UA conflicts with the main premise: "Earth is static".Velocity doesn't mean anything unless you also consider what an object is moving relative to. Even in UA, for the observer on the Earth, the Earth isn't moving anywhere close to c. This is an old and tired attack on an old and tired idea.
They complain about "mind blowing" speeeds presented by modern cosmology:
30 km/s around the Sun" and 250 km/s with the Sun around the galactic core.
But little less than 300 000 km/s that was reached by now under UA was somehow "much less disturbing". :)
And through what is Earth accelerationg?
UA conflicts with the main premise: "Earth is static".Velocity doesn't mean anything unless you also consider what an object is moving relative to. Even in UA, for the observer on the Earth, the Earth isn't moving anywhere close to c. This is an old and tired attack on an old and tired idea.
They complain about "mind blowing" speeeds presented by modern cosmology:
30 km/s around the Sun" and 250 km/s with the Sun around the galactic core.
But little less than 300 000 km/s that was reached by now under UA was somehow "much less disturbing". :)
And through what is Earth accelerationg?
It should be obvious you are making a flawed argument when you get a result greater than c. And you also aren't stating what the Earth is moving relative to, making the whole thing meaningless to begin with.UA conflicts with the main premise: "Earth is static".Velocity doesn't mean anything unless you also consider what an object is moving relative to. Even in UA, for the observer on the Earth, the Earth isn't moving anywhere close to c. This is an old and tired attack on an old and tired idea.
They complain about "mind blowing" speeeds presented by modern cosmology:
30 km/s around the Sun" and 250 km/s with the Sun around the galactic core.
But little less than 300 000 km/s that was reached by now under UA was somehow "much less disturbing". :)
And through what is Earth accelerationg?
"Velocity doesn't mean anything" (by itself) - agreed.
"for the observeron the Earth, the Earth isn't moving anywhere close to c." - For the observer on the Earth the Earth isn't moving at all,
whichever model describes it in cosmic refernces. However, the UA would require the Earth to constantly approach c, due to the Relativity theory.
Without that after the Biblical 6000 years under the accelreration of 9.81 m/s2 we would move even faster:
31 556 925 sec x 6000 years = 1.89 x 1011 s
1.89 x 1011 s x 9.81 m/s2 = 1.86 x 1012 m/s
1.86 x 1012 m/s / 3 x 108 m/s = 620 c
"old and tired attack on an old and tired idea" - also agreed. The idea is old and debunked thoroughly by old attacks,
but what other replacement was offered to "gravity deniers"? :)
It should be obvious you are making a flawed argument when you get a result greater than c.
However, the UA would require the Earth to constantly approach c, due to the Relativity theory.
Without that...
And you also aren't stating what the Earth is moving relative to, making the whole thing meaningless to begin with.
In the UA model, the fact that the Earth accelerates constantly would be taken as axiomatic - a fundamental property of the universe.
That constant acceleration is not at odds with Relativity.
Acceleration through movement requires enough room for that movement.
(Again that question "Through what?", or as you rephrased it as "what the Earth is moving relative to".)
Going "620c" and having to explain how the Earth would be moving mind-bogglingly fast are not along those issues.
I see and feel the earth moving and pushing against me. I don't see any spooky invisible action-at-a-distance effects.
I see and feel the earth moving and pushing against me. I don't see any spooky invisible action-at-a-distance effects.
The premise of this thread is flawed to begin with. Most of the FE here do not promote UA. We can't be expected to answer for things written on the other site. If you have an issue with something in their wiki, take it up with them.
Thought experiment:
Take an accelerometer, calibrated to zero in empty space, i.e. away from any influence of gravity.
Now place this accelerometer on the ground, on earth. Does it show it is being accelerated and if so, by how much and in what direction?
Thought experiment:
Take an accelerometer, calibrated to zero in empty space, i.e. away from any influence of gravity.
Now place this accelerometer on the ground, on earth. Does it show it is being accelerated and if so, by how much and in what direction?
I think the idea of this thread was to see if there were any actual experiments that have been carried out in an attempt to give any credence to UA. One can think all you want about an idea but sooner or later you have to back that idea up with some hard science.
The premise of this thread is flawed to begin with. Most of the FE here do not promote UA. We can't be expected to answer for things written on the other site. If you have an issue with something in their wiki, take it up with them.
I didn't realise that some FE beliefs were off limit here. If that's the case why?
With UA being one of the cornerstones of FE belief it would be interesting to find our why FE believers gravitate toward that explanation of why things fall.For reference, you gave a link to the other site's wiki. At the other site, they are much more pro-UA. I suspect that is where your thread will get the attention it deserves.
Thought experiment:
Take an accelerometer, calibrated to zero in empty space, i.e. away from any influence of gravity.
Now place this accelerometer on the ground, on earth. Does it show it is being accelerated and if so, by how much and in what direction?
I think the idea of this thread was to see if there were any actual experiments that have been carried out in an attempt to give any credence to UA. One can think all you want about an idea but sooner or later you have to back that idea up with some hard science.
Well, you could at least try to answer the thought experiment, you might find it enlightening. You might even find it gives some credence to UA. Aside from the calibration in empty space, it is a practical experiment.
It's said Einstein was very keen on thought experiments. Whether that's true or not, I don't know.
The premise of this thread is flawed to begin with. Most of the FE here do not promote UA. We can't be expected to answer for things written on the other site. If you have an issue with something in their wiki, take it up with them.
I didn't realise that some FE beliefs were off limit here. If that's the case why?
Well, UA is not a cornerstone of FE belief for most of the active FE posters here. That's why I said your premise is flawed. From your OP:QuoteWith UA being one of the cornerstones of FE belief it would be interesting to find our why FE believers gravitate toward that explanation of why things fall.For reference, you gave a link to the other site's wiki. At the other site, they are much more pro-UA. I suspect that is where your thread will get the attention it deserves.
