The Flat Earth Society

Flat Earth Discussion Boards => Flat Earth Debate => Topic started by: sketipical physics on August 01, 2007, 11:38:10 AM

Title: Sketipical Physics
Post by: sketipical physics on August 01, 2007, 11:38:10 AM
Hi all I'm new here and as you can guess I like physics, I study it and I like being ironic hence the "sketipical".

Anyways I stumbled upon this site and I offer not proof (because nothing is ever proven apparently) but my two cents on why the Earth cannot be flat and is in fact round.

First is childish but still questionable nonetheless: why do ships disappear over the horizon as if they are sinking?  I've read (in many social studies books as a child) and seen this phenomenon.  A flat earth would have the ships appear only to get smaller and smaller, not "sinking" over the horizon.  Now some say water bulges on the flat earth, but then what keeps the what bulgy?

Second is more scientific: Einstein's theories I'm sure get brought up many times over here.  Okay so let's all assume that everything is accelerating up as described in the Flat Earth theory, if it's accelerating and so is everything else it must be because of some large body of mass.  Alrighty so then if we're accelerating "up" because of mass, why do things like meteorites/meteors/space dust fall down upon the Earth?  We can't just run into them on our way up, for they should be accelerating upwards too at the same acceleration given by you're argument.

Third:  The formation of the Flat Earth doesn't make any sense as you can imagine after studying astrophysics, or just rolling a ball of snow around.

Fourth: All of science would be null, the greatest advances in technology have come from the theories and effects of the Earth being round.  The General theory of relativity gave birth to countless technologies which if the theory was incorrect (including a flat earth) would non-existent.  The Atom Bomb, computers, complex chemistry, atom smashers, Hawking's Theories, the Quantum theory are base upon the idea that Einsteins theory is correct, and those technologies birth are confirmation in that.  Sure there is a problem between the Big World described by General Relativity and the Small World of Quantum Mechanics; but both theories are most likely correct.

I pray this forum isn't some joke to get people all riled up or I would've wasted a considerable amount of breath (well more like typing).  I also pray people don't just accept but go find things out for themselves.  If you think the Earth is Flat, go study physics; if you think it's round go study physics too.  Just be educated about whatever you preach.
Title: Re: Sketipical Physics
Post by: Roundy the Truthinessist on August 01, 2007, 11:50:34 AM
Hi all I'm new here and as you can guess I like physics, I study it and I like being ironic hence the "sketipical".

Anyways I stumbled upon this site and I offer not proof (because nothing is ever proven apparently) but my two cents on why the Earth cannot be flat and is in fact round.

First is childish but still questionable nonetheless: why do ships disappear over the horizon as if they are sinking?  I've read (in many social studies books as a child) and seen this phenomenon.  A flat earth would have the ships appear only to get smaller and smaller, not "sinking" over the horizon.  Now some say water bulges on the flat earth, but then what keeps the what bulgy?

Second is more scientific: Einstein's theories I'm sure get brought up many times over here.  Okay so let's all assume that everything is accelerating up as described in the Flat Earth theory, if it's accelerating and so is everything else it must be because of some large body of mass.  Alrighty so then if we're accelerating "up" because of mass, why do things like meteorites/meteors/space dust fall down upon the Earth?  We can't just run into them on our way up, for they should be accelerating upwards too at the same acceleration given by you're argument.

Third:  The formation of the Flat Earth doesn't make any sense as you can imagine after studying astrophysics, or just rolling a ball of snow around.

Fourth: All of science would be null, the greatest advances in technology have come from the theories and effects of the Earth being round.  The General theory of relativity gave birth to countless technologies which if the theory was incorrect (including a flat earth) would non-existent.  The Atom Bomb, computers, complex chemistry, atom smashers, Hawking's Theories, the Quantum theory are base upon the idea that Einsteins theory is correct, and those technologies birth are confirmation in that.  Sure there is a problem between the Big World described by General Relativity and the Small World of Quantum Mechanics; but both theories are most likely correct.

I pray this forum isn't some joke to get people all riled up or I would've wasted a considerable amount of breath (well more like typing).  I also pray people don't just accept but go find things out for themselves.  If you think the Earth is Flat, go study physics; if you think it's round go study physics too.  Just be educated about whatever you preach.

1.  It's because of the waves in the way obscuring more and more of the bottom of the ship as it gets further and further away.  Really, that's the official explanation.

2.  Obviously some amazing force is acting on these rocks that hit the earth to counter the effects of the UA.  I guess.

3.  In the beginning there was only the turtle... ah, never mind.  I really haven't seen an adequate explanation for the formation of the earth.  We don't know *everything*, and even from a RE perspective there are plenty of mysteries we don't have an adequate explanation for.  It's plausible in my mind that some unknown mechanism could have caused the earth to form in the way it did.

4.  Honestly I have yet to understand how GR is incompatible with the idea of a flat earth.  We have one guy on here who insists it's not and another who insists it is.  I myself am not proficient in physics.  Why does the earth have to be round for GR to be correct?

