why the UA doesn't affect things BEYOND the atmolayer either, ask yourself whether my kitchen table would affect a bird which was flying over it. The answer is no.
The answer is yes. Albeit in small way given the small mass of the table.
The UA does not function at a distance
Except it can, because it can "push" both the earth and the sun, moon, stars etc.
Strange.
The Celestial bodies are suspended above the Earth by photoelectric suspension, not by the Universal Accelerator.
The Earth does not exert its own gravitational field; it is only accelerated upward by UA. The UA keeps the celestial bodies above the Earth by accelerating them at the same rate.
Then why am I not weightless? Surely if UA affects things like the Earth, the sun, the moon, and every last one of those countless stars, why doesn't it affect us? What makes us special?
As far as I understand, the UA doesn't affect anything on or near the Earth's surface (up to the edge of the atmosphere). This is to ensure that questions like that can be answered.
You have an absurdly misconceived notion of Universal Acceleration, which may explain why you have such difficulty accepting it. Saying that the UA doesn't affect things on the Earth's surface is like saying that if I have a table with a plate on it, and on that plate is a fried egg, the table is not affecting the egg. In one sense it's true-ish, but it's misleading. The egg is where it is because it's on the plate, and the plate is being held up by the table. To give you and understanding of why the UA doesn't affect things BEYOND the atmolayer either, ask yourself whether my kitchen table would affect a bird which was flying over it. The answer is no.
That's what I said. The UA doesn't directly push a table it only pushes the Earth. The Earth then pushes everything else. The UA then pushes the sun, moon, planets, and stars.
Which means that it stops at the Earth and starts again after the atmolayer. If it didn't then the UA wold directly accelerate people up at 9.8m/s
No, the UA pushes whatever is touching it, which is where my second example comes into its own. The UA does not function at a distance - it can no more push things which are above it that my table can keep birds flying.
James,
Using your table analogy... why would the various parts of the table have less support than say, the middle, or edges? Stick a grain of sand anywhere on a real table... and it will have the exact same support regardless of location or leg placement.
Now.. applying this to the earth... why would the center of the earth (flat disk now) referring to the north pole region, consistently have less acceleration than the equatorial region. Likewise, why would the equatorial region have consistently greater acceleration than the outer rim?
If parts of the earth had gravity anomolies that fluctuated to a mean value of 9.8m/s then the UA idea would make sense... but the acceleration doesn't show any such fluctuations.
This example is not true, in fact, the table will sag slightly in the middle.
-
If two things have different accelerations, they don't stay together for very long. Acceleration is simply the rate of change in velocity. If one part of the earth gains velocity faster than another part, it would shoot up into space before long because its velocity would be higher.
All parts of a sagging table have the same acceleration, which is why it stays together.
Try again.
-
If two things have different accelerations, they don't stay together for very long. Acceleration is simply the rate of change in velocity. If one part of the earth gains velocity faster than another part, it would shoot up into space before long because its velocity would be higher.
All parts of a sagging table have the same acceleration, which is why it stays together.
Try again.
No, if a table sags, the middle of the table is accelerating less fast than the outer edges of the table until it reachs an equilibrium.
-
Facepalm.
Let's try this again. Say I have 2 objects accelerating at different rates, one at 1 m/s/s and the other at 2 m/s/s. At t=0, they are in the same spot. At t=1 second, the first object is 1 meter away, and the second is 2 meters away. At t=2 seconds, the first is 3 meters away, and the second is 6 meters away, and so on.
If 2 objects have different accelerations for any length of time, they move away from each other. This is a simple fact.
Applying this to a theoretical flat earth, we measure different rates of "gravitational" acceleration on different spots on the earth. These measurements are consistent at each spot. So there are 2 possibilities:
1. The acceleration is due to gravity and the objects will stay where they are.
2. That point on the surface of the flat earth is accelerating at a different rate than other parts of the earth, and will move away from them.
It can only be one or the other, which is it?
-
Facepalm.
Let's try this again. Say I have 2 objects accelerating at different rates, one at 1 m/s/s and the other at 2 m/s/s. At t=0, they are in the same spot. At t=1 second, the first object is 1 meter away, and the second is 2 meters away. At t=2 seconds, the first is 3 meters away, and the second is 6 meters away, and so on.
If 2 objects have different accelerations for any length of time, they move away from each other. This is a simple fact.
Applying this to a theoretical flat earth, we measure different rates of "gravitational" acceleration on different spots on the earth. These measurements are consistent at each spot. So there are 2 possibilities:
1. The acceleration is due to gravity and the objects will stay where they are.
2. That point on the surface of the flat earth is accelerating at a different rate than other parts of the earth, and will move away from them.
It can only be one or the other, which is it?
Neither of these things is true. You are presenting a false dichotomy to attempt to make your claims appear stronger, but I have unmasked it.
-
Facepalm.
Let's try this again. Say I have 2 objects accelerating at different rates, one at 1 m/s/s and the other at 2 m/s/s. At t=0, they are in the same spot. At t=1 second, the first object is 1 meter away, and the second is 2 meters away. At t=2 seconds, the first is 3 meters away, and the second is 6 meters away, and so on.
If 2 objects have different accelerations for any length of time, they move away from each other. This is a simple fact.
Applying this to a theoretical flat earth, we measure different rates of "gravitational" acceleration on different spots on the earth. These measurements are consistent at each spot. So there are 2 possibilities:
1. The acceleration is due to gravity and the objects will stay where they are.
2. That point on the surface of the flat earth is accelerating at a different rate than other parts of the earth, and will move away from them.
It can only be one or the other, which is it?
Neither of these things is true. You are presenting a false dichotomy to attempt to make your claims appear stronger, but I have unmasked it.
Blast, foiled again! I forgot that every bit of simple physics I ever learned was wrong!
I don't suppose you'd like to enlighten me as to where I was wrong and why?
-
Facepalm.
Let's try this again. Say I have 2 objects accelerating at different rates, one at 1 m/s/s and the other at 2 m/s/s. At t=0, they are in the same spot. At t=1 second, the first object is 1 meter away, and the second is 2 meters away. At t=2 seconds, the first is 3 meters away, and the second is 6 meters away, and so on.
If 2 objects have different accelerations for any length of time, they move away from each other. This is a simple fact.
Applying this to a theoretical flat earth, we measure different rates of "gravitational" acceleration on different spots on the earth. These measurements are consistent at each spot. So there are 2 possibilities:
1. The acceleration is due to gravity and the objects will stay where they are.
2. That point on the surface of the flat earth is accelerating at a different rate than other parts of the earth, and will move away from them.
It can only be one or the other, which is it?
Neither of these things is true. You are presenting a false dichotomy to attempt to make your claims appear stronger, but I have unmasked it.
Blast, foiled again! I forgot that every bit of simple physics I ever learned was wrong!
I don't suppose you'd like to enlighten me as to where I was wrong and why?
The Earth is accelerating at the same rate as itself. Obviously if there is a heavy object on the Earth the Earth will sag an incredibly tiny amount from the compression of the object. I don't see why this is an issue.
-
Then congratulations, you have failed to understand a concept as simple as acceleration! Read a book on basic mechanics and try again.
-
Then congratulations, you have failed to understand a concept as simple as acceleration! Read a book on basic mechanics and try again.
Perhaps you'd care to enlighten me. I have read many books about science.
-
The Celestial bodies are suspended above the Earth by photoelectric suspension, not by the Universal Accelerator.
Of course.
If the universal accelerator only acts on one thing, then why is it called "universal"?
-
Then congratulations, you have failed to understand a concept as simple as acceleration! Read a book on basic mechanics and try again.
Perhaps you'd care to enlighten me. I have read many books about science.
I just did, but you still "didn't see why this is an issue".
I can't continue to argue with someone who doesn't have a grasp of basic scientific principles. Educate yourself a bit if you would like to continue this discussion.
-
The Celestial bodies are suspended above the Earth by photoelectric suspension, not by the Universal Accelerator.
Of course.
If the universal accelerator only acts on one thing, then why is it called "universal"?
It acts on all things which are on it.
Then congratulations, you have failed to understand a concept as simple as acceleration! Read a book on basic mechanics and try again.
Perhaps you'd care to enlighten me. I have read many books about science.
I just did, but you still "didn't see why this is an issue".
I can't continue to argue with someone who doesn't have a grasp of basic scientific principles. Educate yourself a bit if you would like to continue this discussion.
No, no, I am happy for you to concede that you are unable to defeat me in argument. You may at any time attempt to continue, but I do not hold out much hope for your success!
-
It acts on all things which are on it.
And how many things are on it?
-
It acts on all things which are on it.
And how many things are on it?
It depends what you mean by "things" ...?
-
To give you and understanding of why the UA doesn't affect things BEYOND the atmolayer either, ask yourself whether my kitchen table would affect a bird which was flying over it. The answer is no.
The answer is yes. Albeit in small way given the small mass of the table.
The UA does not function at a distance
Except it can, because it can "push" both the earth and the sun, moon, stars etc.
Strange.
The Celestial bodies are suspended above the Earth by photoelectric suspension, not by the Universal Accelerator.
I just read the "theory of photoelectric suspension"....
Wow... just... Wow...
So you're saying that there is a giant Electric field between the Sun, Moon, and Earth that has equal charge of the same polarity and that keeps the Sun and Moon from crashing into the Earth?
-
It acts on all things which are on it.
And how many things are on it?
It depends what you mean by "things" ...?
No, it depends on what you mean by "things"...!
-
It acts on all things which are on it.
And how many things are on it?
It depends what you mean by "things" ...?
No, it depends on what you mean by "things"...!
Well I used a universal quantifier in my sentence, which means I don't need to supply a number. But if you want to know how many things there are on the UA, we will have to be more specific about the bounds of a thing.
-
To give you and understanding of why the UA doesn't affect things BEYOND the atmolayer either, ask yourself whether my kitchen table would affect a bird which was flying over it. The answer is no.
The answer is yes. Albeit in small way given the small mass of the table.
The UA does not function at a distance
Except it can, because it can "push" both the earth and the sun, moon, stars etc.
Strange.
The Celestial bodies are suspended above the Earth by photoelectric suspension, not by the Universal Accelerator.
How did you reach this conclusion?
-
Well I used a universal quantifier in my sentence, which means I don't need to supply a number.
But you've also previously stressed that the effect is not universal, ie it does not act on the sun, moon and presumably all heavenly bodies.
That's why I'm seeking clarification.
But if you want to know how many things there are on the UA, we will have to be more specific about the bounds of a thing.
I do, so go right ahead and be specific about the bounds of a thing.
-
The Celestial bodies are suspended above the Earth by photoelectric suspension, not by the Universal Accelerator.
Of course.
If the universal accelerator only acts on one thing, then why is it called "universal"?
It acts on all things which are on it.
Then congratulations, you have failed to understand a concept as simple as acceleration! Read a book on basic mechanics and try again.
Perhaps you'd care to enlighten me. I have read many books about science.
I just did, but you still "didn't see why this is an issue".
I can't continue to argue with someone who doesn't have a grasp of basic scientific principles. Educate yourself a bit if you would like to continue this discussion.
No, no, I am happy for you to concede that you are unable to defeat me in argument. You may at any time attempt to continue, but I do not hold out much hope for your success!
