The Flat Earth Society

Flat Earth Discussion Boards => Flat Earth Debate => Topic started by: non-flatearther on April 12, 2019, 10:20:06 AM

Title: I think that UA model breaks Conservation of energy rule
Post by: non-flatearther on April 12, 2019, 10:20:06 AM
Well simple consideration. Whole Earth is accelerating at g = 9.81 ms-2 but what does it make accelerate??? And where does it take the energy to give Earth so big kinetic energy?? It cannot accelerate just itself because it would violate the Conservation of energy rule. So I think that because of this UA model cannot work.
Title: Re: I think that UA model breaks Conservation of energy rule
Post by: Bullwinkle on April 12, 2019, 06:46:00 PM
You have obviously put a lot of thought into this.
What is the Conservation of energy rule?
Title: Re: I think that UA model breaks Conservation of energy rule
Post by: boydster on April 12, 2019, 07:08:06 PM
You have obviously put a lot of thought into this.
What is the Conservation of energy rule?
I'm excited. I think he's about to disprove cosmic inflation and UA at the same time!
Title: Re: I think that UA model breaks Conservation of energy rule
Post by: rabinoz on April 13, 2019, 04:19:13 AM
You have obviously put a lot of thought into this.
What is the Conservation of energy rule?
I'm excited. I think he's about to disprove cosmic inflation and UA at the same time!
There is a massive difference here.
I assume that you are referring to the dark energy hypothesis which is only relevant almost 30 million light years from earth so when it comes to the flat vs Globe question, who cares?
But the flat earth UA hypothesis is needed in an attempt to explain away the need for gravity right here on earth and it very relevant to the here and now.
Title: Re: I think that UA model breaks Conservation of energy rule
Post by: boydster on April 13, 2019, 05:24:38 AM
There's really not a massive difference. It's energy that is inherent to space. If someone is about to prove that such a thing can't exist, guess what that does for inflation?

How about just the vacuum zero point energy, rab? That's not 30 million light years away. Is it ok of we talk about how the Casimir Effect demonstrates that you can extract energy from quite literally empty space?

Or is it ok just for once to admit that the OP's premise is flawed, even though you think you are on the same team?
Title: Re: I think that UA model breaks Conservation of energy rule
Post by: rabinoz on April 13, 2019, 05:51:24 AM
There's really not a massive difference. It's energy that is inherent to space. If someone is about to prove that such a thing can't exist, guess what that does for inflation?

How about just the vacuum zero point energy, rab? That's not 30 million light years away. Is it ok of we talk about how the Casimir Effect demonstrates that you can extract energy from quite literally empty space?
It's funny how any old hypothesis will do to explain things away on the flat earth.
Sure "the Casimir Effect demonstrates that you can extract" tiny amounts of "energy from quite literally empty space" and what power is needed to accelerate the earth again?

Quote from: boydster
Or is it ok just for once to admit that the OP's premise is flawed, even though you think you are on the same team?
Why admit that they are flawed if they are not flawed? Where have you proven that it is flawed? All you've done is posted hypotheses.

And why can't you admit that the whole idea of a flat earth is completely flawed?
I could give a list of reasons why the real earth cannot be flat but I'll refrain because you'll claim that they were "off-topic".

So what about you simply answering the OP:
Well simple consideration. Whole Earth is accelerating at g = 9.81 ms-2 but what does it make accelerate??? And where does it take the energy to give Earth so big kinetic energy?? It cannot accelerate just itself because it would violate the Conservation of energy rule. So I think that because of this UA model cannot work.
Title: Re: I think that UA model breaks Conservation of energy rule
Post by: non-flatearther on April 13, 2019, 06:25:14 AM
I just have to quickly apologize - it is law not rule :D
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conservation_of_energy
And this is the LAW i was talking about :) And also the main uestion is how does Earth accelerate and where does it take energy from.

Title: Re: I think that UA model breaks Conservation of energy rule
Post by: boydster on April 13, 2019, 06:49:57 AM
Why admit that they are flawed if they are not flawed? Where have you proven that it is flawed?
Mankind's current understanding of the cosmos demonstrates that the OP is flawed, because there is apparently a certain amount of energy that can make things like cosmic inflation work, and the Casimir Effect - things that violate the conversation of energy. You want to argue about the magnitude of this force. The OP suggests it can't even exist to begin with. Do you see the difference? You don't have to ass-pat every Round Earther that shows up and hamfists his keyboard.

Quote
And why can't you admit that the whole idea of a flat earth is completely flawed?
Go look at my post history. Not that it's relevant, because we're talking about whether space can accelerate something. Can it move matter? Can the vacuum exert a force? The OP says it can't. Do you agree? Because quantum physicists and astrophysicists alike seem to think the OP may be wrong, and they study how the universe behaves on the smallest and largest scales respectively.

Quote
So what about you simply answering the OP:
Well simple consideration. Whole Earth is accelerating at g = 9.81 ms-2 but what does it make accelerate??? And where does it take the energy to give Earth so big kinetic energy?? It cannot accelerate just itself because it would violate the Conservation of energy rule. So I think that because of this UA model cannot work.

It was baked into the statement that he'd also be disproving inflation. Energy can be an inherent property of space. It's understood to be true today. The magnitude is what UA FEers would disagree with mainstream science about.
Title: Re: I think that UA model breaks Conservation of energy rule
Post by: rabinoz on April 13, 2019, 10:29:40 PM
So what about you simply answering the OP:
Well simple consideration. Whole Earth is accelerating at g = 9.81 ms-2 but what does it make accelerate??? And where does it take the energy to give Earth so big kinetic energy?? It cannot accelerate just itself because it would violate the Conservation of energy rule. So I think that because of this UA model cannot work.

It was baked into the statement that he'd also be disproving inflation. Energy can be an inherent property of space. It's understood to be true today. The magnitude is what UA FEers would disagree with mainstream science about.
Let's look at your first post:
I'm excited. I think he's about to disprove cosmic inflation and UA at the same time!
For a start, what do you mean by "disprove cosmic inflation".
Are you seriously claiming that some hypothesis about the first 10−33 to 10−32 seconds after the "non-Big non-Bang" has any relevance to what is happening on the flat earth right now?

UA demands some source of acceleration equal to g and there is nothing in of these any modern theories (other than gravitation) that approaches that.
You say "The magnitude is what UA FEers would disagree with mainstream science about." Of course it is!

Gravity on the edge of one of the most massive galaxies, Messier 87 (that one) is a factor of about 1/(4 x 1010) less than g.
And dark energy (in case you suggest that) competes with far weaker fields than that.

All the other guesses you make are likewise exceedingly small. So, again the magnitude is important.
You claim is no better than flat earthers claiming that air refracts light, therefore refraction can explain sunsets on the flat earth ::).
Or getting "more (pseudo-)scientific", the atmosphere contains water (as vapour but they ignore that bit).
Water refracts light quite a lot, therefore the refraction of the water can explain sunsets on the flat earth ::).


So, yes the magnitude (and direction) here is vitally important.

From what I have seen one of the reasons many flat earthers insist that the earth must be flat is to avoid the "necessity" of believing in the "Big Bang".
That reasoning is totally false as is easily demonstrated.

But carry on if you must.