I think it's more an exercise intended to spark intelligent (and otherwise) debate than an out-and-out prank.  But I don't think anybody here really believes in a flat earth.
Title: Re: Sketipical Physics
Post by: James on August 01, 2007, 11:54:41 AM
First is childish but still questionable nonetheless: why do ships disappear over the horizon as if they are sinking?  I've read (in many social studies books as a child) and seen this phenomenon.  A flat earth would have the ships appear only to get smaller and smaller, not "sinking" over the horizon.  Now some say water bulges on the flat earth, but then what keeps the what bulgy?

Perhaps one of the most popular anti-zetetic criticisms, pioneered by Plato himself, the sinking ship problem has been addressed many times on this site. You're right - perspective does creating the "shrinking" illusion. What causes the disappearance of hulls is the combined effect of altitude-dependant atmospheric distortion and distance/wave frequency correlation.

In simpler terms, the atmosphere is thickest at sea level and quickly gets thinner, partially obscuring the lowest parts of distant boats and creating a fuzzy gradient of visibility which is optimal at the top of the boat, and the frequency and probability of increasingly higher waves with the increased distance of an object on water compounds to utterly obscure the low parts of an object.

To test this, observe that the sinking ship phenomenon is far more acute on a stormy day with rough seas than it is on a calm, placid day. If Round Earther's claims of curvature held any water (no pun intended), the sinking ship phenomenon should be completely uniform regardless of choppiness and weather.

Second is more scientific: Einstein's theories I'm sure get brought up many times over here.  Okay so let's all assume that everything is accelerating up as described in the Flat Earth theory, if it's accelerating and so is everything else it must be because of some large body of mass.  Alrighty so then if we're accelerating "up" because of mass, why do things like meteorites/meteors/space dust fall down upon the Earth?  We can't just run into them on our way up, for they should be accelerating upwards too at the same acceleration given by you're argument.

I don't really get what you're saying here. Universal Acceleration is a constant and is not related to mass.

Third:  The formation of the Flat Earth doesn't make any sense as you can imagine after studying astrophysics, or just rolling a ball of snow around.

Ah, the famous snow-rolling proof of globularism. (No really, what?)

Fourth: All of science would be null, the greatest advances in technology have come from the theories and effects of the Earth being round.  The General theory of relativity gave birth to countless technologies which if the theory was incorrect (including a flat earth) would non-existent.  The Atom Bomb, computers, complex chemistry, atom smashers, Hawking's Theories, the Quantum theory are base upon the idea that Einsteins theory is correct, and those technologies birth are confirmation in that.  Sure there is a problem between the Big World described by General Relativity and the Small World of Quantum Mechanics; but both theories are most likely correct.

Einstein doesn't have to be all right or all wrong. He was right on certain things (gravitation indistinguishable from acceleration, for example). The shape of the Earth has no bearing on whether these technologies would or would not have been created.

I pray this forum isn't some joke to get people all riled up or I would've wasted a considerable amount of breath (well more like typing).  I also pray people don't just accept but go find things out for themselves.  If you think the Earth is Flat, go study physics; if you think it's round go study physics too.  Just be educated about whatever you preach.

Oh, we do. Our Round Earthers and Flat Earthers alike are for the most part dilligent physics autodidacts as a result of our ceaselsss debate.
Title: Re: Sketipical Physics
Post by: James on August 01, 2007, 12:01:56 PM
1.  It's because of the waves in the way obscuring more and more of the bottom of the ship as it gets further and further away.  Really, that's the official explanation.

Comined with the effect of ADAD.

2.  Obviously some amazing force is acting on these rocks that hit the earth to counter the effects of the UA.  I guess.

I always figured meteors were probably just dropped by the conspiracy. Otherwise, their source might be bodies subject to photoelectric suspension which had somehow gone out of sinc.

3.  In the beginning there was only the turtle... ah, never mind.  I really haven't seen an adequate explanation for the formation of the earth.  We don't know *everything*, and even from a RE perspective there are plenty of mysteries we don't have an adequate explanation for.  It's plausible in my mind that some unknown mechanism could have caused the earth to form in the way it did.

Ooh, check out my "Dark Matter Cosmology: Creation of the Flat Universe" or whatever it's called in Alt. Science. It got bashed to pieces, but it's at least a vague framework for starting to conjecture on the origins of the universe. I drew pictures too.

4.  Honestly I have yet to understand how GR is incompatible with the idea of a flat earth.  We have one guy on here who insists it's not and another who insists it is.  I myself am not proficient in physics.  Why does the earth have to be round for GR to be correct?

I think it's something to do with the existence of gravity being an integral part of Einstein's theory as a whole. That doesn't mean that certain observations which he was clearly right about can't be detached from the overall bogusity of the theory.

I think it's more an exercise intended to spark intelligent (and otherwise) debate than an out-and-out prank.  But I don't think anybody here really believes in a flat earth.

