The Flat Earth Society

Flat Earth Discussion Boards => Flat Earth Q&A => Topic started by: Lanke on February 23, 2010, 04:46:44 PM

Title: Lack of Gravity
Post by: Lanke on February 23, 2010, 04:46:44 PM
Alright, now, just to start us off, I'm sorry if my name offends. I, uh, I wanted a quick name for this, so I mean in no way to offend anybody...so I just don't want you thinking I'm another troll or something. But, uh, yeah...so, am I right in saying that FE theory states that the Earth propels toward you, instead of you falling, as there is no gravity? Well, does that mean that inertia is not a problem? If I dropped a bouncing object from, say, fifty feet, and it kept on bouncing, and there WAS inertia, would I not be thrown upward? Or is the fact that there is no gravity the reason for me not being thrown upward? Also, when I 'propel' myself upward via jumping, am I not moving MYSELF up, but the entire weight of the Earth down? And why does the Earth always go up at the right time? Lastly, I read somewhere on here someone's argument. He said, basically, that some evidence for the Earth moving, not you, would be freefalling. After all, when you're in freefall, you don't feel motion; the Earth appears to come towards you, so why isn't it? But from what I've observed, you DO probably feel motion as you fall through all the matter around you. You know, the atmosphere. Well, I can't back this up because I haven't skydived before, but ARE there any people here who have? And have any proof of it, say, like a video, so both FErs and RErs don't claim it is a lie? I don't want to compromise my credibility, but just read this assuming I'm not just a kid...yeah, just saying, I'm only 14, so I doubt I'm part of a 'conspiracy', 'kay? And I'm by no means wealthy; I'm poor, in fact. So I'm not being paid off...well, yeah, I just want to hear your responses to my arguments.

EDIT: My bad, thank you for moving it before too many people had begun arguing over where it should be moved to.
Title: Re: Lack of Gravity
Post by: Lord Wilmore on February 23, 2010, 04:48:56 PM
Please read the site and board-specific rules, and post in the appropriate sections. Moved.
Title: Re: Lack of Gravity
Post by: 2fst4u on February 23, 2010, 05:01:57 PM
Under both theories, gravity [in RE] or gravitation [in FE] act exactly the same. Remember, gravity on RE is just a type of acceleration. You are accelerating towards the earth, but on a FE, with the earth accelerating towards you at a rate of 9.82m/s/s, both you amd the earth are still moving at the same speed in relation to each other when we observe a person 'falling' under both theories simultaneously at any given point in time. The earth in RE is holding the atmosphere there and you fall through it, you feel this as wind when you fall. On a FE, the earth is pushing up on the atmosphere, holding it there just as it does in RE. So when you 'fall' on a FE (the earth going up and you staying still) the earth is also pushing the atmosphere up at you, so you still feel it as wind.

Under neither theory do the observations differ, they just have different explanations behind them. In both FET and RET, gravity/gravitation does the exact same thing to you.

Please ask if you don't quite understand that :) .

Also note: I believe in a Round earth so I do not agree with the FET in anyway, I'm just helping you to understand them.
Title: Re: Lack of Gravity
Post by: Lanke on February 23, 2010, 05:06:34 PM
First off, is your name SUPPOSED to contain STFU in it, albeit a bit jumbled? Secondly, what about the whole 'object in motion stays in motion' thing? What would the argument be, then, for people not being launched into the air while other people fell?
Title: Re: Lack of Gravity
Post by: Lord Wilmore on February 23, 2010, 05:08:21 PM
First off, is your name SUPPOSED to contain STFU in it, albeit a bit jumbled? Secondly, what about the whole 'object in motion stays in motion' thing? What would the argument be, then, for people not being launched into the air while other people fell?


I'm not really sure what you're driving at here. Could you clarify?
Title: Re: Lack of Gravity
Post by: Lanke on February 23, 2010, 05:12:41 PM
Well, if you're standing on a board, and then a spring underneath it moves upward whilst you stand on it, you will be propelled upward. So, as the Earth is propelled toward an anvil I drop to the ground, and when it suddenly stops, what forces are at work keeping me, and every other free object, from not flying up like it's on a giant springboard? I'm assuming I'm misunderstood in how the whole FE gravitation (as Too Fast called it) works, then? Or is there another part of the theory addressing that?
Title: Re: Lack of Gravity
Post by: 2fst4u on February 23, 2010, 05:37:28 PM
Nah, it isn't supposed to say STFU. The first time I encountered that word, I recall saying "Why are you guys all misspelling my name?"

But anyway, in regards to the spring, I'll go through this in steps:

1. spring propels you up. Your speed at the point of leaving the spring is your final speed after being accelerated by the spring (for explanatory purposes, lets say 1mph) + the speed of the earth at that time (OR, in the case of RE, + ZERO, as the earth in RE isn't moving). This means under both theories, your speed at the point where you are forced up, is the same in relation to to the earth. The earth could be going a million miles an hour at that point in FE, but that means you are going a million miles an hour + the speed the spring makes you go (therefore 1,000,001 miles an hour is now your total speed, but in relation to earth it is only 1 mph). In RE, it is 1mph + 0mph = 1mph

2. After you have stopped touching the spring, the only forces now acting on you are air resistance and weight (remember, weight = m X g. g is the same for both theories and your own mass is still constant. Your downwards weight component is still the same) both acting down. Under FE, this air resistance will try to slow you down to ZERO and weight (the force the earth exerts on you) wants to get the earth closer to you. In RE, the only forces acting on you are still the same air resistance and weight acting in the same direction and the same magnitude as the ones in FET. Air resistance still wants to slow you down to ZERO, and weight still wants to get you closer to earth.

These forces all cause you to get the same distance away and move at the same speeds in relation to earth.

Anything you still don't understand?
Title: Re: Lack of Gravity
Post by: parsec on February 23, 2010, 05:41:22 PM
ITT: nubs
Title: Re: Lack of Gravity
Post by: 2fst4u on February 23, 2010, 05:43:31 PM
ITT: nubs
I'm fine with that, as long as you concede the fact that you are also in this thread.
Title: Re: Lack of Gravity
Post by: parsec on February 23, 2010, 05:44:40 PM
ITT: nubs
I'm fine with that, as long as you concede the fact that you are also in this thread.
The ITT statements are a revision of the previous posts. If you didn't know that, my point surely applies.
Title: Re: Lack of Gravity
Post by: Lord Wilmore on February 23, 2010, 05:45:28 PM
Keep it on topic guys =)
Title: Re: Lack of Gravity
Post by: Lanke on February 23, 2010, 05:49:48 PM
So, Parsec, what is it that you have come here to contribute with? Any other insightful bits of info so I can further understand this whole theory?
Title: Re: Lack of Gravity
Post by: parsec on February 23, 2010, 05:53:35 PM
So, Parsec, what is it that you have come here to contribute with? Any other insightful bits of info so I can further understand this whole theory?
go through this:
http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=11211.0 (http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=11211.0)

and this:
http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=19384.0 (http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=19384.0)
Title: Re: Lack of Gravity
Post by: Lanke on February 23, 2010, 06:06:42 PM
Thanks; could you summarize that, please? After all, I'm only in eighth grade and so don't fully understand what that entire thing meant. So could you put it in easier-to-understand words?
Title: Re: Lack of Gravity
Post by: Thermal Detonator on February 23, 2010, 06:21:48 PM
Thanks; could you summarize that, please? After all, I'm only in eighth grade and so don't fully understand what that entire thing meant. So could you put it in easier-to-understand words?

Don't, you'll only bait him into posting more equations.  :(
Title: Re: Lack of Gravity
Post by: Lord Wilmore on February 24, 2010, 04:35:51 AM
Thanks; could you summarize that, please? After all, I'm only in eighth grade and so don't fully understand what that entire thing meant. So could you put it in easier-to-understand words?


This is quite a complex subject, but here's probably the best 'summary' I know of on these forums (from the .net site):


Quote from: John Davis @ http://theflatearthsociety.net/forum/index.php?topic=359.0
Some people seemed interested in this when we were talking the other day and had written this up for another site and  figured I'd post htis here.

I'm going to give a brief overview of Einstein's Relativity, Quantum Mechanics and String Theory in simple non-mathematical layman's terms.

Light

Light is a massless particle with a constant speed to all observers.  It has momentum.  It acts as both a wave and a particle.

To explain the problem prior to Einstein's work with light speed I will use a simple example.  Lets say Alice is standing 1000 feet away from a light source, and Bob is moving at 10ft/sec towards the light source.  Both of them can detect the speed of things, because they are just cool kids.  Common sense tells us that light will be observed by Alice to be light speed, and light will be observed by Bob to be light speed ( c ) - 10ft/sec.  However, they both observe light speed to be the same ( c ).  This seems like a paradox of sorts, but Einstein shows us how this works, among other things. 