It's like playing a game with a child. You know you can beat them, but they don't know enough about the game so you feel sorry for them and just let them think they are superior. Good luck with your ignorance.
Also, I just don't feel like repeating myself anymore. I explained it to you in very clear detail but you (by your own admission) didn't see what the issue was.
-
Well I used a universal quantifier in my sentence, which means I don't need to supply a number.
But you've also previously stressed that the effect is not universal, ie it does not act on the sun, moon and presumably all heavenly bodies.
That's why I'm seeking clarification.
But if you want to know how many things there are on the UA, we will have to be more specific about the bounds of a thing.
I do, so go right ahead and be specific about the bounds of a thing.
Well there are several possible answers. Is an atom a thing? If so, there are millions of things on the Universal Accelerator. If a molecule is a thing, there are fewer, but still quite a lot. Do you see the problem here?
-
Do you see the problem here?
No. It's your definition. You define it.
-
Do you see the problem here?
No. It's your definition. You define it.
In that case there are millions of things on it.
-
In that case there are millions of things on it.
But all of those "things" are bonded and collectively identified as the earth. Is that correct?
-
In that case there are millions of things on it.
But all of those "things" are bonded and collectively identified as the earth. Is that correct?
Not necessarily. "Earth" is a poorly defined concept. Is the Ice Wall part of the Earth? Is the ice beyond the Ice Wall part of the Earth?
-
Again, these are your definitions, so he's asking you to clarify them.
-
Not necessarily. "Earth" is a poorly defined concept.
Not in my world. Strange.
Is the Ice Wall part of the Earth?
You tell me. Why wouldn't it be? Is there a void between the ice wall and the earth?
Is the ice beyond the Ice Wall part of the Earth?
You tell me. Is there a void between the ice and the ice wall?
-
Then why am I not weightless? Surely if UA affects things like the Earth, the sun, the moon, and every last one of those countless stars, why doesn't it affect us? What makes us special?
As stated in the FAQ, the DEF acts as a containment which shields us from UA and holds the atmolayer in place. The celestial bodies are free from this containment of the Earth. The DEF only applies to the standard model; it does not apply to other flat earth models.
While a single mass accelerating alone can "feel" a force which is indistinguishable from gravity, if there is another mass involved then part of that force it feels can, and must, be attributable to gravitational attraction.
No. All masses simply move along geodesics in curved space-time; they do not feel or experience any gravitational forces. Einstein argued that the Newton's force of gravity is false because it violates the universal speed limit. As I said, read General Relativity.
All mass exerts a gravitational field. You can't wish it away. It makes me worry when you insist people read Einstein while having yet to get to grips with more basic elements of physics yourself.
This is essentially why I said there is something which negates the Earth's ability to exert its own gravitational field.
By demanding a uniform gravitational field with zero tidal effects you are suppressing the evidence against your argument.
That is because you need to distinguish between a local reference frame and a macroscopic reference frame, and you cannot use experiments conducted in a macroscopic reference frame to contradict the Equivalence Principle because it does not apply to such reference frame. In our frame of reference, the variations are so small that they are neglected. For example, you can barely notice any variations by dropping two balls few meters apart. This is where the Equivalence Principle applies.
Then there are experiments to distinguish the two. We got there in the end didn't we?
I said, "there are no experiments that can distinguish between gravity and acceleration in our frame of reference." Do you not understand the bold part?
-
Then it's a good thing we are able to make measurements across the Earth, and not just in our own backyards. Big shock, humans are able to use technology to make macroscopic measurements.
-
This is essentially why I said there is something which negates the Earth's ability to exert its own gravitational field.
We're getting to the heart of the matter now!
Tell me more about this "something".
-
By demanding a uniform gravitational field with zero tidal effects you are suppressing the evidence against your argument.
That is because you need to distinguish between a local reference frame and a macroscopic reference frame, and you cannot use experiments conducted in a macroscopic reference frame to contradict the Equivalence Principle because it does not apply to such reference frame. In our frame of reference, the variations are so small that they are neglected. For example, you can barely notice any variations by dropping two balls few meters apart. This is where the Equivalence Principle applies.
Then there are experiments to distinguish the two. We got there in the end didn't we?
I said, "there are no experiments that can distinguish between gravity and acceleration in our frame of reference." Do you not understand the bold part?
He essentially seems to be arguing that small scale experiments can't disprove the equivalence principle, which is an entirely separate issue from being able to perform experiments at all to determine if the earth is being accelerated by gravity or something else. So it can be done, but he is sticking to an irrelevant argument as a means of defense.
-
To give you and understanding of why the UA doesn't affect things BEYOND the atmolayer either, ask yourself whether my kitchen table would affect a bird which was flying over it. The answer is no.
The answer is yes. Albeit in small way given the small mass of the table.
The UA does not function at a distance
Except it can, because it can "push" both the earth and the sun, moon, stars etc.
Strange.
The Celestial bodies are suspended above the Earth by photoelectric suspension, not by the Universal Accelerator.
How did you reach this conclusion?
Answer please.
-
Facepalm.
Let's try this again. Say I have 2 objects accelerating at different rates, one at 1 m/s/s and the other at 2 m/s/s. At t=0, they are in the same spot. At t=1 second, the first object is 1 meter away, and the second is 2 meters away. At t=2 seconds, the first is 3 meters away, and the second is 6 meters away, and so on.
If 2 objects have different accelerations for any length of time, they move away from each other. This is a simple fact.
Applying this to a theoretical flat earth, we measure different rates of "gravitational" acceleration on different spots on the earth. These measurements are consistent at each spot. So there are 2 possibilities:
1. The acceleration is due to gravity and the objects will stay where they are.
2. That point on the surface of the flat earth is accelerating at a different rate than other parts of the earth, and will move away from them.
It can only be one or the other, which is it?
Neither of these things is true. You are presenting a false dichotomy to attempt to make your claims appear stronger, but I have unmasked it.
Blast, foiled again! I forgot that every bit of simple physics I ever learned was wrong!
I don't suppose you'd like to enlighten me as to where I was wrong and why?
The Earth is accelerating at the same rate as itself. Obviously if there is a heavy object on the Earth the Earth will sag an incredibly tiny amount from the compression of the object. I don't see why this is an issue.
This would cause the object being accelerated to become imbalanced. This imbalance would result in wobble. Kind of like loading your washing machine too heavily on one side. This wobble would eventually tear the Earth apart.
-
I'd imagine places like Beijing and New York to have quite the wobbly effect on FE.
Also, if FE is infinitely wide and finitely deep, this just makes it worse.
-
I'd imagine places like Beijing and New York to have quite the wobbly effect on FE.
Also, if FE is infinitely wide and finitely deep, this just makes it worse.
Actually, I think the Pacific ocean would be the killer!
-
Neither of these things is true. You are presenting a false dichotomy to attempt to make your claims appear stronger, but I have unmasked it.
I don't suppose you'd like to enlighten me as to where I was wrong and why?
Imagine two cars. One is accelerating at 5m/sec^2, and the other is accelerating at 5.01m/sec^2. The car with the greater constant acceleration is going to increase its distance with the other car until the end of time.
Back to the earth.
Specifically, the middle of the disk would slowly sink, the equator region of the disk would rise relative to the rest of the earth, and the regions outside the equator area would also be sinking. It would look exactly like an negative (upside down) cosine function. Over time, the difference in acceleration would have the effect of increasing the amplitude. Eventually, the disk finally rips itself apart.
If this doesn't make sense James, then there is truly no hope for you! Drug rehabilitation being a possible exception.
-
You should probably just give up. He knows he's wrong and doesn't have any way to refute it, so he's trying to insult my intelligence.
We've already established that uneven acceleration (which has been measured) would cause a flat earth to fly apart, so that's that.
And by the way, if you're referring to acceleration above, the units are meters/(seconds^2), or m/s/s.
-
I think the crux of this issue, is the varying degree of accelaration on the earths surface. If the earth truelly was accelarating upwards, then certain parts of the world would be slower than other parts. This would result in some passrts sinking into the earth while others stretch outwards.
This does not occur.
If you fail to understand this, watch a drag race. One car accelarates faster than the other it therefore is ahead of the slower accelarating one.
Apply the principle to the earth.
-
Facepalm.
Let's try this again. Say I have 2 objects accelerating at different rates, one at 1 m/s/s and the other at 2 m/s/s. At t=0, they are in the same spot. At t=1 second, the first object is 1 meter away, and the second is 2 meters away. At t=2 seconds, the first is 3 meters away, and the second is 6 meters away, and so on.
If 2 objects have different accelerations for any length of time, they move away from each other. This is a simple fact.
Applying this to a theoretical flat earth, we measure different rates of "gravitational" acceleration on different spots on the earth. These measurements are consistent at each spot. So there are 2 possibilities:
1. The acceleration is due to gravity and the objects will stay where they are.
2. That point on the surface of the flat earth is accelerating at a different rate than other parts of the earth, and will move away from them.
It can only be one or the other, which is it?
Neither of these things is true. You are presenting a false dichotomy to attempt to make your claims appear stronger, but I have unmasked it.
Blast, foiled again! I forgot that every bit of simple physics I ever learned was wrong!
I don't suppose you'd like to enlighten me as to where I was wrong and why?
The Earth is accelerating at the same rate as itself. Obviously if there is a heavy object on the Earth the Earth will sag an incredibly tiny amount from the compression of the object. I don't see why this is an issue.
This would cause the object being accelerated to become imbalanced. This imbalance would result in wobble. Kind of like loading your washing machine too heavily on one side. This wobble would eventually tear the Earth apart.
Why do you think you know what happens in a theory you don't understand?
The Earth is not 100% dense. It can undergo compression if there is enough heavy matter on it.
-
The Earth is not 100% dense. It can undergo compression if there is enough heavy matter on it.
I'm pretty sure I understand your meaning: The Earth can be compressed. But so can all matter. And the point at which you can't compress it anymore is probably a quantum singularity.
-
Facepalm.
Let's try this again. Say I have 2 objects accelerating at different rates, one at 1 m/s/s and the other at 2 m/s/s. At t=0, they are in the same spot. At t=1 second, the first object is 1 meter away, and the second is 2 meters away. At t=2 seconds, the first is 3 meters away, and the second is 6 meters away, and so on.
If 2 objects have different accelerations for any length of time, they move away from each other. This is a simple fact.
Applying this to a theoretical flat earth, we measure different rates of "gravitational" acceleration on different spots on the earth. These measurements are consistent at each spot. So there are 2 possibilities:
1. The acceleration is due to gravity and the objects will stay where they are.
2. That point on the surface of the flat earth is accelerating at a different rate than other parts of the earth, and will move away from them.
It can only be one or the other, which is it?
Neither of these things is true. You are presenting a false dichotomy to attempt to make your claims appear stronger, but I have unmasked it.
Blast, foiled again! I forgot that every bit of simple physics I ever learned was wrong!
I don't suppose you'd like to enlighten me as to where I was wrong and why?
The Earth is accelerating at the same rate as itself. Obviously if there is a heavy object on the Earth the Earth will sag an incredibly tiny amount from the compression of the object. I don't see why this is an issue.
This would cause the object being accelerated to become imbalanced. This imbalance would result in wobble. Kind of like loading your washing machine too heavily on one side. This wobble would eventually tear the Earth apart.