I know I do, and I'm fairly sure Dionysios does as well. Tom might.
Title: Re: Sketipical Physics
Post by: Roundy the Truthinessist on August 01, 2007, 12:07:35 PM
All I can say is that if you truly believe some of the garbage you post, you have serious mental problems.  :D

I've already made that observation about Dionysios (whoo!).
Title: Re: Sketipical Physics
Post by: sketipical physics on August 01, 2007, 12:16:40 PM
"I don't really get what you're saying here. Universal Acceleration is a constant and is not related to mass"

The Universal Acceleration, I think you're referring to the constant G, which before Einstein was described in the equation as F = G (m1 * m2)/(r)

Where F = Force, G = gravitational constant, m= mass , r = distance between the two bodies. 

This equation does not take into account GR but is still highly accurate.  So do some algebra and you get

G = (F*r)/(m1*m2) so the constant is dependent on mass (I think that's what you were talking about, if not then this was just a quick lesson haha)

moving on Gravity is not a force, it's an effect due to the curving of space.  A ball falling towards the earth (whatever shape you want haha) is described as falling by the force due to gravity.  Think of it like this, you place a chair on a flat table and sit on it and you surprisingly stay seated in the chair.  Now place your chair on the side of a very steep hill and now sit in it and you'll probably fall over; that's similar to what gravity is
Title: Re: Sketipical Physics
Post by: Tom Bishop on August 01, 2007, 12:17:57 PM
Quote
moving on Gravity is not a force, it's an effect due to the curving of space

Care to reference some evidence for the mysterious mechanism of gravity?

Jump into the air or walk off the edge of a two foot high drop-off and observe the ground carefully. You will notice that the earth rises up to meet you. Ergo, the earth is accelerating.
 
Title: Re: Sketipical Physics
Post by: sketipical physics on August 01, 2007, 12:26:15 PM
"Care you provide some evidence for the mysterious mechanism of gravity?"

haha Tom

if you watch extremely carefully you can actually see the tiny curve that you follow on your way to the ground.

light being emitted from a star that passes near a large planet or body actually bends due to the gravitational pull of such a body. 

Title: Re: Sketipical Physics
Post by: Tom Bishop on August 01, 2007, 12:29:49 PM
Quote
haha Tom

What evidence is there for the bending of space-time being the mechanism for gravity? What evidence is there showing that space-time can bend at all?

What you've suggested for the mechanism for gravity is a meaningless untested theory; you may as well say that "magic" is responsible for gravity.

There is zero evidence for the mechanism of bending space. There is zero evidence showing that space can bend. There is zero evidence for gravity.

Quote
light being emitted from a star that passes near a large planet or body actually bends due to the gravitational pull of such a body.

That is evidence of gravitation; but what of the bending of space time? Where is the evidence for that?

The bending light may come from a Newtonian force, LeSage's mechanism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Le_Sage%27s_theory_of_gravitation), Nordstrom's mechanism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nordstr%C3%B6m%27s_theory_of_gravitation), Whitehead's mechanism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whitehead%27s_theory_of_gravitation), the Equivalence Principle, or one of the many other alternatives for gravity.
Title: Re: Sketipical Physics
Post by: sokarul on August 01, 2007, 12:31:53 PM
Quote
haha Tom

What evidence is there for the bending of space-time being the mechanism for gravity? What evidence is there showing that space-time can bend at all?

What you've suggested for the mechanism for gravity is a meaningless untested theory; you may as well say that "magic" is responsible for gravity.

There is zero evidence for the mechanism of bending space. There is zero evidence showing that space can bend. There is zero evidence for gravity.

Nice quote job. 

Spacetime bending can be observed.  If you feel that the observations are fake please say so. 
Title: Re: Sketipical Physics
Post by: sketipical physics on August 01, 2007, 12:33:53 PM
among other evidence from boogey men and witch doctors here is perhaps the greatest test that the theory is correct to an incredibly accurate level

http://discovermagazine.com/2007/jul/einstein-was-right
Title: Re: Sketipical Physics
Post by: Tom Bishop on August 01, 2007, 12:36:48 PM
Quote
Spacetime bending can be observed.  If you feel that the observations are fake please say so.

Gravitation has been observed. Space-time bending has not.

Please show me how we can observe space-time being bent.

The bending of light may come from a Newtonian force, LeSage's mechanism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Le_Sage%27s_theory_of_gravitation), Nordstrom's mechanism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nordstr%C3%B6m%27s_theory_of_gravitation), Whitehead's mechanism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whitehead%27s_theory_of_gravitation), the Equivalence Principle, or one of the many other alternatives for gravity.
Title: Re: Sketipical Physics
Post by: sokarul on August 01, 2007, 12:37:49 PM
Quote
Spacetime bending can be observed.  If you feel that the observations are fake please say so.

Gravitation has been observed. Space-time bending has not.