The faster things travel, the more massive to an outside observer they get.  Furthermore the slower time seems to be passing to the object, to an outside side observer.  This is known as time dilation.  As things approach the speed of light, they get more massive (and thus harder to accelerate) and seem to be passing slower to outside observers.  Since to reach the speed of light their mass would need to reach infinite mass, they cannot break this barrier.

This time dilation is what makes the speed of light constant.  Even though Bob is moving faster towards light than Alice, time dilates and he measures the speed the same.

Gravity

Gravity also dilates time.  In fact, Einstein says that Gravity (or more accurately, gravitation) is equivalent to acceleration locally.  That is to say, if you are in a closed box and feel something pulling you down there is no way to tell if you are accelerating upwards (as in an elevator) or if you are being pulled down by gravitation.

Heres where it gets messy.   Remember time dilation?  Well, lets look back at Alice and Bob to expand on that a bit.

Lets say Alice and Bob are in the middle of space with no stars, gravitation, or any place marks to tell ones position.  Bob starts moving away from Alice at a constant speed.  However, from Bobs frame of reference, he is not moving at all, and it is Alice that is moving away!  So, to bring it together, since Alice is moving faster than Bob from his Frame Of Reference, Alice actually has her time moving slower and she is more massive!  It is also true that from Alice's Frame of Reference Bob is slower and more massive.  This may again seem like a paradox, but it is not.

So what does this all have to do with gravitation?  I promise, all of this will come together at the end.

Back to the Equivalence Principle ? you know, that says that gravitation is the same as acceleration.  Lets say you are in a closed box moving a constant speed.  This is known as an inertial frame of reference.  Now, lets say you are in a closed box accelerating upwards at the rate of 1g (about how fast you accelerate to the earth if you jump.)  This is known as a non-inertial frame of reference.  This is because you are being acted upon by a "force" that is unexplained by what you know.  In reality though, this is not a ?force? at all.  It is actually what is known as a pseudo-force.  Here is how wikipedia explains it:

Quote
?When a car accelerates hard, the common human response is to feel "pushed back into the seat." In an inertial frame of reference attached to the road, there is no physical force moving the rider backward. However, in the rider's non-inertial reference frame attached to the accelerating car, there is a backward fictitious force.?

Now here is the kicker.  Einstein says gravity is a pseudo-force caused by taking a non-inertial frame of reference to be an inertial one.  That is to say, we think that its a force acting on us, but really we are just accelerating through space.

Now why would we accelerate for no reason towards mass?  This is most likely the most often explained part of Relativity as it relates to gravitation.  Energy distorts space time, much like a bowling bowl would distort a taught sheet.  Remember, energy is mass. (E=mc^2). This is why accelerating also distorts space-time!  In mathematical terms, the space is no longer flat (or Euclidean) but is now non-euclidean.  This means two objects travelling parallel to each other may not end up being parallel further along the line and may even eventually hit each other.   Straight lines are no longer ?straight? but follow these distortions in space time.  When objects follow these ?non-straight? straight lines, they are said to follow their geodesics.

An important consequence of this is that you don't need mass to be affected by gravitation.  You simply need momentum ? to keep on travelling in a straight line.

So there we have it, Gravity is not a real force and thus does not exist.
Title: Re: Lack of Gravity
Post by: brathearon on February 24, 2010, 11:35:16 AM
there is a small difference, which is that gravity is inversely proportional to the square of the distance between the two objects  (~1/r2).  In FET, this shouldnt change with altitude, but in RET it does (now if only people can gain enough altitude in an efficient way to measure this  :( You have to be in the army or work for nasa or something to actually get that high).  Basically, in RET, as you get higher, you get lighter.

because E&M also has this inverse square property, and they have a particle responsible for this force (the photon).  unfortunately, even with the high energy colliders, the basic unit responsible for the gravitational force in RET has not been observed (although the "graviton" has been theorized to exist, it has not been observed as of yet).  Every other force has a particle which has been responsible, and has been observed.

Also, using the RE theory of gravity, there seems to be more mass in the universe than is actually observable.
Title: Re: Lack of Gravity
Post by: Thermal Detonator on February 24, 2010, 01:43:26 PM
Well, if you're standing on a board, and then a spring underneath it moves upward whilst you stand on it, you will be propelled upward. So, as the Earth is propelled toward an anvil I drop to the ground, and when it suddenly stops, what forces are at work keeping me, and every other free object, from not flying up like it's on a giant springboard? I'm assuming I'm misunderstood in how the whole FE gravitation (as Too Fast called it) works, then? Or is there another part of the theory addressing that?

The Cavendish Experiment proves the existence of an attractional force between objects proportional to their mass. This is what gravity fundamentally is. Therefore it is not necessary to investigate the properties of Teh Magik Axcelerator Pedal as it's not required to explain any phenomena when gravity does it perfectly well.
Title: Re: Lack of Gravity
Post by: bowler on February 24, 2010, 01:54:10 PM
Can I just clarify the difference between gravity and gravitation.

Gravitation - This is the apparent attraction between two massive objects. If I were to place a pendulum near a mountain I would see it deviate slightly from vertical was it was attracted to the nearby mass of the mountain. In Einsteins general theory of relativity this is caused by massive objects altering the shape of space and therefore the shortest distance between two points. You can see an analogy to this by putting a heavy object on a rubber sheet and then rolling the ball across the sheet. The ball will be attracted to the object sure to the deformation of the sheet.

Gravity - This is what keeps you feet on the ground. To a good approximation gravity is gravitation on Earth. Although other more subtle effects some into play in RE theory such as the rotation of the Earth. After all effects have been taken into account you get a figure in the region of 9.81 m/s^-2.

The basic idea in FE theory is that the Earth is accelerating upwards at 9.81 m/s^2 giving the effect of an attraction due to mass. This is allowed under Einsteins equivalence principle. This basically says that being in a gravitational field is the same thing as accelerating. Imagine being in an accelerating car. You fell yourself being pushed into the seat, well you can thing of you feet being pushed into the ground in much the same way.  This is allowed in gravity but not in any other force because the gravitational couple constant is proportional to an object intertial mass (infact its not only proportional its equal to 1 as far as we know). Of course this then requires creative solutions to problems such as the non-uniformity of the Earths gravitaitonal field (different parts of the plant can't really accelerate at different rates) and why pendulums are attracted to mountains.

Is gravity a force? Well thats one for the philosophers. It can certainly be considered a pseudo force using Einsteins interpretation. It does seem unlikely that its a coincidence that intertial mass and the gravitational coupling constant are apparently identical. That said i've never been a fan of the word pseudo force, jump off a cliff then tell me gravity isn't a force.

Is gravity a complete theory? Possibly not. Gravity is famously irreconcileable with quantum mechanics the detail is pretty gory but the basic difference is not complicated. General relativity is smooth, space-time as a smooth object permeating the universe. Quantum Mechanics is discrete, individual particles have wavefunctions that are defined as existing over some region with a number of discrete quantum states. Fancy theories such as superstring theory attempt to discretise spacetime by making string like objects.
Title: Re: Lack of Gravity
Post by: Thermal Detonator on February 24, 2010, 02:02:43 PM
So gravity is just gravitation from the earth. So really doesn't need a seperate distinction, does it?
Title: Re: Lack of Gravity
Post by: Lanke on February 24, 2010, 05:41:10 PM
Nah, I understood most of what Wilmore had posted with the summary. Hmmmm, so gravity and gravitation are virtually indistinguishable to the common man, then? So Plebb, is there any simple experiment one could use to quickly distinguish the two (IE: not staying local)?

Slightly off-topic: Now I want to get a big box and drop it into a bottomless pit so I can experience a zero-g-esque experience.
Title: Re: Lack of Gravity
Post by: Lord Wilmore on February 25, 2010, 01:49:05 AM
Lanke you can ignore all that crap posted by Wilmore. Amid his effort to baffle you with a wall of copy pasta there is a grain of truth. Gravity is locally indistinguishable from acceleration.


I wasn't trying to "baffle" him - what you told him is already in the FAQ. Given that he already seemed to be familiar with our claims, I thought he might want an explanation as to why it's locally indistinguishable.
Title: Re: Lack of Gravity
Post by: bowler on February 25, 2010, 01:57:25 AM
Well not as easily as you might think in some ways. The equivalence principle means many effects would look similar but not identical. Part of the problem is that is never been made clear to me exactly what the FE theory predicts, it largely seems to depend on which conditions are required to argue in a given thread. Personally I don't believe fundamental physical laws are a strong function of forum thread but theres certainly an experiment in there that could be performed.

