The Flat Earth Society

Flat Earth Discussion Boards => Flat Earth Debate => Topic started by: kinereoj on March 07, 2007, 06:47:48 PM

Title: the equivalence principle . . .
Post by: kinereoj on March 07, 2007, 06:47:48 PM
The Equivalence Principle is only valid locally. Obviously no one here has any clue what that means. What it means is that there is no way to tell the difference between a gravitational field or an accelerated reference frame . . . as long as you stay at the same point in space. The gravitational field around the earth is NOT uniform. I have measured that myself using a simple reversible pendulum. Some places it is 9.81 m/s^2. Going into a deep well, it can climb as high as 9.83m/s^2. Climbing high above the surface of the earth, it can go to 9.78 m/s^2. This can not be explained by a simple accelerated reference frame, where the field at all those places should be exactly the same. Part of my doctorate was in differential geometry (general relativity). I know far more about the equivalence principle than most anyone on this website. It only holds locally . . . but we are free to do our experiments all across the surface of the earth.

The equivalence principle would be a perfectly valid explanation as long as the observed gravitational field was perfectly uniform . . . it is NOT even close to being uniform, however. This doesn't prove that the earth is round, it just proves that the earth is not accelerating upward at 9.81 m/s^2.
Title: Re: the equivalence principle . . .
Post by: TheEngineer on March 07, 2007, 07:58:51 PM
Ok, you need to stop these multiple posts.  Pick a topic to post in or start your own.  Not both.
Title: Re: the equivalence principle . . .
Post by: _MarquisDeSade on March 08, 2007, 06:09:34 AM
Ok, you need to stop these multiple posts.  Pick a topic to post in or start your own.  Not both.

I have already mentioned this to this user and they refusde to listen. SO whatever.
Title: Re: the equivalence principle . . .
Post by: The Philosopher on March 08, 2007, 01:14:40 PM
This deserves its own thread.  He's evaluating the FE model with superior understanding of the equivalence principle, which FE'ers have begun referring to as much as the FAQ, and this could put a huge hole in the flat earth, so to speak.
Title: Re: the equivalence principle . . .
Post by: Kasroa Is Gone on March 08, 2007, 04:33:55 PM
I've seen the non-uniformity mentioned millions of times with no response. Simply because there is no FE explanation for it.
Title: Re: the equivalence principle . . .
Post by: dysfunction on March 09, 2007, 07:41:57 AM
Can you describe the exact procedure you used to ascertain this variation in gravitational force?
Title: Re: the equivalence principle . . .
Post by: Franc T., Planar on March 09, 2007, 05:17:50 PM
Your argument assumes that gravity is replaced by acceleration. This is a conspiracy lie.
Title: Re: the equivalence principle . . .
Post by: kinereoj on March 10, 2007, 09:03:35 PM
I personally have not measured the variance with respect to latitude, but I have measured it with respect to altitude. My best friend has measured the variance with respect to latitude however. It is well known that the period of a pendulum is dependant on the gravitational field of the earth at a given place. If you measure the period of a pendulum at a given position, you are, in essence, able to very precisely measure the gravitational field at the point to many significant digits of accuracy.

I take a pendulum that is very big so that it has a longer period that is very easy to measure its period. I time about 100 periods, and take the average period. Anywhere you go, this pendulum will be measuring the sum of the gravitational field as well as any psuedo forces (centrifugal, coriolis, being in an accelerating frame) at that point. The field depends on latitude EXACTLY how it should according general relativity and RE theory. It also depends on altitude exactly as it should according to general relativity and RE theory. I have measured these figures, and I encourage anyone else to do the same who thinks the earth is flat!

These numbers are completely INCONSISTENT with FE theory . . . FE theory is UNABLE to explain either of these results.
Title: Re: the equivalence principle . . .
Post by: Franc T., Planar on March 10, 2007, 09:33:49 PM
These numbers are completely INCONSISTENT with FE theory . . . FE theory is UNABLE to explain either of these results.