Please show me how we can observe space-time being bent.
Well see one post above and see lunar eclipse shows spacetime bending. 
Title: Re: Sketipical Physics
Post by: sketipical physics on August 01, 2007, 12:38:22 PM
ahem

the Einstein tensor, a purely mathematical principle which applies to the real world


G_mn = R_mn - (1/2)g_mnR

to put it simply the left side describes all the stuff in a space while on the right describes how the space curves.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Einstein_tensor
Title: Re: Sketipical Physics
Post by: CommonCents on August 01, 2007, 12:55:15 PM
"I don't really get what you're saying here. Universal Acceleration is a constant and is not related to mass"

The Universal Acceleration, I think you're referring to the constant G, which before Einstein was described in the equation as F = G (m1 * m2)/(r)

Where F = Force, G = gravitational constant, m= mass , r = distance between the two bodies. 

This equation does not take into account GR but is still highly accurate.  So do some algebra and you get

G = (F*r)/(m1*m2) so the constant is dependent on mass (I think that's what you were talking about, if not then this was just a quick lesson haha)

moving on Gravity is not a force, it's an effect due to the curving of space.  A ball falling towards the earth (whatever shape you want haha) is described as falling by the force due to gravity.  Think of it like this, you place a chair on a flat table and sit on it and you surprisingly stay seated in the chair.  Now place your chair on the side of a very steep hill and now sit in it and you'll probably fall over; that's similar to what gravity is


<whisper>Your equation's wrong</whisper>

F = G * (m1m2)/r2
Title: Re: Sketipical Physics
Post by: sketipical physics on August 01, 2007, 12:56:37 PM
::blushes:: whoops, forgot the ^2 lol
Title: Re: Sketipical Physics
Post by: CommonCents on August 01, 2007, 01:00:15 PM
::blushes:: whoops, forgot the ^2

Fixed

Get it?  It's a big whoops!
Title: Re: Sketipical Physics
Post by: James on August 01, 2007, 01:46:06 PM
"I don't really get what you're saying here. Universal Acceleration is a constant and is not related to mass"

The Universal Acceleration, I think you're referring to the constant G, which before Einstein was described in the equation as F = G (m1 * m2)/(r)

Where F = Force, G = gravitational constant, m= mass , r = distance between the two bodies. 

This equation does not take into account GR but is still highly accurate.  So do some algebra and you get

G = (F*r)/(m1*m2) so the constant is dependent on mass (I think that's what you were talking about, if not then this was just a quick lesson haha)

Yeah - In FE there isn't a formula like that which describes (non-existent) gravity, the physical world acts just exactly as if the Earth were moving upwards with an acceleration of 9.8m/s^2. It's not related to mass in any way. Galileo (for all his eventual scientific shortcomings) discovered, correctly, that the mass of a body did not affect its falling - only shape and size have any bearing on this.
Title: Re: Sketipical Physics
Post by: sokarul on August 01, 2007, 01:50:09 PM
"I don't really get what you're saying here. Universal Acceleration is a constant and is not related to mass"

The Universal Acceleration, I think you're referring to the constant G, which before Einstein was described in the equation as F = G (m1 * m2)/(r)

Where F = Force, G = gravitational constant, m= mass , r = distance between the two bodies. 

This equation does not take into account GR but is still highly accurate.  So do some algebra and you get

G = (F*r)/(m1*m2) so the constant is dependent on mass (I think that's what you were talking about, if not then this was just a quick lesson haha)

Yeah - In FE there isn't a formula like that which describes (non-existent) gravity, the physical world acts just exactly as if the Earth were moving upwards with an acceleration of 9.8m/s^2. It's not related to mass in any way. Galileo (for all his eventual scientific shortcomings) discovered, correctly, that the mass of a body did not affect its falling - only shape and size have any bearing on this.
luckily the thread title is skeptical physics and not fake physics, otherwise you would be right.
While dropping items off the Eiffel tower does show mass doesn't matter,  mass of the earth does.  Variations in gravitation are found everywhere. 
Title: Re: Sketipical Physics
Post by: James on August 01, 2007, 02:02:31 PM
luckily the thread title is skeptical physics and not fake physics, otherwise you would be right.
While dropping items off the Eiffel tower does show mass doesn't matter,  mass of the earth does.  Variations in gravitation are found everywhere. 

They're caused by experimental error. I have personally tested for variation by altitude and found no significant discrepancy.
Title: Re: Sketipical Physics
Post by: CommonCents on August 01, 2007, 02:06:57 PM
Would you mind posting how you performed your experiments in varying altitudes?  Also, I forgot, and can't find, how you explained the results of the Cavendish experiment.
Title: Re: Sketipical Physics
Post by: sokarul on August 01, 2007, 02:10:55 PM
luckily the thread title is skeptical physics and not fake physics, otherwise you would be right.
While dropping items off the Eiffel tower does show mass doesn't matter,  mass of the earth does.  Variations in gravitation are found everywhere. 