For example does gravitation exist? If not the FE theory shows a severe tension with a number of terrestrial experiments (obviously you can't use satellite based experiments in your arguments). Mostly studying the acceleration due to gravity on or near mountain ranges. If the Earth were flat one would expect the apparent gravitational field lines to rise vertically as where in RE theory they should fall off with a 1/r2 dependance. Again if you believe them that latter is what is seen.

Title: Re: Lack of Gravity
Post by: parsec on February 25, 2010, 02:36:38 PM
Nah, I understood most of what Wilmore had posted with the summary. Hmmmm, so gravity and gravitation are virtually indistinguishable to the common man, then? So Plebb, is there any simple experiment one could use to quickly distinguish the two (IE: not staying local)?

Slightly off-topic: Now I want to get a big box and drop it into a bottomless pit so I can experience a zero-g-esque experience.
So, you were able to understand that with your eighth grade education and not what was written in the FAQ?
Title: Re: Lack of Gravity
Post by: Lanke on February 25, 2010, 05:11:31 PM
It isn't just my eighth-grade education. I used to be a physics nerd. And besides, what Wilmore posted was very easily understandable. Now, I finally understand the whole 'acceleration' thing. Before, for some ludicrous reason, I thought the theory was that only WHEN an object raised would the Earth accelerate. Now, it's gotten into my thick skull that the Earth is, under FE Theory, ALWAYS accelerating upwards. Hmmm...now I have another question. Does that mean that the entirety of the universe is also accelerating? Or is collision with other celestial bodies imminent in the future?
Title: Re: Lack of Gravity
Post by: Thermal Detonator on February 25, 2010, 05:13:22 PM
The Cavendish Experiment proves the existence of an attractional force between objects proportional to their mass. This is what gravity fundamentally is. Therefore it is not necessary to investigate the properties of Teh Magik Axcelerator Pedal as it's not required to explain any phenomena when gravity does it perfectly well.
Title: Re: Lack of Gravity
Post by: parsec on February 25, 2010, 10:19:36 PM
The Cavendish Experiment proves the existence of an attractional force between objects proportional to their mass. This is what gravity fundamentally is. Therefore it is not necessary to investigate the properties of Teh Magik Axcelerator Pedal as it's not required to explain any phenomena when gravity does it perfectly well.
Pray tell then, how does this mass know where the other mass is so that it can attract it? And how do they know what their respective masses are?
Title: Re: Lack of Gravity
Post by: SeductaS on February 26, 2010, 01:10:57 AM
The Cavendish Experiment proves the existence of an attractional force between objects proportional to their mass. This is what gravity fundamentally is. Therefore it is not necessary to investigate the properties of Teh Magik Axcelerator Pedal as it's not required to explain any phenomena when gravity does it perfectly well.
Pray tell then, how does this mass know where the other mass is so that it can attract it? And how do they know what their respective masses are?

Someone needs to take Physics 102.
Title: Re: Lack of Gravity
Post by: markjo on February 26, 2010, 05:37:01 AM
The Cavendish Experiment proves the existence of an attractional force between objects proportional to their mass. This is what gravity fundamentally is. Therefore it is not necessary to investigate the properties of Teh Magik Axcelerator Pedal as it's not required to explain any phenomena when gravity does it perfectly well.
Pray tell then, how does this mass know where the other mass is so that it can attract it? And how do they know what their respective masses are?
Quite predictably, as it turns out.
Title: Re: Lack of Gravity
Post by: Canadark on February 26, 2010, 08:14:48 AM
The Cavendish Experiment proves the existence of an attractional force between objects proportional to their mass. This is what gravity fundamentally is. Therefore it is not necessary to investigate the properties of Teh Magik Axcelerator Pedal as it's not required to explain any phenomena when gravity does it perfectly well.
Pray tell then, how does this mass know where the other mass is so that it can attract it? And how do they know what their respective masses are?

Are these serious questions? Lead balls aren't sentient. Masses are naturally attracted to each other because of the curvature of space time.
Title: Re: Lack of Gravity
Post by: sandokhan on February 26, 2010, 10:45:54 AM
Masses are not naturally attracted to each other because of the curvature of space time.

Nikola Tesla on the space-time continuum invented by Minkowski:

Tesla underlined that time was a mere man-made reference used for convenience and as such the idea of a 'curved space-time' was delusional, hence there was no basis for the Relativistic 'space-time' binomium concept.

Motion through space produces the 'illusion of time'.

He considered time as a mere man-made 'measure' of the rate at which events occur such as a distance travelled (in miles or kms) in a certain period of time, for a frame of reference. He considered the 'curving' of space to be absurd (putting it in gentle terms) saying that if a moving body curved space the 'equal and opposite' reaction of space on the body would 'straighten space back out'.

'... Supposing that the bodies act upon the surrounding space causing curving of the same, it appears to my simple mind that the curved spaces must react on the bodies, and producing the opposite effects, straightening out the curves. Since action and reaction are coexistent, it follows that the supposed curvature of space is entirely impossible - But even if it existed it would not explain the motions of the bodies as observed. Only the existence of a field of force can account for the motions of the bodies as observed, and its assumption dispenses with space curvature. All literature on this subject is futile and destined to oblivion. So are all attempts to explain the workings of the universe without recognizing the existence of the ether and the indispensable function it plays in the phenomena.'
'My second discovery was of a physical truth of the greatest importance. As I have searched the entire scientific records in more than a half dozen languages for a long time without finding the least anticipation, I consider myself the original discoverer of this truth, which can be expressed by the statement: There is no energy in matter other than that received from the environment.' Nikola Tesla

Tesla's aether is in fact a medium, 'a perfect fluid' that wets everything in which are immersed 'independent carriers'. It behaves as a solid to light (high frequency) and is transparent to matter, while it's effects can be felt through inertia. Tesla demonstrated how this aether could be 'polarized' and made 'rigid' through a particular high frequency alternator and single terminal coil (ex. 1892 lecture in London) and 2 metal plates which he 'suspended' in the air making the space between them rigid 'privately' on one another (ed. the tesla effect). In 1894, Tesla invented a special bulb (which was the ultimate result of his research in vacuum tubes; the unipolar 'targetless' bulb) which augmented this technology to create 'tubes of force' which could be used for motive power (what Tesla later cited as 'veritable ropes of air').

At the age of 81, Tesla challenged Einstein's theory of relativity, announcing that he was working on a dynamic theory of gravity that would do away with the calculation of space curvature.

During the succeeding two years of intense concentration I was fortunate enough to make two far-reaching discoveries. The first was a dynamic theory of gravity, which I have worked out in all details and hope to give to the world very soon. It explains the causes of this force and the motions of heavenly bodies under its influence so satisfactorily that it will put an end to idle speculations and false conceptions, as that of curved space. According to the relativists, space has a tendency to curvature owing to an inherent property or presence of celestial bodies. Granting a semblance of reality to this fantastic idea, it is still self-contradictory. Every action is accompanied by an equivalent reaction and the effects of the latter are directly opposite to those of the former. Supposing that the bodies act upon the surrounding space causing curvature of the same, it appears to my simple mind that the curved spaces must react on the bodies and, producing the opposite effects, straighten out the curves, Since action and reaction are coexistent, it follows that the supposed curvature of space is entirely impossible.

Speaking to his friends, Tesla often refuted some of Einstein's statements, especially those which were related with curvature of space. He considered that it breaks the law of action and opposite reaction: If curvature of space is formed due to strong gravitational fields, then it should become straight due to opposite reaction.

G.F. Riemann introduced (1854 - http://www.maths.tcd.ie/pub/HistMath/People/Riemann/Geom/WKCGeom.html) the abstract concept of n-dimensional geometry to facilitate the geometric representation of functions of a complex variable (especially logarithm branch cut). 'Such researches have become a necessity for many parts of mathematics, e.g., for the treatment of many-valued analytical functions.'

Never did he think to introduce TIME as a separate dimension or variable.

How was this done?

In contrast Riemann's original non-Euclidian geometry dealt solely with space and was therefore an amorphous continuum. Einstein and Minkowski made it metric.