Only if you confuse the conspiracy's parody of FE with the truth.
Title: Re: the equivalence principle . . .
Post by: kinereoj on March 10, 2007, 09:36:46 PM
I took these measurements myself . . . and you are welcome to do the same. The gravitional field is not UNIFORM! You lose, go home!
Title: Re: the equivalence principle . . .
Post by: Franc T., Planar on March 10, 2007, 09:37:57 PM
I took these measurements myself . . . and you are welcome to do the same. The gravitional field is not UNIFORM! You lose, go home!

No... nothing in the REAL FE theory precludes the gravitational field from not being uniform. The bullshit FE theory peddled by the government agents on this board, however, does preclude it.
Title: Re: the equivalence principle . . .
Post by: kinereoj on March 10, 2007, 09:42:53 PM
Then why is the field greatest at the poles, and weakest at the equator? Simple, centrifugal force — because the earth is a rotating oblate spheroid! Go and measure it yourself, it's simple to do! It's the only model that supports that data! FE theory is crap . . . forget it!
Title: Re: the equivalence principle . . .
Post by: Franc T., Planar on March 10, 2007, 09:46:04 PM
Then why is the field greatest at the poles, and weakest at the equator? Simple, centrifugal force — because the earth is a rotating oblate spheroid! Go and measure it yourself, it's simple to do! It's the only model that supports that data! FE theory is crap . . . forget it!

Sorry, but gravity has nothing to do with rotation. Gravity attraction between two objects is proportional to the product of the mass of the two objects and inversely proportional to the square of the distance between the two objects. Didn't you listen in Physics 101?
Title: Re: the equivalence principle . . .
Post by: kinereoj on March 11, 2007, 07:52:57 AM
I have a PhD in Physics. They are seperate concepts. However, the magnitude of both gravity and centrifugal force scale with the mass. This means, they produce the same acceleration on a body, regardless of its mass. Therefore, any attempt to distinguish the two from each other at a point through measurement will fail. When we measure the "gravitational field" at a point on the surface of the earth, we are measuring the sum of gravity plus all pseudo forces (centrifugal, coriolis, etc.). The data measured on the surface of the earth is perfectly consistent with a round earth that spins on its axis. No FE theory could back up that data. Using simple calculus, you could actually used the magnitude and direction of the "gravitational field" on the surface of the earth to completely determine its shape and rate of rotation.
Title: Re: the equivalence principle . . .
Post by: Franc T., Planar on March 11, 2007, 05:02:23 PM
I have a PhD in Physics.

 ::)

Sure you do. Physics PhDs have nothing more to do than debate this Round Earth nonsense on an Internet message board. Tell me another good one.
Title: Re: the equivalence principle . . .
Post by: zaudragon on March 11, 2007, 06:08:00 PM
I took these measurements myself . . . and you are welcome to do the same. The gravitional field is not UNIFORM! You lose, go home!

I have a few mediocre explanations, both slightly affecting FE.
Stars
Earth’s Density

Sorry for contradictions with the rest of FE if there are any (and I’m sure there are somewhere, but nothing we can’t fix…)
Title: Re: the equivalence principle . . .
Post by: kinereoj on March 11, 2007, 10:40:08 PM
This website is a personal indulgence of mine. You're right, I probably do have better things to do! Why would the gravitational field be dependant on the velocity of an object and it's latitude? There is a simple vector calculus equation which summarizes all the pseudo forces from being in a non-inertial reference frame:

F = -ma -2mwXv - mwX(wXr) - m(dw/dt)Xr

The first term is the force from an accelating reference frame. The second term is the Coriolis Force, which depends on the rate of rotation of the earth (w) and the velocity of the object (v). The third term is the centrifugal force, which depends on the rate of rotation (w) and the distance from the axis of rotation (r). The last term has no name, but it depends on the rate of change of the rotation (dw/dt) and the distance from the axis of rotation. All of these terms, like gravity, scale with the mass. They will affect all objects with the same acceleration, reguardless of their mass.

There are mountains of scientific data that predict perfectly the rotation rate of the earth based on this equation. Missiles take into account the Coriolis force, which depends on their velocity perfectly according to the above equation. The different densities idea doesn't work because the gravitation force does not vary with the velocity of the object.