Title: Re: I think that UA model breaks Conservation of energy rule
Post by: boydster on April 14, 2019, 06:40:04 AM
Are you now suggesting that accelerating inflation isn't happening right at this very moment?
Title: Re: I think that UA model breaks Conservation of energy rule
Post by: boydster on April 14, 2019, 06:47:54 AM
I'm beside myself. You really will take the side of any silly, terrible argument as long as the poster appears to be on your team, huh rab?

Let's refocus. Either the OP thinks there can be no violation of conservation of energy, in which case not only is UA broken but so is an inflationary universe, OR the OP selectively believes in the brand of energy conservation violation that he was taught in school while mindlessly dismissing the version that doesn't agree with his worldview. Neither of those is ideal. Yet you are here to twist yourself in knots to try and defend it. I'm pretty sure you know perfectly well that the rate distant objects are accelerating away from us in the universe is increasing. Yet you tried to paint my statement as if it was referring only to inflation from almost 14 billion years ago? Seems a bit dishonest.
Title: Re: I think that UA model breaks Conservation of energy rule
Post by: rabinoz on April 14, 2019, 01:54:20 PM
Are you now suggesting that accelerating inflation isn't happening right at this very moment?
Yes.
Quote
In physical cosmology, cosmic inflation, cosmological inflation, or just inflation, is a theory of exponential expansion of space in the early universe.
Words matter but I expect that you mean simply what is termed the accelerating expansion of the universe.
Quote
The accelerating expansion of the universe is the observation that the expansion of the universe is such that the velocity at which a distant galaxy is receding from the observer is continuously increasing with time.
And no expansion, let alone accelerating expansion of the universe, is taking place within some 5 million light years of here.
So the expansion of the universe can be of no assistance to UA even if you could convince flat earthers of the reality of anything astronomers observe.

Even if the expansion were taking place within the solar, with the current Hubble constant being about 70 kilometres per second per megaparsec, Pluto would be receding from us at the rate of about 0.013   mm/sec or 0.00005 m/hr.
And numbers matter.

If you think any of that explains the "force" driving UA be my guest.
Title: Re: I think that UA model breaks Conservation of energy rule
Post by: Slemon on April 14, 2019, 01:58:32 PM
I'm beside myself. You really will take the side of any silly, terrible argument as long as the poster appears to be on your team, huh rab?
He's about to point out that the rate of expansion within the RE Solar System is practically zero, despite the fact the properties of the RE Solar System specfically have no relevance here and that he accepts the force can indeed exist so it's a moot point regardless. I've been on this ride before, get off before it's too late and save yourself from the insanity.
Title: Re: I think that UA model breaks Conservation of energy rule
Post by: Lonegranger on April 14, 2019, 02:26:51 PM
I'm beside myself. You really will take the side of any silly, terrible argument as long as the poster appears to be on your team, huh rab?
He's about to point out that the rate of expansion within the RE Solar System is practically zero, despite the fact the properties of the RE Solar System specfically have no relevance here and that he accepts the force can indeed exist so it's a moot point regardless. I've been on this ride before, get off before it's too late and save yourself from the insanity.

What source do you obtain your so called facts from? How on earth can you decide what is and what’s not relevant?
Title: Re: I think that UA model breaks Conservation of energy rule
Post by: Lonegranger on April 14, 2019, 02:33:37 PM
I'm beside myself. You really will take the side of any silly, terrible argument as long as the poster appears to be on your team, huh rab?
He's about to point out that the rate of expansion within the RE Solar System is practically zero, despite the fact the properties of the RE Solar System specfically have no relevance here and that he accepts the force can indeed exist so it's a moot point regardless. I've been on this ride before, get off before it's too late and save yourself from the insanity.

How do you know what the rate of expansion is or if it exists? Please explain how were you able to determine its value?
Title: Re: I think that UA model breaks Conservation of energy rule
Post by: Slemon on April 14, 2019, 02:37:08 PM
What source do you obtain your so called facts from? How on earth can you decide what is and what’s not relevant?
Basic logic generally works. Whether or not something can occur in one specific location is not relevant to whether something can occur in general.

How do you know what the rate of expansion is or if it exists? Please explain how were you able to determine its value?
Mankind's current understanding of the cosmos demonstrates that the OP is flawed, because there is apparently a certain amount of energy that can make things like cosmic inflation work, and the Casimir Effect - things that violate the conversation of energy. You want to argue about the magnitude of this force. The OP suggests it can't even exist to begin with. Do you see the difference? You don't have to ass-pat every Round Earther that shows up and hamfists his keyboard.
...The magnitude is what UA FEers would disagree with mainstream science about.
Title: Re: I think that UA model breaks Conservation of energy rule
Post by: rabinoz on April 14, 2019, 02:46:43 PM
I'm beside myself. You really will take the side of any silly, terrible argument as long as the poster appears to be on your team, huh rab?
He's about to point out that the rate of expansion within the RE Solar System is practically zero, despite the fact the properties of the RE Solar System specfically have no relevance here and that he accepts the force can indeed exist so it's a moot point regardless. I've been on this ride before, get off before it's too late and save yourself from the insanity.
Please learn to read before you dive in and make a bigger fool of yourself. This all started with:
I'm excited. I think he's about to disprove cosmic inflation and UA at the same time!
But in cosmology "cosmic inflation" does not refer to the current "expansion of the universe".
So Boydster's "Cosmic Inflation" likewise had no relevance.

It would seem, however, that it's far too late for you to "save yourself from the insanity".

All along I have been trying to point out the utter hypocrisy of taking a bit of "modern science", that is often quite inapplicable, and using it to explain some massive flat earth fallacy.

And even using the "expansion of the universe", which is completely non-existent even within our whole local group, to explain the enormous force needed to drive UA is ridiculous in the extreme.

You might be more believable if you simply claimed it was magic.

Then:
What source do you obtain your so called facts from? How on earth can you decide what is and what’s not relevant?
Basic logic generally works. Whether or not something can occur in one specific location is not relevant to whether something can occur in general.
Pray tell how "basic logic" leads you to decide "Whether or not something can occur in one specific location is not relevant to whether something can occur in general" when cosmologists specifically state that it does not?

Exactly what are your qualifications in cosmology again ::)?
Title: Re: I think that UA model breaks Conservation of energy rule
Post by: Slemon on April 14, 2019, 03:03:52 PM
But in cosmology "cosmic inflation" does not refer to the current "expansion of the universe".
So, semantics.

Quote
And even using the "expansion of the universe", which is completely non-existent even within our whole local group, to explain the enormous force needed to drive UA is ridiculous in the extreme.
So, ignoring the actual contents of what Boydster said. Reminder:
Mankind's current understanding of the cosmos demonstrates that the OP is flawed, because there is apparently a certain amount of energy that can make things like cosmic inflation work, and the Casimir Effect - things that violate the conversation of energy. You want to argue about the magnitude of this force. The OP suggests it can't even exist to begin with. Do you see the difference? You don't have to ass-pat every Round Earther that shows up and hamfists his keyboard.
...The magnitude is what UA FEers would disagree with mainstream science about.

Quote
Pray tell how "basic logic" leads you to decide "Whether or not something can occur in one specific location is not relevant to whether something can occur in general" when cosmologists specifically state that it does not?
Is that supposed to make sense?
Title: Re: I think that UA model breaks Conservation of energy rule
Post by: boydster on April 14, 2019, 03:05:58 PM
Rab you are so incredibly pedantic.
Title: Re: I think that UA model breaks Conservation of energy rule
Post by: rabinoz on April 14, 2019, 03:47:26 PM
But in cosmology "cosmic inflation" does not refer to the current "expansion of the universe".
So, semantics.
Of course! Words have meanings and "in cosmology "cosmic inflation" does not refer to the current "expansion of the universe".