Minkowski's four-dimensional space was transformed by using an imaginary (√-1.ct ) term in place of the real time ( t ). So the coordinates of Minkowski's Four-Dimensional Continuum, ( x1, x2, x3, x4 ) are all treated as space coordinates, but were in fact originally ( x1, x2, x3, t ) or rather ( x1, x2, x3,√-1.ct ), therefore the 4th space dimension x4 is in fact the imaginary √-1.ct substitute. This imaginary 4-dimensional union of time and space was termed by Minkowski as 'world'. Einstein called it 'Spacetime Continuum'. In fact, Minkowski never meant it to be used in curved space. His 4th dimension was meant to be Euclidean dimensions (straight), because it was well before the introduction of General Relativity. Einstein forcibly adopted it for 'curved' or 'None Euclidean' measurements without giving a word of explanations why he could do it. In fact, if there was an explanation Einstein would have given it. Yet, this was how 'Time' became 'Space' or '4th dimensional space' for mathematical purpose, which was then used in 'Spacetime Curvature', 'Ripples of Spacetime' and other applications in General Relativity, relativistic gravitation, which then went on to become Black Hole, etc., ...

'If Michelson-Morley is wrong, then relativity is wrong' (Einstein: The Life and Times, p. 106).

If the velocity of light is only a tiny bit dependent on the velocity of the light source, then my whole theory of Relativity and Gravitation is false.' {Quotation of A. Einstein from a letter to Erwin Finley-Freundlich: August 1913}


http://theflatearthsociety.net/talk/viewtopic.php?f=7&t=537#p24341 (How the crucial Einstein shift experiments of 1919/1922 were FALSIFIED)


The extraordinary mistakes of A. Einstein:

http://web.archive.org/web/20070930082557/http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/dp5/relativ.htm

Many physicists who believe Einstein's theory of relativity to be flawed have not been able to get their papers accepted for publication in most scientific journals. Eminent scientists are intimidated and warned that they may spoil their career prospects, if they openly opposed Einstein's relativity. Distinguished British physicist Dr Louis Essen stated that physicists seem to abandon their critical faculties when considering relativity. He also remarked: Students are told that the theory must be accepted although they cannot expect to understand it. They are encouraged right at the beginning of their careers to forsake science in favor of dogma.'

William Cantrell: First, the alternative theories have never been given much attention nor taught at any university. Second, the establishmentarians have invested a lifetime of learning in maintaining the status quo, and they will act to protect their investment. . . . Third, Einstein's theory, being rather vaguely defined and self-contradictory by its own construction, allows some practitioners to display an aura of elitism and hubris in their ability to manipulate it. There is an exclusive quality to the theory like a country club, and that is part of its allure. Fourth, to admit a fundamental mistake in such a hyped-up theory would be an embarrassment, not only to the physics community at large, but also to the memory of a man whose portrait hangs in nearly every physics department around the world.

http://web.archive.org/web/20070930082557/http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/dp5/relativ.htm#rel3

When Lorentz first developed the idea of length contraction to explain the Michelson-Morley result, it struck many scientists as thoroughly arbitrary and ad hoc. Lorentz admitted that he had arrived at his equations by trial and error. It is noteworthy that no length contraction has ever been measured experimentally.

As for time dilation/clock slowing, it is known that the rate of radioactive decay of mesons slows down when they move at high speed, and the 1972 H'fele-Keating experiment found that an atomic clock transported eastward around the world lost 59 nanoseconds while a clock transported westward gained 273 nanoseconds. Obviously, such findings do not prove that time itself has dilated; it is more logical to suppose that motion affects the internal processes of particles and atoms. All physical devices used for time-keeping are subject to error when accelerated or decelerated, or moved through gravitational fields of different strengths. However, there are indications that the amount of clock retardation need not conform to Lorentz's ad hoc equation. Relativists claim that if one of two twin brothers journeys into outer space at enormously high speed and then returns to earth, he will have aged much less than his brother but this is no more than a speculative hypothesis.

If particles are accelerated to relativistic speeds, it becomes increasingly difficult to accelerate them further. Their exponentially increasing inertia as the speed of light is approached is usually attributed to the transformation of kinetic energy into inertial mass. But this interpretation is open to question. Relativists admit that the mass of the body concerned would appear to be constant in its own reference frame. It therefore makes more sense to regard the inertial mass of a system as purely a measure of its rest energy and therefore as independent of velocity. Instead of invoking relativistic mass increase, the experimental results can be explained on the theory that an accelerated massbound charge increasingly resists addition of kinetic energy that approaches the magnitude of its rest mass, and radiates thermal energy to keep its mass-energy constant.


EINSTEIN'S THEORY OF RELATIVITY: SCIENTIFIC THEORY OR ILLUSION?

http://users.net.yu/~mrp/contents.html

(Lorentz transformations) http://www.aquestionoftime.com/lorentz.html


UNAUTHORIZED BIOGRAPHY OF EINSTEIN:

http://www.reformation.org/einstein-unmasked.html


What is wrong with Relativity:

http://homepage.ntlworld.com/academ/whatswrongwithrelativity.html


1919 DATA FALSIFICATION:

http://einstein52.tripod.com/alberteinsteinprophetorplagiarist/id9.html

The Eclipse Data From 1919: The Greatest Hoax in 20th Century Science (PDF)

Moody -Eclipse_Data_From_1919Rev1.pdf
By Richard Moody Jr.



Einstein the plagiarist:

http://itis.volta.alessandria.it/episteme/ep6/ep6-bjerk-rec.htm


Did Einstein cheat?

http://www.wbabin.net/physics/tdm5.pdf


Was Einstein wrong about special relativity:

http://www.americanchronicle.com/articles/view/44738


EINSTEIN 1905 MISTAKES:

http://www.johnpeckscience.com/


TSR HOAX:

http://www.brojon.org/frontpage/EINSTEIN-WENT-WRONG.html


http://www.wbabin.net/valev/valev5.htm


STR/GTR DISASTER:

http://blog.hasslberger.com/2006/05/tweaking_einstein_unified_theo.html

http://www.physicsmyths.org.uk/relativity.htm


STR MISTAKES:

http://www.helmut-hille.de/units.html

http://www.wbabin.net/science/mueller.pdf

http://www.catholicintl.com/scienceissues/critique-dermott3.htm

http://web.archive.org/web/20071010075248/http://www.nexusmagazine.com/articles/einstein.html


H. Dingle critique of special relativity:

http://www.heretical.com/science/dingle1.html

http://www.suppressedscience.net/physics.html
(How anybody who dares to criticize the relativity theory is eliminated from the research labs/courses in universities)
Title: Re: Lack of Gravity
Post by: SupahLovah on February 26, 2010, 10:49:08 AM
Masses are not naturally attracted to each other because of the curvature of space time.

Nikola Tesla on the space-time continuum invented by Minkowski:

Tesla underlined that time was a mere man-made reference used for convenience and as such the idea of a 'curved space-time' was delusional, hence there was no basis for the Relativistic 'space-time' binomium concept.
Stopped reading here. Are you really trying to say that time doesn't exist? The way we MEASURE time is man made, but time surely and certainly does exist.
Title: Re: Lack of Gravity
Post by: sandokhan on February 26, 2010, 10:58:54 AM
Time is just a frame of reference, that is all. Listen to Tesla:

Tesla underlined that time was a mere man-made reference used for convenience and as such the idea of a 'curved space-time' was delusional, hence there was no basis for the Relativistic 'space-time' binomium concept.

Motion through space produces the 'illusion of time'.

He considered time as a mere man-made 'measure' of the rate at which events occur such as a distance travelled (in miles or kms) in a certain period of time, for a frame of reference. He considered the 'curving' of space to be absurd (putting it in gentle terms) saying that if a moving body curved space the 'equal and opposite' reaction of space on the body would 'straighten space back out'.

Title: Re: Lack of Gravity
Post by: SupahLovah on February 26, 2010, 11:02:18 AM
Time is just a frame of reference, that is all. Listen to Tesla:

Tesla underlined that time was a mere man-made reference used for convenience and as such the idea of a 'curved space-time' was delusional, hence there was no basis for the Relativistic 'space-time' binomium concept.

Motion through space produces the 'illusion of time'.

He considered time as a mere man-made 'measure' of the rate at which events occur such as a distance travelled (in miles or kms) in a certain period of time, for a frame of reference. He considered the 'curving' of space to be absurd (putting it in gentle terms) saying that if a moving body curved space the 'equal and opposite' reaction of space on the body would 'straighten space back out'.


I'll apologize now and re-read, but "the rate at which events occur", specifically "events occur" show that time does exist.
Title: Re: Lack of Gravity
Post by: sandokhan on February 26, 2010, 11:05:59 AM
Time is an agreed upon frame of reference, totally man-made, just like irrational numbers, for example. One cannot use time and space (both just frames of reference) to invent or conjure up another dimension, as Minkowsky did.
Title: Re: Lack of Gravity
Post by: markjo on February 26, 2010, 12:01:09 PM
Time is just nature's way of keeping everything from happening at once.
Title: Re: Lack of Gravity
Post by: 2fst4u on February 26, 2010, 02:41:44 PM
Wasn't Tesla insane or something?
Title: Re: Lack of Gravity
Post by: Canadark on February 26, 2010, 03:16:48 PM
Time is just a frame of reference, that is all. Listen to Tesla:

Tesla underlined that time was a mere man-made reference used for convenience and as such the idea of a 'curved space-time' was delusional, hence there was no basis for the Relativistic 'space-time' binomium concept.