They're caused by experimental error. I have personally tested for variation by altitude and found no significant discrepancy.
I highly doubt you have an atomic clock. 
Title: Re: Sketipical Physics
Post by: James on August 01, 2007, 02:16:16 PM
We did it with oil and water. If gravity was weaker in a certain area (at a much higher altitude), oil would take noticably n longer to rise through water and rest on top. By releasing a fixed amount of oil under a fixed amount of water in a specialised container we built at two different sites, we determined that there was no discernable difference in times, and hence in gravitational strength.
Title: Re: Sketipical Physics
Post by: sokarul on August 01, 2007, 02:19:49 PM
We did it with oil and water. If gravity was weaker in a certain area (at a much higher altitude), oil would take noticably n longer to rise through water and rest on top. By releasing a fixed amount of oil under a fixed amount of water in a specialised container we built at two different sites, we determined that there was no discernable difference in times, and hence in gravitational strength.
Like I said, I highly doubt you have an atomic clock.  You can search around for gravitation charts. 
9.801m/s2 would be hard to differentiate form 9.802m/s2 without the right tools. 
Title: Re: Sketipical Physics
Post by: James on August 01, 2007, 02:24:18 PM
Like I said, I highly doubt you have an atomic clock.  You can search around for gravitation charts. 
9.801m/s2 would be hard to differentiate form 9.802m/s2 without the right tools. 

How convenient - the only tools for the verification of variation are available exclusively to the Conspiracy. We just have to take their word for it?
Title: Re: Sketipical Physics
Post by: CommonCents on August 01, 2007, 02:31:05 PM
We did it with oil and water. If gravity was weaker in a certain area (at a much higher altitude), oil would take noticably n longer to rise through water and rest on top. By releasing a fixed amount of oil under a fixed amount of water in a specialised container we built at two different sites, we determined that there was no discernable difference in times, and hence in gravitational strength.

Yes, but how did you change the altitude?  Being on higher ground shouldn't do it because there's more mass under you now.  You'd have to perform the same experiment hovering way above your 'ground level' site.

EDIT:  More mass under you helps to compensate for the difference in distance from the center of the Earth.
Title: Re: Sketipical Physics
Post by: sokarul on August 01, 2007, 02:31:55 PM
Like I said, I highly doubt you have an atomic clock.  You can search around for gravitation charts. 
9.801m/s2 would be hard to differentiate form 9.802m/s2 without the right tools. 

How convenient - the only tools for the verification of variation are available exclusively to the Conspiracy. We just have to take their word for it?
There is other ways then to use a $200,000 clock.  Ok so you say your experiment worked.  Post up the lab report so it can be reviewed. 
Title: Re: Sketipical Physics
Post by: James on August 01, 2007, 02:38:20 PM
Yes, but how did you change the altitude?  Being on higher ground shouldn't do it because there's more mass under you now.  You'd have to perform the same experiment hovering way above your 'ground level' site.

You're right - perhaps this was an experimental flaw on our part. If I can, I'll redo the higher altitude measurements in the air at some point (difficult thanks to the SWEFES's lack of an aeroplane).
Title: Re: Sketipical Physics
Post by: sokarul on August 01, 2007, 02:40:10 PM
Yes, but how did you change the altitude?  Being on higher ground shouldn't do it because there's more mass under you now.  You'd have to perform the same experiment hovering way above your 'ground level' site.

You're right - perhaps this was an experimental flaw on our part. If I can, I'll redo the higher altitude measurements in the air at some point (difficult thanks to the SWEFES's lack of an aeroplane).
No hes wrong, Higher ground doesn't matter.  But floating in air would give better results.

So you don't have a lab write up?  Why should I believe you actually did anything?
Title: Re: Sketipical Physics
Post by: CommonCents on August 01, 2007, 02:43:14 PM
I'm not wrong, this could be the very reason they couldn't measure a difference.  I didn't say it would completely make up for the distance, I said it would help compensate.

Dogplatter, you could try a tethered balloon or something.  It might be cheaper and easier to use than an airplane.  Also, could you answer my question about the Cavendish experiment?
Title: Re: Sketipical Physics
Post by: Gulliver on August 01, 2007, 02:54:09 PM
luckily the thread title is skeptical physics and not fake physics, otherwise you would be right.
While dropping items off the Eiffel tower does show mass doesn't matter,  mass of the earth does.  Variations in gravitation are found everywhere. 

They're caused by experimental error. I have personally tested for variation by altitude and found no significant discrepancy.
Show us your proof and your documented experimental results.

Here's ours: USGS (http://pubs.usgs.gov/fs/fs-0239-95/fs-0239-95.pdf)
Title: Re: Sketipical Physics
Post by: James on August 01, 2007, 03:00:39 PM
Show us your proof and your documented experimental results.

Here's ours: USGS (http://pubs.usgs.gov/fs/fs-0239-95/fs-0239-95.pdf)

It wasn't written up except by the temporary jotting down of results for times. Next time we'll be sure and generate presentable documentation.
Title: Re: Sketipical Physics
Post by: Gulliver on August 01, 2007, 03:26:02 PM
Show us your proof and your documented experimental results.

Here's ours: USGS (http://pubs.usgs.gov/fs/fs-0239-95/fs-0239-95.pdf)

It wasn't written up except by the temporary jotting down of results for times. Next time we'll be sure and generate presentable documentation.
I see the old "the dog ate my homework" excuse. How novel!
Title: Re: Sketipical Physics
Post by: Tom Bishop on August 01, 2007, 03:51:32 PM
Quote
I see the old "the dog ate my homework" excuse. How novel!