On the Infinite FE, there is no upward acceleration, there is just simply a force very much like Gravity that makes things fall. JD showed the math for it. Some other ideas are density, pressure, scepti's denpressure, and I'm not sure what others there are. That's just a few off the top of my head that I have seen discussed more than UA. Ski used to argue for UA, but he not here much lately. Tom Bishop is here now, he can share his own thoughts on the matter.The premise of this thread is flawed to begin with. Most of the FE here do not promote UA. We can't be expected to answer for things written on the other site. If you have an issue with something in their wiki, take it up with them.
I didn't realise that some FE beliefs were off limit here. If that's the case why?
Well, UA is not a cornerstone of FE belief for most of the active FE posters here. That's why I said your premise is flawed. From your OP:QuoteWith UA being one of the cornerstones of FE belief it would be interesting to find our why FE believers gravitate toward that explanation of why things fall.For reference, you gave a link to the other site's wiki. At the other site, they are much more pro-UA. I suspect that is where your thread will get the attention it deserves.
Is the flat earth they imagine different from the one you imagine, is so what are the differences. I was totally unaware that there was a schism within the flat earth community.
If you don’t support UA, what do you support?
Thought experiment:
Take an accelerometer, calibrated to zero in empty space, i.e. away from any influence of gravity.
Now place this accelerometer on the ground, on earth. Does it show it is being accelerated and if so, by how much and in what direction?
I think the idea of this thread was to see if there were any actual experiments that have been carried out in an attempt to give any credence to UA. One can think all you want about an idea but sooner or later you have to back that idea up with some hard science.
Well, you could at least try to answer the thought experiment, you might find it enlightening. You might even find it gives some credence to UA. Aside from the calibration in empty space, it is a practical experiment.
It's said Einstein was very keen on thought experiments. Whether that's true or not, I don't know.
Firstly while thought experiments can be useful to help visualise an idea, for it to have any real value the the elements within the thought experiment should be known to the thinker and based on some previous work. What you are suggestion is not a thought experiment, it’s more idle speculation.
Have you been into space? How do you know how an accelerometer would function in space, all you could do is guess, and it’s hardly a practical experiment.
I fail to see how this would throw any light on UA, but then again idle speculation is about all there is as far as flat earth experimentation goes.
Firstly while thought experiments can be useful to help visualise an idea, for it to have any real value the the elements within the thought experiment should be known to the thinker and based on some previous work. What you are suggestion is not a thought experiment, it’s more idle speculation.It is actually a fairly simple thought experiment based upon the fact that for a small area, gravity is equivalent to the ground accelerating upwards.
Have you been into space? How do you know how an accelerometer would function in space, all you could do is guess, and it’s hardly a practical experiment.
I fail to see how this would throw any light on UA, but then again idle speculation is about all there is as far as flat earth experimentation goes.
Thought experiment:
Take an accelerometer, calibrated to zero in empty space, i.e. away from any influence of gravity.
Now place this accelerometer on the ground, on earth. Does it show it is being accelerated and if so, by how much and in what direction?
I think the idea of this thread was to see if there were any actual experiments that have been carried out in an attempt to give any credence to UA. One can think all you want about an idea but sooner or later you have to back that idea up with some hard science.
Well, you could at least try to answer the thought experiment, you might find it enlightening. You might even find it gives some credence to UA. Aside from the calibration in empty space, it is a practical experiment.
It's said Einstein was very keen on thought experiments. Whether that's true or not, I don't know.
Firstly while thought experiments can be useful to help visualise an idea, for it to have any real value the the elements within the thought experiment should be known to the thinker and based on some previous work. What you are suggestion is not a thought experiment, it’s more idle speculation.
Have you been into space? How do you know how an accelerometer would function in space, all you could do is guess, and it’s hardly a practical experiment.
I fail to see how this would throw any light on UA, but then again idle speculation is about all there is as far as flat earth experimentation goes.
It's not idle speculation, it's about measuring the accelerating forces acting on an object on earth. The point about calibrating the accelerometer in empty space is that it should read zero when not accelerating, that's all.
Now, would you care to say what you think such an accelerometer would read on earth?
What experiments show issue with UA?
These? https://wiki.tfes.org/Weight_Variation_by_Latitude
Or these? https://wiki.tfes.org/Variations_in_Gravity
Thought experiment:
Take an accelerometer, calibrated to zero in empty space, i.e. away from any influence of gravity.
Now place this accelerometer on the ground, on earth. Does it show it is being accelerated and if so, by how much and in what direction?
I think the idea of this thread was to see if there were any actual experiments that have been carried out in an attempt to give any credence to UA. One can think all you want about an idea but sooner or later you have to back that idea up with some hard science.
Well, you could at least try to answer the thought experiment, you might find it enlightening. You might even find it gives some credence to UA. Aside from the calibration in empty space, it is a practical experiment.
It's said Einstein was very keen on thought experiments. Whether that's true or not, I don't know.
Firstly while thought experiments can be useful to help visualise an idea, for it to have any real value the the elements within the thought experiment should be known to the thinker and based on some previous work. What you are suggestion is not a thought experiment, it’s more idle speculation.
Have you been into space? How do you know how an accelerometer would function in space, all you could do is guess, and it’s hardly a practical experiment.
I fail to see how this would throw any light on UA, but then again idle speculation is about all there is as far as flat earth experimentation goes.
It's not idle speculation, it's about measuring the accelerating forces acting on an object on earth. The point about calibrating the accelerometer in empty space is that it should read zero when not accelerating, that's all.
Now, would you care to say what you think such an accelerometer would read on earth?
What experiments show issue with UA?Variation with latitude for sure.
These? https://wiki.tfes.org/Weight_Variation_by_Latitude
Or these? https://wiki.tfes.org/Variations_in_Gravity
Gravimeters are seismometers. Gravimeters and gravity maps are discussed here: https://wiki.tfes.org/GravimetryAbsolute gravimeters are not seismometers but are precision absolute reading accelerometers.
Absolute gravimeters
(https://ipfs.io/ipfs/QmXoypizjW3WknFiJnKLwHCnL72vedxjQkDDP1mXWo6uco/wiki/Gravimeter.html)
Absolute gravimeters, which nowadays are made compact so they too can be used in the field, work by directly measuring the acceleration of a mass during free fall in a vacuum, when the accelerometer is rigidly attached to the ground.