Motion through space produces the 'illusion of time'.

He considered time as a mere man-made 'measure' of the rate at which events occur such as a distance travelled (in miles or kms) in a certain period of time, for a frame of reference. He considered the 'curving' of space to be absurd (putting it in gentle terms) saying that if a moving body curved space the 'equal and opposite' reaction of space on the body would 'straighten space back out'.



How does Einstein fit into your pseudo-history of the world, Levee? I'm not one to suggest that ad hominem arguments are valid criticisms, but when I read what you post in the members only forum I have trouble taking anything you say seriously.

http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.0
Title: Re: Lack of Gravity
Post by: Lanke on February 26, 2010, 07:28:04 PM
Bah, I'm done posting any new threads on here. All it ever does is escalate into a battle between intellectuals who 'know' they're right. Okay, there's nothing more to argue, my questions were answered. I was curious; even if you don't believe in this theory doesn't mean you have to be a dick about it. That's like being a dick to someone for their religion, or lack thereof...
Title: Re: Lack of Gravity
Post by: Canadark on February 26, 2010, 07:48:48 PM
Bah, I'm done posting any new threads on here. All it ever does is escalate into a battle between intellectuals who 'know' they're right. Okay, there's nothing more to argue, my questions were answered. I was curious; even if you don't believe in this theory doesn't mean you have to be a dick about it. That's like being a dick to someone for their religion, or lack thereof...

I would have no problem with the flat earthers if their ideas were based on religion, but they argue that it is science.
Title: Re: Lack of Gravity
Post by: parsec on February 27, 2010, 08:05:48 AM
The Cavendish Experiment proves the existence of an attractional force between objects proportional to their mass. This is what gravity fundamentally is. Therefore it is not necessary to investigate the properties of Teh Magik Axcelerator Pedal as it's not required to explain any phenomena when gravity does it perfectly well.
Pray tell then, how does this mass know where the other mass is so that it can attract it? And how do they know what their respective masses are?

Are these serious questions? Lead balls aren't sentient. Masses are naturally attracted to each other because of the curvature of space time.
What is this space time curvature? Please point me to the place in Isaac Newton's 'Philosophiae Naturalis Principia Mathematica' where he mentions this concept.
Title: Re: Lack of Gravity
Post by: bowler on February 27, 2010, 09:01:14 AM
Tesla was a nut job but he was also a great scientist so sometimes you have to treat what he says with a pinch of salt (or indeed somtimes a large salt mine) but at other times he showed a depth of insight into electromagnetism only really matched by Maxwell.

Time is a quantity that many scientists are reticent to think of as a dimension, the number of equations in machanics that have the form F(X, t) would seem to me to give a clue. The 4-vector notation is common in electrodynamics because what ever your philosophical bent electromagnetism works far more naturally with time as a pseudo-dimension. Although beauty isn't always a clue to the truth. Is time the 4th dimension is a question that gets asked a lot. I don't know the answer so I give a little example. I want to meet a friend so I say ill meet you in teh building at the corner of 4th and 1st. Is that enough? No. You need to say what floor. So i'll agree to meet them at the corner of 4th and 1st on the 3rd floor. There are only 3 dimensions so we're good now. Im willing to bet that at some point ill wish we'd agreed a time as well. The fact is we live our entire lives talking in 4 dimensions. Specious argument? Maybe, but I think it makes a point.

So then lets look at the science. There are other ways to explain the results of relativity in my view none more plausible though a few not ridiculous either. The original Michelson-Morley experiment was looking for effects not far larger than their errors. Although by their final iteration for the ether to exist they would have had to have missed a pretty large systematic. By the start of the second world war more sensitive experiments further reduced the possible speed of the ether to less than 1 km/s. Now very large Michelson interfermometers exist with km scale baselines looking fore far more subtle effects than any ether wind. Although in my opinion the best evidence for Einsteins postulates comes from quantum mechanics. When special relativity was quantum mechanics were combined the result was some of the most predictive theories ever. I don't think that you get a theory accurate to better than 1 in 1000000000000 by pure fluke, you have to be getting something a little bit right.

As to alternative theories to relativity. In many ways its a matter of personal preference. If someone comes up with a theory that gives the same results then it really is a matter of personal preference. There are a lack of really predictive alternatives which is part of the reason its stayed on the fringe. Is suspect that lack of truely predicitve alternatives may be telling us something.  Though as far as I know these don't change any of Einsteins basic postulates. Rather like anti-gravity and free energy its been tared by the nut job brush as well which never helps. This is a sociological phenomenon which in my opinion is damaging to science because if someone really does come up with something revolutionary in the field then they may be ignored. Unfortunately its rather like scientific spam so much rubbish gets sent around that in practise its easier to ignore it all. I may well have deleted a perfectly good offer of business from Nigerian millionaire in the same way I may have ignored a paper from a genius. Unfortunately a quick look on google reveals arguments that seem to think that rotation is uniform motion, a complete lack of understanding of the difference between phase and group velocities, an incomplete understanding of how light propagates through matter. Many are philosophical disagreements as much as physical ones. All that said alternative theories are out there, MOND or scalar, vector, tensor gravity would be examples.

Title: Re: Lack of Gravity
Post by: bowler on February 27, 2010, 09:02:02 AM
The Cavendish Experiment proves the existence of an attractional force between objects proportional to their mass. This is what gravity fundamentally is. Therefore it is not necessary to investigate the properties of Teh Magik Axcelerator Pedal as it's not required to explain any phenomena when gravity does it perfectly well.
Pray tell then, how does this mass know where the other mass is so that it can attract it? And how do they know what their respective masses are?

Are these serious questions? Lead balls aren't sentient. Masses are naturally attracted to each other because of the curvature of space time.
What is this space time curvature? Please point me to the place in Isaac Newton's 'Philosophiae Naturalis Principia Mathematica' where he mentions this concept.

This is beneath you - and you know it.
Title: Re: Lack of Gravity
Post by: Mrs. Peach on February 27, 2010, 09:16:23 AM
The Cavendish Experiment proves the existence of an attractional force between objects proportional to their mass. This is what gravity fundamentally is. Therefore it is not necessary to investigate the properties of Teh Magik Axcelerator Pedal as it's not required to explain any phenomena when gravity does it perfectly well.
Pray tell then, how does this mass know where the other mass is so that it can attract it? And how do they know what their respective masses are?

Are these serious questions? Lead balls aren't sentient. Masses are naturally attracted to each other because of the curvature of space time.
What is this space time curvature? Please point me to the place in Isaac Newton's 'Philosophiae Naturalis Principia Mathematica' where he mentions this concept.

This is beneath you - and you know it.

It seems a very good question to me and deserving a serious answer especially given the context of this sequence of argument.
Title: Re: Lack of Gravity
Post by: bowler on February 27, 2010, 09:19:25 AM
The Cavendish Experiment proves the existence of an attractional force between objects proportional to their mass. This is what gravity fundamentally is. Therefore it is not necessary to investigate the properties of Teh Magik Axcelerator Pedal as it's not required to explain any phenomena when gravity does it perfectly well.
Pray tell then, how does this mass know where the other mass is so that it can attract it? And how do they know what their respective masses are?

Are these serious questions? Lead balls aren't sentient. Masses are naturally attracted to each other because of the curvature of space time.
What is this space time curvature? Please point me to the place in Isaac Newton's 'Philosophiae Naturalis Principia Mathematica' where he mentions this concept.

This is beneath you - and you know it.

It seems a very good question to me and deserving a serious answer especially given the context of this sequence of argument.

Newton never attemped to provide a mechanism for gravity. All he noted was the behaviour of the mechanism, as I think Parsec well knows. Not until general relativity did we have a possible mechanism for gravity. Of course many (not necessarily me) think that gravity is like all other interactions and relies on virtual particle exchange. Unfortunately its such a pathetically weak interaction its hard to find the exchange particle.
Title: Re: Lack of Gravity
Post by: Mrs. Peach on February 27, 2010, 09:26:17 AM
This does not explain an "attractional force" as used in this argument.  Parsec's question was very much to the point, don't you think?
Title: Re: Lack of Gravity
Post by: bowler on February 27, 2010, 09:30:11 AM
This does not explain an "attractional force" as used in this argument.  Parsec's question was very much to the point, don't you think?