Quote from: Jane
Quote
And even using the "expansion of the universe", which is completely non-existent even within our whole local group, to explain the enormous force needed to drive UA is ridiculous in the extreme.
So, ignoring the actual contents of what Boydster said. Reminder:
Mankind's current understanding of the cosmos demonstrates that the OP is flawed, because there is apparently a certain amount of energy that can make things like cosmic inflation work, and the Casimir Effect - things that violate the conversation of energy. You want to argue about the magnitude of this force. The OP suggests it can't even exist to begin with. Do you see the difference? You don't have to ass-pat every Round Earther that shows up and hamfists his keyboard.
...The magnitude is what UA FEers would disagree with mainstream science about.
Of course! The difference between nothing an an unimaginably large value is extremely significant,

Quote from: Jane
Quote
Pray tell how "basic logic" leads you to decide "Whether or not something can occur in one specific location is not relevant to whether something can occur in general" when cosmologists specifically state that it does not?
Is that supposed to make sense?
Yes!
Title: Re: I think that UA model breaks Conservation of energy rule
Post by: boydster on April 14, 2019, 03:53:40 PM
OP suggests nothing can violate conservation of energy. You are defending him, correct, as though that statement is true?
Title: Re: I think that UA model breaks Conservation of energy rule
Post by: Slemon on April 14, 2019, 03:59:27 PM
Of course! Words have meanings and "in cosmology "cosmic inflation" does not refer to the current "expansion of the universe".
This is a webforum, not a scientific journal. It doesn't matter if he calls it inflation, expansion, the embiggening, or just That Thing. He could call it Cheryl for all it actually matters when it is palpably clear what it is he's referring to.

Quote
Of course! The difference between nothing an an unimaginably large value is extremely significant,
So you're still saying it's nothing, when you've already conceded it does happen, if not in the RE local group?
Take a good long look at what Boydster is actually saying Rab, seriously.
The OP is saying that any kind of expansion here is impossible because it violates conservation of energy. Do you agree with him? Yes or no?
Title: Re: I think that UA model breaks Conservation of energy rule
Post by: rabinoz on April 14, 2019, 04:03:23 PM
Of course! Words have meanings and "in cosmology "cosmic inflation" does not refer to the current "expansion of the universe".
This is a webforum, not a scientific journal. It doesn't matter if he calls it inflation, expansion, the embiggening, or just That Thing. He could call it Cheryl for all it actually matters when it is palpably clear what it is he's referring to.

If you are going to incorrectly drag modern cosmological material into the discussions you are the one making it a "a scientific journal" not I.

Title: Re: I think that UA model breaks Conservation of energy rule
Post by: Slemon on April 14, 2019, 04:05:58 PM
If you are going to incorrectly drag modern cosmological material into the discussions you are the one making it a "a scientific journal" not I.
Oh, I see, it is impossible to talk about anything relating to physics outside of a formal scientific journal, my apologies. We should shut all popular science sites and forums down immediately.

Could you answer the question you were directly asked now? It's literally just yes or no.
Title: Re: I think that UA model breaks Conservation of energy rule
Post by: rabinoz on April 14, 2019, 04:37:23 PM
If you are going to incorrectly drag modern cosmological material into the discussions you are the one making it a "a scientific journal" not I.
Oh, I see, it is impossible to talk about anything relating to physics outside of a formal scientific journal, my apologies. We should shut all popular science sites and forums down immediately.
I neither said nor implied any such thing.

All I am trying to get over is that it is a fallacy to to generalise something and pretend it can apply everywhere.

In particular there is no "expansion of the universe" within our galaxy. None, zilch!
So trying to use it to support UA is meaningless.
Title: Re: I think that UA model breaks Conservation of energy rule
Post by: Slemon on April 14, 2019, 04:39:16 PM
All I am trying to get over is that it is a fallacy to to generalise something and pretend it can apply everywhere.
So now you're just going to pretend your semantic diversion never happened. Sure. Better for everyone.

Quote
In particular there is no "expansion of the universe" within our galaxy. None, zilch!
So trying to use it to support UA is meaningless.
So you agree that conservation of energy makes expansion of the universe completely impossible in our galaxy and beyond?
Title: Re: I think that UA model breaks Conservation of energy rule
Post by: rabinoz on April 14, 2019, 08:46:23 PM
All I am trying to get over is that it is a fallacy to to generalise something and pretend it can apply everywhere.
So now you're just going to pretend your semantic diversion never happened. Sure. Better for everyone.
There was never any "semantic diversion". This all started as a reply to:
I'm excited. I think he's about to disprove cosmic inflation and UA at the same time!
In cosmology "cosmic inflation" has a very specific meaning quite unrelated to "dark energy" and the "accelerating expansion of the universe".

Quote from: Jane
Quote
In particular there is no "expansion of the universe" within our galaxy. None, zilch!
So trying to use it to support UA is meaningless.
So you agree that conservation of energy makes expansion of the universe completely impossible in our galaxy and beyond?
How do you make the massive leap
from  "In particular there is no "expansion of the universe" within our galaxy. None, zilch! So trying to use it to support UA is meaningless."
      to "So you agree that conservation of energy makes expansion of the universe completely impossible in our galaxy and beyond?"

My statement is simply from what cosmologists write. On you question I offer no opinion.
Go and ask an astrophysicist or cosmologist.
Or search for "If the universe is expanding why is Andromeda approaching the Milky Way?" and see what cosmologists write.

Title: Re: I think that UA model breaks Conservation of energy rule
Post by: Slemon on April 15, 2019, 03:52:10 AM
How do you make the massive leap
from  "In particular there is no "expansion of the universe" within our galaxy. None, zilch! So trying to use it to support UA is meaningless."
      to "So you agree that conservation of energy makes expansion of the universe completely impossible in our galaxy and beyond?"
Because we are talking in this thread where you offered an opinion to defend the OP. I and Boydster have been asking you this for way too long. Yes or no Rab? Tell you what, Y or N? Instead all this ignorant, timewasting rambling you could actually answer with just a single letter. Do so already.
So you agree that conservation of energy makes expansion of the universe completely impossible in our galaxy and beyond?


Quote
In cosmology "cosmic inflation" has a very specific meaning quite unrelated to "dark energy" and the "accelerating expansion of the universe".
This is a webforum, not a scientific journal. It doesn't matter if he calls it inflation, expansion, the embiggening, or just That Thing. He could call it Cheryl for all it actually matters when it is palpably clear what it is he's referring to.

For once in your life Rab could you make a post not predicated on ignoring the entire contents of a thread?
Title: Re: I think that UA model breaks Conservation of energy rule
Post by: boydster on April 15, 2019, 04:25:59 AM
Rab, YOU brought up dark energy. And the OP WOULD be disproving cosmic inflation. And while I may have used the wrong term when referring to the present expansion, it applies to inflation, expansion, and I'm sure even more areas. So how long to you want to keep up this little charade?
Title: Re: I think that UA model breaks Conservation of energy rule
Post by: rabinoz on April 15, 2019, 05:52:57 AM
How do you make the massive leap
from  "In particular there is no "expansion of the universe" within our galaxy. None, zilch! So trying to use it to support UA is meaningless."
      to "So you agree that conservation of energy makes expansion of the universe completely impossible in our galaxy and beyond?"
Because we are talking in this thread where you offered an opinion to defend the OP. I and Boydster have been asking you this for way too long. Yes or no Rab? Tell you what, Y or N? Instead all this ignorant, timewasting rambling you could actually answer with just a single letter. Do so already.
Where did I ever say that "conservation of energy makes expansion of the universe completely impossible in our galaxy and beyond"?
I explicitly offered no opinion on that for the simple reason that neither you nor I can answer that question authoritatively.