The mass includes a retroreflector and terminates one arm of a Michelson interferometer. By counting and timing the interference fringes, the acceleration of the mass can be measured. A more recent development is a "rise and fall" version that tosses the mass upward and measures both upward and downward motion. This allows cancellation of some measurement errors, however "rise and fall" gravimeters are not in common use. Absolute gravimeters are used in the calibration of relative gravimeters, surveying for gravity anomalies (voids), and for establishing the vertical control network
Scintrex A10 Portable Absolute Gravimeter (https://scintrexltd.com/product/a10-outdoor-absolute-gravimeter/)
(https://scintrexltd.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/03/A10-product.jpg)
PRODUCT DESCRIPTION
The A10 is an absolute gravimeter optimized for fast data acquisition and portability in outdoor applications. The instrument allows operation in harsh field conditions on open outdoor sites in the sun, snow, and wind.
Automated leveling, Battery operated, Temperature controlled sensor, Ideal roadside operation from a vehicle.
Performance Specifications
10µGal (Absolute) 10µGal in 10 minutes at a quiet site -18˚C to +38˚C continuous operation
From: A10 portable absolute gravity meter (https://scintrexltd.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/03/MgL_A10-Brochure.pdf)
This includes a description of the method of operation.
The is essentially a free-fall measurement in a vacuum chamber using a laser interferometer for precise velocity measurement.
Evidence for UA is here and here:Where?
https://wiki.tfes.org/Evidence_for_Universal_Acceleration
https://wiki.tfes.org/Variations_in_Gravity
Gravimeters are seismometers. Gravimeters and gravity maps are discussed here: https://wiki.tfes.org/Gravimetry
Evidence for UA is here and here:
https://wiki.tfes.org/Evidence_for_Universal_Acceleration
https://wiki.tfes.org/Variations_in_Gravity
It's not idle speculation, it's about measuring the accelerating forces acting on an object on earth. The point about calibrating the accelerometer in empty space is that it should read zero when not accelerating, that's all.
Now, would you care to say what you think such an accelerometer would read on earth?
It would depend where you were standing, up a mountain, in a deep mine, at the poles or equator or in Canada where there is a large anomaly due to historic glacial melting.
Where would you like to stand?
As you could be standing anywhere I think this should cover everywhere.
If the UA is "universally" accelerating, why isn't it accelerating me? I'm definitely being pulled down to the ground with a force of 1g. If I was being universally accelerated at the same rate as the ground below me, I'd just be hovering next to the ground.
If the UA is "universally" accelerating, why isn't it accelerating me? I'm definitely being pulled down to the ground with a force of 1g. If I was being universally accelerated at the same rate as the ground below me, I'd just be hovering next to the ground.
You're not being pulled down to the ground, you're being pushed up by the ground.
Under General Relativity (which is the basis for the UA idea) there's no 'force' of gravity. The ground is forcing you to deviate from your natural position which is to stay where you are:
Pay attention to what Prof. Cox says at around 4:02.
If the UA is "universally" accelerating, why isn't it accelerating me? I'm definitely being pulled down to the ground with a force of 1g. If I was being universally accelerated at the same rate as the ground below me, I'd just be hovering next to the ground.
You're not being pulled down to the ground, you're being pushed up by the ground.
Under General Relativity (which is the basis for the UA idea) there's no 'force' of gravity. The ground is forcing you to deviate from your natural position which is to stay where you are:
Pay attention to what Prof. Cox says at around 4:02.
Yes, so why isn't the UA accelerating me at the same rate as the ground below me?
If the UA is "universally" accelerating, why isn't it accelerating me? I'm definitely being pulled down to the ground with a force of 1g. If I was being universally accelerated at the same rate as the ground below me, I'd just be hovering next to the ground.
You're not being pulled down to the ground, you're being pushed up by the ground.
Under General Relativity (which is the basis for the UA idea) there's no 'force' of gravity. The ground is forcing you to deviate from your natural position which is to stay where you are:
Pay attention to what Prof. Cox says at around 4:02.
Yes, so why isn't the UA accelerating me at the same rate as the ground below me?
Well, briefly, because it's not really UA that's going on here. Sure, everything on earth is being pushed upwards but that's because the curving of spacetime by the earth's mass means that 'standing still' would mean moving downwards relative to the ground (like the ball and feather in the video). So the physicality of the earth pushes everything out of the way.
A falling object has no force on it so it obeys Newton's 1st law and doesn't accelerate. An object on the ground does experience a force from the ground and accelerates upwards.
Edit: This video is quite a good intro to this stuff:
Yeah, I get what you're saying, the flat earth is effectively a rocket accelerating at 1g. So what do you imagine is under the flat earth accelerating it? Why doesn't the sun and moon fall down? Are they being individually accelerated at exactly the same rate? How is that synchronised rate maintained? Why can't we see what is accelerating them? Are all the stars and planets being accelerated in the same way?
Yeah, I get what you're saying, the flat earth is effectively a rocket accelerating at 1g. So what do you imagine is under the flat earth accelerating it? Why doesn't the sun and moon fall down? Are they being individually accelerated at exactly the same rate? How is that synchronised rate maintained? Why can't we see what is accelerating them? Are all the stars and planets being accelerated in the same way?
Sorry if I've misled you but, no, I don't go along with the whole UA thing or a flat earth etc. I'm just pointing out that the idea of the ground accelerating upwards isn't so silly, in fact it's mainstream science, allowing for the fact that it needs to be thought of in terms of spacetime and not just space. It's part of what makes gravitation, so planets, stars etc behave in the same way as earth.
If you haven't already, have a look at that second video I posted. It's quite good at explaining this.
It's not idle speculation, it's about measuring the accelerating forces acting on an object on earth. The point about calibrating the accelerometer in empty space is that it should read zero when not accelerating, that's all.
Now, would you care to say what you think such an accelerometer would read on earth?
It would depend where you were standing, up a mountain, in a deep mine, at the poles or equator or in Canada where there is a large anomaly due to historic glacial melting.