By the way, that above equation can be derived through the vector calculus chain rule. You want to deny RE theory, either deny all of that data, (which by the way, anyone on this site can measure themselves if they are so inclined) or start trying to disprove that law.
Title: Re: the equivalence principle . . .
Post by: thesublime514 on June 08, 2007, 01:40:12 PM
kinerioj has just owned everyone here.  Flat Earth Theory has been disproved by this thread, several of my own threads, among numerous others, including Gin's "Wave crests and Sunsets".

FET constantly has to be revised and fixed informally by different FE'ers to maintain any sort of acceptable status.  This shows that YOU DON'T KNOW WHAT YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT.
Title: Re: the equivalence principle . . .
Post by: Kasroa Is Gone on June 08, 2007, 02:35:05 PM
Yeah he just owned everyone....in March.
Title: Re: the equivalence principle . . .
Post by: slappy on June 08, 2007, 02:40:04 PM
And no replies from a serious FEer despite 300 views.. noo.. that can't be! (I don't think Franc up there is actually serious.. i'm pretty sure he's just trying to be funny in his own way.. coz I mean.. someone can't really be that stupid... can they?)
Title: Re: the equivalence principle . . .
Post by: Roundy the Truthinessist on June 08, 2007, 02:43:03 PM
Don't assume that the fact he was joking means there's any real intelligence there.
Title: Re: the equivalence principle . . .
Post by: Kasroa Is Gone on June 08, 2007, 02:43:53 PM
Oh Frenchy was a hell of a lot more stupid then even he made out.
Title: Re: the equivalence principle . . .
Post by: thesublime514 on June 08, 2007, 03:13:32 PM
Yeah he just owned everyone....in March.

I wasn't here then, but I'll take your word for it.

How can FE'ers still exist?
Title: Re: the equivalence principle . . .
Post by: Kasroa Is Gone on June 08, 2007, 03:15:41 PM
I only double checked the date as I remembered the thread and I'd already posted in it lol
Title: Re: the equivalence principle . . .
Post by: slappy on June 08, 2007, 06:21:24 PM

How can FE'ers still exist?

Because FES is ultimatelly no different than a religion. All the evidence in the world won't convince the few true believers that they're wrong.
Title: Re: the equivalence principle . . .
Post by: thesublime514 on June 08, 2007, 07:09:22 PM

How can FE'ers still exist?

Because FES is ultimatelly no different than a religion. All the evidence in the world won't convince the few true believers that they're wrong.

They shouldn't get so religiously involved with something so strictly scientific.
Title: Re: the equivalence principle . . .
Post by: slappy on June 08, 2007, 07:47:25 PM
Yeah, but let's be honest here, there's nothing really scientific about the FES. Also keep in mind how the FE movement started and grew. Strict interpretation of Biblical text and religious fundamentalism was at the heart of the movement and was present through most of its growth, starting with Rowbotham himself. No scientist ever really took this seriously, nor will they ever. The fact that they attempt to argue it on seemingly 'scientific' grounds changes nothing. It's like creation science.. it tries to pose as science, but at the core it's just religious fundamentalism.. and the science is faulty top to bottom. Granted not all FE proponents here are religious fundamentalists.. they just lack the judgment to see through the pseudoscience put forward by those who were/are.
Title: Re: the equivalence principle . . .
Post by: Tom Bishop on June 08, 2007, 08:56:16 PM
Quote
Granted not all FE proponents here are religious fundamentalists.

Most FE proponents are atheists.

Quote
Because FES is ultimatelly no different than a religion. All the evidence in the world won't convince the few true believers that they're wrong.

You're right, of course. This situation is exactly like a religion. However, I would compare Round Earthers to a fundamentalist Christian group who passes around pictures of a piece of toast which resembles the Virgin Mary. This image, and other similar ones, somehow "proves" the existence of God and the truth of the bible.