I don't see any listing of experimental result in that brief PDF file. In fact, I've never seen a paper detailing the difference of g at different altitudes.
Title: Re: Sketipical Physics
Post by: Gulliver on August 01, 2007, 03:57:18 PM
Quote
I see the old "the dog ate my homework" excuse. How novel!

I don't see any listing of experimental result in that brief PDF file. In fact, I've never seen a paper detailing the difference of g at different altitudes.
Follow the links, pal. There's more than enough USGS data on gravity measurements. And we've already had this discussion and you left the thread in your usual cowardly manner.
Title: Re: Sketipical Physics
Post by: Roundy the Truthinessist on August 01, 2007, 04:00:54 PM
So this is from a government source?  ::)
Title: Re: Sketipical Physics
Post by: Tom Bishop on August 01, 2007, 04:28:45 PM
Quote
Follow the links, pal. There's more than enough USGS data on gravity measurements. And we've already had this discussion and you left the thread in your usual cowardly manner.

There are no links in the PDF you've provided. Ergo, we see that the evidence for different levels of g at different altitudes is non-existent. A myth like so many other myths.
Title: Re: Sketipical Physics
Post by: Gulliver on August 01, 2007, 04:31:03 PM
Quote
Follow the links, pal. There's more than enough USGS data on gravity measurements. And we've already had this discussion and you left the thread in your usual cowardly manner.

There are no links in the PDF you've provided. Ergo, we see that the evidence for different levels of g at different altitudes is non-existent. A myth like so many other myths.
You're an idiot. Even if I'm 100% wrong, you still can't justify that conclusion.

From the article:
Information on gravity base stations and availability
of gravity maps and data in specific areas
can be obtained from:
Pat Hill
U.S. Geological Survey
Box 25046, MS 964
Denver Federal Center
Denver, CO 80225
(303) 236-1343
pathill@musette.cr.usgs.gov
Viki Bankey (same address)
(303) 236-1348
viki@musette.cr.usgs.gov
Vicki Langenheim
U.S. Geological Survey
345 Middlefield Road, MS 939
Menlo Park, CA 94025
(415) 329-5313
zulanger@mojave.wr.usgs.gov
web site: http://minerals.er.usgs.gov (http://minerals.er.usgs.gov)
Title: Re: Sketipical Physics
Post by: Roundy the Truthinessist on August 01, 2007, 04:40:06 PM
See, there was a link there.  To the USGS government website.  ::)
Title: Re: Sketipical Physics
Post by: sokarul on August 01, 2007, 04:48:01 PM
There is other ways then to use a $200,000 clock.  Ok so you say your experiment worked.  Post up the lab report so it can be reviewed. 
Title: Re: Sketipical Physics
Post by: James on August 01, 2007, 06:11:09 PM
So this is from a government source?  ::)

Didn't want to be accused of crying Conspiracy here, but you partly read my mind.
Title: Re: Sketipical Physics
Post by: sokarul on August 01, 2007, 06:12:51 PM
There is other ways then to use a $200,000 clock.  Ok so you say your experiment worked.  Post up the lab report so it can be reviewed. 
Title: Re: Sketipical Physics
Post by: Roundy the Truthinessist on August 01, 2007, 06:14:38 PM
So this is from a government source?  ::)

Didn't want to be accused of crying Conspiracy here, but you partly read my mind.

Hey, it's built into the theory that you don't trust the government.  Therefore, I see nothing wrong with crying Conspiracy when evidence such as this is presented.
Title: Re: Sketipical Physics
Post by: James on August 01, 2007, 06:55:43 PM
Hey, it's built into the theory that you don't trust the government.  Therefore, I see nothing wrong with crying Conspiracy when evidence such as this is presented.

You're right I suppose, but people often whine whenever I bring up the Conspiracy, so I do it as little as possible these days.

Conspiracy or no Conspiracy, the problem with Sok's "evidence" goes deeper, into the issue I brought up in the "Evidence/belief" thread over in Philosophy. Whoever it is, we'd still just be taking their word for it.
Title: Re: Sketipical Physics
Post by: sokarul on August 01, 2007, 06:57:48 PM
There is other ways then to use a $200,000 clock.  Ok so you say your experiment worked.  Post up the lab report so it can be reviewed. 
Title: Re: Sketipical Physics
Post by: andrews on August 02, 2007, 03:30:02 AM
Quote
Follow the links, pal. There's more than enough USGS data on gravity measurements. And we've already had this discussion and you left the thread in your usual cowardly manner.

There are no links in the PDF you've provided. Ergo, we see that the evidence for different levels of g at different altitudes is non-existent. A myth like so many other myths.