Where would you like to stand?
As you could be standing anywhere I think this should cover everywhere.
I wasn't really asking for a precise figure. It's the direction that is relevant.
If the UA is "universally" accelerating, why isn't it accelerating me? I'm definitely being pulled down to the ground with a force of 1g. If I was being universally accelerated at the same rate as the ground below me, I'd just be hovering next to the ground.
You're not being pulled down to the ground, you're being pushed up by the ground.
Under General Relativity (which is the basis for the UA idea) there's no 'force' of gravity. The ground is forcing you to deviate from your natural position which is to stay where you are:
Pay attention to what Prof. Cox says at around 4:02.
Yes, so why isn't the UA accelerating me at the same rate as the ground below me?
Well, briefly, because it's not really UA that's going on here. Sure, everything on earth is being pushed upwards but that's because the curving of spacetime by the earth's mass means that 'standing still' would mean moving downwards relative to the ground (like the ball and feather in the video). So the physicality of the earth pushes everything out of the way.
A falling object has no force on it so it obeys Newton's 1st law and doesn't accelerate. An object on the ground does experience a force from the ground and accelerates upwards.
Edit: This video is quite a good intro to this stuff:
It's not idle speculation, it's about measuring the accelerating forces acting on an object on earth. The point about calibrating the accelerometer in empty space is that it should read zero when not accelerating, that's all.
Now, would you care to say what you think such an accelerometer would read on earth?
It would depend where you were standing, up a mountain, in a deep mine, at the poles or equator or in Canada where there is a large anomaly due to historic glacial melting.
Where would you like to stand?
As you could be standing anywhere I think this should cover everywhere.
I wasn't really asking for a precise figure. It's the direction that is relevant.
If you would like to make a point please go ahead.
It's not idle speculation, it's about measuring the accelerating forces acting on an object on earth. The point about calibrating the accelerometer in empty space is that it should read zero when not accelerating, that's all.
Now, would you care to say what you think such an accelerometer would read on earth?
It would depend where you were standing, up a mountain, in a deep mine, at the poles or equator or in Canada where there is a large anomaly due to historic glacial melting.
Where would you like to stand?
As you could be standing anywhere I think this should cover everywhere.
I wasn't really asking for a precise figure. It's the direction that is relevant.
If you would like to make a point please go ahead.
The point is that the accelerometer would show that objects on the ground are being accelerated at approx. 9.8 ms-2 upwards.
The point is that the accelerometer would show that objects on the ground are being accelerated at approx. 9.8 ms-2 upwards.
Now you know that’s not quite true as the reading would depend on where you happened to be standing.
However what has that got to do with UA on a flat disc. The problem is the two are interwoven and have to be taken together. SR GR, Newtonian physics and any other law of physics you care to mention would not apply on a disc world either finite or infinite.
The Question is what evidence is there for UA on a flat plane.
Gravimeters are seismometers. Gravimeters and gravity maps are discussed here: https://wiki.tfes.org/Gravimetry
Evidence for UA is here and here:
https://wiki.tfes.org/Evidence_for_Universal_Acceleration
https://wiki.tfes.org/Variations_in_Gravity
Your pulling my leg again Tom, that’s just empty words you have linked too. Proof is based on experimental data derived from a carefully controlled experiments that can be repeated by anyone that yields the same results.
You complained about the 200 plus experiments that all that proved attraction between masses as the theory of gravity predicts, admittedly there was a very small variation in the numerical results, not the ten times you claimed.......however enough of gravity as this thread is to shine the light on the case for UA, which looks like has nothing whatsoever to support it.you have been unable to provide any information on any data that would support it, all you have been able to link to is some random words of a-flat earth Wiki........hardly convincing is it.
Hardly. Einstein's theory that gravity operates exactly as if the earth were accelerating upwards is well verified and experimentally supported.No its not.
Hardly. Einstein's theory that gravity operates exactly as if the earth were accelerating upwards is well verified and experimentally supported.No its not.
For a small region of Earth, were you ignore all other sources of gravity, it is.
But for plenty of other situations they are vastly different.
But again, that isn't evidence of UA.
That is just saying that for these situations, UA and gravity produce the same result.
[Repeating the same garbage]
Hardly. Einstein's theory that gravity operates exactly as if the earth were accelerating upwards is well verified and experimentally supported.That is not evidence for UA - it is simply not inconsistent with UA.
See Harvard University's Pound-Rebka Experiment:Again, there is no support for UA in that over gravitation explained by Einstein's GR.
https://wiki.tfes.org/Evidence_for_Universal_Acceleration#The_Pound.E2.80.93Rebka_Experiment
(https://wiki.tfes.org/images/thumb/5/5c/Pound-rebka-diag.png/750px-Pound-rebka-diag.png)
Light blue shifts or red shifts when traveling upwards or downwards in the same manner as if the earth were accelerating upwards. When the photons on the floor travel upwards the ceiling is moving away and the light red shifts, and when the photons on the ceiling travels downwards the floor is moving into the photons and the photons blue shift. Just as would happen if the floor were accelerating upwards into the photons.Again, there is no support for UA in that over gravitation explained by Einstein's GR.
See this blueshift and redshift of light diagram which shows how light red shifts or blue shifts when motion is involved and it is approaching or receding from you.
(https://wiki.tfes.org/images/d/d3/Doppler_effect.jpg)
Einstein is a plagiarist who hasen't own theories and workings. Since all of his works are quoted from others, they all have errors. therefore, writing the name einstein does not magically make your argument stronger than another arguments, but makes your arguments weaker than others because you are in a pathetic way can't find an argument and only have the name of Einstein's so called laws.Incorrect! No, all of his works are not quoted from others. They are, as all of science is, adding to the work of others and Einstein never hid the fact that he had a lot of assistance from mathematicians etc.
Incorrect! No, all of his works are not quoted from others.