Why do you think you know what happens in a theory you don't understand? (Like the RET?
The Earth is not 100% dense. It can undergo compression if there is enough heavy matter on it.
How is something 100% dense? Density isn't a percent, moron. It's either a fraction or decimal.
-
You still don't get it. Yes, some compression would happen, but with different values of acceleration for any sustained period of time (which is what happens, the measured values of acceleration are constant for each individual location over time), there is no way for a flat earth to remain stuck together.
-
The Earth is not 100% dense. It can undergo compression if there is enough heavy matter on it.
I'm pretty sure I understand your meaning: The Earth can be compressed. But so can all matter. And the point at which you can't compress it anymore is probably a quantum singularity.
What makes you think we have reached anything like that level of compression yet?
The Earth is not 100% dense. It can undergo compression if there is enough heavy matter on it.
How is something 100% dense? Density isn't a percent, moron. It's either a fraction or decimal.
Clearly I am talking about 100% of the maximum possible density. Or do you think that matter can densify forever??
You still don't get it. Yes, some compression would happen, but with different values of acceleration for any sustained period of time (which is what happens, the measured values of acceleration are constant for each individual location over time), there is no way for a flat earth to remain stuck together.
I can see where you are going wrong, I think you will find it surprisingly simple. You have not factored in expansion, which counteracts compression. There are a number of expanding factors involved when we are discussing the Earth, these include heat from within the Earth itself (heat causes particles to move faster, with a tendency to force them apart). This is why certain objects explode in microwave ovens). Another thing which expands the surface of the Earth is rainfall. As rain falls on as particular area of ground, the ground will become saturated and swell slightly. The Earth is sustained in perpetuity through balances such as these.
-
What makes you think we have reached anything like that level of compression yet?
Some napkin maths could reveal startling figures.
-
The Earth is not 100% dense. It can undergo compression if there is enough heavy matter on it.
I'm pretty sure I understand your meaning: The Earth can be compressed. But so can all matter. And the point at which you can't compress it anymore is probably a quantum singularity.
What makes you think we have reached anything like that level of compression yet?
Why are you reading things that aren't being said? I never said anything about reaching it, I said that's what 100% density (your terms) would be.
You still don't get it. Yes, some compression would happen, but with different values of acceleration for any sustained period of time (which is what happens, the measured values of acceleration are constant for each individual location over time), there is no way for a flat earth to remain stuck together.
I can see where you are going wrong, I think you will find it surprisingly simple. You have not factored in expansion, which counteracts compression. There are a number of expanding factors involved when we are discussing the Earth, these include heat from within the Earth itself (heat causes particles to move faster, with a tendency to force them apart). This is why certain objects explode in microwave ovens). Another thing which expands the surface of the Earth is rainfall. As rain falls on as particular area of ground, the ground will become saturated and swell slightly. The Earth is sustained in perpetuity through balances such as these.
....
So the Earth is infinitely stretchable?
-
The Earth is not 100% dense. It can undergo compression if there is enough heavy matter on it.
I'm pretty sure I understand your meaning: The Earth can be compressed. But so can all matter. And the point at which you can't compress it anymore is probably a quantum singularity.
What makes you think we have reached anything like that level of compression yet?
Why are you reading things that aren't being said? I never said anything about reaching it, I said that's what 100% density (your terms) would be.
You still don't get it. Yes, some compression would happen, but with different values of acceleration for any sustained period of time (which is what happens, the measured values of acceleration are constant for each individual location over time), there is no way for a flat earth to remain stuck together.
I can see where you are going wrong, I think you will find it surprisingly simple. You have not factored in expansion, which counteracts compression. There are a number of expanding factors involved when we are discussing the Earth, these include heat from within the Earth itself (heat causes particles to move faster, with a tendency to force them apart). This is why certain objects explode in microwave ovens). Another thing which expands the surface of the Earth is rainfall. As rain falls on as particular area of ground, the ground will become saturated and swell slightly. The Earth is sustained in perpetuity through balances such as these.
....
So the Earth is infinitely stretchable?
No, as with all things it can expand or compress to a certain extent, this it does on a regular basis according to a number of factors.
-
I can see where you are going wrong, I think you will find it surprisingly simple. You have not factored in expansion, which counteracts compression. There are a number of expanding factors involved when we are discussing the Earth, these include heat from within the Earth itself (heat causes particles to move faster, with a tendency to force them apart). This is why certain objects explode in microwave ovens). Another thing which expands the surface of the Earth is rainfall. As rain falls on as particular area of ground, the ground will become saturated and swell slightly. The Earth is sustained in perpetuity through balances such as these.
Wow, just wow. One last time then I'm out.
Point A has a measured acceleration of we'll say 9.81 m/s^2, and point B has a measured acceleration of 9.79 m/s^2. These values are shown to be constant over time, they do not change. If those points start out near the same spot, and accelerate upwards at the values above, point A will quickly acquire a larger velocity than the other, and will move upwards with an ever increasing lead over point B, hence point A would not stay on the surface of the flat Earth for long, it would shoot off into space, and point B would sink into the ground. This is not happening, or we would see mountain ranges and chasms appearing in a matter of seconds.
In the real Earth, we don't measure any movement of those points relative to the rest of the ground, so no compression or expansion is happening. Therefore the Earth is not being accelerated upwards by some unseen UA, gravitational force is the only other option.
If you don't understand that, there's nothing else I can do for you.
-
The Earth is not 100% dense. It can undergo compression if there is enough heavy matter on it.
I'm pretty sure I understand your meaning: The Earth can be compressed. But so can all matter. And the point at which you can't compress it anymore is probably a quantum singularity.
What makes you think we have reached anything like that level of compression yet?
Why are you reading things that aren't being said? I never said anything about reaching it, I said that's what 100% density (your terms) would be.
You still don't get it. Yes, some compression would happen, but with different values of acceleration for any sustained period of time (which is what happens, the measured values of acceleration are constant for each individual location over time), there is no way for a flat earth to remain stuck together.
I can see where you are going wrong, I think you will find it surprisingly simple. You have not factored in expansion, which counteracts compression. There are a number of expanding factors involved when we are discussing the Earth, these include heat from within the Earth itself (heat causes particles to move faster, with a tendency to force them apart). This is why certain objects explode in microwave ovens). Another thing which expands the surface of the Earth is rainfall. As rain falls on as particular area of ground, the ground will become saturated and swell slightly. The Earth is sustained in perpetuity through balances such as these.
....
So the Earth is infinitely stretchable?
No, as with all things it can expand or compress to a certain extent, this it does on a regular basis according to a number of factors.
And how does this relate to different accelerations at different points on the Earth? After all, we're moving solid mass aren't we?
Here, do this:
Take a piece of paper, holding it in two hands, one hand on one end, the other on the opposite side. Now move your hands up: one fast, one very slowly. Tell me if the paper rips or not.
-
Because you're either very confused or are deliberately confusing two issues.
There was confusion on both sides. When I first stated that UA and gravity follow the same principle in that there are no experiments capable of differentiating gravity from acceleration in our reference frame, Lorddave responded with the Cavendish experiment. Either he was confused with my statement or he tried to argue that there is an experiment that can distinguish between gravity and acceleration. Anyone who has seen General Relativity would notice that there is no falsehood in my statement, so I thought he was confused. However, when I made the statement "in no way does the Cavendish experiment differentiate gravity from acceleration in our frame of reference," he and Ellipsis replied against it.
Fine. I asked him how does the experiment distinguish between the two, and you came with [this post] (http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=38640.msg963507#msg963507) as a response. Thus, I asked you too, and you replied with your interpretation of the experiment. There could be three reasons for this: you were confused with what I was saying, you knew what I was saying but you intended to contest my claim just to be a nuisance, or you simply failed to clarify that you were not contesting my claim but merely trying to make a distinction between the Equivalence Principle and the Cavendish experiment.
actually there is. high speed camera. it is moving upwards if acceleration is constant.
it is gravity if acceleration increases based on the inverse square law
-
Because you're either very confused or are deliberately confusing two issues.
There was confusion on both sides. When I first stated that UA and gravity follow the same principle in that there are no experiments capable of differentiating gravity from acceleration in our reference frame, Lorddave responded with the Cavendish experiment. Either he was confused with my statement or he tried to argue that there is an experiment that can distinguish between gravity and acceleration. Anyone who has seen General Relativity would notice that there is no falsehood in my statement, so I thought he was confused. However, when I made the statement "in no way does the Cavendish experiment differentiate gravity from acceleration in our frame of reference," he and Ellipsis replied against it.
Fine. I asked him how does the experiment distinguish between the two, and you came with [this post] (http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=38640.msg963507#msg963507) as a response. Thus, I asked you too, and you replied with your interpretation of the experiment. There could be three reasons for this: you were confused with what I was saying, you knew what I was saying but you intended to contest my claim just to be a nuisance, or you simply failed to clarify that you were not contesting my claim but merely trying to make a distinction between the Equivalence Principle and the Cavendish experiment.
How would acceleration explain this? If you tie a string between two points and pull it tight, the string is level. However, move the points closer together, and the string sags in the middle. If it's the ground moving up to meet a NON-MOVING object, why does the string sag and not stay at the same level? Even if the string is being forced against itself, what stops it from moving sideways?
Here's an image for reference.
(http://i113.photobucket.com/albums/n237/mkrolfe/Candlestick.jpg)
Because the object is moving the whole time. Everything is moving "up" at the same rate. Why does the string sag?
Air pressure mixed with the fact that the posts were moving upwards miliseconds prior to the string (since the posts have a direct line to the ground and the string relies on the air pushing it down).
Best bet is to prove gravity exists (like I did) and have FEers invent the "gravity nullifying field".
No, its because the object isn't stationary, its on the earth which is moving upwards.
if it was in the air, then you'd find that it doesn't bend, as gravity accelerates masses at different speeds
-
Ok so sorry if someone brought this up but, you have a piece of paper and a steel ball at the same height. the steel ball hits first.
explain how this could happen if your FE accelerates evenly. and don't give me some nonsense about air compression without any maths to prove it. Also terminal speed.
and for you GR lovers what about the gravity time dilation?
http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/HBASE/Relativ/airtim.html
-
The paper-against-weight problem actually makes sense in both models (if UA affects only the Earth). The problem they all avoid is why gravity is stronger in certain regions than others, which only makes sense if the Earth is rotating.
-
The paper-against-weight problem actually makes sense in both models (if UA affects only the Earth). The problem they all avoid is why gravity is stronger in certain regions than others, which only makes sense if the Earth is rotating.
Changes in gravity also occur if the material under your feet is more or less dense. More mass, more gravity.
-
The paper-against-weight problem actually makes sense in both models (if UA affects only the Earth). The problem they all avoid is why gravity is stronger in certain regions than others, which only makes sense if the Earth is rotating.
Changes in gravity also occur if the material under your feet is more or less dense. More mass, more gravity.
not to mention atomic clocks must be adjusted with altitude, as they're error of margin is less than the time dilation of a year.
-
He essentially seems to be arguing that small scale experiments can't disprove the equivalence principle, which is an entirely separate issue from being able to perform experiments at all to determine if the earth is being accelerated by gravity or something else. So it can be done, but he is sticking to an irrelevant argument as a means of defense.