Of course, Round Earthers don't have anything tangible, anything experimental - just a few mosaics originating from a shady source. A bunch of rubbish, really. It is surprising how dogmatic the common Round Earther is. He is entirely unwilling to doubt his own belief system. His beliefs are cemented in as much blind faith as any religion.

Instead of beginning to seek the truth for his own self, he chooses to follow media hype like a dog to the whistle.
Title: Re: the equivalence principle . . .
Post by: thesublime514 on June 08, 2007, 09:13:52 PM
Quote
Granted not all FE proponents here are religious fundamentalists.

Most FE proponents are atheists.
What makes you so sure?

Quote
Because FES is ultimatelly no different than a religion. All the evidence in the world won't convince the few true believers that they're wrong.

You're right, of course. This situation is exactly like a religion. However, I would compare Round Earthers to a fundamentalist Christian group who passes around pictures of a piece of toast which resembles the Virgin Mary. This image, and other similar ones, somehow "proves" the existence of God and the truth of the bible.

Of course, Round Earthers don't have anything tangible, anything experimental - just a few mosaics originating from a shady source. A bunch of rubbish, really. It is surprising how dogmatic the common Round Earther is. He is entirely unwilling to doubt his own belief system. His beliefs are cemented in as much blind faith as any religion.

Instead of beginning to seek the truth for his own self, he chooses to follow media hype like a dog to the whistle.

(http://imagecache2.allposters.com/images/pic/PS/87665~Dude-Wtf-Posters.jpg)

First of all, most people haven't sat down and contemplated the shape of earth.  Most people don't care.

Second of all, we have posted a plethora of proof on this site.  Ask any scientist what the shape of the earth is, and I can almost certainly bet he'll say it's spherical.  Why?  It's not because he's gullible and just believes what everyone tells him.  It's because it makes sense.  Everything else in the cosmos is spherical, so it makes sense we are.  There are tens of space agencies around the world that all agree the earth is round.  The spherical shape of the earth is taken for granted today not because it was proven that way numerous times over hundreds of years but because everything in everyone's daily lives tells us so.  Sure, the earth looks flat up close.  That doesn't mean it is.  It's not a conspiracy, guys.  It's just the truth.
Title: Re: the equivalence principle . . .
Post by: slappy on June 08, 2007, 09:15:45 PM
Hahaha oh Tom.. sometimes I truly wonder whether you're actually serious or just screwing with everyone.

If you really wanna go there, I'm perfectly willing to 'doubt my own belief system', else I wouldn't be here debating. I seriously gave the FE theory a look, granted out of curiosity, but I didn't dismiss it right away. My 'beliefs' are are shaped by evidence. I love how you suggest that we just have a few mosaics and 'rubbish', but you can't provide a single coherent explanation to any question I have asked thus far. You're completelly oblivious to how wrong Rowbotham is in so many of his experiments.

I've adressed the law of perspective and have yet to get a decent answer. Other threads have looked at the sun's motion across the sky mathematically, and they were ignored. All you said was 'where is your evidence that the movement of the sun across the sky is constant?', and I even told you how to test this. But you never came back to finish the discussion.. since you'd actually have to adress the issue after you convinced yourself that the speed was indeed constant. And hey, for that matter, why don't you adress the argument at the very beginning of this thread. And here's another thought: provide me with evidence of this massive conspiracy theory the FES depends upon.

The fact that most FEs are atheists is something I cannot adress since I have no statistics, though I doubt it. However, the fact that the FE movement was built on a fundamental interpretation of the Bible is another matter, one which is documented.
Title: Re: the equivalence principle . . .
Post by: Gulliver on June 08, 2007, 10:07:07 PM
... Of course, Round Earthers don't have anything tangible, anything experimental - just a few mosaics originating from a shady source. A bunch of rubbish, really. ...
Please explain the reason you've not refuted SunSpots.xlsx. How is this not experimental evidence? Re predicts the location of the sun in the sky. It predicts the time of sunrise and sunset. It predicts the shape and size of the Sun and Moon throughout the day and night. It predicts the phases of the Moon, the Sun, and the inner planets. FE does not. It seems to us that you're the one talking rubbish, really!
Title: Re: the equivalence principle . . .
Post by: thesublime514 on June 09, 2007, 11:44:42 AM
looking for an intelligent reply...

possibly about the topic of this thread...