Gravimeters are seismometers. Gravimeters and gravity maps are discussed here: https://wiki.tfes.org/Gravimetry
Evidence for UA is here and here:
https://wiki.tfes.org/Evidence_for_Universal_Acceleration
https://wiki.tfes.org/Variations_in_Gravity
Your pulling my leg again Tom, that’s just empty words you have linked too. Proof is based on experimental data derived from a carefully controlled experiments that can be repeated by anyone that yields the same results.
You complained about the 200 plus experiments that all that proved attraction between masses as the theory of gravity predicts, admittedly there was a very small variation in the numerical results, not the ten times you claimed.......however enough of gravity as this thread is to shine the light on the case for UA, which looks like has nothing whatsoever to support it.you have been unable to provide any information on any data that would support it, all you have been able to link to is some random words of a-flat earth Wiki........hardly convincing is it.
Hardly. Einstein's theory that gravity operates exactly as if the earth were accelerating upwards is well verified and experimentally supported.
See Harvard University's Pound-Rebka Experiment:
https://wiki.tfes.org/Evidence_for_Universal_Acceleration#The_Pound.E2.80.93Rebka_Experiment
(https://wiki.tfes.org/images/thumb/5/5c/Pound-rebka-diag.png/750px-Pound-rebka-diag.png)
Light blue shifts or red shifts when traveling upwards or downwards in the same manner as if the earth were accelerating upwards. When the photons on the floor travel upwards the ceiling is moving away and the light red shifts, and when the photons on the ceiling travels downwards the floor is moving into the photons and the photons blue shift. Just as would happen if the floor were accelerating upwards into the photons.
See this blueshift and redshift of light diagram which shows how light red shifts or blue shifts when motion is involved and it is approaching or receding from you.
(https://wiki.tfes.org/images/d/d3/Doppler_effect.jpg)
Inorrect! All of his works are not quoted from others.Incorrect! No, all of his works are not quoted from others.
Correct! yes, all of his works are quoted from others. Einstein was not even a successful student. its only feature is that it looks sympathetic. Successful as a film artist. Why isn't Nicola Tesla's life taught in schools? Is it because to hiding the main source of electricty based laws?
What I can't work out is why Tesla seems to be held up as a hero by so many flat earthers. He certainly did not believe the earth to be flat or stationary!
See this address by him: HOW COSMIC FORCES SHAPE OUR DESTINIES, ("Did the War Cause the Italian Earthquake") by Nikola Tesla (http://www.tfcbooks.com/tesla/1915-02-07.htm) in which he states:Quote from: Nicola TeslaI have also read, though I cannot verify it right now, that one reason Tesla disliked Einstein so much is that he believed that Einstein destroyed "Newton's gravitation".NATURAL FORCES INFLUENCE US. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Accepting all this as true let us consider some of the forces and influences which act on such a wonderfully complex automatic engine with organs inconceivably sensitive and delicate, as it is carried by the spinning terrestrial globe in lightning flight through space. For the sake of simplicity we may assume that the earth's axis is perpendicular to the ecliptic and that the human automaton is at the equator. Let his weight be one hundred and sixty pounds then, at the rotational velocity of about 1,520 feet per second with which he is whirled around, the mechanical energy stored in his body will be nearly 5,780,000 foot pounds, which is about the energy of a hundred-pound cannon ball.
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
The sun, having a mass 332,000 times that of the earth, but being 23,000 times farther, will attract the automaton with a force of about one-tenth of one pound, alternately increasing and diminishing his normal weight by that amount
Though not conscious of these periodic changes, he is surely affected by them.
The earth in its rotation around the sun carries him with the prodigious speed of nineteen miles per second . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
From the above address.
From what I can gather, Tesla did not deny Newton's Law of Universal Gravitation, just differed with Einstein's "curved spacetime" explanation of it.
Sure, Nicola Tesla had a lot of "different ideas", but he most certainly did not believe in a flat stationary earth.
Tesla universe INVENTIONS OF TESLA (https://teslauniverse.com/nikola-tesla/articles/inventions-tesla)It sure looks as though Tesla believed the earth a Globe.
Mother Earth Put to Work.
“By this invention every live part of Mother Earth's body would be brought into action. Energy will be collected all over the globe in amounts small or large, as it may exist, ranging from a fraction of one to a few horse power or more. Every water fall can be utilized, every coal field made to produce energy to be transmitted to vast distances, and every place on earth can have power at small cost. One of the minor uses might be the illumination of isolated homes. We could light houses all over the country by means of vacuum tubes operated by high frequency currents. We could keep the clocks of the United States going and give everyone exact time; we could turn factories, machine shops and mills, small or large, anywhere, and I believe could also navigate the air."
Transmission of Intelligence.
One of the most important features of this invention,” said Mr. Tesla, “will be the transmission of intelligence. It will convert the entire earth into a huge brain, capable of responding in every one of its parts. By the employment of a number of plants, each of which can transmit signals to all parts of the world, the news of the globe will be flashed to all points. A cheap and simple receiving device, which might be carried in one's pocket, can be set up anywhere on sea or land, and it will record the world's news as it occurs, or take such special messages as are intended for it.
It sure looks as though Tesla believed the earth a Globe.Nope. You're lying again like everytime you are.
It sure looks as though Tesla believed the earth a Globe.Nope. You're lying again like everytime you are.
(https://i.pinimg.com/originals/b5/65/81/b5658172f7d748aeed326d0695841417.jpg)
He seems does not believe the globe at all.
If you read Tesla from globularist sources then they say his being globularist predictably.
No, Mr Wise, I was writing the truth and if you persist on accusing me of that I might be forced to take action against you.It sure looks as though Tesla believed the earth a Globe.Nope. You're lying again like everytime you are.
(https://i.pinimg.com/originals/b5/65/81/b5658172f7d748aeed326d0695841417.jpg)
He seems does not believe the globe at all.
If you read Tesla from globularist sources then they say his being globularist predictably.
No, Mr Wise, I was writing the truth and if you persist on accusing me of that I might be forced to take action against you.
But, Wise, Nikola Tesla did not write all of that that quote! It is a fabrication made by a flat earther!
That is the truth, thank you, Mr Wise!