I never said it is impossible for one to perform an experiment which distinguishes between gravity and acceleration at all. I said it is impossible for one to perform an experiment which distinguishes between the two in our frame of reference, because tidal effects (variations) are too small to be noticeable in such frame of reference.
We're getting to the heart of the matter now!
Tell me more about this "something".
Unknown, but it would probably have properties which counteract with positive gravitational fields. Or, we can simply say the Earth is unique in that it does not distort the geometry of space-time.
actually there is. high speed camera. it is moving upwards if acceleration is constant.
it is gravity if acceleration increases based on the inverse square law
What?
Ok so sorry if someone brought this up but, you have a piece of paper and a steel ball at the same height. the steel ball hits first.
explain how this could happen if your FE accelerates evenly. and don't give me some nonsense about air compression without any maths to prove it. Also terminal speed.
The force of drag causes the paper to accelerate up faster than the steel ball relative to the Earth's acceleration.
-
Unknown, but it would probably have properties which counteract with positive gravitational fields.
Argument without evidence.
It's strange that you argue for pages that something exists (the nature and operation of mass in a spacetime universe) and then wish it all away in an instant. Someones time is being wasted. Who do I bill?
Or, we can simply say the Earth is unique in that it does not distort the geometry of space-time.
Special case pleading without reason.
-
So we're back around to this argument:
"Something is negating the mass contained in the planet Earth because it must in order for my model to work"
This claim has exactly no evidence on its side, yet you continue to proclaim it as if you are absolutely sure that it is 100% true. That seems much more like religious faith than scientific fact.
-
I can see where you are going wrong, I think you will find it surprisingly simple. You have not factored in expansion, which counteracts compression. There are a number of expanding factors involved when we are discussing the Earth, these include heat from within the Earth itself (heat causes particles to move faster, with a tendency to force them apart). This is why certain objects explode in microwave ovens). Another thing which expands the surface of the Earth is rainfall. As rain falls on as particular area of ground, the ground will become saturated and swell slightly. The Earth is sustained in perpetuity through balances such as these.
Wow, just wow. One last time then I'm out.
Point A has a measured acceleration of we'll say 9.81 m/s^2, and point B has a measured acceleration of 9.79 m/s^2. These values are shown to be constant over time, they do not change. If those points start out near the same spot, and accelerate upwards at the values above, point A will quickly acquire a larger velocity than the other, and will move upwards with an ever increasing lead over point B, hence point A would not stay on the surface of the flat Earth for long, it would shoot off into space, and point B would sink into the ground. This is not happening, or we would see mountain ranges and chasms appearing in a matter of seconds.
In the real Earth, we don't measure any movement of those points relative to the rest of the ground, so no compression or expansion is happening. Therefore the Earth is not being accelerated upwards by some unseen UA, gravitational force is the only other option.
If you don't understand that, there's nothing else I can do for you.
If the Earth expands, does it not expand towards you? If an accelerating object expands, its acceleration in relation to you increases for the time it is expanding.
-
I can see where you are going wrong, I think you will find it surprisingly simple. You have not factored in expansion, which counteracts compression. There are a number of expanding factors involved when we are discussing the Earth, these include heat from within the Earth itself (heat causes particles to move faster, with a tendency to force them apart). This is why certain objects explode in microwave ovens). Another thing which expands the surface of the Earth is rainfall. As rain falls on as particular area of ground, the ground will become saturated and swell slightly. The Earth is sustained in perpetuity through balances such as these.
Wow, just wow. One last time then I'm out.
Point A has a measured acceleration of we'll say 9.81 m/s^2, and point B has a measured acceleration of 9.79 m/s^2. These values are shown to be constant over time, they do not change. If those points start out near the same spot, and accelerate upwards at the values above, point A will quickly acquire a larger velocity than the other, and will move upwards with an ever increasing lead over point B, hence point A would not stay on the surface of the flat Earth for long, it would shoot off into space, and point B would sink into the ground. This is not happening, or we would see mountain ranges and chasms appearing in a matter of seconds.
In the real Earth, we don't measure any movement of those points relative to the rest of the ground, so no compression or expansion is happening. Therefore the Earth is not being accelerated upwards by some unseen UA, gravitational force is the only other option.
If you don't understand that, there's nothing else I can do for you.
If the Earth expands, does it not expand towards you? If an accelerating object expands, its acceleration in relation to you increases for the time it is expanding.
That does not make any sense, nor does it have any relevance to the argument I have been presenting to you for a couple pages now. Educate yourself on what acceleration is, and we can continue the discussion.
-
I can see where you are going wrong, I think you will find it surprisingly simple. You have not factored in expansion, which counteracts compression. There are a number of expanding factors involved when we are discussing the Earth, these include heat from within the Earth itself (heat causes particles to move faster, with a tendency to force them apart). This is why certain objects explode in microwave ovens). Another thing which expands the surface of the Earth is rainfall. As rain falls on as particular area of ground, the ground will become saturated and swell slightly. The Earth is sustained in perpetuity through balances such as these.
Wow, just wow. One last time then I'm out.
Point A has a measured acceleration of we'll say 9.81 m/s^2, and point B has a measured acceleration of 9.79 m/s^2. These values are shown to be constant over time, they do not change. If those points start out near the same spot, and accelerate upwards at the values above, point A will quickly acquire a larger velocity than the other, and will move upwards with an ever increasing lead over point B, hence point A would not stay on the surface of the flat Earth for long, it would shoot off into space, and point B would sink into the ground. This is not happening, or we would see mountain ranges and chasms appearing in a matter of seconds.
In the real Earth, we don't measure any movement of those points relative to the rest of the ground, so no compression or expansion is happening. Therefore the Earth is not being accelerated upwards by some unseen UA, gravitational force is the only other option.
If you don't understand that, there's nothing else I can do for you.
If the Earth expands, does it not expand towards you? If an accelerating object expands, its acceleration in relation to you increases for the time it is expanding.
I understand what you're saying. Unfortunately you've got a few points wrong.
1. An object doesn't have to expand towards you. It will expand into the area of least resistance.
2. The amount of expansion required to compensate for a difference in acceleration and thus distance would be astronomical. Let's do the math shall we? An acceleration difference of .02 m/s^2 after 1 year would be 9,945,192,960,000 meters of distance between the two objects. Are you going to tell me that the Earth is expanding it's mass in various areas that much over the course of 1 year?
-
Call me a noob (this IS the general Q&A), but explain to me why it's not the case that *everything* is moving due to UA. For example, when you pour milk, the milk should behave as if it was in zero gravity, because UA is in fact acting upon the milk, as well as everything around it. Is UA fickle and selective?
-
Call me a noob (this IS the general Q&A), but explain to me why it's not the case that *everything* is moving due to UA. For example, when you pour milk, the milk should behave as if it was in zero gravity, because UA is in fact acting upon the milk, as well as everything around it. Is UA fickle and selective?
When you start pouring the milk,it stops be accelerated(as the earth was,which makes you accelerate,and the glass accelerate) than as the earth goes up,the glass meets the milk.
-
Call me a noob (this IS the general Q&A), but explain to me why it's not the case that *everything* is moving due to UA. For example, when you pour milk, the milk should behave as if it was in zero gravity, because UA is in fact acting upon the milk, as well as everything around it. Is UA fickle and selective?
When you start pouring the milk,it stops be accelerated(as the earth was,which makes you accelerate,and the glass accelerate) than as the earth goes up,the glass meets the milk.
But *why* does it stop accelerating? I can't think of a logical explanation for this. If I'm accelerating, and the Earth is accelerating, and the glass is accelerating, why isn't the milk?
-
Call me a noob (this IS the general Q&A), but explain to me why it's not the case that *everything* is moving due to UA. For example, when you pour milk, the milk should behave as if it was in zero gravity, because UA is in fact acting upon the milk, as well as everything around it. Is UA fickle and selective?
Basically... yes.
It will only accelerate things directly in contact with the ground. Basically, it's like someone is pushing on the Crust of the Earth. However, they have to then explain why planets, stars, the moon, the sun, and all sorts of space objects stay the same distance from the Earth, they have to explain why the Atmosphere hasn't been pushed away yet, ect....
Flat Earth requires a lot of "Well it wouldn't if...."
-
Sometimes I wonder why I spend my time here. I like to think I'm truly changing the views of the uneducated *cough*, but then I realize that that'll never happen. I guess it's a good self-control exercise. The longer I go without totally trolling & flaming, the better.
-
Sometimes I wonder why I spend my time here. I like to think I'm truly changing the views of the uneducated *cough*, but then I realize that that'll never happen. I guess it's a good self-control exercise. The longer I go without totally trolling & flaming, the better.
Considering there are about... 2, maybe 3 actual FEers here while the rest are either REers, Trolls, or assortments thereof, you might as well just start trolling now.
-
Call me a noob (this IS the general Q&A), but explain to me why it's not the case that *everything* is moving due to UA. For example, when you pour milk, the milk should behave as if it was in zero gravity, because UA is in fact acting upon the milk, as well as everything around it. Is UA fickle and selective?
When you start pouring the milk,it stops be accelerated(as the earth was,which makes you accelerate,and the glass accelerate) than as the earth goes up,the glass meets the milk.
But *why* does it stop accelerating? I can't think of a logical explanation for this. If I'm accelerating, and the Earth is accelerating, and the glass is accelerating, why isn't the milk?
Because the earth is the only thing going up.its just that you are connected to the container and milk.Thus when the milk lets go,it is no longer affected by the acceleration(as it technically isn't covered under UA to begin with.)
-
Sometimes I wonder why I spend my time here. I like to think I'm truly changing the views of the uneducated *cough*, but then I realize that that'll never happen. I guess it's a good self-control exercise. The longer I go without totally trolling & flaming, the better.
I'm just here because it's good practice to apply the physics principles I learned in college. To me this is just an interesting thought experiment. And I enjoy proving people wrong, even if they don't accept it. 8)
-
He essentially seems to be arguing that small scale experiments can't disprove the equivalence principle, which is an entirely separate issue from being able to perform experiments at all to determine if the earth is being accelerated by gravity or something else. So it can be done, but he is sticking to an irrelevant argument as a means of defense.
I never said it is impossible for one to perform an experiment which distinguishes between gravity and acceleration at all. I said it is impossible for one to perform an experiment which distinguishes between the two in our frame of reference, because tidal effects (variations) are too small to be noticeable in such frame of reference.
We're getting to the heart of the matter now!
Tell me more about this "something".
Unknown, but it would probably have properties which counteract with positive gravitational fields. Or, we can simply say the Earth is unique in that it does not distort the geometry of space-time.
actually there is. high speed camera. it is moving upwards if acceleration is constant.
it is gravity if acceleration increases based on the inverse square law
What?
Ok so sorry if someone brought this up but, you have a piece of paper and a steel ball at the same height. the steel ball hits first.
explain how this could happen if your FE accelerates evenly. and don't give me some nonsense about air compression without any maths to prove it. Also terminal speed.
The force of drag causes the paper to accelerate up faster than the steel ball relative to the Earth's acceleration.
For the "What?"
FET predicts constant acceleration
RET does not, because the closer something is to the earth, the more it accelerates according to Newtons inverse square law.
Therefore, you should build an insanely high speed camera, and watch something fall thousands of meters in a vacuum.
or, you should put a really good odometer on it.