Hence I will not "answer Y or N" - get used to it!

My first relevant post on the topic was:
I'm excited. I think he's about to disprove cosmic inflation and UA at the same time!
There is a massive difference here.
I assume that you are referring to the dark energy hypothesis which is only relevant almost 30 million light years from earth so when it comes to the flat vs Globe question, who cares?
But the flat earth UA hypothesis is needed in an attempt to explain away the need for gravity right here on earth and it very relevant to the here and now.
If you bother to study the "expansion of the universe" you might learn how slow it really is at such a distance and modern measurements are not consistent:
Quote
The current best direct measurement of the Hubble constant is 73.8 km/sec/Mpc (give or take 2.4 km/sec/Mpc including, both random and systematic errors), corresponding to a 3% uncertainty. Using only WMAP data, the Hubble constant is estimated to be 70.0 km/sec/Mpc (give or take 2.2 km/sec/Mpc), also a 3% measurement

I still stand by what I said that taking a hypothesis about what is happening "almost 30 million light years from earth" and using that to justify a far more massive "force" travelling at a vastly higher velocity (approaching 2,99,792,458 metres per second) if quite ridiculous and quite unjustified.

At the very least you logic is a classic example of an unwarranted generalisation.

Now run off and study a bit of cosmology.
Title: Re: I think that UA model breaks Conservation of energy rule
Post by: Slemon on April 15, 2019, 05:57:23 AM
Where did I ever say that "conservation of energy makes expansion of the universe completely impossible in our galaxy and beyond"?
I explicitly offered no opinion on that for the simple reason that neither you nor I can answer that question authoritatively.
Ok, so you have absolutely nothing to offer relevant to the OP. Got it. Why are you still rambling about claims no one made?
Title: Re: I think that UA model breaks Conservation of energy rule
Post by: rabinoz on April 15, 2019, 06:23:55 AM
Rab, YOU brought up dark energy. And the OP WOULD be disproving cosmic inflation. And while I may have used the wrong term when referring to the present expansion, it applies to inflation, expansion, and I'm sure even more areas. So how long to you want to keep up this little charade?
Why would the "OP WOULD be disproving cosmic inflation"?
And yes, you used the wrong term but I can only read the words that you write not what you might be thinking - sorry about that!
You meant the expansion of the universe and Dark energy is not required to explain the expansion of the universe.

But how can even the "expansion of the universe", accelerating or not, be used to justify Universal Acceleration? No one has really explained that yet.
There is no logic in claiming that a small "force", not even sufficient to pull a star loose from a galaxy, can be the energy source of UA - make a new topic on it if you dare!

Gravity at the outer edge of the massive M87 galaxy is only about 2.5 x 10-11 g and the "expansion of the universe" doesn't drag that away.

And I brought up dark energy because that is in the Wiki as an energy source of UA!
Quote from: The Flat Earth Society Wiki
Gravity, UNIVERSAL ACCELERATION (http://theflatearthsociety.org/tiki/tiki-index.php?page=Gravity)
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Rather than a downward pull due to the presence of mass, the theory of Universal Acceleration asserts that the roughly disk-shaped Earth is accelerating 'upward' at a constant rate of 1g (9.8m/sec^2). This produces the effect commonly referred to as "gravity".

There are two Universal Acceleration models. The first model deals with the Universal Accelerator, which sits underneath the Earth and accelerates anything it touches. The second model deals with Dark Energy, which accelerates all celestial bodies, including the Earth, in the universe. Modern astrophysics accounts that the expansion of the universe is due to Dark Energy.

The Universal Accelerator is simply a hypothesis with no explainable source of the energy - ie magic.
The Dark Energy explanation claims that "Modern astrophysics accounts that the expansion of the universe is due to Dark Energy" which is false.
Modern astrophysics offers dark Energy (a place holder for "we don't know") as the driver of the accelerating expansion of the universe.

And that is why I "brought up dark energy".

Now I have to ask you, "how long do you want to keep up this charade?"
Title: Re: I think that UA model breaks Conservation of energy rule
Post by: boydster on April 15, 2019, 11:27:31 AM
Rab seriously WTF?? Inflation from the early universe depends on a violation of conservation of energy. Casimir Effect does as well. As does the current expanding if the universe. YOU asserted that they don't. Are you refusing to defend that?

Either the OP's premise is wrong, or it isn't. I asserted that the premise is wrong, and you took the opposing position. Are you standing by that?
Title: Re: I think that UA model breaks Conservation of energy rule
Post by: JackBlack on April 15, 2019, 01:46:05 PM
Rab seriously WTF?? Inflation from the early universe depends on a violation of conservation of energy. Casimir Effect does as well. As does the current expanding if the universe.
How does it?
I was under the impression that the expansion of the universe relied upon dark energy, without violating the conservation of energy.
As for the Casimir effect, the energy from that comes from the placement of the plates. The plates don't just magically exist there.
Title: Re: I think that UA model breaks Conservation of energy rule
Post by: boydster on April 15, 2019, 01:56:18 PM
It's exacting energy from the vacuum, which is presumably what UA would hinge upon as well. And according to rab, we can't talk about dark energy.

The crux of this is that if the vacuum is allowed to have energy that can be extracted, then UA need not violate conservation of energy. The OP suggests otherwise it seems. Again, according to anyone believing in UA and basically all of mainstream science, there is energy inherent to spacetime (or whatever). It's the magnitude that they differ on. That's been my position for this entire thread.
Title: Re: I think that UA model breaks Conservation of energy rule
Post by: sokarul on April 15, 2019, 02:44:51 PM
Yawn

https://www.quora.com/Does-the-Casimir-force-violate-the-conservation-of-energy
Title: Re: I think that UA model breaks Conservation of energy rule
Post by: JackBlack on April 15, 2019, 02:50:02 PM
The crux of this is that if the vacuum is allowed to have energy that can be extracted, then UA need not violate conservation of energy.
The question is what effect that extraction would have. Dark energy acts on all objects, so would not produce the results of UA. The Casimir effect acts in all directions and again would not produce the results of UA (and again, needs energy input to function, from the initial placement).

You need to have something to magically extract the energy to produce a highly selective UA.
Title: Re: I think that UA model breaks Conservation of energy rule
Post by: rabinoz on April 15, 2019, 02:53:43 PM
Rab seriously WTF?? Inflation from the early universe depends on a violation of conservation of energy. Casimir Effect does as well.
The "cosmic inflation" period may have violated "conservation of energy" but the "laws of physics", as we know them, didn't exist then.
In any case "conservation of energy" only applies locally where spacetime can be regarded as essentially flat and even there it should be "conservation of mass-energy".
On a cosmic scale that has no meaning and it is the Energy-Momentum Tensor that is conserved.

Does the "Casimir Effect" violate conservation of energy? And even if it does there is no suggestion that it can extract more than a minute amount and magnitude does matter.