Tom only responded once, and it was to ramble about religion...










/bump
Title: Re: the equivalence principle . . .
Post by: thesublime514 on June 09, 2007, 02:54:29 PM
... Of course, Round Earthers don't have anything tangible, anything experimental - just a few mosaics originating from a shady source. A bunch of rubbish, really. ...
Please explain the reason you've not refuted SunSpots.xlsx. How is this not experimental evidence? Re predicts the location of the sun in the sky. It predicts the time of sunrise and sunset. It predicts the shape and size of the Sun and Moon throughout the day and night. It predicts the phases of the Moon, the Sun, and the inner planets. FE does not. It seems to us that you're the one talking rubbish, really!

What is SunSpots.xlsx?

And also, I think we should make a collection of Tom's small rantings/speeches and possibly compile them into a book.  They're just so.. amazing.  I don't think I could make up things so priceless if I was paid to.
Title: Re: the equivalence principle . . .
Post by: Gulliver on June 09, 2007, 03:12:19 PM
... Of course, Round Earthers don't have anything tangible, anything experimental - just a few mosaics originating from a shady source. A bunch of rubbish, really. ...
Please explain the reason you've not refuted SunSpots.xlsx. How is this not experimental evidence? Re predicts the location of the sun in the sky. It predicts the time of sunrise and sunset. It predicts the shape and size of the Sun and Moon throughout the day and night. It predicts the phases of the Moon, the Sun, and the inner planets. FE does not. It seems to us that you're the one talking rubbish, really!

What is SunSpots.xlsx?

And also, I think we should make a collection of Tom's small rantings/speeches and possibly compile them into a book.  They're just so.. amazing.  I don't think I could make up things so priceless if I was paid to.
Sorry, TomB knows about what I spoke, but, alas, I should have considered others. I apologize.

SunSpots.xlsx is a workbook I built to predict the position of the Sun for anytime from any position on the surface of the Earth. (I did not consider altitude, the refractive nature of the Earth's atmosphere, or the elliptical nature of the Earth's orbit. I provide complete mathematical explanations for both theories. I allow the user to enter their position and the time of the observation then provide the position of the Sun as both models predict. I suggest that the user compare reality with the predictions as experimental evidence for the determining the model that makes better predictions. I've yet to receive any refutation from anyone. I would have expected someone to find an programming error, at least.

Here's a link to Version 0.3 http://rapidshare.com/files/36224415/SunSpot.xlsx.html (http://rapidshare.com/files/36224415/SunSpot.xlsx.html) (This is the 2007 version. Let me know if you need 97-2003 version.)
Title: Re: the equivalence principle . . .
Post by: Marinade on June 10, 2007, 05:22:31 PM
I said the same thing in Gin's sunsets and wave crests thread. Tom doesn't know anything. Whenever Tom or most of the FE proponents come across a thread or topic they can't answer they ignore the points that contradict what they say, and then proceed to attack some random comment in the thread thinking they've done something good. As is evident above Tom ignores the actually point of the thread to comment on some arbitrary crap about religion. Which ironically only seemed to strengthen the point he was countering. Yes Tom FE doesn't ignore the actually scientific evidence like a religion, that's just exactly what you are doing as you made that comment, and I might have ignore this glaring contradiction if I didn't find it so funny.