Wait so now the paper is accelerating too?
lol no. lrn to physics. drag is based on velocity.if the paper is not moving,
no drag force. r u saying the air pushes upon the paper?
via the UA accelerating it or the earth pushing it?
or something else
-
I can see where you are going wrong, I think you will find it surprisingly simple. You have not factored in expansion, which counteracts compression. There are a number of expanding factors involved when we are discussing the Earth, these include heat from within the Earth itself (heat causes particles to move faster, with a tendency to force them apart). This is why certain objects explode in microwave ovens). Another thing which expands the surface of the Earth is rainfall. As rain falls on as particular area of ground, the ground will become saturated and swell slightly. The Earth is sustained in perpetuity through balances such as these.
Wow, just wow. One last time then I'm out.
Point A has a measured acceleration of we'll say 9.81 m/s^2, and point B has a measured acceleration of 9.79 m/s^2. These values are shown to be constant over time, they do not change. If those points start out near the same spot, and accelerate upwards at the values above, point A will quickly acquire a larger velocity than the other, and will move upwards with an ever increasing lead over point B, hence point A would not stay on the surface of the flat Earth for long, it would shoot off into space, and point B would sink into the ground. This is not happening, or we would see mountain ranges and chasms appearing in a matter of seconds.
In the real Earth, we don't measure any movement of those points relative to the rest of the ground, so no compression or expansion is happening. Therefore the Earth is not being accelerated upwards by some unseen UA, gravitational force is the only other option.
If you don't understand that, there's nothing else I can do for you.
If the Earth expands, does it not expand towards you? If an accelerating object expands, its acceleration in relation to you increases for the time it is expanding.
SIR, if point A is accelerating faster than B, in some direction X, then Xfinal-xinitial=.5dt2 where d is the difference in constant acceleration. factor in a couple of thousand years and BAM. Everest times 5billion
-
Therefore, you should build an insanely high speed camera, and watch something fall thousands of meters in a vacuum.
or, you should put a really good odometer on it.
I can give their answer for why gravity weakens with altitude, as I've heard it before. At those heights, they claim, the gravity of the celestial bodies above (mainly sun and moon) causes more and more of an influence. This doesn't do a damn thing in explaining why the force is still weakened by (roughly) the same amount when neither the sun nor the moon are in the sky, and the stars can't be having that big of an influence considering they're many light-years away.
-
FET predicts constant acceleration
RET does not, because the closer something is to the earth, the more it accelerates according to Newtons inverse square law.
Therefore, you should build an insanely high speed camera, and watch something fall thousands of meters in a vacuum.
or, you should put a really good odometer on it.
I have said it before and I will say it again: there are no experiments which can distinguish between gravity and acceleration in our frame of reference, where tidal effects are too small to be considered. The bold part is important. Your example is done on a macroscopic scale, where tidal effects are considered. The Equivalence Principle does not apply to such scale.
It's strange that you argue for pages that something exists (the nature and operation of mass in a spacetime universe) and then wish it all away in an instant. Someones time is being wasted. Who do I bill?
Special case pleading without reason.
There are so far only two possible explanations as to why Earth is a disc: the Earth's mass is unique in that it is not gravitational mass (it does not gravitate nor respond to gravitation), or it is not unique and the Earth's gravitational field is canceled out by something else.
Wait so now the paper is accelerating too?
lol no. lrn to physics. drag is based on velocity.if the paper is not moving,
no drag force. r u saying the air pushes upon the paper?
via the UA accelerating it or the earth pushing it?
or something else
The Earth pushes the air, and the air in turn pushes the paper.
I can give their answer for why gravity weakens with altitude, as I've heard it before. At those heights, they claim, the gravity of the celestial bodies above (mainly sun and moon) causes more and more of an influence. This doesn't do a damn thing in explaining why the force is still weakened by (roughly) the same amount when neither the sun nor the moon are in the sky, and the stars can't be having that big of an influence considering they're many light-years away.
The stars are only 3100 miles above the Earth.
-
The stars are only 3100 miles above the Earth.
Honestly, no matter how many times I see that, it never fails to rouse a hearty laugh.
-
The stars are only 3100 miles above the Earth.
Honestly, no matter how many times I see that, it never fails to rouse a hearty laugh.
If that were true, it'd be time to break out the SPF 5,000,000.
Call me a noob (this IS the general Q&A), but explain to me why it's not the case that *everything* is moving due to UA. For example, when you pour milk, the milk should behave as if it was in zero gravity, because UA is in fact acting upon the milk, as well as everything around it. Is UA fickle and selective?
When you start pouring the milk,it stops be accelerated(as the earth was,which makes you accelerate,and the glass accelerate) than as the earth goes up,the glass meets the milk.
But *why* does it stop accelerating? I can't think of a logical explanation for this. If I'm accelerating, and the Earth is accelerating, and the glass is accelerating, why isn't the milk?
Because the earth is the only thing going up.its just that you are connected to the container and milk.Thus when the milk lets go,it is no longer affected by the acceleration(as it technically isn't covered under UA to begin with.)
For God's sake, tell me *WHY* the milk isn't covered under UA to begin with! Give me a logical explanation why UA only seems to affect EVERYTHING IN THE UNIVERSE except my milk.
-
So we're back around to this argument:
"Something is negating the mass contained in the planet Earth because it must in order for my model to work"
This claim has exactly no evidence on its side, yet you continue to proclaim it as if you are absolutely sure that it is 100% true. That seems much more like religious faith than scientific fact.
Answer pl0x.
And you are the only one still talking about the equivalence principle, it honestly has no relevance to the argument anymore.
-
There are so far only two possible explanations as to why Earth is a disc: the Earth's mass is unique in that it is not gravitational mass (it does not gravitate nor respond to gravitation), or it is not unique and the Earth's gravitational field is canceled out by something else.
There are also only two possible explanations why the royal family is a race of intergalactic lizard people; they came here for our precious gold, or they were born here thousands of years ago and stayed hidden until they could seize power.
Beg the question less.
And neither of your proposals stand up. See previous post.
-
Or perhaps there it a giant invisible wizard in the sky who cast a spell long ago to ensure that the Earth never produced a gravitational field.
-
The stars are only 3100 miles above the Earth.
Honestly, no matter how many times I see that, it never fails to rouse a hearty laugh.
If that were true, it'd be time to break out the SPF 5,000,000.
Call me a noob (this IS the general Q&A), but explain to me why it's not the case that *everything* is moving due to UA. For example, when you pour milk, the milk should behave as if it was in zero gravity, because UA is in fact acting upon the milk, as well as everything around it. Is UA fickle and selective?
When you start pouring the milk,it stops be accelerated(as the earth was,which makes you accelerate,and the glass accelerate) than as the earth goes up,the glass meets the milk.
But *why* does it stop accelerating? I can't think of a logical explanation for this. If I'm accelerating, and the Earth is accelerating, and the glass is accelerating, why isn't the milk?
Because the earth is the only thing going up.its just that you are connected to the container and milk.Thus when the milk lets go,it is no longer affected by the acceleration(as it technically isn't covered under UA to begin with.)
For God's sake, tell me *WHY* the milk isn't covered under UA to begin with! Give me a logical explanation why UA only seems to affect EVERYTHING IN THE UNIVERSE except my milk.
The UA isn't some magic force, it is just a giant thing, pushing the Earth up. Asking why the UA "affects" the Earth and not the milk is like asking why my table affects my computer but not a bird flying overhead.
-
Therefore, you should build an insanely high speed camera, and watch something fall thousands of meters in a vacuum.
or, you should put a really good odometer on it.
I can give their answer for why gravity weakens with altitude, as I've heard it before. At those heights, they claim, the gravity of the celestial bodies above (mainly sun and moon) causes more and more of an influence. This doesn't do a damn thing in explaining why the force is still weakened by (roughly) the same amount when neither the sun nor the moon are in the sky, and the stars can't be having that big of an influence considering they're many light-years away.
Wait, I'm confused, why do cellestial bodies only pull on things not named Earth? and if these cellestial bodies are in the same accelerated reference frame as objects on earth, then wouldn't said objects be pulled into space if this was the only tug on them?
-
FET predicts constant acceleration
RET does not, because the closer something is to the earth, the more it accelerates according to Newtons inverse square law.
Therefore, you should build an insanely high speed camera, and watch something fall thousands of meters in a vacuum.
or, you should put a really good odometer on it.
I have said it before and I will say it again: there are no experiments which can distinguish between gravity and acceleration in our frame of reference, where tidal effects are too small to be considered. The bold part is important. Your example is done on a macroscopic scale, where tidal effects are considered. The Equivalence Principle does not apply to such scale.
It's strange that you argue for pages that something exists (the nature and operation of mass in a spacetime universe) and then wish it all away in an instant. Someones time is being wasted. Who do I bill?
Special case pleading without reason.
There are so far only two possible explanations as to why Earth is a disc: the Earth's mass is unique in that it is not gravitational mass (it does not gravitate nor respond to gravitation), or it is not unique and the Earth's gravitational field is canceled out by something else.
Wait so now the paper is accelerating too?
lol no. lrn to physics. drag is based on velocity.if the paper is not moving,
no drag force. r u saying the air pushes upon the paper?
via the UA accelerating it or the earth pushing it?
or something else
The Earth pushes the air, and the air in turn pushes the paper.
I can give their answer for why gravity weakens with altitude, as I've heard it before. At those heights, they claim, the gravity of the celestial bodies above (mainly sun and moon) causes more and more of an influence. This doesn't do a damn thing in explaining why the force is still weakened by (roughly) the same amount when neither the sun nor the moon are in the sky, and the stars can't be having that big of an influence considering they're many light-years away.
The stars are only 3100 miles above the Earth.
OK Im not arguing the Equivalency thing, tho nice strawman, I'm saying you can figure out if objects are being pulled by gravity or if the ground is just pushing upwards.
and for your Drag thingie.
NO. say the paper is ten miles in the air. are you saying that the earth impacts the velocity of particles ten miles high instantaneously? drag force is instant, (or nearly) because the air is next to the paper. the earth pushing on air thing, even if it worked that way (which it doesn't) would travel at light speed, hence there would be a delay. more importantly, why would the air be moving upwards? take a big sheet of paper and move it, you'll notice the moving air is in proximity to the paper, not ten miles away from it. you have lost your UA give up now
-
The UA isn't some magic force, it is just a giant thing, pushing the Earth up. Asking why the UA "affects" the Earth and not the milk is like asking why my table affects my computer but not a bird flying overhead.
[/quote]
Oh, thanks for clearing that up. "a giant thing" is much more scientific than "some magic force". And that second statement made absolutely no sense. Just answer this: UA, Universal Acceleration, affects everything in the universe, hence the name, correct?
-
Oh, thanks for clearing that up. "a giant thing" is much more scientific than "some magic force". And that second statement made absolutely no sense. Just answer this: UA, Universal Acceleration, affects everything in the universe, hence the name, correct?
Wrong, it affects anything which is touching it (like a table).
-
I have said it before and I will say it again: there are no experiments which can distinguish between gravity and acceleration in our frame of reference, where tidal effects are too small to be considered. The bold part is important. Your example is done on a macroscopic scale, where tidal effects are considered. The Equivalence Principle does not apply to such scale.
Then how big do you consider your frame of reference to be?