No because Newtons work is of no consequence to why masses appear to be attracted he simply noted that they do. I can correctly summise that the sun is bright without attempting to explain why. A more appropriate question would have been please point to me where in Gravitation by Misner, Thorne and Wheeler is says that gravity is due to space time curvature. Looking in the principia is about as pertinant to the question as last months edition of jugs (does that really exist).
Title: Re: Lack of Gravity
Post by: Mrs. Peach on February 27, 2010, 09:37:57 AM
Yes, and I think Newton was particularly bothered by what might appear to be an "attractional force" and why Parsec had good reason to question the notion.  My point is that I agree with Parsec's point.  :) 
Title: Re: Lack of Gravity
Post by: bowler on February 27, 2010, 09:42:40 AM
Yes, and I think Newton was particularly bothered by what might appear to be an "attractional force" and why Parsec had good reason to question the notion.  My point is that I agree with Parsec's point.  :) 

He was perfectly happy with the idea of an attractive force. He wasn't particularly happy he didn't know why. Still pendula are attracted to mountains so he couldn't deny it, just sit there looking glum for 250 years.
Title: Re: Lack of Gravity
Post by: markjo on February 27, 2010, 09:59:52 AM
This does not explain an "attractional force" as used in this argument.  Parsec's question was very much to the point, don't you think?

It would be if Newton was the final authority on gravity.  He isn't.
Title: Re: Lack of Gravity
Post by: Mrs. Peach on February 27, 2010, 10:09:36 AM
This does not explain an "attractional force" as used in this argument.  Parsec's question was very much to the point, don't you think?

It would be if Newton was the final authority on gravity.  He isn't.

I think that was Parsec's point.
Title: Re: Lack of Gravity
Post by: markjo on February 27, 2010, 10:15:29 AM
This does not explain an "attractional force" as used in this argument.  Parsec's question was very much to the point, don't you think?

It would be if Newton was the final authority on gravity.  He isn't.

I think that was Parsec's point.

When was it suggested that Newton is the final authority gravity?  ???
Title: Re: Lack of Gravity
Post by: Mrs. Peach on February 27, 2010, 10:45:42 AM
You may wish to review the sequence of posts to which Parsec was replying. In particular, "The Cavendish Experiment proves the existence of an attractional force between objects proportional to their mass." 
Title: Re: Lack of Gravity
Post by: sandokhan on February 27, 2010, 10:57:37 AM
Yes, and I think Newton was particularly bothered by what might appear to be an "attractional force" and why Parsec had good reason to question the notion.  My point is that I agree with Parsec's point.  :)  

He was perfectly happy with the idea of an attractive force. He wasn't particularly happy he didn't know why. Still pendula are attracted to mountains so he couldn't deny it, just sit there looking glum for 250 years.


Newton did not believe AT ALL in attractive gravity, on the contrary:

Here is a letter from Newton to Halley, describing how he had independently arrived at the inverse square law using his aether hypothesis, to which he refers as the 'descending spirit':

....Now if this spirit descends from above with uniform velocity, its density and consequently its force will be reciprocally proportional to the square of its distance from the centre. But if it descended with accelerated motion, its density will everywhere diminish as much as the velocity increases, and so its force (according to the hypothesis) will be the same as before, that is still reciprocally as the square of its distance from the centre'

And now, Newton's explanation for the cause of the orbits of the planets/stars:

Isaac Newton speculated that gravity was caused by a flow of ether, or space, into celestial bodies. He discussed this theory in letters to Oldenburg, Halley, and Boyle.

Newton still thought that the planets and Sun were kept apart by 'some secret principle of unsociableness in the ethers of their vortices,' and that gravity was due to a circulating ether.

A letter to Bentley: That gravity should be innate, inherent, and essential to matter, so that one body can act upon another at a distance through a vacuum without the mediation of anything else, by and through which their action and force may be conveyed from one to another, is to me so great an absurdity that I believe no man, who has in philosophical matters a competent faculty of thinking, can ever fall into it.


From textbooks:

These equations contain the mass-energy density ρ(r) and pressure p(r) of the medium responsiblefor producing the gravity. They illustrate a key difference between General Relativity and Newto-nian gravity: In General Relativity, pressure is a source of gravity. The units of pressure are forceper unit area, which is equivalent to energy per unit volume.

(http://www.mass-gravity.com/img/gravity.jpg)

Since space-time (which does not exist anyway) is a pressure type of gravity, how then do the 1000 billion trillion liters of water stay glued next to the surface of the spherical earth? This huge pressure force would crush everything else (clouds, living beings) to the ground immediately.


The movement of the solar planetary system toward the star Vega is completely incompatible with the first law of Kepler (copied from Arryabhatia).  The tridimensional orbits of the Sun/Planets, would be circular helices on a right cylinder, which completely contradicts the planar eliptical orbits of the planets, in the heliocentric theory. A planar eliptical orbit would be possible if and only if the whole system is at rest (with respect to the rest of the Galaxy, in the round earth theory), and not moving toward Vega with 20 km/s.

The movement of the Sun (galactic orbit):

http://biocab.org/Motions_of_the_Solar_System.jpg

The sun moves in space at a velocity of about twenty kilometers a second (in relation to the nearby stars). This motion, according to O. Lodge, must change the eccentricities of some of the planetary orbits to an extent which far exceeds the observed values.

(http://img411.imageshack.us/img411/3817/scan0001v.jpg)



The impossibility of the spherical shape of the Sun:

The atmospheric pressure of the sun, instead of being 27.47 times greater than the atmospheric pressure of the earth (as expected because of the gravitational pull of the large solar mass), is much smaller: the pressure there varies according to the layers of the atmosphere from one-tenth to one-thousandth of the barometric pressure on the earth; at the base of the reversing layer the pressure is 0.005 of the atmospheric pressure at sea level on the earth;  in the sunspots, the pressure drops to one ten-thousandth of the pressure on the earth.

The pressure of light is sometimes referred to as to explain the low atmospheric pressure on the sun. At the surface of the sun, the pressure of light must be 2.75 milligrams per square centimeter; a cubic centimeter of one gram weight at the surface of the earth would weigh 27.47 grams at the surface of the sun. Thus the attraction by the solar mass is 10,000 times greater than the repulsion of the solar light. Recourse is taken to the supposition that if the pull and the pressure are calculated for very small masses, the pressure exceeds the pull, one acting in proportion to the surface, the other in proportion to the volume. But if this is so, why is the lowest pressure of the solar atmosphere observed over the sunspots where the light pressure is least?

Because of its swift rotation, the gaseous sun should have the latitudinal axis greater than the longitudinal, but it does not have it. The sun is one million times larger than the earth, and its day is but twenty-six times longer than the terrestrial day; the swiftness of its rotation at its equator is over 125 km. per minute; at the poles, the velocity approaches zero. Yet the solar disk is not oval but round: the majority of observers even find a small excess in the longitudinal axis of the sun.(16) The planets act in the same manner as the rotation of the sun, imposing a latitudinal pull on the luminary.

Gravitation that acts in all directions equally leaves unexplained the spherical shape of the sun. As we saw in the preceding section, the gases of the solar atmosphere are not under a strong pressure, but under a very weak one. Therefore, the computation, according to which the ellipsoidity of the sun, that is lacking, should be slight, is not correct either. Since the gases are under a very low gravitational pressure, the centrifugal force of rotation must have formed quite a flat sun.

Near the polar regions of the sun, streamers of the corona are observed, which prolong still more the axial length of the sun.

If planets and satellites were once molten masses, as cosmological theories assume, they would not have been able to obtain a spherical form, especially those which do not rotate, as Mercury or the moon (with respect to its primary).
Title: Re: Lack of Gravity
Post by: markjo on February 27, 2010, 11:04:34 AM
You may wish to review the sequence of posts to which Parsec was replying. In particular, "The Cavendish Experiment proves the existence of an attractional force between objects proportional to their mass." 

Are you suggesting that Cavendish doesn't show this attraction?
Title: Re: Lack of Gravity
Post by: Mrs. Peach on February 27, 2010, 11:25:04 AM
What happened to the 'force' part?
Title: Re: Lack of Gravity
Post by: Canadark on February 27, 2010, 11:33:12 AM
Newton did not believe AT ALL in attractive gravity, on the contrary:

Apparently Newton didn't live in the same century we thought he did:

Quote from: levee
Ancient Rome, Greece, Egypt, India, Sumer, Babylon, were all invented in the 18th century by Joseph Scaliger and the Jesuit priests, see Fomenko's books for details. Thales, Pythagoras, Plato, Socrates, Cezar, Archimedes were invented also, as were the ancient wars and historical events. Galilei and Koppernigk also never existed; J. Kepler and T. Brahe lived in the period 1770-1820, as did I. Newton; they were contemporaries with Da Vinci, Michelangelo and Raphael (see my previous message).