Please take a course in logic.
Title: Re: Sketipical Physics
Post by: sketipical physics on August 02, 2007, 05:26:07 AM
oi this thread has been busy,  well there was recently a satellite (or weather balloon for you FE er's) that map the changes in gravity across the entire globe.  I'll try and find the article on it later.

again distance does play an effect on gravitational pull between two objects, for instance jupiter does not accelerate towards us at 9.81 m/s^2 even though it is still attracted by the Earth's gravitational pull.  Like mentioned before with the sheet analogy space flattens out the further you get away from the bowling ball.

and as for the idea of space bend, space-time does bend.  The Earth's rotation causes twists in space-time due to the earth's mass, there have been experiments to prove that.

Someone also said that there maybe other forces bending light.  This is a possibility but those theories have yet to be fully tested so I cannot say whether or not those are true, but there's an incredible amount of data supporting Einstein's theory. 

Another known effect is the Gravitational Faraday Effect which is incredible small but is still there.   
Title: Re: Sketipical Physics
Post by: trig on August 02, 2007, 06:09:51 AM
So this is from a government source?  ::)

Didn't want to be accused of crying Conspiracy here, but you partly read my mind.

Hey, it's built into the theory that you don't trust the government.  Therefore, I see nothing wrong with crying Conspiracy when evidence such as this is presented.
You have to cry "Conspiracy" every time an expensive test is mentioned because you need a smoke screen hiding the very simple, relatively inexpensive tests proposed elsewhere. It is convenient for you to divert attention to trips to the Ice Wall, plane trips from Argentina to Australia and so on because otherwise you have to argue your findings yourself.
Title: Re: Sketipical Physics
Post by: andrews on August 02, 2007, 06:55:28 AM
oi this thread has been busy,  well there was recently a satellite (or weather balloon for you FE er's) that map the changes in gravity across the entire globe.  I'll try and find the article on it later.

again distance does play an effect on gravitational pull between two objects, for instance jupiter does not accelerate towards us at 9.81 m/s^2 even though it is still attracted by the Earth's gravitational pull.  Like mentioned before with the sheet analogy space flattens out the further you get away from the bowling ball.

and as for the idea of space bend, space-time does bend.  The Earth's rotation causes twists in space-time due to the earth's mass, there have been experiments to prove that.

Someone also said that there maybe other forces bending light.  This is a possibility but those theories have yet to be fully tested so I cannot say whether or not those are true, but there's an incredible amount of data supporting Einstein's theory. 

Another known effect is the Gravitational Faraday Effect which is incredible small but is still there.   

I'm pretty sure the FE'ers don't think Jupiter is a big gas giant... I think it's really small, so a lot of things would be different.
Title: Re: Sketipical Physics
Post by: sketipical physics on August 02, 2007, 11:00:42 AM
oi this thread has been busy,  well there was recently a satellite (or weather balloon for you FE er's) that map the changes in gravity across the entire globe.  I'll try and find the article on it later.

again distance does play an effect on gravitational pull between two objects, for instance jupiter does not accelerate towards us at 9.81 m/s^2 even though it is still attracted by the Earth's gravitational pull.  Like mentioned before with the sheet analogy space flattens out the further you get away from the bowling ball.

and as for the idea of space bend, space-time does bend.  The Earth's rotation causes twists in space-time due to the earth's mass, there have been experiments to prove that.

Someone also said that there maybe other forces bending light.  This is a possibility but those theories have yet to be fully tested so I cannot say whether or not those are true, but there's an incredible amount of data supporting Einstein's theory. 

Another known effect is the Gravitational Faraday Effect which is incredible small but is still there.   

I'm pretty sure the FE'ers don't think Jupiter is a big gas giant... I think it's really small, so a lot of things would be different.


so Jupiter doesn't accelerate towards us cause it's really small then?  that's just ludicrous, Jupiter is massive!  I'm not even going to argue that one, do FE'ers suppose the sun is small too?
Title: Re: Sketipical Physics
Post by: TheEngineer on August 02, 2007, 11:40:38 AM
Did you even read the FAQ?
Title: Re: Sketipical Physics
Post by: andrews on August 02, 2007, 11:50:28 AM
oi this thread has been busy,  well there was recently a satellite (or weather balloon for you FE er's) that map the changes in gravity across the entire globe.  I'll try and find the article on it later.

again distance does play an effect on gravitational pull between two objects, for instance jupiter does not accelerate towards us at 9.81 m/s^2 even though it is still attracted by the Earth's gravitational pull.  Like mentioned before with the sheet analogy space flattens out the further you get away from the bowling ball.

and as for the idea of space bend, space-time does bend.  The Earth's rotation causes twists in space-time due to the earth's mass, there have been experiments to prove that.

Someone also said that there maybe other forces bending light.  This is a possibility but those theories have yet to be fully tested so I cannot say whether or not those are true, but there's an incredible amount of data supporting Einstein's theory. 

Another known effect is the Gravitational Faraday Effect which is incredible small but is still there.   

I'm pretty sure the FE'ers don't think Jupiter is a big gas giant... I think it's really small, so a lot of things would be different.


so Jupiter doesn't accelerate towards us cause it's really small then?  that's just ludicrous, Jupiter is massive!  I'm not even going to argue that one, do FE'ers suppose the sun is small too?