No, Mr Wise, I speak the truth! Whether you believe it or not does not cjange that one little bit!No, Mr Wise, I was writing the truth and if you persist on accusing me of that I might be forced to take action against you.Yes, misterrabblackrabinoz. You're writing lie. If you don't I say true about your saying lie, so simple to take action, get stop to say lie, look how it is simple. No action of yours can scare me. Every action you take to me is an action you take yourself. Till you give up the evilness, I'll continue to say how you are a liar by depending on evidences like everytime I do. Give up to do evilness!
No, Mr Wise, you accused me of lying when I was telling the truth!But, Wise, Nikola Tesla did not write all of that that quote! It is a fabrication made by a flat earther!Prove he not said it. Otherwise you are an accuser needed to get take action.
No, Mr Wise, I will not! I am here to tell the truth. And it is 100% certain that Tesla did not write all of this even though it is quoted in many places:That is the truth, thank you, Mr Wise!Get the hell out of here.
NIKOLA TESLA: "Earth is a realm, it is not a planet. It is not an object, therefore, it has no edge. Earth would be more easily defined as a system environment. Earth is also a machine, it is a Tesla coil. The sun and moon are powered wirelessly with the electromagnetic field (the Aether). This field also suspends the celestial spheres with electo-magnetic levitation. Electromag levitation disproves gravity because the only force you need to counter is the electromagnetic force, not gravity. The stars are attached to the FIRMAMENT."
http://www.mediocremonday.com/flat-earth-quotes-nokola-tesla/ (http://www.mediocremonday.com/flat-earth-quotes-nokola-tesla/)
No, Mr Wise, I speak the truth! Whether you believe it or not does not cjange that one little bit!No, Mr Wise, I was writing the truth and if you persist on accusing me of that I might be forced to take action against you.Yes, misterrabblackrabinoz. You're writing lie. If you don't I say true about your saying lie, so simple to take action, get stop to say lie, look how it is simple. No action of yours can scare me. Every action you take to me is an action you take yourself. Till you give up the evilness, I'll continue to say how you are a liar by depending on evidences like everytime I do. Give up to do evilness!Quote from: wiseNo, Mr Wise, you accused me of lying when I was telling the truth!But, Wise, Nikola Tesla did not write all of that that quote! It is a fabrication made by a flat earther!Prove he not said it. Otherwise you are an accuser needed to get take action.Quote from: wiseNo, Mr Wise, I will not! I am here to tell the truth. And it is 100% certain that Tesla did not write all of this even though it is quoted in many places:That is the truth, thank you, Mr Wise!Get the hell out of here.QuoteNIKOLA TESLA: "Earth is a realm, it is not a planet. It is not an object, therefore, it has no edge. Earth would be more easily defined as a system environment. Earth is also a machine, it is a Tesla coil. The sun and moon are powered wirelessly with the electromagnetic field (the Aether). This field also suspends the celestial spheres with electo-magnetic levitation. Electromag levitation disproves gravity because the only force you need to counter is the electromagnetic force, not gravity. The stars are attached to the FIRMAMENT."
http://www.mediocremonday.com/flat-earth-quotes-nokola-tesla/ (http://www.mediocremonday.com/flat-earth-quotes-nokola-tesla/)
See here for details: Debunked: Earth is a realm .... a Tesla Coil. (https://www.metabunk.org/debunked-earth-is-a-realm-a-tesla-coil.t8466/)
A man named Darrell Fox said it but in two parts with his statement first.
(https://i.resimyukle.xyz/Pc8RPb.png)
Darell Fox's FaceBook post
Then someone, possibly Eric Dubay, but I'm not sure joined these together as one quote made by Nikola Tesla and that is the truth as far as I know it.
So now stop your false accusations of lying and making silly false claims like this, "You're writing lie. If you don't I say true about your saying lie, so simple to take action, get stop to say lie, look how it is simple. No action of yours can scare me. Every action you take to me is an action you take yourself. Till you give up the evilness, I'll continue to say how you are a liar by depending on evidences like everytime I do. Give up to do evilness!"
Tesla, Tesla, Tesla
"Since action and reaction are coexistent, it follows that the supposed curvature of space is entirely IMPOSSIBLE ..Today's scientists have substituted mathematics for experiments, and they wander off through equation after equation, and eventually build a structure which has NO RELATION to reality. The scientists from Franklin to Morse were clear thinkers and did not produce erroneous theories. The scientists of today think deeply instead of clearly.
"The theory, wraps all these errors and fallacies and clothes them in magnificent mathematical garb which fascinates, dazzles and makes people blind to the underlying errors. The theory is like a beggar clothed in purple whom ignorant people take for a king. Its exponents are very brilliant men, but they are metaphysicists rather than scientists. Not a single one of the relativity propositions has been proved."
“Earth is a realm, it is not a planet. It is not an object, therefore, it has no edge. Earth would be more easily defined as a system environement. Earth is also a machine, it is a Tesla coil. The sun and the moon are powered wirelessly with electromagnetic field (the Aether). This field also suspends the celestial spheres with electro-magnetic levitation. Electromagnetic levitation disproves gravity because the only force you need to counter is the electromagnetic force, not gravity. The stars are attached to the FIRMAMENT.” – Nikola Tesla
No mister, you are lying one more time. Shame on you.No, I would say that almost certainly you are the one lying, or just repeating a lie.
Gravity measurements show that gravity varies across the earth's surface.
That fact all by itself rules out UA. There's nothing to discuss.
Gravity measurements show that gravity varies across the earth's surface.
That fact all by itself rules out UA. There's nothing to discuss.
Gravity measurements show that gravity varies across the earth's surface.
That fact all by itself rules out UA. There's nothing to discuss.
I'm not sure it does. UA + some other as-yet unknown force that behaves like gravity but acts with a smaller magnitude over a smaller area could certainly cause variations. It's admittedly an ad-hoc response, but it's only meant to back up my initial claim that your assertion isn't without potential holes. Ski used to advocate for UA, and he had much more in-depth ideas that I won't do justice to and so I won't try, but you might look into his post history if you're interested to read more.