Quote from: boydster
As does the current expanding of the universe. YOU asserted that they don't. Are you refusing to defend that?
No, the "current expanding universe" does not violate "conservation of energy" any more than the fragments of an explosion in space flying apart violate it.
What those fragments do will depend on there initial velocities and the gravitational forces between them.
In the same way the universe might contract, stay the same or expand depending on certain assumptions. How the Big Crunch Theory Works, Gravity vs. Expansion. (https://science.howstuffworks.com/dictionary/astronomy-terms/big-crunch4.htm)

The "accelerating expansion of the universe" might violate "conservation of energy" and that is a matter currently being debated by cosmologists.
Some suggest that more space is created containing "vacuum energy" so generating energy etc etc - way way above my pay grade!

Quote from: boydster
Either the OP's premise is wrong, or it isn't. I asserted that the premise is wrong, and you took the opposing position. Are you standing by that?

My beef all along has been with your first post:
I'm excited. I think he's about to disprove cosmic inflation and UA at the same time!
Whether you meant "cosmic inflation" or "expansion of the universe" is not really relevant.
Neither "cosmic inflation" (now irrelevant) nor the "expansion of the universe" provide any support for UA.

The Wiki suggests that the driving force for UA is
Quote
Dark Energy, which accelerates all celestial bodies, including the Earth, in the universe. Modern astrophysics accounts that the expansion of the universe is due to Dark Energy.
But "dark energy" is not a part of the "expansion of the universe" so that reasoning is invalid.

"Dark Energy" is one hypothesis for the acceleration of the "expansion of the universe" but even its energy density is far too low to be a feasible source of the driving force.

But you and the flat earth "theorists" can claim anything that you like but don't try to rely on the hypotheses of modern cosmology relevant only thousands of light years away for justification.

Now let this be an end to this silly business.
Title: Re: I think that UA model breaks Conservation of energy rule
Post by: boydster on April 15, 2019, 02:59:01 PM
Again, rab is the only one here talking about dark energy.

UA would postulate that the acceleration is due to an inherent property of otherwise empty space.

Modern physics predicts that other known effects are due to inherent properties of otherwise empty space.

It seems some would argue that "empty" space can't have the ability to cause anything to happen; that it is just a stage that things happen upon. If we are accepting that the vacuum may actually participate in physics instead of being a passive part of the background, the OP's initial statement isn't really justified. It becomes... Drum roll please... A matter of magnitude. 
Title: Re: I think that UA model breaks Conservation of energy rule
Post by: boydster on April 15, 2019, 03:02:44 PM
Rab, expansion is not just things flying apart as they would after an explosion! If that were the case, the expansion would either be constant or, more likely, decelerating to the point of contraction and eventual "big crunch." But it's accelerating. So, yeah, that takes some kind of force that would otherwise be considered magic because it doesn't really fit into a neat box of well-understood physics.

It's the distance between points in space growing apart.
Title: Re: I think that UA model breaks Conservation of energy rule
Post by: rabinoz on April 15, 2019, 03:50:59 PM
Rab, expansion is not just things flying apart as they would after an explosion!
Come on it's only a rough analogy!

Quote from: boydster
If that were the case, the expansion would either be constant or, more likely, decelerating to the point of contraction and eventual "big crunch."
More or less, but why "more likely, decelerating to the point of contraction and eventual big crunch" - ever heard of escape velocity?
That depends entirely on the initial conditions and the "matter density" in the case of the universe and that "matter density" is not at all easy to estimate..

Quote from: boydster
But it's accelerating.
Even that is not cut and dried:
       Astronomy Now, The universe is expanding at an accelerating rate — or is it? (https://astronomynow.com/2016/10/21/the-universe-is-expanding-at-an-accelerating-rate-or-is-it/)
       IFLSCIENCE, Why is the Universe Accelerating? (https://www.iflscience.com/space/why-universe-accelerating/)
       SCIENCEalert, No, The Universe Is Not Expanding at an Accelerated Rate, Say Physicists  (https://www.sciencealert.com/no-the-universe-is-not-expanding-at-an-accelerated-rate-say-physicists)

Quote from: boydster
So, yeah, that takes some kind of force that would otherwise be considered magic because it doesn't really fit into a neat box of well-understood physics.
"Yeah, that takes some kind of force" if it is even needed and even if it needed it's of such an incredibly low energy density that it wouldn't accelerate the earth at a measurable rate, let alone at g.

Scale and magnitude matter!

Quote from: boydster
It's the distance between points in space growing apart.

But postulate what you like but don't try to justify it be inappropriately appealing to modern science that Flat Earthers insist on ridiculing anyway.
Title: Re: I think that UA model breaks Conservation of energy rule
Post by: JackBlack on April 15, 2019, 03:51:48 PM
UA would postulate that the acceleration is due to an inherent property of otherwise empty space.
But it isn't just empty space, or you would have the same effect in all directions and not get the results of UA.

But I do understand that it is a different argument to conservation of energy.
Title: Re: I think that UA model breaks Conservation of energy rule
Post by: boydster on April 16, 2019, 11:47:37 AM
UA would postulate that the acceleration is due to an inherent property of otherwise empty space.
But it isn't just empty space, or you would have the same effect in all directions and not get the results of UA.

But I do understand that it is a different argument to conservation of energy.
Thanks for at least not being as unwilling to entertain an alternative explanation as rab. The whole point of this site is to explore how FE would/could work. I mean, it's right in the name.

I'd further submit that your reply is predicated on an assumption about space behaving like pressure. But things get non-intuitive in QM and cosmology so it isn't necessarily axiomatic that space act in all directions equally. By way of example, time has an apparent arrow.

Rab, expansion is not just things flying apart as they would after an explosion!
Come on it's only a rough analogy!
I thought words had meanings. Didn't you say that, in this very thread? But when it suits you, I guess they don't? Am I supposed to assume the best interpretation of your words, when you refuse to offer that same level of ethical discussion?

And to be clear, you are still dismissing that the universe is currently expanding, has ever expanded in the past, and remain staunch in your position that there are no effects whatsoever that draw energy from the vacuum, and you are thereby placating the OP's position?

I mean, it's a bad place to plant your flag, but I want to make sure you intend to plant it there as your posts would indicate before I just come out and call you a RE troll like you present yourself as, because that would be presumptuous.
Title: Re: I think that UA model breaks Conservation of energy rule
Post by: JackBlack on April 16, 2019, 02:13:58 PM
I'd further submit that your reply is predicated on an assumption about space behaving like pressure. But things get non-intuitive in QM and cosmology so it isn't necessarily axiomatic that space act in all directions equally. By way of example, time has an apparent arrow.
I would say being isotropic rather than pressure.
I think a better example than time's arrow is parity violation. An experiment and it's mirror image, which should produce the same results if parity is conserved, didn't. This shows that there is some underlying anisotropy or the like in the universe.

And you're welcome.
Title: Re: I think that UA model breaks Conservation of energy rule
Post by: wise on April 16, 2019, 11:56:06 PM
UA model is not a part of flat earth theory. Some people believe it but they are as minority as 5-10 people in 100s of millions of flat earthers. The thing makes it famous that so called admin of this website believes it.

The earth is flat, and stationary.
Title: Re: I think that UA model breaks Conservation of energy rule
Post by: rabinoz on April 17, 2019, 02:43:49 AM
UA model is not a part of flat earth theory.
Incorrect!