-
Oh, thanks for clearing that up. "a giant thing" is much more scientific than "some magic force". And that second statement made absolutely no sense. Just answer this: UA, Universal Acceleration, affects everything in the universe, hence the name, correct?
Wrong, it affects anything which is touching it (like a table).
No one seems to want to tell me WHY. WHY does it only affect things 'touching it'? Your practically implies that, when something touches the Earth, magic flows into that object, and suddenly it's affected by UA.
-
Oh, thanks for clearing that up. "a giant thing" is much more scientific than "some magic force". And that second statement made absolutely no sense. Just answer this: UA, Universal Acceleration, affects everything in the universe, hence the name, correct?
Wrong, it affects anything which is touching it (like a table).
No one seems to want to tell me WHY. WHY does it only affect things 'touching it'? Your practically implies that, when something touches the Earth, magic flows into that object, and suddenly it's affected by UA.
Do you not understand how objects work? Why does a book only interact with me when I touch it? Why does a wall only interact with me when I touch it? Do you see how stupid your question is?
-
I'll give the milk example a try.
You are standing on the ground and are being accelerated by contact with the ground. Your weight is the result of this acceleration.
The milk in your hand is being accelerated by your hand/arm. The pull (weight) on your arm is you accelerating the milk.
When you pour the milk you are no longer accelerating that milk. The earth, you and the carton with less milk continue to accelerate.
After Time=0 the earth, you, and the carton are traveling faster then the expelled milk. The result is the milk from your frame of reference traveling downward.
I'm a REer and wish I could think of a simple way to prove we are being accelerated downward.
-
According to James, UA only affects the Earth directly. Why is it, then, that we never run into any stars? If it's not affecting them, and the Earth is accelerating indefinitely through space, why don't we ever run into any stationary crap?
-
According to James, UA only affects the Earth directly. Why is it, then, that we never run into any stars? If it's not affecting them, and the Earth is accelerating indefinitely through space, why don't we ever run into any stationary crap?
It only affects the Earth? What makes us so damn special?
And why the hell can nobody tell me WHY? I've asked at least 4 times. So here, again, is my question:
WHY does "UA" ONLY affect the Earth?
And midwestsailor, I understand what you just said. What I want to know is why only the Earth we're standing on is affected by UA, not the milk.
-
His response is electro something. Other say that at some undetermined altitude the earth stops blocking the UA.
-
He says it only affects the Earth because it's "a big thing" pushing the Earth from below.
...but if UA only affected the Earth, we'd run into those 3100-mile-high stars in about seventeen minutes. ::)
-
He says it only affects the Earth because it's "a big thing" pushing the Earth from below.
...but if UA only affected the Earth, we'd run into those 3100-mile-high stars in about seventeen minutes. ::)
I don't know why I bother tryingn to argue against concrete evidence like that. <--- fail
So, his explanation is a 'big thing', which is conveniently *under* the Earth so he can't prove it exists (nor can we prove it doesn't). Interesting.
I just get so confused sometimes when terms like 'big thing' get thrown around. So scientific.
-
It's James.
-
Another win for FET?
-
The UA isn't some magic force, it is just a giant thing, pushing the Earth up.
Uh huh.
It's a universal accelerator because it accelerates everything it touches. But it only touches one thing. Hmm.
In that case I have in my possession a universal accelerator that also accelerates all that it touches! Wondrous beast! It is called a Renault Twingo.
-
Their official explanation is that everything above us is being pushed by an impossibly huge electric field which no one has ever measured.
-
Their official explanation is that everything above us is being pushed by an impossibly huge electric field which no one has ever measured.
Actually that's just James' explanation. Each FE believer has his own version and there is little consensus.
-
How can we ever win an argument when they come up with facts like that? :(
-
How can we ever win an argument when they come up with facts like that? :(
Exactly!
They refuse to come to a consensus, because as soon as they do, they would have a hard and fast theory which could be disproved. By keeping things nebulous, if one possibility is disproved, they can always just fall back on the excuse of "that's just one possibility", and make up some other just as unlikely BS.
-
How can we ever win an argument when they come up with facts like that? :(
You can't.
Though I could make up better sounding stuff than them.
-
There are also only two possible explanations why the royal family is a race of intergalactic lizard people; they came here for our precious gold, or they were born here thousands of years ago and stayed hidden until they could seize power.
Beg the question less.
My statement was nothing like that. For the Earth to be a disc, it must not exert any gravitational field.
And neither of your proposals stand up. See previous post.
Saying "no" does not prove anything.
Then how big do you consider your frame of reference to be?
As I have said many times before in this thread, when I said "our frame of reference", I refer to the one where tidal effects are neglected. In other words, it would be local. That is where Equivalence Principle applies.
I'm saying you can figure out if objects are being pulled by gravity or if the ground is just pushing upwards.
No, I am afraid you cannot in your local reference frame.
NO. say the paper is ten miles in the air. are you saying that the earth impacts the velocity of particles ten miles high instantaneously?
As long as the paper leaves the ground and is within the atmolayer, it will be influenced by drag.
the earth pushing on air thing, even if it worked that way (which it doesn't) would travel at light speed, hence there would be a delay.
The Earth is not moving at relativistic speed in our frame of reference.
more importantly, why would the air be moving upwards? take a big sheet of paper and move it, you'll notice the moving air is in proximity to the paper, not ten miles away from it.
Air is moving upwards because the Earth is pushing it up.
you have lost your UA give up now
Just because you have no idea what you are talking about does not mean the UA fails.
-
How can we ever win an argument when they come up with facts like that? :(
You can't.
Though I could make up better sounding stuff than them.
I propose that there is a giant invisible wizard in the sky which holds up the stars, planets, and everything else we see up there. He also cancels the gravity of Earth and is responsible for all the other unexplained phenomena of FET.
-
How can we ever win an argument when they come up with facts like that? :(
You can't.
Though I could make up better sounding stuff than them.
I propose that there is a giant invisible wizard in the sky which holds up the stars, planets, and everything else we see up there. He also cancels the gravity of Earth and is responsible for all the other unexplained phenomena of FET.
The Sun and moon are actually in another part of the universe and there are two wormholes that project the energy from the objects. Gravity lensing causes the light to appear as though it's from a round object instead of a flat wormhole.
The Earth does have gravity. The core, however, is a flat, thick chunk of iron with charged lava flows all around it, essentially generating a circular magnetic field so the North pole is the center and the south pole is the edge. This also provides the gravity we feel and keeps the Earth from crushing in on itself.
So why do the stars rotate? Well, the whole sky as we see it is actually the aperture of a giant wormhole. Yes, there are two wormholes inside another, bigger one. The other end of the wormhole is in orbit of a planet in another part of the Galaxy. This is why it appears that we're in a round Earth when we really aren't.
See?
I'm much better at this than the FEers.
-
Lorddave, I have a sick feeling that some FE'er, somewhere, has a whole new theory. A few days from now you'll probably see that argument used against you :P
-
How can we ever win an argument when they come up with facts like that? :(
You can't.
Though I could make up better sounding stuff than them.
I propose that there is a giant invisible wizard in the sky which holds up the stars, planets, and everything else we see up there. He also cancels the gravity of Earth and is responsible for all the other unexplained phenomena of FET.
The Sun and moon are actually in another part of the universe and there are two wormholes that project the energy from the objects. Gravity lensing causes the light to appear as though it's from a round object instead of a flat wormhole.
The Earth does have gravity. The core, however, is a flat, thick chunk of iron with charged lava flows all around it, essentially generating a circular magnetic field so the North pole is the center and the south pole is the edge. This also provides the gravity we feel and keeps the Earth from crushing in on itself.
So why do the stars rotate? Well, the whole sky as we see it is actually the aperture of a giant wormhole. Yes, there are two wormholes inside another, bigger one. The other end of the wormhole is in orbit of a planet in another part of the Galaxy. This is why it appears that we're in a round Earth when we really aren't.
See?
I'm much better at this than the FEers.
Wow, I almost believe that.
-
For the Earth to be a disc, it must not exert any gravitational field.
I have a half-dollar that is in the shape of a disc.
It exerts a gravitational field.
You are wrong.
-
For the Earth to be a disc, it must not exert any gravitational field.
I have a half-dollar that is in the shape of a disc.
It exerts a gravitational field.
You are wrong.
Heh. It just went through my head how hard it would be to even prove your half-dollar was in the shape of a disc if you were a FE'er. Picture this:
"Videos + photos of it don't count, they're doctored"
"I'm not gonna go out and get one, too expensive"
"Everything else that proves you right is part of the Half-Dollar Conspiracy!"
:-\
-
There are also only two possible explanations why the royal family is a race of intergalactic lizard people; they came here for our precious gold, or they were born here thousands of years ago and stayed hidden until they could seize power.
Beg the question less.
My statement was nothing like that. For the Earth to be a disc, it must not exert any gravitational field.
And neither of your proposals stand up. See previous post.
Saying "no" does not prove anything.
Then how big do you consider your frame of reference to be?
As I have said many times before in this thread, when I said "our frame of reference", I refer to the one where tidal effects are neglected. In other words, it would be local. That is where Equivalence Principle applies.
I'm saying you can figure out if objects are being pulled by gravity or if the ground is just pushing upwards.
No, I am afraid you cannot in your local reference frame.
NO. say the paper is ten miles in the air. are you saying that the earth impacts the velocity of particles ten miles high instantaneously?
As long as the paper leaves the ground and is within the atmolayer, it will be influenced by drag.
the earth pushing on air thing, even if it worked that way (which it doesn't) would travel at light speed, hence there would be a delay.
The Earth is not moving at relativistic speed in our frame of reference.
more importantly, why would the air be moving upwards? take a big sheet of paper and move it, you'll notice the moving air is in proximity to the paper, not ten miles away from it.
Air is moving upwards because the Earth is pushing it up.
you have lost your UA give up now
Just because you have no idea what you are talking about does not mean the UA fails.
Kind gentlemen, Again, stop talking about reference frames:
1. take camera
2. shoot vid of object falling
3. prove or disprove gravity
4. ???
5. PROFIT
and sir I do know UA.
Earth pushes on air, but that doesn't mean air ten miles up magically gets to go at 9.8 meters/s/s,
firstly the effect disperses, when facepalmed 2min ago, I felt the gust of air as it neared my face, not when it was three feet away
secondly, if it could work this way, it wouldn't be instantaneous, it would be a chain reaction.
You have lost your UA give up already, change to the infinite plane theory, that's been more successful at being debunked.
-
I have a half-dollar that is in the shape of a disc.
It exerts a gravitational field.
You are wrong.
The Earth is not a half-dollar. The Earth is massive enough to collapse by its own gravitational field, whereas a half-dollar is not.
Kind gentlemen, Again, stop talking about reference frames:
Frame of reference is a very important concept in physics. For example, let us assume a car passes between you and an observer on the road, with you and the observer facing toward each other. If you see the car moving to your left, the observer will see will see it moving to his or her right. In other words, we have two difference reference frames.
1. take camera
2. shoot vid of object falling
3. prove or disprove gravity
4. ??
5. PROFIT
What point are you trying to make here?
and sir I do know UA.
Earth pushes on air, but that doesn't mean air ten miles up magically gets to go at 9.8 meters/s/s, firstly the effect disperses, when facepalmed 2min ago, I felt the gust of air as it neared my face, not when it was three feet away
secondly, if it could work this way, it wouldn't be instantaneous, it would be a chain reaction.