Gravity measurements show that gravity varies across the earth's surface.
That fact all by itself rules out UA. There's nothing to discuss.
Since this is a "fact" then you should be able to point us to where these experiments have been conducted in a vaccum chamber.
See: https://wiki.tfes.org/Weight_Variation_by_Latitude
If it's distortion in the UA, then yeah. But not if there is UA + another force at work that is the underlying cause. The thought experiment that at least helps illustrate the concept (even though it's obviously not a real world solution) is an elevator in a vacuum, accelerating upwards at a certain rate. It has 2 1kg blocks on board - one wood, one steel. There's also an electromagnet at the top. When the electromagnet is turned on, suddenly the measured acceleration acting on the two blocks is different, even while the elevator has a constant acceleration without breaking apart. Again, that's meant only to be illustrative of a situation in which something can be accelerating constantly, with varied measurements of a force like gravity, and doesn't explain any underlying mechanism for how there are measured variations in gravity across the surface of the Earth, but I only want to illuminate that those varied measurements don't necessarily immediately result in dramatic/catastrophic changes in the landscape.Gravity measurements show that gravity varies across the earth's surface.
That fact all by itself rules out UA. There's nothing to discuss.
I'm not sure it does. UA + some other as-yet unknown force that behaves like gravity but acts with a smaller magnitude over a smaller area could certainly cause variations. It's admittedly an ad-hoc response, but it's only meant to back up my initial claim that your assertion isn't without potential holes. Ski used to advocate for UA, and he had much more in-depth ideas that I won't do justice to and so I won't try, but you might look into his post history if you're interested to read more.
Slight variations in gravity due to other forces are no big deal across the surface of a planet. But slight variations in acceleration across the surface of Flat Earth would be catastrophic. Even a difference in acceleration of a few millimeters per second squared would add up to dramatic terrain changes in relatively short order.
If it's distortion in the UA, then yeah. But not if there is UA + another force at work that is the underlying cause. The thought experiment that at least helps illustrate the concept (even though it's obviously not a real world solution) is an elevator in a vacuum, accelerating upwards at a certain rate. It has 2 1kg blocks on board - one wood, one steel. There's also an electromagnet at the top. When the electromagnet is turned on, suddenly the measured acceleration acting on the two blocks is different, even while the elevator has a constant acceleration without breaking apart. Again, that's meant only to be illustrative of a situation in which something can be accelerating constantly, with varied measurements of a force like gravity, and doesn't explain any underlying mechanism for how there are measured variations in gravity across the surface of the Earth, but I only want to illuminate that those varied measurements don't necessarily immediately result in dramatic/catastrophic changes in the landscape.Gravity measurements show that gravity varies across the earth's surface.
That fact all by itself rules out UA. There's nothing to discuss.
I'm not sure it does. UA + some other as-yet unknown force that behaves like gravity but acts with a smaller magnitude over a smaller area could certainly cause variations. It's admittedly an ad-hoc response, but it's only meant to back up my initial claim that your assertion isn't without potential holes. Ski used to advocate for UA, and he had much more in-depth ideas that I won't do justice to and so I won't try, but you might look into his post history if you're interested to read more.
Slight variations in gravity due to other forces are no big deal across the surface of a planet. But slight variations in acceleration across the surface of Flat Earth would be catastrophic. Even a difference in acceleration of a few millimeters per second squared would add up to dramatic terrain changes in relatively short order.
Gravity measurements show that gravity varies across the earth's surface.
That fact all by itself rules out UA. There's nothing to discuss.
Since this is a "fact" then you should be able to point us to where these experiments have been conducted in a vaccum chamber.
See: https://wiki.tfes.org/Weight_Variation_by_Latitude
Why need the measurement be "conducted in a vacuum chamber"?Gravity measurements show that gravity varies across the earth's surface.
That fact all by itself rules out UA. There's nothing to discuss.
Since this is a "fact" then you should be able to point us to where these experiments have been conducted in a vaccum chamber.
See: https://wiki.tfes.org/Weight_Variation_by_Latitude
Absolute gravimeters, which nowadays are made compact so they too can be used in the field, work by directly measuring the acceleration of a mass during free fall in a vacuum, when the accelerometer is rigidly attached to the ground.
The mass includes a retroreflector and terminates one arm of a Michelson interferometer. By counting and timing the interference fringes, the acceleration of the mass can be measured. A more recent development is a "rise and fall" version that tosses the mass upward and measures both upward and downward motion. This allows cancellation of some measurement errors, however "rise and fall" gravimeters are not in common use. Absolute gravimeters are used in the calibration of relative gravimeters, surveying for gravity anomalies (voids), and for establishing the vertical control network
Scintrex A10 Portable Absolute Gravimeter (https://scintrexltd.com/product/a10-outdoor-absolute-gravimeter/)[/quote]
(https://scintrexltd.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/03/A10-product.jpg)
PRODUCT DESCRIPTION
The A10 is an absolute gravimeter optimized for fast data acquisition and portability in outdoor applications. The instrument allows operation in harsh field conditions on open outdoor sites in the sun, snow, and wind.
Automated leveling, Battery operated, Temperature controlled sensor, Ideal roadside operation from a vehicle.
Performance Specifications
10µGal (Absolute) 10µGal in 10 minutes at a quiet site -18˚C to +38˚C continuous operation
From: A10 portable absolute gravity meter (https://scintrexltd.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/03/MgL_A10-Brochure.pdf)
This includes a description of the method of operation.
The is essentially a free-fall measurement in a vacuum chamber using a laser interferometer for precise velocity measurement.
Typical absolute gravimeter:QuoteScintrex A10 Portable Absolute Gravimeter (https://scintrexltd.com/product/a10-outdoor-absolute-gravimeter/)
(https://scintrexltd.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/03/A10-product.jpg)
PRODUCT DESCRIPTION
The A10 is an absolute gravimeter optimized for fast data acquisition and portability in outdoor applications. The instrument allows operation in harsh field conditions on open outdoor sites in the sun, snow, and wind.