The UA model is the preferred "explanation" for gravity of this society and its effects are far closer to gravity that your "atmosphere push" ideas.
No fluid can push in a way that replicates the acceleration due to gravity.

Go and read the Wiki on Universal Acceleration. You are not the one who decides the "flat earth theory" of this society!
Title: Re: I think that UA model breaks Conservation of energy rule
Post by: wise on April 17, 2019, 12:34:30 PM
UA model is not a part of flat earth theory.
Incorrect!

The UA model is the preferred "explanation" for gravity of this society and its effects are far closer to gravity that your "atmosphere push" ideas.
No fluid can push in a way that replicates the acceleration due to gravity.

Go and read the Wiki on Universal Acceleration. You are not the one who decides the "flat earth theory" of this society!

You are incorrect man!

I am talking about flat earth theory which agreed by majority of the flat earth believers in whole earth. UA model isn't a part of it. It represents only John Davis and his fans like you; but not me or other "real" flat earthers.

You are a part of this conspiracy and I respect your efort. But you have to agree that this project is either failed or has to be include the real movement.

UA model was not a part of flat earth theory.

UA model currently isn't a part of Flat earth theory.

UA model will not a part of flat earth theory in soon or far next.

UA model will be keep stay in your, John Davis'es and some his follower's dreams.

The earth is flat and stationary, even you and other controlled opposition claims, can not change the fact.
Title: Re: I think that UA model breaks Conservation of energy rule
Post by: JackBlack on April 17, 2019, 01:04:32 PM
UA model was not a part of flat earth theory.
UA model currently isn't a part of Flat earth theory.
UA model will not a part of flat earth theory in soon or far next.
Well you are right here, but not for the reason you think. There is no flat Earth theory. There are a bunch of models which contradict each other and contradict reality.
As Earth is round, there will never be a flat Earth theory for UA to be a part of.

The earth is flat and stationary, even you and other controlled opposition claims, can not change the fact.
No, we can't change the fact. And that means we can't change Earth from being round to being flat, or stop its motion.
The fact is Earth is round and moving.
This fact has been firmly established by loads of evidence which is yet to be refuted.
Title: Re: I think that UA model breaks Conservation of energy rule
Post by: rabinoz on April 17, 2019, 03:38:58 PM
UA model is not a part of flat earth theory.
Incorrect!

The UA model is the preferred "explanation" for gravity of this society and its effects are far closer to gravity that your "atmosphere push" ideas.
No fluid can push in a way that replicates the acceleration due to gravity.

Go and read the Wiki on Universal Acceleration. You are not the one who decides the "flat earth theory" of this society!

You are incorrect man!

I am talking about flat earth theory which agreed by majority of the flat earth believers in whole earth. UA model isn't a part of it. It represents only John Davis and his fans like you; but not me or other "real" flat earthers.
You are posting on this site where Universal Acceleration is the accepted explanation for Gravity. If you want to spout your own silly ideas go and do it somewhere else!

Bye bye.

Of course, as JackBlack says, Universal Acceleration cannot be part of any "Flat Earth Theory" because there is no "Flat Earth Theory" only a "Flat Earth Hypothesis" with little supporting evidence!

If there was evidence supporting this "Flat Earth Hypothesis" you would present it, but you don't!
Title: Re: I think that UA model breaks Conservation of energy rule
Post by: Space Cowgirl on April 17, 2019, 04:06:30 PM
UA is not the official position of this society.
Title: Re: I think that UA model breaks Conservation of energy rule
Post by: rabinoz on April 17, 2019, 05:06:51 PM
UA is not the official position of this society.
Why then is it given such a prominent place in the Wiki and why do Ski, Boydster and others defend it so vigorously.
If I search the "Wiki" for "gravity" I get:
Quote
Gravity
In the Flat Earth model, 'gravity', rather than being a force, is the upward acceleration of the Earth. The Earth always accelerates upward at 1g, which is equivalent to the gravitational acceleration in the Round Earth model. . . . . . . .

Astrophysics
Universal Acceleration In the Universal Acceleration model, all the celestial bodies including the earth are being accelerated in one uniform direction at roughly 9.81 m/s^2. The proposed method of propulsion is Dark Energy.  . . . . . . .

Equivalence Principle
Commonly known as the stepping-stone to the development of General Relativity, the Equivalence Principle is a theory developed by Albert Einstein detailing the relationship between gravitational and inertial mass. Einstein posited  . . . . . . .

Davis Model
The Terra, or Earth, is an slab, as well as all large bodies such as stars and other planets. Aether Aether causes space to bend due to mass. In a way it is space itself. It is why the heavenly bodies rotate. Thought Experiment  . . . . . . .

Infinite Flat Earth
The infinite flat earth theory has been talked about by writers such as Samuel Rowbotham, Voliva and Shenton. It is a stationary geocentric earth model. Gravitational Theory Gravity is caused by mass and creates a finite pull.
The Wiki seemd to claim that gravity is due to UA or Newtonian Gravitation (Infinite Flat Earth Hypothesis) and few, least of all wise accept the latter.

Then the "FAQ" has this on gravity:
Quote
What Is Gravity?
Gravity as a theory is false. Objects simply fall.

In the flat earth community there are several theories as to why this happens. Some attempt to explain this with use of mechanics like electromagnetism, density, or pressure. Others make use of traditional mathematics, such as the infinite plane model, and others a new look at the problem - such as the non-euclidean model.

What is certain is sphere earth gravity is not tenable in any way shape or form.

Is The Earth Accelerating Upwards?
No. This is popular theory among some small groups to explain gravity, but it is problematic at best. The Earth Is Stationary. We are not whizzing about in space at 67,000 miles/hour or at speeds accelerating towards the speed of light.

Can you blame anyone for being a little confused?

"Flat Earth Evidence" seems to reduce to:
               "The earth looks flat therefore the earth must be flat" but
                 then everything else reduces to "Nobody knows but it might be so and so".
Title: Re: I think that UA model breaks Conservation of energy rule
Post by: Space Cowgirl on April 17, 2019, 05:30:52 PM
It is the accepted explanation for some FE. We don't dictate which model anyone follows, they're all welcome here.

Also, boydster is not defending UA, he is trying to get you to admit that the OP made a bad argument.
Title: Re: I think that UA model breaks Conservation of energy rule
Post by: boydster on April 17, 2019, 05:35:12 PM
I'm the last person to defend UA. There are so many reasons I think it fails. Some of which both Ski and I discussed a while ago, since you're bring into the conversation for some reason. But the OP did not raise a good objection to UA. Plain and simple.
Title: Re: I think that UA model breaks Conservation of energy rule
Post by: rabinoz on April 17, 2019, 06:31:14 PM
I'm the last person to defend UA. There are so many reasons I think it fails. Some of which both Ski and I discussed a while ago, since you're bring into the conversation for some reason. But the OP did not raise a good objection to UA. Plain and simple.
Why should he? He wrote:
Well simple consideration. Whole Earth is accelerating at g = 9.81 ms-2 but what does it make accelerate??? And where does it take the energy to give Earth so big kinetic energy?? It cannot accelerate just itself because it would violate the Conservation of energy rule. So I think that because of this UA model cannot work.
And claims that "It cannot accelerate just itself because it would violate the Conservation of energy rule."
I haven't seen anyone post any real answer to that.
I know the Wiki claims "Dark Energy" but the "Dark Energy" of modern cosmology simply does not have the characteristics needed to do that.