That makes absolutely no sense at all. As I said, any free object within the atmolayer is influenced by drag. The Earth always pushes the air up at 9.8m/s2, so the air will pass the object at 9.8m/s2. Drag from the passing air accelerates the object up to overcome its inertia. The object's acceleration increases. Once the acceleration of the object matches the acceleration of the Earth, the object reaches terminal velocity. You claim that you understand UA, so how can you not understand this?
You have lost your UA give up already
Repeating the same statement does not make you right.
-
The Earth is not a half-dollar. The Earth is massive enough to collapse by its own gravitational field, whereas a half-dollar is not.
The half-dollar experiences the effects of its own gravitational field and doesn't collapse under its own weight. Your claim was that the disc-shaped Earth can't have "any" gravity--meaning none whatsoever, no matter how slight. You've already admitted you were wrong, however roundabout your speaking may be. At least have the decency to directly concede the mistake.
-
You guys can't even tell me why UA works on the Earth. As far as I'm concerned, UA = debunked
And in that case, you guys can't even tell us why we don't fall off Earth. You can't even give us a correct map. Then you expect RE'ers to take your arguments seriously? Because I'm pretty confident the RET explains everything just fine.
-
Lorddave, I have a sick feeling that some FE'er, somewhere, has a whole new theory. A few days from now you'll probably see that argument used against you :P
if they do, I got original ownership.
-
The half-dollar experiences the effects of its own gravitational field and doesn't collapse under its own weight.
This is because the half-dollar does not have enough mass to exert a gravitational field which can overcome its material strength by heating up its interior through compression and softening it up. Despite the fact that they are disc-shaped, you simply cannot compare the Earth to a half-dollar in terms of their gravitational strength.
Your claim was that the disc-shaped Earth can't have "any" gravity--meaning none whatsoever, no matter how slight.
What do you mean by "any gravity"? An object's gravitational strength depends on its mass (or energy-momentum in GR). The Earth disc is quite massive, so it can exert a gravitational field strong enough to deform its shape. This is essentially why I argued that either the Earth's mass cannot be gravitational or its gravitational field is canceled out. I never said any object of any mass will collapse by its own gravitation.
You've already admitted you were wrong, however roundabout your speaking may be.
When?
-
What do you mean by "any gravity"? An object's gravitational strength depends on its mass (or energy-momentum in GR). The Earth disc is quite massive, so it can exert a gravitational field strong enough to deform its shape. This is essentially why I argued that either the Earth's mass cannot be gravitational or its gravitational field is canceled out. I never said any object of any mass will collapse by its own gravitation.
I'm confused: you just said that the Earth is massive enough to have a gravitational field strong enough to deform its shape... into a sphere. So are you saying that, if the Earth truly was a flat disc like FE'ers believe, it somehow cannot have a gravitational field, whether due to its mass, or due to some outside force cancelling it out?
To me, this is just more evidence of a round Earth.
-
For the Earth to be a disc, it must not exert any gravitational field.
But the earth is made of matter. All matter exerts a gravitational field, and the effects of gravitational fields are measurable. You rely on these statements in your own arguments. You've been told this already.
Saying "no" does not prove anything.
That's why I didn't just say "no", I gave you a detailed dismantling of your argument. Now you're resorting to begging the question.
Thanks for posting!
-
The stars are only 3100 miles above the Earth.
Honestly, no matter how many times I see that, it never fails to rouse a hearty laugh.
If that were true, it'd be time to break out the SPF 5,000,000.
Call me a noob (this IS the general Q&A), but explain to me why it's not the case that *everything* is moving due to UA. For example, when you pour milk, the milk should behave as if it was in zero gravity, because UA is in fact acting upon the milk, as well as everything around it. Is UA fickle and selective?
When you start pouring the milk,it stops be accelerated(as the earth was,which makes you accelerate,and the glass accelerate) than as the earth goes up,the glass meets the milk.
But *why* does it stop accelerating? I can't think of a logical explanation for this. If I'm accelerating, and the Earth is accelerating, and the glass is accelerating, why isn't the milk?
Because the earth is the only thing going up.its just that you are connected to the container and milk.Thus when the milk lets go,it is no longer affected by the acceleration(as it technically isn't covered under UA to begin with.)
For God's sake, tell me *WHY* the milk isn't covered under UA to begin with! Give me a logical explanation why UA only seems to affect EVERYTHING IN THE UNIVERSE except my milk.
The UA isn't some magic force, it is just a giant thing, pushing the Earth up. Asking why the UA "affects" the Earth and not the milk is like asking why my table affects my computer but not a bird flying overhead.
UA is magic, if it can perform infinte amounts of work, with no known power source, explain how the total kenetic energy of the universe is forever increasing
-
His response is electro something. Other say that at some undetermined altitude the earth stops blocking the UA.
then why does it effect Everest which is plenty high enough
-
The UA can generate infinite amounts of work, just like the conspiracy can generate infinite amounts of money ;D
-
There are also only two possible explanations why the royal family is a race of intergalactic lizard people; they came here for our precious gold, or they were born here thousands of years ago and stayed hidden until they could seize power.
Beg the question less.
My statement was nothing like that. For the Earth to be a disc, it must not exert any gravitational field.
And neither of your proposals stand up. See previous post.
Saying "no" does not prove anything.
Then how big do you consider your frame of reference to be?
As I have said many times before in this thread, when I said "our frame of reference", I refer to the one where tidal effects are neglected. In other words, it would be local. That is where Equivalence Principle applies.
I'm saying you can figure out if objects are being pulled by gravity or if the ground is just pushing upwards.
No, I am afraid you cannot in your local reference frame.
NO. say the paper is ten miles in the air. are you saying that the earth impacts the velocity of particles ten miles high instantaneously?
As long as the paper leaves the ground and is within the atmolayer, it will be influenced by drag.
the earth pushing on air thing, even if it worked that way (which it doesn't) would travel at light speed, hence there would be a delay.
The Earth is not moving at relativistic speed in our frame of reference.
more importantly, why would the air be moving upwards? take a big sheet of paper and move it, you'll notice the moving air is in proximity to the paper, not ten miles away from it.
Air is moving upwards because the Earth is pushing it up.
you have lost your UA give up now
Just because you have no idea what you are talking about does not mean the UA fails.
Kind gentleman, for the five billionth time,
1. take camera
2. film vid
3. see increase in acceleration
4. ?
5. PROFIT
and drag is about relative velocity again. the paper is stationary. therefore the air must be moving, what makes the air move? and don't say the earth, cause there' s noway that the gust would reach 5 miles high.
lrn2atomic clock: time on clocks on planes or skyscrapers have shown time delays which are larger then their margin of error. the gravitational time dilation phenomena exist, give up on UA, or forever be wrong
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/einstein/hotsciencetwin/
-
UA fails; take the loss like a man and move on.
-
What do you mean by "any gravity"?
What did YOU mean by "any gravity?"
You used that wording before I did. See:
I never said any object of any mass will collapse by its own gravitation.
No one said that; what you did say was, for the Earth to be a disc, it "must not exert any gravitational field." I can point you to numerous other disc-shaped objects that exert a gravitational field and don't collapse. Earth COULD have a weak gravitational field and still be in the shape of a disc.
When?
...When you admitted that an object can be disc-shaped and still exert a gravitational field without collapsing. It's a weak one, as we both agree, but it's still there. Your "any" claim has fallen apart by your own hands.
-
Frame of reference is a very important concept in physics. For example, let us assume a car passes between you and an observer on the road, with you and the observer facing toward each other. If you see the car moving to your left, the observer will see will see it moving to his or her right. In other words, we have two difference reference frames.
I know what a frame of reference, but saying frame of reference doesn't invalidate my point.
My point is if you were to have the function h(t) of the objects height, then you could determine whether it had constant acceleration or if acceleration increased aka because of gravity from the earth.
And why would the air be always accelerating up wards? earth pushes air AT THE BOTTOM.
smack yourself in the face, and you will notice that you don't feel the gust of air untill your hand is near you. if If were to hold a disk, and somehow push it forward at 9.8m/s/s, then the air ten feet in front of it would not be traveling at that speed. Still haven't heard why time dilation is wrong. I keep saying give up on UA, because you're fighting a losing battle, accept the defeat and go with Parsifal's model, which is wayyy better than yours will ever be.
-
But the earth is made of matter. All matter exerts a gravitational field, and the effects of gravitational fields are measurable. You rely on these statements in your own arguments. You've been told this already.
However, as said many times since the beginning of this site, and as I have argued so far in this thread, the Earth is special.
Now you're resorting to begging the question.
"The Earth is a disc."
"How is the Earth a disc if gravitational compression is true?"
"Either the Earth's mass is not gravitational mass or its gravitational field is canceled out."
Maybe I am missing something here, but I fail to see how my argument is begging the question. I am neither assuming my original point nor dodging the question. Begging the question looks like this:
"The Earth is a disc."
"How is the Earth a disc if gravitational compression is true?"
"The Earth is disc-shaped."
and drag is about relative velocity again. the paper is stationary. therefore the air must be moving, what makes the air move? and don't say the earth, cause there' s noway that the gust would reach 5 miles high.
And why would the air be always accelerating up wards? earth pushes air AT THE BOTTOM.
smack yourself in the face, and you will notice that you don't feel the gust of air untill your hand is near you. if If were to hold a disk, and somehow push it forward at 9.8m/s/s, then the air ten feet in front of it would not be traveling at that speed.
More nonsense. The entire atmolayer is being accelerated upward by the flat Earth, in the same way the entire atmosphere is being pulled down by gravity on the round earth. Any inertial object within the atmolayer of FE is influenced by drag, in the same way any free-falling object within the atmosphere of RE is influenced by drag. THE OBSERVED EFFECTS ARE EQUIVALENT. I cannot figure out how you can consistently fail to understand the fact that the air is moving relative to inertial observers because the Earth is pushing it. It is a very simple concept.
I have already explained the physics of drag on an accelerating Flat Earth few posts ago. It has also been mentioned several times on the forum, so use the search function. Understand it and realize the errors you are making. I am done with you on this.
lrn2atomic clock: time on clocks on planes or skyscrapers have shown time delays which are larger then their margin of error. the gravitational time dilation phenomena exist, give up on UA, or forever be wrong
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/einstein/hotsciencetwin/
Still haven't heard why time dilation is wrong.
Perhaps you can explain how time dilation will not be possible on a flat Earth.
Kind gentleman, for the five billionth time,
1. take camera
2. film vid
3. see increase in acceleration
4. ?
5. PROFIT
My point is if you were to have the function h(t) of the objects height, then you could determine whether it had constant acceleration or if acceleration increased aka because of gravity from the earth.
My friend, acceleration is not velocity. The Earth's acceleration is approximately 9.8m/s2; its acceleration is not increasing.
What did YOU mean by "any gravity?"
You used that wording before I did.
what you did say was, for the Earth to be a disc, it "must not exert any gravitational field."
Either the Earth exerts gravitation in accordance to its mass or it exerts none. I did not see how it is possible for the Earth, despite its large mass, to generate a small gravitational field or any gravitational field not in accordance to its mass without violating General Relativity, and thus I meant "not exerting any gravitational field" as "not exerting its own gravitational field".