Automated leveling, Battery operated, Temperature controlled sensor, Ideal roadside operation from a vehicle.
Performance Specifications
10µGal (Absolute) 10µGal in 10 minutes at a quiet site -18˚C to +38˚C continuous operation
From: A10 portable absolute gravity meter (https://scintrexltd.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/03/MgL_A10-Brochure.pdf)
This includes a description of the method of operation.
The is essentially a free-fall measurement in a vacuum chamber using a laser interferometer for precise velocity measurement.
Gravity measurements show that gravity varies across the earth's surface.
That fact all by itself rules out UA. There's nothing to discuss.
Since this is a "fact" then you should be able to point us to where these experiments have been conducted in a vaccum chamber.
See: https://wiki.tfes.org/Weight_Variation_by_Latitude
Since this is a "fact" then you should be able to point us to where these experiments have been conducted in a vaccum chamber.Why a vacuum?
Buoyancy just can't significantly contribute to that massive variation.
Buoyancy just can't significantly contribute to that massive variation.
Again, stop to talk about anything isn't exist. No need to buoyancy at all. If the specific mass of one object is higher than the other, it moves down, and if it slighter than other then moves up. no additional force is required. Buoyancy fraud is the result of the desperation of popular science. You are repeating same fraud proves you have cornered and need to fraudments one more time.
Buoyancy just can't significantly contribute to that massive variation.
Again, stop to talk about anything isn't exist. No need to buoyancy at all. If the specific mass of one object is higher than the other, it moves down, and if it slighter than other then moves up. no additional force is required. Buoyancy fraud is the result of the desperation of popular science. You are repeating same fraud proves you have cornered and need to fraudments one more time.
Why do you have a problem with buoyancy? It's not incompatible with a flat earth with either gravity or UA is it?
Buoyancy just can't significantly contribute to that massive variation.
Again, stop to talk about anything isn't exist. No need to buoyancy at all. If the specific mass of one object is higher than the other, it moves down, and if it slighter than other then moves up. no additional force is required. Buoyancy fraud is the result of the desperation of popular science. You are repeating same fraud proves you have cornered and need to fraudments one more time.
Why do you have a problem with buoyancy? It's not incompatible with a flat earth with either gravity or UA is it?
Its having or not having a problem with any model isn't my problem. The problem its being absent. No need to it. I am against all forms of fraud. Throw out of your globularist mind, Come out of your cave and deny the buoyancy fraudment.
Buoyancy just can't significantly contribute to that massive variation.
Again, stop to talk about anything isn't exist. No need to buoyancy at all. If the specific mass of one object is higher than the other, it moves down, and if it slighter than other then moves up. no additional force is required. Buoyancy fraud is the result of the desperation of popular science. You are repeating same fraud proves you have cornered and need to fraudments one more time.
Why do you have a problem with buoyancy? It's not incompatible with a flat earth with either gravity or UA is it?
Its having or not having a problem with any model isn't my problem. The problem its being absent. No need to it. I am against all forms of fraud. Throw out of your globularist mind, Come out of your cave and deny the buoyancy fraudment.
Buoyancy just can't significantly contribute to that massive variation.
Again, stop to talk about anything isn't exist. No need to buoyancy at all. If the specific mass of one object is higher than the other, it moves down, and if it slighter than other then moves up. no additional force is required. Buoyancy fraud is the result of the desperation of popular science. You are repeating same fraud proves you have cornered and need to fraudments one more time.
Why do you have a problem with buoyancy? It's not incompatible with a flat earth with either gravity or UA is it?
Its having or not having a problem with any model isn't my problem. The problem its being absent. No need to it. I am against all forms of fraud. Throw out of your globularist mind, Come out of your cave and deny the buoyancy fraudment.
Ah right, you don't understand it, ok.
I think I'll stick with Archimedes thank you.
Buoyancy just can't significantly contribute to that massive variation.
Again, stop to talk about anything isn't exist. No need to buoyancy at all. If the specific mass of one object is higher than the other, it moves down, and if it slighter than other then moves up. no additional force is required. Buoyancy fraud is the result of the desperation of popular science. You are repeating same fraud proves you have cornered and need to fraudments one more time.
Why do you have a problem with buoyancy? It's not incompatible with a flat earth with either gravity or UA is it?
Its having or not having a problem with any model isn't my problem. The problem its being absent. No need to it. I am against all forms of fraud. Throw out of your globularist mind, Come out of your cave and deny the buoyancy fraudment.
Is it honest to select only flight that can fit into your map and pretend that others are "fake"?
Again, stop to talk about anything isn't exist.So stop talking about UA
Buoyancy just can't significantly contribute to that massive variation.
Again, stop to talk about anything isn't exist. No need to buoyancy at all. If the specific mass of one object is higher than the other, it moves down, and if it slighter than other then moves up. no additional force is required. Buoyancy fraud is the result of the desperation of popular science. You are repeating same fraud proves you have cornered and need to fraudments one more time.
Why do you have a problem with buoyancy? It's not incompatible with a flat earth with either gravity or UA is it?
Its having or not having a problem with any model isn't my problem. The problem its being absent. No need to it. I am against all forms of fraud. Throw out of your globularist mind, Come out of your cave and deny the buoyancy fraudment.
Is it honest to select only flight that can fit into your map and pretend that others are "fake"?
I have denied the flights which are fraud. some flight times are in contradict. in this case, you compare them to see which is correct. I compared. The route was contradicted by thousands of different routes, and the evidence was examined before it was completely erased. and it appears that these flights are fake and absent. and those fraudsters were asked to prove these flights. received response: "we do not have to prove anything". Then I don't have to accept your lie. This is completely honest.
I have denied the flights which are fraud.The only justification you have for dismissing them as frauds is that they show your map is wrong.
The problem its being absent. No need to itIt has been repeatedly shown to be real and you have no rational objection against it.
The only justification you have for dismissing them as frauds is that they show your map is wrong.Nope. You're lying again, again and again. prove this. I've explained all the null so called flights when I did it. And all was logical and none of them was about its doing anything wrong. If I would thought they were true, I would correct the map based on this information.