I cannot take anything you say seriously.
Title: Re: Lack of Gravity
Post by: Canadark on February 27, 2010, 11:39:36 AM
But back to the issue at hand, Newton did believe in gravity, he just didn't understand its cause:

Quote
"I have not as yet been able to discover the reason for these properties of gravity from phenomena, and I do not feign hypotheses. For whatever is not deduced from the phenomena must be called a hypothesis; and hypotheses, whether metaphysical or physical, or based on occult qualities, or mechanical, have no place in experimental philosophy. In this philosophy particular propositions are inferred from the phenomena, and afterwards rendered general by induction."

Isaac Newton (1726). Philosophiae Naturalis Principia Mathematica, General Scholium. Third edition, page 943 of I. Bernard Cohen and Anne Whitman's 1999 translation, University of California Press ISBN 0-520-08817-4, 974 pages.
Title: Re: Lack of Gravity
Post by: bowler on February 27, 2010, 11:48:21 AM
Ok I stand near a large mountain range with a pendulum. Does the pendulum point vertically down or does it move slightly towards the mountains?

No cheating and looking on google
Title: Re: Lack of Gravity
Post by: parsec on February 27, 2010, 11:50:00 AM
Ok I stand near a large mountain range with a pendulum. Does the pendulum point vertically down or does it move slightly towards the mountains?

No cheating and looking on google
What's vertically down?
Title: Re: Lack of Gravity
Post by: Canadark on February 27, 2010, 03:22:25 PM
Ok I stand near a large mountain range with a pendulum. Does the pendulum point vertically down or does it move slightly towards the mountains?

No cheating and looking on google
What's vertically down?
What do you think it means? :)
Title: Re: Lack of Gravity
Post by: parsec on February 27, 2010, 03:24:30 PM
Ok I stand near a large mountain range with a pendulum. Does the pendulum point vertically down or does it move slightly towards the mountains?

No cheating and looking on google
What's vertically down?
What do you think it means? :)
It is not important. I was not the one using this term in a fictitious situation. It is up to the person who used it to clarify what he meant to the others. Now please stop the low-content posting.
Title: Re: Lack of Gravity
Post by: bowler on February 27, 2010, 04:29:12 PM
The effect of mountain ranges on the oscillation of pendulums is well documented. It certainly was well published in the 1890's in Nature. I forget where but there are some fantastically sensitive pendulum experiments looking at gravitation on the mm or lower scale. The more I post on the these gravity threads I wonder if I shouldn't have gone that way like matrix. Although HEP is also fun.
Title: Re: Lack of Gravity
Post by: Canadark on February 27, 2010, 10:21:32 PM
Ok I stand near a large mountain range with a pendulum. Does the pendulum point vertically down or does it move slightly towards the mountains?

No cheating and looking on google
What's vertically down?
What do you think it means? :)
It is not important. I was not the one using this term in a fictitious situation. It is up to the person who used it to clarify what he meant to the others. Now please stop the low-content posting.
Classic parsec ;). I think when he says vertically down he means, well, down (towards the centre of the Earth in RET). I'll admit it was a bit redundant, but it should not have been too difficult for a rational person to understand what he meant. By saying vertically down, I think he just wanted to differentiate between a perfectly vertical pendulum and one that "hangs" slightly towards a nearby mountain.

Anyways, back to his question. The pendulum would (assuming there are no other factors in play) not be perfectly vertical, but would "point" ever so slightly towards the mountain. I'm not sure how FET explains this, but I'm sure there is an elaborate creative hypothesis to explain it.
Title: Re: Lack of Gravity
Post by: 2fst4u on February 27, 2010, 11:47:34 PM
Ok I stand near a large mountain range with a pendulum. Does the pendulum point vertically down or does it move slightly towards the mountains?

No cheating and looking on google
I don't know how to answer this question because my FET's are all made up and this situation has no explanation in my fantasy world, yet it does in RET.
Glad to see you've finally come to your senses.
Title: Re: Lack of Gravity
Post by: parsec on February 28, 2010, 10:48:05 AM
Ok I stand near a large mountain range with a pendulum. Does the pendulum point vertically down or does it move slightly towards the mountains?

No cheating and looking on google
What's vertically down?
What do you think it means? :)
It is not important. I was not the one using this term in a fictitious situation. It is up to the person who used it to clarify what he meant to the others. Now please stop the low-content posting.
Classic parsec ;). I think when he says vertically down he means, well, down (towards the centre of the Earth in RET). I'll admit it was a bit redundant, but it should not have been too difficult for a rational person to understand what he meant. By saying vertically down, I think he just wanted to differentiate between a perfectly vertical pendulum and one that "hangs" slightly towards a nearby mountain.

Anyways, back to his question. The pendulum would (assuming there are no other factors in play) not be perfectly vertical, but would "point" ever so slightly towards the mountain. I'm not sure how FET explains this, but I'm sure there is an elaborate creative hypothesis to explain it.
Well, until the person who posed the question defines an operational way of determining whether something is "vertical" or not, I am afraid I will be unable to give a definite answer.
Title: Re: Lack of Gravity
Post by: bowler on February 28, 2010, 11:47:47 AM
Its my fault really. I shouldnt keep posting about things that FE cannot explain. Its not really in the spirit of the forum.
Title: Re: Lack of Gravity
Post by: 2fst4u on February 28, 2010, 11:53:10 AM
Don't delete my posts. they're valid. I don't see Parsec doing anything constructive at all. He needs to GTFO.
Title: Re: Lack of Gravity
Post by: Lord Wilmore on February 28, 2010, 02:42:27 PM
Don't delete my posts. they're valid. I don't see Parsec doing anything constructive at all. He needs to GTFO.


If you have a problem, take it to S&C.
Title: Re: Lack of Gravity
Post by: Canadark on February 28, 2010, 08:26:46 PM
Ok I stand near a large mountain range with a pendulum. Does the pendulum point vertically down or does it move slightly towards the mountains?

No cheating and looking on google
What's vertically down?
What do you think it means? :)
It is not important. I was not the one using this term in a fictitious situation. It is up to the person who used it to clarify what he meant to the others. Now please stop the low-content posting.
Classic parsec ;). I think when he says vertically down he means, well, down (towards the centre of the Earth in RET). I'll admit it was a bit redundant, but it should not have been too difficult for a rational person to understand what he meant. By saying vertically down, I think he just wanted to differentiate between a perfectly vertical pendulum and one that "hangs" slightly towards a nearby mountain.

Anyways, back to his question. The pendulum would (assuming there are no other factors in play) not be perfectly vertical, but would "point" ever so slightly towards the mountain. I'm not sure how FET explains this, but I'm sure there is an elaborate creative hypothesis to explain it.
Well, until the person who posed the question defines an operational way of determining whether something is "vertical" or not, I am afraid I will be unable to give a definite answer.

Can you give an answer under the conditions I set?
Title: Re: Lack of Gravity
Post by: parsec on February 28, 2010, 08:32:41 PM
Can you give an answer under the conditions I set?

The pendulum would (assuming there are no other factors in play) not be perfectly vertical, but would "point" ever so slightly towards the mountain. I'm not sure how FET explains this, but I'm sure there is an elaborate creative hypothesis to explain it.

No, because you used the concept of "vertical direction" and a declination from it without properly defining it it first.
Title: Re: Lack of Gravity
Post by: 2fst4u on February 28, 2010, 08:36:33 PM
Can you give an answer under the conditions I set?

The pendulum would (assuming there are no other factors in play) not be perfectly vertical, but would "point" ever so slightly towards the mountain. I'm not sure how FET explains this, but I'm sure there is an elaborate creative hypothesis to explain it.

No, because you used the concept of "vertical direction" and a declination from it without properly defining it it first.
Then stop being a cock about it, try and figure out what he's saying and answer the damn question. Why does a suspended weight have an attraction towards a large mountain?
Title: Re: Lack of Gravity
Post by: Canadark on February 28, 2010, 09:35:44 PM
Can you give an answer under the conditions I set?

The pendulum would (assuming there are no other factors in play) not be perfectly vertical, but would "point" ever so slightly towards the mountain. I'm not sure how FET explains this, but I'm sure there is an elaborate creative hypothesis to explain it.

No, because you used the concept of "vertical direction" and a declination from it without properly defining it it first.