FE is a religion. It is not based in science it is based in faith. Faith in a massive global conspiracy, faith in a 130 year old book, faith in pseudo-science and a 60000 mile icewall guarded by 600 men. FE is largely religion-based in that it hinges on the earth being for some reason different from the rest of the universe. Everything else is observably spherical, what makes the earth so special that it should be different, if it isn't a religious thing that is? Remember that whole God put man at the center of the universe that was the religious idea. What makes it so special for FE? The fact that humans are here, and we must be special? I would really like to know what it is because nobody has answered me on that yet.
Title: Re: the equivalence principle . . .
Post by: thesublime514 on June 10, 2007, 08:55:32 PM
I said the same thing in Gin's sunsets and wave crests thread. Tom doesn't know anything. Whenever Tom or most of the FE proponents come across a thread or topic they can't answer they ignore the points that contradict what they say, and then proceed to attack some random comment in the thread thinking they've done something good. As is evident above Tom ignores the actually point of the thread to comment on some arbitrary crap about religion. Which ironically only seemed to strengthen the point he was countering. Yes Tom FE doesn't ignore the actually scientific evidence like a religion, that's just exactly what you are doing as you made that comment, and I might have ignore this glaring contradiction if I didn't find it so funny.

FE is a religion. It is not based in science it is based in faith. Faith in a massive global conspiracy, faith in a 130 year old book, faith in pseudo-science and a 60000 mile icewall guarded by 600 men. FE is largely religion-based in that it hinges on the earth being for some reason different from the rest of the universe. Everything else is observably spherical, what makes the earth so special that it should be different, if it isn't a religious thing that is? Remember that whole God put man at the center of the universe that was the religious idea. What makes it so special for FE? The fact that humans are here, and we must be special? I would really like to know what it is because nobody has answered me on that yet.

Aliens ftw.

RE: See my rant above.
Title: Re: the equivalence principle . . .
Post by: Tom Bishop on June 10, 2007, 08:57:13 PM
Quote
FE is a religion.

FE can reference experimental evidence for its claims of a Flat Earth.

What experimental evidence can you reference for a Round Earth?
Title: Re: the equivalence principle . . .
Post by: thesublime514 on June 10, 2007, 08:59:49 PM
Quote
FE is a religion.

FE can reference experimental evidence for its claims of a Flat Earth.

What experimental evidence can you reference for a Round Earth?

I think there's a robot on the other end.  We're typing in the same queries and getting the same responses.
Title: Re: the equivalence principle . . .
Post by: slappy on June 10, 2007, 09:42:02 PM
Quote
FE is a religion.

FE can reference experimental evidence for its claims of a Flat Earth.

What experimental evidence can you reference for a Round Earth?

Oh you know... just Wallace's experiment at Bedford, and experiments repeated later which also showed the same thing, namely the rotundity of the earth. Oh and here's another one.. pictures of the earth from space.. direct evidence.. not necessarily from the Apollo missions if you don't believe in them, but the ones taken by probes and such, which show the full earth. Oh but wait.. I almost forgot.. massive conspiracy. Or could it be that 'quote the bible for literal meaning' Rowbotham was just I dunno.. wrong? Or maybe FE is the real conspiracy!! hmm.. big improbable conspiracy vs. tiny irrelevant ones. Or maybe they're just idiots and the FE model proposed doesnt work since the sun doesn't actually set on it the way it's supposed to (yeah that's right, get back to that thread). Of course this doesn't prove the earth is round per se.. it could still be a flat slab floating in space, but then you couldn't circumnavigate at all soo.. i guess both of those together pretty much disprove FE. Oh here's another one, I almost forgot, how about you adress the arguments originally put forth in this thread. Yeah.. let's do that first eh? .. oh and Tom, please don't ever have children..
Title: Re: the equivalence principle . . .
Post by: Gulliver on June 10, 2007, 09:53:02 PM
Quote
FE is a religion.

FE can reference experimental evidence for its claims of a Flat Earth.

What experimental evidence can you reference for a Round Earth?
oh hum, SunSpots.xlsx, again...
Title: Re: the equivalence principle . . .
Post by: Marinade on June 11, 2007, 01:12:21 AM
Sorry, I won't mention that again. It just makes Tom ignore all the facts and scientific evidence to respond to it and say we ignore all the scientific evidence. Which just happens to prove the point I was trying to make in the first place, but I don't think Tom sees that.

If you respond again Tom please answer the topic of the thread. Maybe you could find the time to answer the Wave crests and Sunsets thread(as mentioned above) or any of the other threads still left unanswered as well.