Nothing you have written suggests otherwise.
Title: Re: I think that UA model breaks Conservation of energy rule
Post by: Themightykabool on April 18, 2019, 12:42:07 AM
i'd have to agree with boyd on this one.
if the big bang can accellerate the universe why can't some magical UA keep accelerating?
Title: Re: I think that UA model breaks Conservation of energy rule
Post by: rabinoz on April 18, 2019, 05:16:57 AM
i'd have to agree with boyd on this one.
if the big bang can accellerate the universe why can't some magical UA keep accelerating?
The short answer is that the big bang did not accelerate the universe after the initial "cosmic inflation" stage.
Quote
The inflationary epoch lasted from 10-36 seconds after the conjectured Big Bang singularity to some time between 10-33 and 10-32 seconds after the singularity. Following the inflationary period, the universe continues to expand, but at a less rapid rate.
.
And FEers can postulate "some magical UA that keeps accelerating" if they so choose but they can't make it "look respectable" by incorrectly appealing to modern Cosmology.

And the long answer is
The accelerating phase of the "big bang" supposedly ended about 13.6 billion years ago when matter and even the laws of physics did not exist.

You and others might read, Universe 101, Our Universe, What is the Universe Made Of? (https://map.gsfc.nasa.gov/universe/uni_matter.html) which contains:
Quote
WMAP determined that the universe is flat (https://map.gsfc.nasa.gov/universe/uni_shape.html), from which it follows that the mean energy density in the universe is equal to the critical density (within a 0.5% margin of error). This is equivalent to a mass density of 9.9 x 10-30 g/cm3, which is equivalent to only 5.9 protons per cubic meter.

The expansion apparently started to accelerate some 7.5 billion years ago and something like "dark energy" was introduced as a "place-holder" for the, as yet unknown, cause of this accelerated expansion.
There are plenty of candidates for this, ranging from Einstein's (rejected) "cosmological constant" to "vacuum energy" but so far none quite fit.

Now, of course, flat earthers can postulate some "magical UA keep accelerating" but the Wiki claims that "dark energy" is the "driving force".
Quote
Gravity
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
There are two Universal Acceleration models. The first model deals with the Universal Accelerator, which sits underneath the Earth and accelerates anything it touches. The second model deals with Dark Energy, which accelerates all celestial bodies, including the Earth, in the universe. Modern astrophysics accounts that the expansion of the universe is due to Dark Energy.
The "Universal Accelerator" could be your "magic UA".
The "second model" claims that "Modern astrophysics accounts that the expansion of the universe is due to Dark Energy" and that is simply not correct.
In modern cosmology, the "expansion of the Universe" is simply the result of the "big bang" and has nothing to do with "dark energy"
"Dark energy" was only introduced as a "place holder" for the apparently accelerated expansion.

But the energy density of this "dark energy" is so incredibly small that it could not apply the energy needed to accelerate a dense object like the earth.
Just look at the "equivalent . . .  mass density of 9.9 x 10-30 g/cm3, which is equivalent to only 5.9 protons per cubic meter".

Here's a bit on the topic, Dark Energy, Dark Matter (https://science.nasa.gov/astrophysics/focus-areas/what-is-dark-energy)

So Flat earthers are free to postulate what they like.
But there is no justification in trying to make their hypotheses look "more respectable" by inappropriately appealing to modern Cosmology and the like.
Title: Re: I think that UA model breaks Conservation of energy rule
Post by: boydster on April 18, 2019, 10:52:13 AM
So which periods of universal history are acceptable to invoke magic space energy for, rab? Asking for a friend.

Also wow, you are still clinging to present expansion being somehow related to an explosion. Expansion is accelerating right now, whether you like it or not. But that's probably all lamestream media fake news from the liberals right? Observations be damned. Those scientists are just conspiring against... Oh wait... This is starting to sound like something...
Title: Re: I think that UA model breaks Conservation of energy rule
Post by: sokarul on April 18, 2019, 10:53:41 AM
So which periods of universal history are acceptable to invoke magic space energy for, rab? Asking for a friend.

Also wow, you are too still be clinging to present expansion being somehow related to an explosion. Expansion is accelerating right now, whether you like it or not. But that's probably all lamestream media fake news from the liberals right? Observations be damned. Those scientists are just conspiring against... Oh wait... This is starting to sound like something...

What does currently accepted theory state?
Title: Re: I think that UA model breaks Conservation of energy rule
Post by: rabinoz on April 18, 2019, 03:18:21 PM
So which periods of universal history are acceptable to invoke magic space energy for, rab? Asking for a friend.
Not the first 10-32 seconds after the singularity. That was the cosmic inflationary period.

Quote from: boydster
Also wow, you are still clinging to present expansion being somehow related to an explosion.
It may not have been an explosion, and not even big or a "bang" but the end result was to set the universe expanding but after the initial cosmic inflationary period it was not an accelerated expansion.
If there was nothing else, depending on the mass density, the Universe could have slowly collapsed back again, expanded to a limit or kept expanding but at a slowing rate.

Einstein originally thought that the Universe was in a steady-state (no "Big Bang") so he introduced his "cosmological constant".

But, according to modern Cosmology, the accelerated expansion started about 7.5 billion years ago.

Quote from: boydster
Expansion is accelerating right now, whether you like it or not. But that's probably all lamestream media fake news from the liberals right? Observations be damned. Those scientists are just conspiring against... Oh wait... This is starting to sound like something...
I never denied that!
What I claimed was that the energy density (usually expressed as mass/unit volume) of dark energy or whatever is needed to explain the accelerated expansion is far too low the have the slightest effect on a dense body like the earth.

Are you going to claim that the energy equivalent of about 5 protons/cubic metre might explain the massive energy density needed to cause Universal Acceleration?
Size matters!

If you have any meaningful comment on that I'd like to see it. And I'd like to see something relevant to the OP:
Well simple consideration. Whole Earth is accelerating at g = 9.81 ms-2 but what does it make accelerate??? And where does it take the energy to give Earth so big kinetic energy?? It cannot accelerate just itself because it would violate the Conservation of energy rule. So I think that because of this UA model cannot work.

But this reminds me of Jane's EAT where light is electromagnetic radiation, therefore, electromagnetic fields must bend light and Totallackey weighs in.
It ended with:
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Now as to neither electric nor magnetic fields not bending light:
Electric or magnetic fields only affect charges and the photon has no charge. Charges can cover "magnets" as well because they are only moving charges.
There are extremely small relativistic quantum effects of extremely strong electric and magnetic fields on photons but they are so small as to be negligible here.
Wait, now you are stating electrical fields and magnetic fields can alter light.
How can you determine it is negligible in this discussion?
Light itself is a known product of electrical and magnetic force.

Sorry, I think that alone nullifies your position.
Duh!
I'm sorry, but, once again, the size of an effect matters.
Title: Re: I think that UA model breaks Conservation of energy rule
Post by: Bullwinkle on April 19, 2019, 04:19:56 AM

I know the Wiki claims "Dark Energy" but the "Dark Energy" of modern cosmology simply does not have the characteristics needed to do that.


Then I guess our Black Energy is better than your Black Energy.