Yes, and it's only 3000 miles overhead. And it's a spotlight. And it can sustain it's height (even though nothing else can, other than the moon, and stars, and ...)
Title: Re: Sketipical Physics
Post by: sketipical physics on August 02, 2007, 11:52:27 AM
Did you even read the FAQ?

yes, only yesterday so pardon if I'm not fully aware of all the answers provided by theory.  So you say the Earth is not a moon, or star (in this case Jupiter) so it doesn't produce a gravitational field?

but being a star or moon is not a defining criteria of the existence gravity, mass is.  Mass is a property of the moon, star and earth. 



 
Title: Re: Sketipical Physics
Post by: sketipical physics on August 02, 2007, 11:54:42 AM
oi this thread has been busy,  well there was recently a satellite (or weather balloon for you FE er's) that map the changes in gravity across the entire globe.  I'll try and find the article on it later.

again distance does play an effect on gravitational pull between two objects, for instance jupiter does not accelerate towards us at 9.81 m/s^2 even though it is still attracted by the Earth's gravitational pull.  Like mentioned before with the sheet analogy space flattens out the further you get away from the bowling ball.

and as for the idea of space bend, space-time does bend.  The Earth's rotation causes twists in space-time due to the earth's mass, there have been experiments to prove that.

Someone also said that there maybe other forces bending light.  This is a possibility but those theories have yet to be fully tested so I cannot say whether or not those are true, but there's an incredible amount of data supporting Einstein's theory. 

Another known effect is the Gravitational Faraday Effect which is incredible small but is still there.   

I'm pretty sure the FE'ers don't think Jupiter is a big gas giant... I think it's really small, so a lot of things would be different.


so Jupiter doesn't accelerate towards us cause it's really small then?  that's just ludicrous, Jupiter is massive!  I'm not even going to argue that one, do FE'ers suppose the sun is small too?

Yes, and it's only 3000 miles overhead. And it's a spotlight. And it can sustain it's height (even though nothing else can, other than the moon, and stars, and ...)

then why does it take light around 8 minutes to travel 3000 miles?
Title: Re: Sketipical Physics
Post by: TheEngineer on August 02, 2007, 11:58:23 AM
It doesn't.
Title: Re: Sketipical Physics
Post by: sketipical physics on August 02, 2007, 12:00:18 PM
and it still travels 2.91x10^8 m/s?
Title: Re: Sketipical Physics
Post by: TheEngineer on August 02, 2007, 12:07:21 PM
About 299,792,458 m/s, yes.
Title: Re: Sketipical Physics
Post by: cbarnett97 on August 02, 2007, 12:13:30 PM
if you guys want to really test for varying g then just get a very accurate small scale (not terribly expensive and commercially available) and a 1kg mass and weigh it at sea level then take it to the top of a mountain say the sierra's (tom I am looking at you) and re-weigh it now the difernece will not be much different but it will be different. now the difference is small mainly due to the fact of the size of the earth compared to only climbing 10,000ft or so of going up the mountain.
Title: Re: Sketipical Physics
Post by: sketipical physics on August 02, 2007, 12:24:41 PM
About 299,792,458 m/s, yes.

so the sun is 3000 miles from Earth and much smaller then I'd imagine
Title: Re: Sketipical Physics
Post by: CommonCents on August 02, 2007, 12:28:38 PM
About 299,792,458 m/s, yes.

so the sun is 3000 miles from Earth and much smaller then I'd imagine

I think it's 3000 miles away and 35 miles in diameter.
Title: Re: Sketipical Physics
Post by: sketipical physics on August 02, 2007, 12:31:34 PM

[/quote]
I think it's 3000 miles away and 35 miles in diameter.
[/quote]

all of our light comes from something the size of a small island lol
Title: Re: Sketipical Physics
Post by: CommonCents on August 02, 2007, 12:32:48 PM

I think it's 3000 miles away and 35 miles in diameter.
[/quote]

all of our light comes from something the size of a small island lol
[/quote]

Does the Sun look HHUUUGGGEEE in the sky?
Title: Re: Sketipical Physics
Post by: sketipical physics on August 02, 2007, 12:35:21 PM
of course not, I can hold it between my two fingers and squish it lol
Title: Re: Sketipical Physics
Post by: CommonCents on August 02, 2007, 12:36:40 PM
of course not, I can hold it between my two fingers and squish it lol

Exactly.  The FE numbers for the size and distance of the Sun used the same equations the RE uses to determine its, but under the assumption of a flat Earth.  If the Earth is flat, the Sun must be closer.  If the Sun is closer, it must be smaller.
Title: Re: Sketipical Physics
Post by: Roundy the Truthinessist on August 02, 2007, 12:43:27 PM
It's great to have such a genius join our forums!
Title: Re: Sketipical Physics
Post by: sketipical physics on August 02, 2007, 12:47:01 PM
It's great to have such a genius join our forums!

even better if I get down on one knee and angle a camera justttt right I'm Atlas, holding the weight of the sun on my back.