Earth COULD have a weak gravitational field and still be in the shape of a disc.
Are you seriously trying to argue that, despite its large mass, the Earth can generate a gravitational field equivalent or identical to the one generated by something (e.g., half-dollar) much less massive than it, even though gravitation and mass are related? How does that make any sense?
...When you admitted that an object can be disc-shaped and still exert a gravitational field without collapsing. It's a weak one, as we both agree, but it's still there. Your "any" claim has fallen apart by your own hands.
If you insist that it was poorly worded on my part, so be it. As stated above, I say what I mean.
-
"The Earth is a disc."
"How is the Earth a disc if gravitational compression is true?"
"Either the Earth's mass is not gravitational mass or its gravitational field is canceled out."
You forgot an option:
"...or the Earth is round, which explains everything."
-
Are you seriously trying to argue that, despite its large mass, the Earth can generate a gravitational field equivalent or identical to the one generated by something (e.g., half-dollar) much less massive than it, even though gravitation and mass are related? How does that make any sense?
Considering you can't put a working map together or even agree on how large the planet is, I'm curious how you think you know the Earth's mass.
-
However, as said many times since the beginning of this site, and as I have argued so far in this thread, the Earth is special.
And as said many times since the beginning of this site, and as I have argued so far in this thread, that is a special case pleading without reason.
Matter on the earth has its gravitational field cancelled, but the same matter elsewhere doesn't?
You're in pixie land Jack.
Now you're resorting to begging the question.
"The Earth is a disc." <----- here
"How is the Earth a disc if gravitational compression is true?"
"Either the Earth's mass is not gravitational mass or its gravitational field is canceled out."
Maybe I am missing something here.
You are. See above.
-
But the earth is made of matter. All matter exerts a gravitational field, and the effects of gravitational fields are measurable. You rely on these statements in your own arguments. You've been told this already.
However, as said many times since the beginning of this site, and as I have argued so far in this thread, the Earth is special.
Now you're resorting to begging the question.
"The Earth is a disc."
"How is the Earth a disc if gravitational compression is true?"
"Either the Earth's mass is not gravitational mass or its gravitational field is canceled out."
Maybe I am missing something here, but I fail to see how my argument is begging the question. I am neither assuming my original point nor dodging the question. Begging the question looks like this:
"The Earth is a disc."
"How is the Earth a disc if gravitational compression is true?"
"The Earth is disc-shaped."
and drag is about relative velocity again. the paper is stationary. therefore the air must be moving, what makes the air move? and don't say the earth, cause there' s noway that the gust would reach 5 miles high.
And why would the air be always accelerating up wards? earth pushes air AT THE BOTTOM.
smack yourself in the face, and you will notice that you don't feel the gust of air untill your hand is near you. if If were to hold a disk, and somehow push it forward at 9.8m/s/s, then the air ten feet in front of it would not be traveling at that speed.
More nonsense. The entire atmolayer is being accelerated upward by the flat Earth, in the same way the entire atmosphere is being pulled down by gravity on the round earth. Any inertial object within the atmolayer of FE is influenced by drag, in the same way any free-falling object within the atmosphere of RE is influenced by drag. THE OBSERVED EFFECTS ARE EQUIVALENT. I cannot figure out how you can consistently fail to understand the fact that the air is moving relative to inertial observers because the Earth is pushing it. It is a very simple concept.
I have already explained the physics of drag on an accelerating Flat Earth few posts ago. It has also been mentioned several times on the forum, so use the search function. Understand it and realize the errors you are making. I am done with you on this.
lrn2atomic clock: time on clocks on planes or skyscrapers have shown time delays which are larger then their margin of error. the gravitational time dilation phenomena exist, give up on UA, or forever be wrong
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/einstein/hotsciencetwin/
Still haven't heard why time dilation is wrong.
Perhaps you can explain how time dilation will not be possible on a flat Earth.
Kind gentleman, for the five billionth time,
1. take camera
2. film vid
3. see increase in acceleration
4. ?
5. PROFIT
My point is if you were to have the function h(t) of the objects height, then you could determine whether it had constant acceleration or if acceleration increased aka because of gravity from the earth.
My friend, acceleration is not velocity. The Earth's acceleration is approximately 9.8m/s2; its acceleration is not increasing.
sir, I know but you must use better mathematicals. in Real Earth, acceleration due to the gravity of the earth is by no means constant. lrn2inverse square law. where did I mention velocity? nice strawman.
As I have explained before, time dilation is an effect due to variance in gravitational pull.
with no gravity, this is impossible.
And for the Air thing, stop treating the atmostphere as if it was a solid object. do the facepalm expierement
-
Considering you can't put a working map together or even agree on how large the planet is, I'm curious how you think you know the Earth's mass.
I was referring to the standard model in the FAQ. In addition, the Earth's mass-energy continues to increase as it approaches the speed of light with respect to an inertial observer in the universe.
Matter on the earth has its gravitational field cancelled, but the same matter elsewhere doesn't?
The Earth does not have to possess the same properties as other objects do in the universe.
"The Earth is a disc." <----- here
"How is the Earth a disc if gravitational compression is true?"
"Either the Earth's mass is not gravitational mass or its gravitational field is canceled out."
Maybe I am missing something here.
You are. See above.
However, I am not assuming that premise as my conclusion, which is precisely the definition of circular reasoning.
sir, I know but you must use better mathematicals. in Real Earth, acceleration due to the gravity of the earth is by no means constant. lrn2inverse square law. where did I mention velocity? nice strawman.
As I have explained before, time dilation is an effect due to variance in gravitational pull.
with no gravity, this is impossible.
Gravitational variance is generally caused by gravitational influence from celestial bodies above the accelerating Earth. As a result, our proper acceleration weakens at higher altitude.
In addition, if we take Lorentz contraction into account, an accelerating rocket reaching relativistic speed experiences different proper acceleration throughout its structure so long as it stays rigid in the proper frame (see Born rigid motion). The rocket's nose accelerates at a lower rate than its tail as measured by an accelerometer, in order to maintain the constant distance between them for the passenger. This may also explain gravitational variance on FE.
Now, gravitational time dilation arises in a non-inertial frame of reference, since gravitation and acceleration are equivalent according to the Principle of Equivalence. An accelerating observer experiences a slowdown of time relative to a non-accelerating observer. Using this principle, and since it is theoretically possible for acceleration to vary in the accelerating model, we can argue that there is less time dilation at higher altitude (lesser acceleration) and more at lower altitude (greater acceleration).
-
Matter on the earth has its gravitational field cancelled, but the same matter elsewhere doesn't?
The Earth does not have to possess the same properties as other objects do in the universe.
Are you suggesting that the Earth is not made of the same kinds of matter that other objects in the universe are made of?
-
Considering you can't put a working map together or even agree on how large the planet is, I'm curious how you think you know the Earth's mass.
I was referring to the standard model in the FAQ. In addition, the Earth's mass-energy continues to increase as it approaches the speed of light with respect to an inertial observer in the universe.
Matter on the earth has its gravitational field cancelled, but the same matter elsewhere doesn't?
The Earth does not have to possess the same properties as other objects do in the universe.
"The Earth is a disc." <----- here
"How is the Earth a disc if gravitational compression is true?"
"Either the Earth's mass is not gravitational mass or its gravitational field is canceled out."
Maybe I am missing something here.
You are. See above.
However, I am not assuming that premise as my conclusion, which is precisely the definition of circular reasoning.
sir, I know but you must use better mathematicals. in Real Earth, acceleration due to the gravity of the earth is by no means constant. lrn2inverse square law. where did I mention velocity? nice strawman.
As I have explained before, time dilation is an effect due to variance in gravitational pull.
with no gravity, this is impossible.
Gravitational variance is generally caused by gravitational influence from celestial bodies above the accelerating Earth. As a result, our proper acceleration weakens at higher altitude.
In addition, if we take Lorentz contraction into account, an accelerating rocket reaching relativistic speed experiences different proper acceleration throughout its structure so long as it stays rigid in the proper frame (see Born rigid motion). The rocket's nose accelerates at a lower rate than its tail as measured by an accelerometer, in order to maintain the constant distance between them for the passenger. This may also explain gravitational variance on FE.
Now, gravitational time dilation arises in a non-inertial frame of reference, since gravitation and acceleration are equivalent according to the Principle of Equivalence. An accelerating observer experiences a slowdown of time relative to a non-accelerating observer. Using this principle, and since it is theoretically possible for acceleration to vary in the accelerating model, we can argue that there is less time dilation at higher altitude (lesser acceleration) and more at lower altitude (greater acceleration).
And it just happens to align with local geography and latitude?
-
Matter on the earth has its gravitational field cancelled, but the same matter elsewhere doesn't?
The Earth does not have to possess the same properties as other objects do in the universe.
Are you suggesting that the Earth is not made of the same kinds of matter that other objects in the universe are made of?
The UA is sticky. it holds the Earth from being pulled up by the heavens.
it can do so, because it has the power to do infinite amounts of work, obviously, as it can increase the kinetic energy of the earth
incessantly.
/FES mode
-
Considering you can't put a working map together or even agree on how large the planet is, I'm curious how you think you know the Earth's mass.
I was referring to the standard model in the FAQ. In addition, the Earth's mass-energy continues to increase as it approaches the speed of light with respect to an inertial observer in the universe.
Matter on the earth has its gravitational field cancelled, but the same matter elsewhere doesn't?
The Earth does not have to possess the same properties as other objects do in the universe.
"The Earth is a disc." <----- here
"How is the Earth a disc if gravitational compression is true?"
"Either the Earth's mass is not gravitational mass or its gravitational field is canceled out."
Maybe I am missing something here.
You are. See above.
However, I am not assuming that premise as my conclusion, which is precisely the definition of circular reasoning.
sir, I know but you must use better mathematicals. in Real Earth, acceleration due to the gravity of the earth is by no means constant. lrn2inverse square law. where did I mention velocity? nice strawman.
As I have explained before, time dilation is an effect due to variance in gravitational pull.
with no gravity, this is impossible.
Gravitational variance is generally caused by gravitational influence from celestial bodies above the accelerating Earth. As a result, our proper acceleration weakens at higher altitude.
In addition, if we take Lorentz contraction into account, an accelerating rocket reaching relativistic speed experiences different proper acceleration throughout its structure so long as it stays rigid in the proper frame (see Born rigid motion). The rocket's nose accelerates at a lower rate than its tail as measured by an accelerometer, in order to maintain the constant distance between them for the passenger. This may also explain gravitational variance on FE.
Now, gravitational time dilation arises in a non-inertial frame of reference, since gravitation and acceleration are equivalent according to the Principle of Equivalence. An accelerating observer experiences a slowdown of time relative to a non-accelerating observer. Using this principle, and since it is theoretically possible for acceleration to vary in the accelerating model, we can argue that there is less time dilation at higher altitude (lesser acceleration) and more at lower altitude (greater acceleration).
What about, ones at sea?
-
The Earth does not have to possess the same properties as other objects do in the universe.
Matter is quite a universal object.
However, I am not assuming that premise as my conclusion, which is precisely the definition of circular reasoning.
That's nice. I'd forgotten you'd moved on from trying to prove the earth was flat; simply assumed it was; and then strode forward into Absurdia.