Title: Re: I think that UA model breaks Conservation of energy rule
Post by: boydster on April 19, 2019, 05:26:09 AM
The relevant answer to the OP would be that the force accelerating the Earth in the UA model is an inherent property of the universe. Not unlike the orthodox model in concept, but different in magnitude. Have you not read a single post?
Title: Re: I think that UA model breaks Conservation of energy rule
Post by: rabinoz on April 19, 2019, 05:38:59 AM
The relevant answer to the OP would be that the force accelerating the Earth in the UA model is an inherent property of the universe. Not unlike the orthodox model in concept, but different in magnitude. Have you not read a single post?
I've read every post and I agree "different in magnitude" but by a factor of something like 8.5 x 1022 and that is what I've been trying to get you to see all along.

You can't simply say it's a similar effect, therefore, it can be used to "explain" UA size matters.

It's far worse that, some flat earthers claim that refraction in air bends light (sure, but normally by no more than 0.5°) therefore refraction in the air explains sunsets.
Title: Re: I think that UA model breaks Conservation of energy rule
Post by: rabinoz on April 19, 2019, 05:47:31 AM

I know the Wiki claims "Dark Energy" but the "Dark Energy" of modern cosmology simply does not have the characteristics needed to do that.
Then I guess our Black Energy is better than your Black Energy.
I guess I'll have to concede to your vastly superior Black Energy.

If my sums (and rough ideas) are anywhere within cooee of the right answer, your Black Energy is about 85,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 times better than our dark energy.
Title: Re: I think that UA model breaks Conservation of energy rule
Post by: boydster on April 19, 2019, 05:55:09 AM
Rab refraction has nothing to do with this, stop trying to introduce more things to muddy the waters. The simple fact remains that spacetime does seem to be non-inert, so to speak, and anyone subscribing to UA is probably going to suspect that the force causing acceleration is a natural property of the universe. They aren't appealing to magic. They are appealing to a perfectly possible mechanism. Namely, that "nothingness" can affect matter.
Title: Re: I think that UA model breaks Conservation of energy rule
Post by: rabinoz on April 19, 2019, 06:06:23 AM
Rab refraction has nothing to do with this, stop trying to introduce more things to muddy the waters.
I used "refraction" simply as another example of where flat earthers grossly exaggerate some effect and claim that it explains something.

Quote from: boydster
The simple fact remains that spacetime does seem to be non-inert, so to speak, and anyone subscribing to UA is probably going to suspect that the force causing acceleration is a natural property of the universe. They aren't appealing to magic. They are appealing to a perfectly possible mechanism. Namely, that "nothingness" can affect matter.

But they cannot legitimately claim any support from modern Cosmology or physics to support that because there is no effect anywhere near the energy density needed.

I'm sticking to that position until you can do better than wave your hands around and claim things like "dark energy" is an unexplained "energy" therefore it explains the energy to drive UA - it does notl!

I'm off to bed far too late.
Title: Re: I think that UA model breaks Conservation of energy rule
Post by: boydster on April 19, 2019, 11:11:51 AM
Neato. So you are claiming the cosmology ad-hoc way of explaining things is only fair when like-minded folks appeal to it. Cool.

"Galaxies spin too fast. I know! Magic!! But let's give it a name."

Just to be clear, that explanation above is ok with you, because it suits your worldview that you very loudly and aggressively advocate for hours upon hours every day on a Flat Earth website. Right? Or so you see the hypocrisy? Because cosmologists understand why it's a little contrived. But you seem resistant to that.

And further, you stepped in to defend the OP, remember, and how UA violates conservation of energy but other known phenomena in physics don't? Do you remember that?
Title: Re: I think that UA model breaks Conservation of energy rule
Post by: rabinoz on April 19, 2019, 02:39:47 PM
Neato. So you are claiming the cosmology ad-hoc way of explaining things is only fair when like-minded folks appeal to it. Cool.
There's no "ad-hoc way of explaining things" just an admission that not everything is yet known.

Quote from: boydster
"Galaxies spin too fast. I know! Magic!! But let's give it a name."
No, just an admission that not everything is yet known.
"Dark Matter" is a place holder type name so that Cosmologists don't have to say "that unknown extra gravitation that makes some Galaxies seem to rotate too fast".

Quote from: boydster
Just to be clear, that explanation above is ok with you, because it suits your worldview that you very loudly and aggressively advocate for hours upon hours every day on a Flat Earth website. Right?
Don't you claim to know what I think or what is OK with me!

You and this stupid "because it suits your worldview" idea! The "shape os the earth" has nothing to do with any "world view"!

But (too) much of my time is spent with pseudo-flat earthers like yourself and a little time back with a geocentrist who used to be a flat earther and convinced himself otherwise.

Quote from: boydster
Or so you see the hypocrisy? Because cosmologists understand why it's a little contrived. But you seem resistant to that.
What hypocrisy?

I don't see cosmologists claiming it's a little contrived. All I see is them accepting that not all is known about the Universe and it has never been any other way.
The shape of the Earth has been  "settled science" for many centuries and the solar system and local region is close enough to "settled science" though, of course, there's much more to learn even on Earth.
You talk about hypocrisy?
 I think it hypocrisy to ridicule just about every aspect of modern Cosmology as John Davis and most flat earthers seem to and then claim support from modern Cosmology for bits of Flat Earth "Theory".

But what I'm asserting it's inappropriate for you to claim that there is anything in modern Cosmology that remotely supports the energy required to explain the UA.
Besides no flat earther would have a bar of modern Cosmology!

Quote from: boydster
And further, you stepped in to defend the OP, remember, and how UA violates conservation of energy but other known phenomena in physics don't? Do you remember that?
No, I stepped in to claim that your first post was quite incorrect in a couple of ways.
I'm excited. I think he's about to disprove cosmic inflation and UA at the same time!

Look, "dark energy" and the theories and hypotheses about modern Cosmology are based almost entirely on Einstein's General Relativity which is a "Theory of Gravitation" and apart from some nebulous "celestial gravitation" few flat earthers accept gravitation in any shape or form.

"Dark Matter" is nothing more than "Unexplained Gravitation" that is mainly around most Galaxies'
"Dark Energy" can be looked on as  "Unexplained Negative Gravitation" and is spread through the whole Universe but its effects are not significant because its density is so minute.
That "Unexplained Negative Gravitation" possibility is one of the avenues under investigation as the cause of what is called "Dark Energy" - go ask a Cosmologist or read:
          Repulsive gravity as an alternative to dark energy (Part 1: In voids)  by Lisa Zyga, Phys.org (https://m.phys.org/news/2012-01-repulsive-gravity-alternative-dark-energy.html)
          Repulsive gravity as an alternative to dark energy (Part 2: In the quantum vacuum) by Lisa Zyga, Phys.org (https://m.phys.org/news/2012-01-repulsive-gravity-alternative-dark-energy_1.html)

This whole "Dark Matter, Dark Energy" question is one of gravitation, in other words, General Relativity, but you flat earth supporters seem so adept at cherry-picking little bits that prop up your hypotheses and rejecting the rest.

But, I give up! Have it your way and hypothesise what you like but it doesn't make the idea of a flat earth any more plausible.
 
Title: Re: I think that UA model breaks Conservation of energy rule
Post by: boydster on April 20, 2019, 08:39:18 AM
It is literally ad-hoc. I don't understand how you can say the things you say and seemingly be as serious as you are.

And you are bringing up energy density as if it's something you can just stick a probe out into space and measure. The number you are quoting is derived from the current model of the universe. In a UA universe, it would obviously be different.