I can't really explain it in simpler terms. I think 2fst4u hit the nail on the head.
Title: Re: Lack of Gravity
Post by: parsec on February 28, 2010, 10:46:16 PM
Why does a suspended weight have an attraction towards a large mountain?
How do you know it does?
Title: Re: Lack of Gravity
Post by: Canadark on February 28, 2010, 11:05:58 PM
Why does a suspended weight have an attraction towards a large mountain?
How do you know it does?

Under RET it does because a large mountain is effectively a giant mass and within RET, masses are naturally attracted towards one another. I know this doesn't really satisfy the post I quoted, but the question that was posed to you a few posts back was, "Does it do this in FET?"
Title: Re: Lack of Gravity
Post by: parsec on February 28, 2010, 11:08:44 PM
Under RET it does because a large mountain is effectively a giant mass and within RET, masses are naturally attracted towards one another.
...
"Does it do this in FET?"

I don't think they necessarily have to be.
Title: Re: Lack of Gravity
Post by: bowler on March 01, 2010, 12:43:19 AM
Well maybe a pendulum doesn;t have to be attracted. Maybe they choose to be it could be personal preference but I think it unlikely, i've never come across a particularly self aware pendulum. I'm less sure you are a physics student the trouble with wikipedia and the general level of science here is most of the time its impossible to tell the difference.
Title: Re: Lack of Gravity
Post by: markjo on March 01, 2010, 05:33:21 AM
Why does a suspended weight have an attraction towards a large mountain?
How do you know it does?

Because it has been demonstrated.
Quote from: http://www.newton.dep.anl.gov/askasci/phy05/phy05322.htm
A second involved deflection of a pendulum near a mountain.  Using a star as a reference, deflection of a pendulum on top of a mountain and near the same mountain could provide a ratio of Earth mass to mountain mass.

Both are recorded in an 1893 essay by J. H. Poynting: The Mean Density of the Earth.  A digitized copy of the text can be accessed currently through Google at

http://books.google.com/books?id=dg0RAAAAIAAJ&printsec=titlepage&source=gbs_v2_summary_r&cad=0#v=onepage&q=&f=false

If you'd like to peer review it, I'm sure that it's an experiment that you can recreate yourself rather inexpensively.
Title: Re: Lack of Gravity
Post by: Canadark on March 01, 2010, 07:27:15 AM
Under RET it does because a large mountain is effectively a giant mass and within RET, masses are naturally attracted towards one another.
...
"Does it do this in FET?"

I don't think they necessarily have to be.

There's the answer we've been trying to get for the last two pages. Thank you.
Title: Re: Lack of Gravity
Post by: parsec on March 01, 2010, 08:20:47 AM
Why does a suspended weight have an attraction towards a large mountain?
How do you know it does?

Because it has been demonstrated.
Quote from: http://www.newton.dep.anl.gov/askasci/phy05/phy05322.htm
A second involved deflection of a pendulum near a mountain.  Using a star as a reference, deflection of a pendulum on top of a mountain and near the same mountain could provide a ratio of Earth mass to mountain mass.
His method for determining the deflection of the pendulum tacitly assumes RET.
Title: Re: Lack of Gravity
Post by: Canadark on March 01, 2010, 09:40:50 AM
Why does a suspended weight have an attraction towards a large mountain?
How do you know it does?

Because it has been demonstrated.
Quote from: http://www.newton.dep.anl.gov/askasci/phy05/phy05322.htm
A second involved deflection of a pendulum near a mountain.  Using a star as a reference, deflection of a pendulum on top of a mountain and near the same mountain could provide a ratio of Earth mass to mountain mass.
His method for determining the deflection of the pendulum tacitly assumes RET.

Assuming that the Earth is flat, how do you then explain the deflection of the pendulum?
Title: Re: Lack of Gravity
Post by: parsec on March 01, 2010, 05:15:37 PM
Why does a suspended weight have an attraction towards a large mountain?
How do you know it does?

Because it has been demonstrated.
Quote from: http://www.newton.dep.anl.gov/askasci/phy05/phy05322.htm
A second involved deflection of a pendulum near a mountain.  Using a star as a reference, deflection of a pendulum on top of a mountain and near the same mountain could provide a ratio of Earth mass to mountain mass.
His method for determining the deflection of the pendulum tacitly assumes RET.

Assuming that the Earth is flat, how do you then explain the deflection of the pendulum?
You are not replying to what I said. Is there any way in the above mentioned method that the angle between the apparent position of the star and the direction of the pendulum can change even if there was not any gravitational attraction between the mass of the mountain and the pendulum?
Title: Re: Lack of Gravity
Post by: ugaboga313 on March 01, 2010, 05:27:17 PM
How would a star change position in the sky like that?

Besides we don't need stars anymore. GPS does that for us.
Title: Re: Lack of Gravity
Post by: parsec on March 01, 2010, 05:27:52 PM
How would a star change position in the sky like that?

Besides we don't need stars anymore. GPS does that for us.
::)
Title: Re: Lack of Gravity
Post by: ugaboga313 on March 01, 2010, 05:31:31 PM
Please make a point.
Title: Re: Lack of Gravity
Post by: parsec on March 01, 2010, 05:35:22 PM
Please make a point.
A star's position on the sky changes depending from the vantage point on the Earth.
Title: Re: Lack of Gravity
Post by: ugaboga313 on March 01, 2010, 05:36:08 PM
Even if the vantage points are only a mile away from each other? You honestly believe the experimenters missed that little detail?
Title: Re: Lack of Gravity
Post by: Canadark on March 01, 2010, 08:58:41 PM
Why does a suspended weight have an attraction towards a large mountain?
How do you know it does?

Because it has been demonstrated.
Quote from: http://www.newton.dep.anl.gov/askasci/phy05/phy05322.htm
A second involved deflection of a pendulum near a mountain.  Using a star as a reference, deflection of a pendulum on top of a mountain and near the same mountain could provide a ratio of Earth mass to mountain mass.
His method for determining the deflection of the pendulum tacitly assumes RET.

Assuming that the Earth is flat, how do you then explain the deflection of the pendulum?
You are not replying to what I said. Is there any way in the above mentioned method that the angle between the apparent position of the star and the direction of the pendulum can change even if there was not any gravitational attraction between the mass of the mountain and the pendulum?

We are working under the assumption that the people performing this experiment already took this into account. This is like saying "how do you know a goat didn't come over and lick the pendulum?" If you don't believe the experiment can possibly be true, just say so and we'll let it die.
Title: Re: Lack of Gravity
Post by: markjo on March 01, 2010, 09:11:35 PM
Why does a suspended weight have an attraction towards a large mountain?
How do you know it does?

Because it has been demonstrated.
Quote from: http://www.newton.dep.anl.gov/askasci/phy05/phy05322.htm
A second involved deflection of a pendulum near a mountain.  Using a star as a reference, deflection of a pendulum on top of a mountain and near the same mountain could provide a ratio of Earth mass to mountain mass.
His method for determining the deflection of the pendulum tacitly assumes RET.
Then how would you suggest detecting any deflection without assuming anything about the shape of the earth?  It's not as if you could use a plumb bob.
Title: Re: Lack of Gravity
Post by: parsec on March 01, 2010, 09:20:40 PM
Then how would you suggest detecting any deflection without assuming anything about the shape of the earth?  It's not as if you could use a plumb bob.
Why would I want to do that?
Title: Re: Lack of Gravity
Post by: 2fst4u on March 01, 2010, 09:43:02 PM
Then how would you suggest detecting any deflection without assuming anything about the shape of the earth?  It's not as if you could use a plumb bob.
Why would I want to do that?
To, oh, I don't know, maybe disprove gravity? You know like the entire topic is about

Sometimes I really have to wonder.
Title: Re: Lack of Gravity
Post by: markjo on March 01, 2010, 09:46:13 PM
Then how would you suggest detecting any deflection without assuming anything about the shape of the earth?  It's not as if you could use a plumb bob.
Why would I want to do that?
So that you can peer review the experiment in question.  Why else?
Title: Re: Lack of Gravity
Post by: parsec on March 01, 2010, 09:48:12 PM
The Law of "Universal Gravitation" was "discovered" by Isaac Newton using data about the motion of the planets according to the heliocentric model of the Solar System and applying his famous laws of motion to these motions. Then, people thought they should prove this idea between terrestrial objects. As you may or may not know the heliocentric model of the solar system assumes, among other things, that the Earth is round. So, one cannot use the Law of Universal Gravitation as a proof of round earth simply because one of the assumptions incorporated into it is the assumption of a Round Earth.
Title: Re: Lack of Gravity
Post by: Canadark on March 01, 2010, 10:01:24 PM
What's that scraping sound coming from inside the barrel?